I wonder if some also worry that vaccinating teens would be tied in with a delay to unlocking. Would opinions be different if these were explicitly disconnected? That is: “regardless of the level of rollout to teens, we will unlock on the 19th. Would you support offering the jab to teens who wanted it (with parental agreement)?”
This thought has crossed my mind. Given schools have been open as much as possible, I’d like to think it would be a given that whether to vaccinate under 18s would have no bearing on unlocking.
My personal take is that as schools will be out at or around unlocking day, anyway, I’d expect infection rates to drop in youngsters, buying quite a bit of time to offer them vaccination without needing to extend restrictions.
Then again, I’m a bit biased. Two of my nieces are currently forbidden from being vaxxed; one becomes eligible in late July (and will grab it then); the other is nearly two years short as it stands.
Do you have to be 18+ to consent to having a jab?
It’s not currently offered to the under-18s (with a few exemptions for those classed as specifically vulnerable or carers of the vulnerable).
As you can’t get the jab other than if it is offered, that means you ain’t getting it if you’re under 18.
Although the MHRA have approved it for ages 12-17, we aren’t offering it as a country. Which means it’s prohibited.
(There are also factors on consent (Foxy can explain it far better), but as I understand it, if you can be judged as able to understand and genuinely give consent, it isn’t as straightforward as a specific age. At 16-17 (my younger niece is 16), it’s pretty much automatic, under that, it’s down to whether you are deemed able to understand (Gillick competence https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/consent-to-treatment/children/ )
1) Buy some pork belly. 2) Score the skin/fat. 3) Buy a bag of sage at the supermarket. Put it in the blender (remove the plastic bag and the rubber band, unless you like the flavour). Put 5 big garlic cloves in the blender, and about 50ml of olive oil. Blend until you have a uniform mess. 4) Rub the blended up stuff (Marinade if you are a Remainer) into the pork. Put it in a container over night, with the rest of the blender up stuff poured over it. Put it in the fridge 5) Drink yourself unconscious.
The next day
1) fire up the oven to 200c 2) Put the pork in, skin up. 3) Put the "Sound Barrier" by David Lean on. 4) At the time that Ralph Richardson gives his brand new son in law a job as a test pilot at the funeral for his actual son, (30 min) turn the oven down to 160c 5) Watch the rest of the film 6) Start "Ice Cold In Alex". At about the time the they meet the German patro (40 minutes into Ice Cold in Alex), turn the heat back up to 220. This should be about 2 hours of cooking at the 160c 6) At the point where they are digging the grave (1 hour into the film), turn the oven off and take the meat out to rest. 7) when they start voicing their suspicions to each other about the South African chap taking repeated walks in the desert - 1:15 into the movie - it's ready
The public are still evenly split on meaning of knee taking..
'Taking the knee' is...
A political statement that goes beyond simply expressing opposition to racism: 40% An apolitical statement that simply expresses opposition to racism and nothing more: 39% Don't know: 21%
It can be what you want it to be. The origins of course were certainly political.
I suppose being opposed to racism is a political statement.
Taking the knee was introduced to modern life by Colin Kaepernick at sporting events as a statement against racism.
The situation in the USA is completely different to that in the UK. Do we take on board political scenarios and protests from anywhere around the world? The English FA already had “kick it out”.
No. If the indigenes of the planet Tharg which circles a main sequence sun in Cassiopeia are cruelly enslaved by their insectoid Q'rr'om overlords, in principle I'm against that, but equally it is not my fucking problem, squire. I don't live in a country where the police shoot black men, or vote for a party which advocates a policy along those lines. What we are looking at is wannabe transatlanticism like Jagger's American accent in the 60s. Anyone feeling strongly about it is welcome to take a flight to philadelphia and punch a cop in the face.
So you were opposed to the repeated interventions in the political structure of Venus perpetrated by this notorious neo-colonialist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Dare), in the name of Spacefleet?
Even if the rules weren't an inchoate, incoherent mass of inconsistency, people would still eventually tire of following them anyway. The surprise is that the line has largely been held as long as it has. What would have slowly crumbled naturally has largely just been blown apart in the past few weeks by the sporting summer with Wimbledon (to a lesser extent) and the football (to a greater extent) and e.g. the GP to come. Following some fiddly 2m distancing rules or negotiating the one-way system in the shop when you watch 50,000 cheering fans at Wembley or whatever it is does feel a bit silly.
For what it's worth, I think the behavioural experts will need to find a way to manage a similar sort of fatigue with the whole "climate emergency" thing. That title (which I'm not arguing is not warranted) will get some headlines and some initial attention for a bit of time, but people can't comprehend a state of emergency that will last the rest of their lives, and their children's lives, and probably the lives of their children's children too. At some point it just becomes the way things are, even if people are well meaning in it.
