This is an open goal for Labour. Can they make the "unfit for office" label stick to Johnson.
Anyone who understands anything about leadership can see this to be true as plain as a pikestaff. The problem is that the public in general like having a celebrity for PM and either do not see or choose to overlook his obvious weaknesses. Then there are those that are just plain gullible.
The essential problem is that Cummings is essentially dislikeable. Those that want Johnson gone for the good of the country need to think how the label will stick in the public perception in spite of it coming from Cummings
And that's the problem. It is an open goal, but there's a strong barrier in midfield to get past first.
To those with eyes to see, it's plain that Johnson is unfit for office. And it always had been, back to the days (I think) when John Major tried to blackball his place on the candidates list. Today's events- even if they are only half-truths- ought to confirm that.
But unfortunately for Michael, Rishi and Dominic, that rules them out as well, because they've gone along with it for the last couple of years. They knew (at least some of it) and stood by.
But the enormity of the blag that got us to this point- how do you credibly communicate it? The bigger the lie, the more easily it slips past people's mental defences and the harder it is to persuade people of the falsehood of the lie.
And so back to the central dilemma. The post-Johnson PM will need to be an anti-Johnson. The Ford after the Nixon, the Biden after the Trump. But how does an anti-Johnson get the profile to undermine and defeat BoJo?
I think Blair would have had the Labour front bench mouthing "unfit for office" every time Johnson stood up. It will stick if it is applied effectively. Even if it doesn't immediately stick in the minds of the electorate it will undermine Johnson's authority and every time he messes up it accumulates further and the vultures start to circle.
The thing is that the public don’t see Johnson as the Devil, in the way that so many contributors to this website do.
There’s this belief here the that the scales will fall from the eyes of The Sheeple and everyone will realise that he’s turned the UK into a dystopian nightmare State, but that will never happen.
Another thing that will save Britain is this: Cummings has plausibly painted Johnson as a uniquely incompetent fool, the mayor from Jaws (who let the shark roam free, chewing up teens, remember).
So that must mean Britain has a uniquely bad record at handling coronavirus? Surely
And yet, not. In the excess death chart, where we once had gold medal status, now we are waaaaay down at about 20th or lower. And yes, economically, we have had a particularly rough time, but similar-sized European countries have done about as bad - or even worse. Spain, Italy. Maybe France. (We still don't know the final scores on the doors)
Meanwhile, we are opening up a little quicker than some European peers, and we are no longer dying, and many others are still dying around the world
Johnson may get away with it. Again. And I am someone who believes Cummings, almost completely in this case (even if he is self-serving)
Bailed out by the vaccines. You don't need to be Einstein to see this. I think the public might be up to it.
Not just the vaccines, the global horror. Few governments have handled this "well". If you want to mark out Boris as particularly bad you have to explain why so many other countries have done as badly, or worse. Are their leaders as comprehensively inept as Boris?
I don't think it is the stark number of deaths that is damaging. As you say we rate pretty similar to many countries and surprisingly better than some given the media narrative. Johnson had clearly weathered that storm.
What is damaging is - for Hancock - the evidence that many of those lives could have been saved and it was his dishonesty and ineptitude that were responsible for many of those deaths and - for Johnson - the evidence that in the end he was slow to react because he fundamentally didn't accept that saving lives was more important than saving the economy.
People will actually often forgive failure if they can see you did your best. They will not forgive dishonesty to mask wilful incompetence or simple lack of concern.
That is what makes Cummings' evidence so damaging.
Here's my idea to liven up the penalty shoot-out. A random draw of five supporters in the stadium. Each to take and defend a penalty each. So. Your penalty takers would be. Geoff. Who's had seven pints and several lines. Alan. Who watched his first game in 1947 and uses a Zimmer frame. Olivia. A 6 year old at her very first game. Dave. The local builder's merchant who got hammered in a client's executive box. And Josh. A nervous sports mad virgin with acne. Would be much better entertainment.
This is an open goal for Labour. Can they make the "unfit for office" label stick to Johnson.
Anyone who understands anything about leadership can see this to be true as plain as a pikestaff. The problem is that the public in general like having a celebrity for PM and either do not see or choose to overlook his obvious weaknesses. Then there are those that are just plain gullible.
The essential problem is that Cummings is essentially dislikeable. Those that want Johnson gone for the good of the country need to think how the label will stick in the public perception in spite of it coming from Cummings
And that's the problem. It is an open goal, but there's a strong barrier in midfield to get past first.
To those with eyes to see, it's plain that Johnson is unfit for office. And it always had been, back to the days (I think) when John Major tried to blackball his place on the candidates list. Today's events- even if they are only half-truths- ought to confirm that.
But unfortunately for Michael, Rishi and Dominic, that rules them out as well, because they've gone along with it for the last couple of years. They knew (at least some of it) and stood by.
But the enormity of the blag that got us to this point- how do you credibly communicate it? The bigger the lie, the more easily it slips past people's mental defences and the harder it is to persuade people of the falsehood of the lie.
And so back to the central dilemma. The post-Johnson PM will need to be an anti-Johnson. The Ford after the Nixon, the Biden after the Trump. But how does an anti-Johnson get the profile to undermine and defeat BoJo?
I think Blair would have had the Labour front bench mouthing "unfit for office" every time Johnson stood up. It will stick if it is applied effectively. Even if it doesn't immediately stick in the minds of the electorate it will undermine Johnson's authority and every time he messes up it accumulates further and the vultures start to circle.
The thing is that the public don’t see Johnson as the Devil, in the way that so many contributors to this website do.
There’s this belief here the that the scales will fall from the eyes of The Sheeple and everyone will realise that he’s turned the UK into a dystopian nightmare State, but that will never happen.
Another thing that will save Britain is this: Cummings has plausibly painted Johnson as a uniquely incompetent fool, the mayor from Jaws (who let the shark roam free, chewing up teens, remember).
So that must mean Britain has a uniquely bad record at handling coronavirus? Surely
And yet, not. In the excess death chart, where we once had gold medal status, now we are waaaaay down at about 20th or lower. And yes, economically, we have had a particularly rough time, but similar-sized European countries have done about as bad - or even worse. Spain, Italy. Maybe France. (We still don't know the final scores on the doors)
Meanwhile, we are opening up a little quicker than some European peers, and we are no longer dying, and many others are still dying around the world
Johnson may get away with it. Again. And I am someone who believes Cummings, almost completely in this case (even if he is self-serving)
Bailed out by the vaccines. You don't need to be Einstein to see this. I think the public might be up to it.
Not just the vaccines, the global horror. Few governments have handled this "well". If you want to mark out Boris as particularly bad you have to explain why so many other countries have done as badly, or worse. Are their leaders as comprehensively inept as Boris?
I don't think it is the stark number of deaths that is damaging. As you say we rate pretty similar to many countries and surprisingly better than some given the media narrative. Johnson had clearly weathered that storm.
What is damaging is - for Hancock - the evidence that many of those lives could have been saved and it was his dishonesty and ineptitude that were responsible for many of those deaths and - for Johnson - the evidence that in the end he was slow to react because he fundamentally didn't accept that saving lives was more important than saving the economy.
People will actually often forgive failure if they can see you did your best. They will not forgive dishonesty to mask wilful incompetence or simple lack of concern.
That is what makes Cummings' evidence so damaging.
I completely agree. I think this is extremely embarrassing for Hancock. While for Boris, his vaccine triumphs largely offset anything that "a lover scorned" might say.
Just accidentally glimpsed "Live at the Apollo". It is allegedly "Comedy". The finishing gag failed terribly so the female stand up quickly added a "well fuck Brexit" line, and got a tired, meaningless laugh. Not even 6th form level
Is that it? Is that modern British comedy?
I realise I sound like a wearied old scrote (I am) but I haven't seen a talented new British comedian for a decade. All the funny ones are OLD like me
Can any young PB-ers show me the exciting young comic talent?
Look for people doing Kid's Shows. No seriously.
In normal times, there's a whole subcircuit of Standup Comedy for Kids. It's a meaningful discipline- like a sonnet. Make them laugh without politics or (serious) rudery. A few years ago, I took mine to see Tom Allen do that sort of show- it was interesting seeing him adapt his standard persona to a child audience. (Think the kind of amusing uncle who will never have children of their own, because... well you know...)
I will repeat again for good measure. I used to do this for a living — I did feasibility studies, tenders, and project designs for solar installations, amongst other renewable technologies.
They are objectively not a good investment in the UK. They simply do not output enough.
Without the high Gen Tariffs you're looking at a 20-25 year payback. Much more with an expensive Tesla battery. The panels themselves only have a lifespan for around 25 years.
Crap investment.
The panel lifespan is more than 25 years. It's more accurate to say that panels lose approximately 0.8% to 1% of the power they generate each year. (Mostly, IIRC, via surface oxidation, but I could be wrong.)
Most solar panels output about 105-110% of rated power in year one.
Aye but you're tailing off at that point, and in a country where it's already cloudy and overcast most the time, you're going to have a dribble of generation.
Tailing off? That means you're still getting 80+% of rated capacity at the end of the period.
Let's assume you don't take the FIT, and electricity prices rise 2% per year for the period. You'll be getting more each year - in cash terms - than in the previous one.
80% of very little is very little.
Of course that doesn't factor in your inverter failing, which is another expense (you're supposed to have them serviced every year, most don't), failing to wash the panels properly (most people don't do this either), etc etc.
Listen I did these calculations day in and day out. I know all the tricks solar zealots use. They assume zero shading, they assume perfect orientation with south, they assume a perfect 30 degree pitched roof.
It simply isn't a good investment. The figures don't lie.
A lot of people don't know that most panels are wired in series and therefore if one panel is shaded, for example by a cloud, either your whole array is generating nothing, or only half of the array is generating.
Etc.
They were fantastic under the ridiculously generous FIT. Otherwise I wouldn't touch them with a bargepole.
Let's assume that you put panels on your roof and they cost you £1,000 and they give you £50/electricity a year. (I'm making up numbers here.)
Does that sound like a good investment or a bad investment?
Here's two things to remember:
(1) A cost (electricity) avoided is like getting after tax income. If I receive £50 in interest from the bank, I'm paying £25 of that back to the government in tax. On the other hand, if I cut my electricity bill by £50. That means the real yield - for higher rate tax payers - is more than it looks.
(2) The cost of electricity rises. So you're getting an asset generating a real return, not a nominal one. If you buy indexed linked government bonds you take a guaranteed loss. Even before you take into account the tax you'll be paying on the pitiful amount of income you get.
Look, if you have £1,000 will you do better in SpaceX or solar panels? Well, SpaceX, duh.
And if you are at the beginning of your career, then long dated low return assets are a bloody stupid idea.
But if the choice is between solar panels and government bonds... Or solar panels versus sitting in the bank earning the amazing 0.2% that Lloyds will offer you if you're willing to lock the money up for two years?
Well, in that case solar panels are the better financial investment. It all depends on where you are in your personal financial journey.
0.2% sure. But "great investment"?
Well said gallow. And while they're not a great investment economically, people tend to forget they're not a great one environmentally either.
Supply and demand don't intersect with solar panels.
We are a cold, overcast, northern island that relies upon heating in the winter not air conditioning in the summer. The panels generate less supply in the winter. Already today much more electricity is consumed in the winter and that's before gas boilers are discontinued and replaced with electric powered heating too!
The environment needs electricity supply most in the winter not the summer. Environmentally Solar Panels in place of coal was a great idea, but if we can get through winter with electric heating without much solar generation then what is the point of extra solar generation in the summer when the electric heating is turned off?
Hang on.
In a world where most of our generation is natural gas CCGTs that can be turned on and off at will, then if it's cheaper for an individual to generate power via the sun great. And if it's not, then people won't buy them.
My point is that for a young person (like you) solar panels are a terrible investment relative to (say) paying down your mortgage. For someone in their mid 50s, on the other hand, they are likely a pretty good investment relative to government bonds or leaving money in the bank.
Simply, you get a 5-6% real after tax return, which is shit compared to SpaceX, but fantastic compared to other low-risk assets.
That's the problem though, we aren't going to have most of our generation from gas CCGTs by 2030, let alone by 2040 or 2050.
Net zero entails removing CCGT surely and having sufficient clean energy to power electronic heating through the winter.
In which case what environmental purpose do solar panels serve.
This is a completely different to somewhere like California that relies upon air conditioning in the summer.
This is an open goal for Labour. Can they make the "unfit for office" label stick to Johnson.
Anyone who understands anything about leadership can see this to be true as plain as a pikestaff. The problem is that the public in general like having a celebrity for PM and either do not see or choose to overlook his obvious weaknesses. Then there are those that are just plain gullible.