Pub i’m in at the moment currently seems to have a conga line forming...
Don’t worry, the SAJ is going to save us from the zerovidians
‘Javid said: “We need to be clear that cases are going to rise significantly. I know many people will be cautious about the easing of restrictions – that’s completely understandable. But no date we choose will ever come without risk, so we have to take a broad and balanced view.
“We are going to have to learn to accept the existence of Covid and find ways to cope with it – just as we already do with flu.”’
This eminently sensible statement was then completely misrepresented and skewed by, yes, some idiot Little Hitler scientist from Scotland
‘Reacting to the comments, Prof Stephen Reicher at the University of St Andrews, a member of the Sage subcommittee advising on behavioural science, tweeted: “It is frightening to have a ‘health’ secretary who still thinks Covid is flu’
THAT’S NOT WHAT JAVID SAID AND YOU KNOW IT
At some point the more irresponsible scientists need punishing. This guy would be a good place to start
He is also an ex-Banker so risk is a concept that he is more comfortable with than many in the Government
(mind you, he did work at Deutsche...)
Which merely means he's happy with risks other people would walk away from (see for instance Deutsche continual loans to Trump that no other bank would offer)
Even if the rules weren't an inchoate, incoherent mass of inconsistency, people would still eventually tire of following them anyway. The surprise is that the line has largely been held as long as it has. What would have slowly crumbled naturally has largely just been blown apart in the past few weeks by the sporting summer with Wimbledon (to a lesser extent) and the football (to a greater extent) and e.g. the GP to come. Following some fiddly 2m distancing rules or negotiating the one-way system in the shop when you watch 50,000 cheering fans at Wembley or whatever it is does feel a bit silly.
For what it's worth, I think the behavioural experts will need to find a way to manage a similar sort of fatigue with the whole "climate emergency" thing. That title (which I'm not arguing is not warranted) will get some headlines and some initial attention for a bit of time, but people can't comprehend a state of emergency that will last the rest of their lives, and their children's lives, and probably the lives of their children's children too. At some point it just becomes the way things are, even if people are well meaning in it.
The public are still evenly split on meaning of knee taking..
'Taking the knee' is...
A political statement that goes beyond simply expressing opposition to racism: 40% An apolitical statement that simply expresses opposition to racism and nothing more: 39% Don't know: 21%
Even if the rules weren't an inchoate, incoherent mass of inconsistency, people would still eventually tire of following them anyway. The surprise is that the line has largely been held as long as it has. What would have slowly crumbled naturally has largely just been blown apart in the past few weeks by the sporting summer with Wimbledon (to a lesser extent) and the football (to a greater extent) and e.g. the GP to come. Following some fiddly 2m distancing rules or negotiating the one-way system in the shop when you watch 50,000 cheering fans at Wembley or whatever it is does feel a bit silly.
For what it's worth, I think the behavioural experts will need to find a way to manage a similar sort of fatigue with the whole "climate emergency" thing. That title (which I'm not arguing is not warranted) will get some headlines and some initial attention for a bit of time, but people can't comprehend a state of emergency that will last the rest of their lives, and their children's lives, and probably the lives of their children's children too. At some point it just becomes the way things are, even if people are well meaning in it.
I think this is quite right, especially the surprise the line has held this long. It's been impressive (and for some, worrying).
The climate thing encounters some issues already, as the perceived need to ephasise the emergency means many of the more vigorous and passionate campaigners make no allowance for anything achieved to date, which combined with the need to do everything right away or the planet is doomed, can exhaust some people inclined to support it into apathy, since what's the point?
That, coupled with (as with anything to do with human rights) the obsessive focus on the West when most of the damage is now being done in the East, and especially China. Listening to desperate cries to save the planet by using fewer plastic bottles, when Xi Jinping is opening a massive new coal-fired power station every other week, can feel a little like reshuffling the proverbial deck chairs.
1) Buy some pork belly. 2) Score the skin/fat. 3) Buy a bag of sage at the supermarket. Put it in the blender (remove the plastic bag and the rubber band, unless you like the flavour). Put 5 big garlic cloves in the blender, and about 50ml of olive oil. Blend until you have a uniform mess. 4) Rub the blended up stuff (Marinade if you are a Remainer) into the pork. Put it in a container over night, with the rest of the blender up stuff poured over it. Put it in the fridge 5) Drink yourself unconscious.