The essential problem is that Cummings is essentially dislikeable. Those that want Johnson gone for the good of the country need to think how the label will stick in the public perception in spite of it coming from Cummings
And that's the problem. It is an open goal, but there's a strong barrier in midfield to get past first.
To those with eyes to see, it's plain that Johnson is unfit for office. And it always had been, back to the days (I think) when John Major tried to blackball his place on the candidates list. Today's events- even if they are only half-truths- ought to confirm that.
But unfortunately for Michael, Rishi and Dominic, that rules them out as well, because they've gone along with it for the last couple of years. They knew (at least some of it) and stood by.
But the enormity of the blag that got us to this point- how do you credibly communicate it? The bigger the lie, the more easily it slips past people's mental defences and the harder it is to persuade people of the falsehood of the lie.
And so back to the central dilemma. The post-Johnson PM will need to be an anti-Johnson. The Ford after the Nixon, the Biden after the Trump. But how does an anti-Johnson get the profile to undermine and defeat BoJo?
I think Blair would have had the Labour front bench mouthing "unfit for office" every time Johnson stood up. It will stick if it is applied effectively. Even if it doesn't immediately stick in the minds of the electorate it will undermine Johnson's authority and every time he messes up it accumulates further and the vultures start to circle.
The thing is that the public don’t see Johnson as the Devil, in the way that so many contributors to this website do.
There’s this belief here the that the scales will fall from the eyes of The Sheeple and everyone will realise that he’s turned the UK into a dystopian nightmare State, but that will never happen.
The public in Germany did not generally see the Fuhrer as the Devil - on the contrary.
Hillsborough (which is awful) just looks risible compared to Covid-19
Ninety odd deaths, compared to..... 150,000, and maybe 10million worldwide
Covid is going to reframe our perception of "news stories"
Today's American mass shooting passed almost without notice.
Rising American crime rates are a massive untold story. Portland has recorded an apparent 950% increase in the murder rate, as Black Lives Matter riots in the centre, and tries to defund the police.
If this continues I can see a Republican prez candidate, in 2024, making much hay
strange I don't see Miami, Austin or Salt lake city on that list, cant think why?
The police are run by the cities, not the state though surely?
Yes to that local police is not normally a state service, but there are some places where the police are run by the county, not the city, e.g. Camden, NJ disbanded its police department a few years ago due to a) chronic corruption and incompetence and b) budget constraints. The county polices Camden now.
For the most part, state police are largely highway patrol. Although here in NY, Gov. Cuomo sent the staties in to do more day-to-day policing in NYC last year simply to annoy Mayor de Blasio.
Just accidentally glimpsed "Live at the Apollo". It is allegedly "Comedy". The finishing gag failed terribly so the female stand up quickly added a "well fuck Brexit" line, and got a tired, meaningless laugh. Not even 6th form level
Is that it? Is that modern British comedy?
I realise I sound like a wearied old scrote (I am) but I haven't seen a talented new British comedian for a decade. All the funny ones are OLD like me
Can any young PB-ers show me the exciting young comic talent?
Just had a look at an old Ben Elton stand up from the mid 80s. I used to absolutely love these shows, Friday/Saturday Night Live, although I was about 11. So left wing. Very woke for the time, although Stavros would prob see Harry Enfield banged up now. Lasted about a minute of this - complete rubbish, so maybe it wasn’t any better ‘in my day’
Obviously I wasn't there and can't know for sure, but my hunch is that Cummings' accusations against Matt Hancock for 'lying' (a very strong word, and one which shouldn't be thrown around lightly) are unfair. My guess is that what Hancock said on various occasions and which turned out to be wrong, such as regarding PPE availability and testing before discharge of patients to care homes, were actually instances of him not probing properly to find out what was actually going on, rather than him deliberately lying.
Incompetence isn’t a great defence for a government minister, though.
No, but it is generally more likely - outright lying is too risky to attempt as much as people suggest it.
And there is a grand tradition in politics utilising a 'I'm stupid' defence when the alternative is even worse.
I suspect he knew very well that there wasn’t a plan in place to test all hospital patients returning to care homes, when he said it, but glibly thought he could rush back and put one into place before it came to matter. Then found it was a lot more difficult to achieve than he had imagined.
He probably reasoned that if he owned up to there not being a plan at cabinet, he would simply be instructed to go put one in place right away, so he may as well lie about it and avoid the bollocking.
As the government discharge instructions to hospitals at the time included patients known to be infected, but not seriously ill, that’s not the case. I posted a link to it around this time last year.
Just accidentally glimpsed "Live at the Apollo". It is allegedly "Comedy". The finishing gag failed terribly so the female stand up quickly added a "well fuck Brexit" line, and got a tired, meaningless laugh. Not even 6th form level
Is that it? Is that modern British comedy?
I realise I sound like a wearied old scrote (I am) but I haven't seen a talented new British comedian for a decade. All the funny ones are OLD like me
Can any young PB-ers show me the exciting young comic talent?
Just had a look at an old Ben Elton stand up from the mid 80s. I used to absolutely love these shows, Friday/Saturday Night Live, although I was about 11. So left wing. Very woke for the time, although Stavros would prob see Harry Enfield banged up now. Lasted about a minute of this - complete rubbish, so maybe it wasn’t any better ‘in my day’
99% of comedy ages REALLY badly. The stuff that doesn’t - Airplane, the best of Fawlty, young Woody Allen - feels miraculous thereby
But these are young new comedians, right now, on mainstream British telly: failing miserably. How can you possibly end a looooong joke and your killer like is ‘well brexit is fucking terrible’ and that gets your biggest laugh?!
This is an open goal for Labour. Can they make the "unfit for office" label stick to Johnson.
Anyone who understands anything about leadership can see this to be true as plain as a pikestaff. The problem is that the public in general like having a celebrity for PM and either do not see or choose to overlook his obvious weaknesses. Then there are those that are just plain gullible.
The essential problem is that Cummings is essentially dislikeable. Those that want Johnson gone for the good of the country need to think how the label will stick in the public perception in spite of it coming from Cummings
And that's the problem. It is an open goal, but there's a strong barrier in midfield to get past first.
To those with eyes to see, it's plain that Johnson is unfit for office. And it always had been, back to the days (I think) when John Major tried to blackball his place on the candidates list. Today's events- even if they are only half-truths- ought to confirm that.
But unfortunately for Michael, Rishi and Dominic, that rules them out as well, because they've gone along with it for the last couple of years. They knew (at least some of it) and stood by.
But the enormity of the blag that got us to this point- how do you credibly communicate it? The bigger the lie, the more easily it slips past people's mental defences and the harder it is to persuade people of the falsehood of the lie.
And so back to the central dilemma. The post-Johnson PM will need to be an anti-Johnson. The Ford after the Nixon, the Biden after the Trump. But how does an anti-Johnson get the profile to undermine and defeat BoJo?
I think Blair would have had the Labour front bench mouthing "unfit for office" every time Johnson stood up. It will stick if it is applied effectively. Even if it doesn't immediately stick in the minds of the electorate it will undermine Johnson's authority and every time he messes up it accumulates further and the vultures start to circle.
The thing is that the public don’t see Johnson as the Devil, in the way that so many contributors to this website do.
There’s this belief here the that the scales will fall from the eyes of The Sheeple and everyone will realise that he’s turned the UK into a dystopian nightmare State, but that will never happen.
The public in Germany did not generally see the Fuhrer as the Devil - on the contrary.
Just accidentally glimpsed "Live at the Apollo". It is allegedly "Comedy". The finishing gag failed terribly so the female stand up quickly added a "well fuck Brexit" line, and got a tired, meaningless laugh. Not even 6th form level
Is that it? Is that modern British comedy?
I realise I sound like a wearied old scrote (I am) but I haven't seen a talented new British comedian for a decade. All the funny ones are OLD like me
Can any young PB-ers show me the exciting young comic talent?
Olga Koch is very good.
Presumably Live at the Apollo is just re-runs from the days BC?
Live at the Apollo from February 2018, according to iplayer.
Just accidentally glimpsed "Live at the Apollo". It is allegedly "Comedy". The finishing gag failed terribly so the female stand up quickly added a "well fuck Brexit" line, and got a tired, meaningless laugh. Not even 6th form level
Is that it? Is that modern British comedy?
I realise I sound like a wearied old scrote (I am) but I haven't seen a talented new British comedian for a decade. All the funny ones are OLD like me
Can any young PB-ers show me the exciting young comic talent?
Just had a look at an old Ben Elton stand up from the mid 80s. I used to absolutely love these shows, Friday/Saturday Night Live, although I was about 11. So left wing. Very woke for the time, although Stavros would prob see Harry Enfield banged up now. Lasted about a minute of this - complete rubbish, so maybe it wasn’t any better ‘in my day’
99% of comedy ages REALLY badly. The stuff that doesn’t - Airplane, the best of Fawlty, young Woody Allen - feels miraculous thereby
But these are young new comedians, right now, on mainstream British telly: failing miserably. How can you possibly end a looooong joke and your killer like is ‘well brexit is fucking terrible’ and that gets your biggest laugh?!
I remember the only 2mins of The Daily Mash I watched , and the joke was that Jacob Rees Mogg wouldn’t understand poor peoples lives because he’s posh & rich. And that was it.
I honestly don’t think it’s because I disagree with their politics, but these comedians don’t seem like they would be funny if you went for a beer with them.they’re just not funny people. My mates ARE really funny, these people aren’t.
Just accidentally glimpsed "Live at the Apollo". It is allegedly "Comedy". The finishing gag failed terribly so the female stand up quickly added a "well fuck Brexit" line, and got a tired, meaningless laugh. Not even 6th form level
Is that it? Is that modern British comedy?
I realise I sound like a wearied old scrote (I am) but I haven't seen a talented new British comedian for a decade. All the funny ones are OLD like me
Can any young PB-ers show me the exciting young comic talent?
Just had a look at an old Ben Elton stand up from the mid 80s. I used to absolutely love these shows, Friday/Saturday Night Live, although I was about 11. So left wing. Very woke for the time, although Stavros would prob see Harry Enfield banged up now. Lasted about a minute of this - complete rubbish, so maybe it wasn’t any better ‘in my day’
99% of comedy ages REALLY badly. The stuff that doesn’t - Airplane, the best of Fawlty, young Woody Allen - feels miraculous thereby
But these are young new comedians, right now, on mainstream British telly: failing miserably. How can you possibly end a looooong joke and your killer like is ‘well brexit is fucking terrible’ and that gets your biggest laugh?!
I remember the only 2mins of The Daily Mash I watched , and the joke was that Jacob Rees Mogg wouldn’t understand poor peoples lives because he’s posh & rich. And that was it.
I honestly don’t think it’s because I disagree with their politics, but these comedians don’t seem like they would be funny if you went for a beer with them.they’re just not funny people. My mates ARE really funny, these people aren’t.
I just found this. The best young 30 stand ups in the country. They are all shit. Desperately bad
I will repeat again for good measure. I used to do this for a living — I did feasibility studies, tenders, and project designs for solar installations, amongst other renewable technologies.
They are objectively not a good investment in the UK. They simply do not output enough.
Without the high Gen Tariffs you're looking at a 20-25 year payback. Much more with an expensive Tesla battery. The panels themselves only have a lifespan for around 25 years.
Crap investment.
The panel lifespan is more than 25 years. It's more accurate to say that panels lose approximately 0.8% to 1% of the power they generate each year. (Mostly, IIRC, via surface oxidation, but I could be wrong.)
Most solar panels output about 105-110% of rated power in year one.
Aye but you're tailing off at that point, and in a country where it's already cloudy and overcast most the time, you're going to have a dribble of generation.
Tailing off? That means you're still getting 80+% of rated capacity at the end of the period.
Let's assume you don't take the FIT, and electricity prices rise 2% per year for the period. You'll be getting more each year - in cash terms - than in the previous one.
80% of very little is very little.
Of course that doesn't factor in your inverter failing, which is another expense (you're supposed to have them serviced every year, most don't), failing to wash the panels properly (most people don't do this either), etc etc.
Listen I did these calculations day in and day out. I know all the tricks solar zealots use. They assume zero shading, they assume perfect orientation with south, they assume a perfect 30 degree pitched roof.
It simply isn't a good investment. The figures don't lie.
A lot of people don't know that most panels are wired in series and therefore if one panel is shaded, for example by a cloud, either your whole array is generating nothing, or only half of the array is generating.
Etc.
They were fantastic under the ridiculously generous FIT. Otherwise I wouldn't touch them with a bargepole.
Let's assume that you put panels on your roof and they cost you £1,000 and they give you £50/electricity a year. (I'm making up numbers here.)
Does that sound like a good investment or a bad investment?
Here's two things to remember:
(1) A cost (electricity) avoided is like getting after tax income. If I receive £50 in interest from the bank, I'm paying £25 of that back to the government in tax. On the other hand, if I cut my electricity bill by £50. That means the real yield - for higher rate tax payers - is more than it looks.
(2) The cost of electricity rises. So you're getting an asset generating a real return, not a nominal one. If you buy indexed linked government bonds you take a guaranteed loss. Even before you take into account the tax you'll be paying on the pitiful amount of income you get.
Look, if you have £1,000 will you do better in SpaceX or solar panels? Well, SpaceX, duh.
And if you are at the beginning of your career, then long dated low return assets are a bloody stupid idea.
But if the choice is between solar panels and government bonds... Or solar panels versus sitting in the bank earning the amazing 0.2% that Lloyds will offer you if you're willing to lock the money up for two years?
Well, in that case solar panels are the better financial investment. It all depends on where you are in your personal financial journey.
0.2% sure. But "great investment"?
Well said gallow. And while they're not a great investment economically, people tend to forget they're not a great one environmentally either.
Supply and demand don't intersect with solar panels.
We are a cold, overcast, northern island that relies upon heating in the winter not air conditioning in the summer. The panels generate less supply in the winter. Already today much more electricity is consumed in the winter and that's before gas boilers are discontinued and replaced with electric powered heating too!
The environment needs electricity supply most in the winter not the summer. Environmentally Solar Panels in place of coal was a great idea, but if we can get through winter with electric heating without much solar generation then what is the point of extra solar generation in the summer when the electric heating is turned off?
Hang on.
In a world where most of our generation is natural gas CCGTs that can be turned on and off at will, then if it's cheaper for an individual to generate power via the sun great. And if it's not, then people won't buy them.
My point is that for a young person (like you) solar panels are a terrible investment relative to (say) paying down your mortgage. For someone in their mid 50s, on the other hand, they are likely a pretty good investment relative to government bonds or leaving money in the bank.
Simply, you get a 5-6% real after tax return, which is shit compared to SpaceX, but fantastic compared to other low-risk assets.
That's the problem though, we aren't going to have most of our generation from gas CCGTs by 2030, let alone by 2040 or 2050.
Net zero entails removing CCGT surely and having sufficient clean energy to power electronic heating through the winter.
In which case what environmental purpose do solar panels serve.
This is a completely different to somewhere like California that relies upon air conditioning in the summer.
The EU has really narrowed the gap with us and will end up finishing their vaccination programme only about 8 to 10 weeks after us.
As expected, once they got enough supplies in most of them can go pretty quick. But of course 8-10 weeks at the wrong moment can be very significant - as fortunate as we were to get a vaccine so quickly, and rollout quickly in the UK, just imagine what a difference 2 months prior might have had had it been possible.
The second dose thing was really just one of the sillier bits from comedy dave, unable apparently to see what would happen once the UK did start large scale 2nd dose rollout.
Just accidentally glimpsed "Live at the Apollo". It is allegedly "Comedy". The finishing gag failed terribly so the female stand up quickly added a "well fuck Brexit" line, and got a tired, meaningless laugh. Not even 6th form level
Is that it? Is that modern British comedy?
I realise I sound like a wearied old scrote (I am) but I haven't seen a talented new British comedian for a decade. All the funny ones are OLD like me
Can any young PB-ers show me the exciting young comic talent?
Just had a look at an old Ben Elton stand up from the mid 80s. I used to absolutely love these shows, Friday/Saturday Night Live, although I was about 11. So left wing. Very woke for the time, although Stavros would prob see Harry Enfield banged up now. Lasted about a minute of this - complete rubbish, so maybe it wasn’t any better ‘in my day’
99% of comedy ages REALLY badly. The stuff that doesn’t - Airplane, the best of Fawlty, young Woody Allen - feels miraculous thereby
But these are young new comedians, right now, on mainstream British telly: failing miserably. How can you possibly end a looooong joke and your killer like is ‘well brexit is fucking terrible’ and that gets your biggest laugh?!
I remember the only 2mins of The Daily Mash I watched , and the joke was that Jacob Rees Mogg wouldn’t understand poor peoples lives because he’s posh & rich. And that was it.
I honestly don’t think it’s because I disagree with their politics, but these comedians don’t seem like they would be funny if you went for a beer with them.they’re just not funny people. My mates ARE really funny, these people aren’t.
I just found this. The best young 30 stand ups in the country. They are all shit. Desperately bad
I think it’s a combination of Wokeness and lower IQs generally. Horribly scared of offending (a comedy killer) combined with generalised dullness
And, like you, I’ve got half a dozen friends who are funnier than this in the pub
We are basically living in a Revenge of the Nerds world, where the school boffins have stopped the scallys from misbehaving by threatening to get them sacked, and have started to have a go at being the cool kids themselves. With unfunny consequences
Emily Maitlis interviewing the shadow minister for schools
He says "look at the countries with the highest death rates per million, Brazil, the USA, these are the countries led by populists, like ours"
Which is simplistic shite. And went unchallenged. We are ill-served by our TV journalists
Does the US have one of the highest death rates?
Is top 20 'one of the highest'?
The populist argument seems pretty hard to sustain. Some extremely low death rates, even trustworthy figures, will be in places with horrendous regimes, while the difference between Brazil and 'good' countries like, IDK, Belgium, may not be stark.
I will repeat again for good measure. I used to do this for a living — I did feasibility studies, tenders, and project designs for solar installations, amongst other renewable technologies.
They are objectively not a good investment in the UK. They simply do not output enough.
Without the high Gen Tariffs you're looking at a 20-25 year payback. Much more with an expensive Tesla battery. The panels themselves only have a lifespan for around 25 years.
Crap investment.
The panel lifespan is more than 25 years. It's more accurate to say that panels lose approximately 0.8% to 1% of the power they generate each year. (Mostly, IIRC, via surface oxidation, but I could be wrong.)
Most solar panels output about 105-110% of rated power in year one.
Aye but you're tailing off at that point, and in a country where it's already cloudy and overcast most the time, you're going to have a dribble of generation.
Tailing off? That means you're still getting 80+% of rated capacity at the end of the period.
Let's assume you don't take the FIT, and electricity prices rise 2% per year for the period. You'll be getting more each year - in cash terms - than in the previous one.
80% of very little is very little.
Of course that doesn't factor in your inverter failing, which is another expense (you're supposed to have them serviced every year, most don't), failing to wash the panels properly (most people don't do this either), etc etc.
Listen I did these calculations day in and day out. I know all the tricks solar zealots use. They assume zero shading, they assume perfect orientation with south, they assume a perfect 30 degree pitched roof.
It simply isn't a good investment. The figures don't lie.
A lot of people don't know that most panels are wired in series and therefore if one panel is shaded, for example by a cloud, either your whole array is generating nothing, or only half of the array is generating.
Etc.
They were fantastic under the ridiculously generous FIT. Otherwise I wouldn't touch them with a bargepole.
Let's assume that you put panels on your roof and they cost you £1,000 and they give you £50/electricity a year. (I'm making up numbers here.)
Does that sound like a good investment or a bad investment?
Here's two things to remember:
(1) A cost (electricity) avoided is like getting after tax income. If I receive £50 in interest from the bank, I'm paying £25 of that back to the government in tax. On the other hand, if I cut my electricity bill by £50. That means the real yield - for higher rate tax payers - is more than it looks.
(2) The cost of electricity rises. So you're getting an asset generating a real return, not a nominal one. If you buy indexed linked government bonds you take a guaranteed loss. Even before you take into account the tax you'll be paying on the pitiful amount of income you get.
Look, if you have £1,000 will you do better in SpaceX or solar panels? Well, SpaceX, duh.
And if you are at the beginning of your career, then long dated low return assets are a bloody stupid idea.
But if the choice is between solar panels and government bonds... Or solar panels versus sitting in the bank earning the amazing 0.2% that Lloyds will offer you if you're willing to lock the money up for two years?
Well, in that case solar panels are the better financial investment. It all depends on where you are in your personal financial journey.
0.2% sure. But "great investment"?
Well said gallow. And while they're not a great investment economically, people tend to forget they're not a great one environmentally either.
Supply and demand don't intersect with solar panels.
We are a cold, overcast, northern island that relies upon heating in the winter not air conditioning in the summer. The panels generate less supply in the winter. Already today much more electricity is consumed in the winter and that's before gas boilers are discontinued and replaced with electric powered heating too!
The environment needs electricity supply most in the winter not the summer. Environmentally Solar Panels in place of coal was a great idea, but if we can get through winter with electric heating without much solar generation then what is the point of extra solar generation in the summer when the electric heating is turned off?
Hang on.
In a world where most of our generation is natural gas CCGTs that can be turned on and off at will, then if it's cheaper for an individual to generate power via the sun great. And if it's not, then people won't buy them.
My point is that for a young person (like you) solar panels are a terrible investment relative to (say) paying down your mortgage. For someone in their mid 50s, on the other hand, they are likely a pretty good investment relative to government bonds or leaving money in the bank.
Simply, you get a 5-6% real after tax return, which is shit compared to SpaceX, but fantastic compared to other low-risk assets.
That's the problem though, we aren't going to have most of our generation from gas CCGTs by 2030, let alone by 2040 or 2050.
Net zero entails removing CCGT surely and having sufficient clean energy to power electronic heating through the winter.
In which case what environmental purpose do solar panels serve.
This is a completely different to somewhere like California that relies upon air conditioning in the summer.
Solar is a good complement to wind over the course of the year as a whole because wind drops off during the summer months when solar is high.
Ideally though you'd put the solar panels in North Africa and lay a cable from there to here, but gas pipelines are still receiving the investment money instead. And North Africa isn't the most politically stable place.
‘Studying the relationship between white male culture and the history of the British Isles can help American white men see which traits—traits that ensured their ancestors’ survival—live on in them today. These traits include:
Survivor mentality that focuses on the future A tendency to rugged individualism A can-do attitude Operating from principles and conscience Focus on hard work, action, and task completion Striving toward success and materialism Measured moderation and silent strength Focus on status and rank over connection.’
The inference is that all these traits are bad if not ‘catastrophic’ for ‘women and minorities’
‘SCOOP: @LockheedMartin, the nation’s largest defense contractor, sent key executives to a three-day white male reeducation camp in order to deconstruct their “white male culture” and atone for their “white male privilege.”
I've obtained internal documents that will shock you.’
Just accidentally glimpsed "Live at the Apollo". It is allegedly "Comedy". The finishing gag failed terribly so the female stand up quickly added a "well fuck Brexit" line, and got a tired, meaningless laugh. Not even 6th form level
Is that it? Is that modern British comedy?
I realise I sound like a wearied old scrote (I am) but I haven't seen a talented new British comedian for a decade. All the funny ones are OLD like me
Can any young PB-ers show me the exciting young comic talent?
Just had a look at an old Ben Elton stand up from the mid 80s. I used to absolutely love these shows, Friday/Saturday Night Live, although I was about 11. So left wing. Very woke for the time, although Stavros would prob see Harry Enfield banged up now. Lasted about a minute of this - complete rubbish, so maybe it wasn’t any better ‘in my day’
Emily Maitlis interviewing the shadow minister for schools
He says "look at the countries with the highest death rates per million, Brazil, the USA, these are the countries led by populists, like ours"
Which is simplistic shite. And went unchallenged. We are ill-served by our TV journalists
Does the US have one of the highest death rates?
No
So, basically, she's wrong on literally every count.
The highest excess death tolls (i.e. deaths above normal levels in percent) are probably Belarus, Russia and Brazil - all of whom will have seen number of deaths at close to double normal levels.
By contrast, we peaked (during our very worst period) at around 70% above normal and I suspect that if one looks at the year as a whole, we'll be 25-30% above.
The real stars are the Danes who've managed to keep deaths at normal levels, and remove restrictions before us.
The EU has really narrowed the gap with us and will end up finishing their vaccination programme only about 8 to 10 weeks after us.
As expected, once they got enough supplies in most of them can go pretty quick. But of course 8-10 weeks at the wrong moment can be very significant - as fortunate as we were to get a vaccine so quickly, and rollout quickly in the UK, just imagine what a difference 2 months prior might have had had it been possible.
The second dose thing was really just one of the sillier bits from comedy dave, unable apparently to see what would happen once the UK did start large scale 2nd dose rollout.
Comedy Dave is an idiot.
The UK's first dose strategy was absolutely spot on. Indeed, you can make the case that we should have - except possibly for the over 75s - have gone solely for one dose until everyone (i.e. 16+) has gotten at least one shot. That would have probably been the most effective strategy for eliminating the virus as quickly as possible.
Emily Maitlis interviewing the shadow minister for schools
He says "look at the countries with the highest death rates per million, Brazil, the USA, these are the countries led by populists, like ours"
Which is simplistic shite. And went unchallenged. We are ill-served by our TV journalists
Does the US have one of the highest death rates?
Is top 20 'one of the highest'?
The populist argument seems pretty hard to sustain. Some extremely low death rates, even trustworthy figures, will be in places with horrendous regimes, while the difference between Brazil and 'good' countries like, IDK, Belgium, may not be stark.
The USA is currently number 25, and the UK 26, with the Economist's excess deaths list.
Interesting that most of the top 20 are either Catholic or Orthodox countries. Probably nothing to do with religion, but to do with elderly populations.
The EU has really narrowed the gap with us and will end up finishing their vaccination programme only about 8 to 10 weeks after us.
As expected, once they got enough supplies in most of them can go pretty quick. But of course 8-10 weeks at the wrong moment can be very significant - as fortunate as we were to get a vaccine so quickly, and rollout quickly in the UK, just imagine what a difference 2 months prior might have had had it been possible.
The second dose thing was really just one of the sillier bits from comedy dave, unable apparently to see what would happen once the UK did start large scale 2nd dose rollout.
Comedy Dave is an idiot.
The UK's first dose strategy was absolutely spot on. Indeed, you can make the case that we should have - except possibly for the over 75s - have gone solely for one dose until everyone (i.e. 16+) has gotten at least one shot. That would have probably been the most effective strategy for eliminating the virus as quickly as possible.
Yes, if you can eliminate the virus then the small additional risk from the dip in protection between doses is immaterial. Canada is applying the single dose strategy correctly.
Emily Maitlis interviewing the shadow minister for schools
He says "look at the countries with the highest death rates per million, Brazil, the USA, these are the countries led by populists, like ours"
Which is simplistic shite. And went unchallenged. We are ill-served by our TV journalists
Does the US have one of the highest death rates?
Is top 20 'one of the highest'?
The populist argument seems pretty hard to sustain. Some extremely low death rates, even trustworthy figures, will be in places with horrendous regimes, while the difference between Brazil and 'good' countries like, IDK, Belgium, may not be stark.
I dunno, while Belgium's been pretty awful, it's not been a patch on Manaus.
Here's a stat for you. In a normal year, around 1.3 million people will die in Brazil. In the last year it looks like it will have been 2.2 million.
Emily Maitlis interviewing the shadow minister for schools
He says "look at the countries with the highest death rates per million, Brazil, the USA, these are the countries led by populists, like ours"
Which is simplistic shite. And went unchallenged. We are ill-served by our TV journalists
Does the US have one of the highest death rates?
Is top 20 'one of the highest'?
The populist argument seems pretty hard to sustain. Some extremely low death rates, even trustworthy figures, will be in places with horrendous regimes, while the difference between Brazil and 'good' countries like, IDK, Belgium, may not be stark.
The USA is currently number 25, and the UK 26, with the Economist's excess deaths list.
Such a pronounced mix. Hard to find a general rule but it certainly isn’t ‘are you governed by a populist’
The main lessons seem to be cultural/geographic/demographic. If you want a good covid outcome it’s better to be an island, especially in Australasia, also being East Asian is great, and try and have a low population density
Emily Maitlis interviewing the shadow minister for schools
He says "look at the countries with the highest death rates per million, Brazil, the USA, these are the countries led by populists, like ours"
Which is simplistic shite. And went unchallenged. We are ill-served by our TV journalists
Does the US have one of the highest death rates?
Is top 20 'one of the highest'?
The populist argument seems pretty hard to sustain. Some extremely low death rates, even trustworthy figures, will be in places with horrendous regimes, while the difference between Brazil and 'good' countries like, IDK, Belgium, may not be stark.
The USA is currently number 25, and the UK 26, with the Economist's excess deaths list.
Interesting that most of the top 20 are either Catholic or Orthodox countries. Probably nothing to do with religion, but to do with elderly populations.
Those Brazil numbers are wrong. Total deaths in the last 12 months are comfortably above 2 million.
Emily Maitlis interviewing the shadow minister for schools
He says "look at the countries with the highest death rates per million, Brazil, the USA, these are the countries led by populists, like ours"
Which is simplistic shite. And went unchallenged. We are ill-served by our TV journalists
Does the US have one of the highest death rates?
No
So, basically, she's wrong on literally every count.
The highest excess death tolls (i.e. deaths above normal levels in percent) are probably Belarus, Russia and Brazil - all of whom will have seen number of deaths at close to double normal levels.
By contrast, we peaked (during our very worst period) at around 70% above normal and I suspect that if one looks at the year as a whole, we'll be 25-30% above.
The real stars are the Danes who've managed to keep deaths at normal levels, and remove restrictions before us.
Actually, Peru looks like it'll worst (although Belarus has stopped reporting deaths). Total deaths are probably 130+% above normal levels.
‘Studying the relationship between white male culture and the history of the British Isles can help American white men see which traits—traits that ensured their ancestors’ survival—live on in them today. These traits include:
Survivor mentality that focuses on the future A tendency to rugged individualism A can-do attitude Operating from principles and conscience Focus on hard work, action, and task completion Striving toward success and materialism Measured moderation and silent strength Focus on status and rank over connection.’
The inference is that all these traits are bad if not ‘catastrophic’ for ‘women and minorities’
‘SCOOP: @LockheedMartin, the nation’s largest defense contractor, sent key executives to a three-day white male reeducation camp in order to deconstruct their “white male culture” and atone for their “white male privilege.”
I've obtained internal documents that will shock you.’
You seemed to have reached that stage, which is quite common in late middle aged white men, where you spend your days scouring the news for things about which to be annoyed.
‘Studying the relationship between white male culture and the history of the British Isles can help American white men see which traits—traits that ensured their ancestors’ survival—live on in them today. These traits include:
Survivor mentality that focuses on the future A tendency to rugged individualism A can-do attitude Operating from principles and conscience Focus on hard work, action, and task completion Striving toward success and materialism Measured moderation and silent strength Focus on status and rank over connection.’
The inference is that all these traits are bad if not ‘catastrophic’ for ‘women and minorities’
‘SCOOP: @LockheedMartin, the nation’s largest defense contractor, sent key executives to a three-day white male reeducation camp in order to deconstruct their “white male culture” and atone for their “white male privilege.”
I've obtained internal documents that will shock you.’
You seemed to have reached that stage, which is quite common in late middle aged white men, where you spend your days scouring the news for things about which to be annoyed.
Equally amazing is that is that Linke is on the edge of not making it into parliament at all.
The greens eating the lefts dinner. Soon to be replicated across the west? Will there be a rightist green movement based on a green capitalist economic agenda to oppose this? Is there one developing already?
Comments
What is damaging is - for Hancock - the evidence that many of those lives could have been saved and it was his dishonesty and ineptitude that were responsible for many of those deaths and - for Johnson - the evidence that in the end he was slow to react because he fundamentally didn't accept that saving lives was more important than saving the economy.
People will actually often forgive failure if they can see you did your best. They will not forgive dishonesty to mask wilful incompetence or simple lack of concern.
That is what makes Cummings' evidence so damaging.
A random draw of five supporters in the stadium. Each to take and defend a penalty each.
So. Your penalty takers would be.
Geoff. Who's had seven pints and several lines.
Alan. Who watched his first game in 1947 and uses a Zimmer frame.
Olivia. A 6 year old at her very first game.
Dave. The local builder's merchant who got hammered in a client's executive box.
And Josh. A nervous sports mad virgin with acne.
Would be much better entertainment.
In normal times, there's a whole subcircuit of Standup Comedy for Kids. It's a meaningful discipline- like a sonnet. Make them laugh without politics or (serious) rudery. A few years ago, I took mine to see Tom Allen do that sort of show- it was interesting seeing him adapt his standard persona to a child audience. (Think the kind of amusing uncle who will never have children of their own, because... well you know...)
He says "look at the countries with the highest death rates per million, Brazil, the USA, these are the countries led by populists, like ours"
Which is simplistic shite. And went unchallenged. We are ill-served by our TV journalists
Germany, 4,700 cases (not so bad), but 318 deaths
Hopefully just the dying spasms of the virus in Europe
Prof. Christina Pagel
@chrischirp
·
30m
so some good news: cases in some of the new variant hotspots are now coming down - especially in Bolton.
https://twitter.com/zseward/status/1397611366689779714/photo/1
5% across the EU?
Net zero entails removing CCGT surely and having sufficient clean energy to power electronic heating through the winter.
In which case what environmental purpose do solar panels serve.
This is a completely different to somewhere like California that relies upon air conditioning in the summer.
For the most part, state police are largely highway patrol. Although here in NY, Gov. Cuomo sent the staties in to do more day-to-day policing in NYC last year simply to annoy Mayor de Blasio.
https://youtu.be/Ptx_H2XWGV8
I posted a link to it around this time last year.
e.g. Bloomberg has them on 39%
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/covid-vaccine-tracker-global-distribution/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=content&utm_content=covidtracker2021&fbclid=IwAR106hsY9pDIO17b3-Dr-0qd9MJu80vs-F6i7JMfkaCUW6IaZJM_cn5cWVY
possibly confusing total population with adult population? but it does detract from there credibility.
But these are young new comedians, right now, on mainstream British telly: failing miserably. How can you possibly end a looooong joke and your killer like is ‘well brexit is fucking terrible’ and that gets your biggest laugh?!
I honestly don’t think it’s because I disagree with their politics, but these comedians don’t seem like they would be funny if you went for a beer with them.they’re just not funny people. My mates ARE really funny, these people aren’t.
The EU has really narrowed the gap with us and will end up finishing their vaccination programme only about 8 to 10 weeks after us.
https://www.standard.co.uk/culture/standup-comedy-best-comedians-london-a4137296.html
I think it’s a combination of Wokeness and lower IQs generally. Horribly scared of offending (a comedy killer) combined with generalised dullness
And, like you, I’ve got half a dozen friends who are funnier than this in the pub
The second dose thing was really just one of the sillier bits from comedy dave, unable apparently to see what would happen once the UK did start large scale 2nd dose rollout.
The populist argument seems pretty hard to sustain. Some extremely low death rates, even trustworthy figures, will be in places with horrendous regimes, while the difference between Brazil and 'good' countries like, IDK, Belgium, may not be stark.
Ideally though you'd put the solar panels in North Africa and lay a cable from there to here, but gas pipelines are still receiving the investment money instead. And North Africa isn't the most politically stable place.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/may/26/the-guardian-view-on-cummings-testimony-a-vivid-portrait-of-failure
Hooray!
‘Studying the relationship between white male culture and the history of the British Isles can help American white men see which traits—traits that ensured their ancestors’ survival—live on in them today. These traits include:
Survivor mentality that focuses on the future
A tendency to rugged individualism
A can-do attitude
Operating from principles and conscience
Focus on hard work, action, and task completion
Striving toward success and materialism
Measured moderation and silent strength
Focus on status and rank over connection.’
The inference is that all these traits are bad if not ‘catastrophic’ for ‘women and minorities’
‘SCOOP: @LockheedMartin, the nation’s largest defense contractor, sent key executives to a three-day white male reeducation camp in order to deconstruct their “white male culture” and atone for their “white male privilege.”
I've obtained internal documents that will shock you.’
https://twitter.com/realchrisrufo/status/1397627960052502528?s=21
That is all!
"Germany, Forsa poll:
GRÜNE-G/EFA: 25% (-1)
CDU/CSU-EPP: 24%
SPD-S&D: 14% (-1)
FDP-RE: 13% (+2)
AfD-ID: 10%
LINKE-LEFT: 6%
+/- vs. 11-17 May 2021
Fieldwork: 18-21 May 20"
https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1397559042952908810
The highest excess death tolls (i.e. deaths above normal levels in percent) are probably Belarus, Russia and Brazil - all of whom will have seen number of deaths at close to double normal levels.
By contrast, we peaked (during our very worst period) at around 70% above normal and I suspect that if one looks at the year as a whole, we'll be 25-30% above.
The real stars are the Danes who've managed to keep deaths at normal levels, and remove restrictions before us.
The UK's first dose strategy was absolutely spot on. Indeed, you can make the case that we should have - except possibly for the over 75s - have gone solely for one dose until everyone (i.e. 16+) has gotten at least one shot. That would have probably been the most effective strategy for eliminating the virus as quickly as possible.
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/coronavirus-excess-deaths-tracker
Interesting that most of the top 20 are either Catholic or Orthodox countries. Probably nothing to do with religion, but to do with elderly populations.
Here's a stat for you. In a normal year, around 1.3 million people will die in Brazil. In the last year it looks like it will have been 2.2 million.
The main lessons seem to be cultural/geographic/demographic. If you want a good covid outcome it’s better to be an island, especially in Australasia, also being East Asian is great, and try and have a low population density
Will there be a rightist green movement based on a green capitalist economic agenda to oppose this? Is there one developing already?