The next day
1) fire up the oven to 200c 2) Put the pork in, skin up. 3) Put the "Sound Barrier" by David Lean on. 4) At the time that Ralph Richardson gives his brand new son in law a job as a test pilot at the funeral for his actual son, (30 min) turn the oven down to 160c 5) Watch the rest of the film 6) Start "Ice Cold In Alex". At about the time the they meet the German patro (40 minutes into Ice Cold in Alex), turn the heat back up to 220. This should be about 2 hours of cooking at the 160c 6) At the point where they are digging the grave (1 hour into the film), turn the oven off and take the meat out to rest. 7) when they start voicing their suspicions to each other about the South African chap taking repeated walks in the desert - 1:15 into the movie - it's ready
That is genius. Thank you so much.
I am seriously considering writing a cook book of the "fling it in the oven and get drunk, while watching classic British black and white movies" form.
I’m in a pintxo restaurant in Soller, Majorca. Excellent food, inventive and tasty and clever without stupid ‘foams’
And Soller prawns are indeed brilliant, I have discovered. I love Spanish food, it is the best in the West at the moment
More importantly, it’s BUZZING. Lots of Brits here in particular. You can’t get a table for 3 days. (I only got one coz I’m prepared to eat before midnight, unlike Spaniards). And I eat at 8, unlike the Germans who dine at about 5pm
But how splendid. Life is returning to Europe. Blood flows through the veins of our ancient civilisation. The wine flows. The beer is spilled. England are going to beat Denmark
*burps*
Looks wonderful. Gets good reviews. Tapas with a twist?
Yes. The eggs with leeks an
Omg they just brought me the best lamb dish I’ve ever had
I wonder if some also worry that vaccinating teens would be tied in with a delay to unlocking. Would opinions be different if these were explicitly disconnected? That is: “regardless of the level of rollout to teens, we will unlock on the 19th. Would you support offering the jab to teens who wanted it (with parental agreement)?”
This thought has crossed my mind. Given schools have been open as much as possible, I’d like to think it would be a given that whether to vaccinate under 18s would have no bearing on unlocking.
My personal take is that as schools will be out at or around unlocking day, anyway, I’d expect infection rates to drop in youngsters, buying quite a bit of time to offer them vaccination without needing to extend restrictions.
Then again, I’m a bit biased. Two of my nieces are currently forbidden from being vaxxed; one becomes eligible in late July (and will grab it then); the other is nearly two years short as it stands.
Do you have to be 18+ to consent to having a jab?
It’s not currently offered to the under-18s (with a few exemptions for those classed as specifically vulnerable or carers of the vulnerable).
As you can’t get the jab other than if it is offered, that means you ain’t getting it if you’re under 18.
Although the MHRA have approved it for ages 12-17, we aren’t offering it as a country. Which means it’s prohibited.
(There are also factors on consent (Foxy can explain it far better), but as I understand it, if you can be judged as able to understand and genuinely give consent, it isn’t as straightforward as a specific age. At 16-17 (my younger niece is 16), it’s pretty much automatic, under that, it’s down to whether you are deemed able to understand (Gillick competence https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/consent-to-treatment/children/ )
It's not quite prohibited - doctors can prescribe vaccination for 12-17 according to medial needs and circumstances. Quite a few under 17s have already had the vaccination in the UK for such reasons.
No sign of a queue at the "mass" vaccination event at the Town Hall today so have we reached maximum take-up in Newham? I'd like to hope not but that looks a thoroughly miserable figure compared to the national numbers.
If Delta is going to precipitate a massacre in London then all I can say is it's taking its time getting started. Is it simply possible that so many people have already had Covid that most of the unvaccinated are either repelling Delta successfully, or not suffering symptoms if reinfected?
I just think that most of the population denominators used to determine percentage vaccinations are just cr*p. Even taking into account the generally younger populations which one would expect to result in London “lagging” there are areas which appear to have take-up levels some way below what you would expect.
Crap data arising from an itinerant population, as has also been offered as an explanation for the mysteriously low take-up in Oxford and Cambridge? That also sounds plausible.
The dog that did not bark in the Sunday papers: no lurid revelations about Michael Gove.
It is just about possible that he and the wife simply got fed up of living together and that no third parties or scandals are involved. It does happen.
I have some personal insight into this. And I can confirm it. Feel free to disbelieve me, ofc
There are some scandalous details but nothing like the lurid stuff on Twitter
Michael found Sarah's top of the end range artisanal dildos?
1) Buy some pork belly. 2) Score the skin/fat. 3) Buy a bag of sage at the supermarket. Put it in the blender (remove the plastic bag and the rubber band, unless you like the flavour). Put 5 big garlic cloves in the blender, and about 50ml of olive oil. Blend until you have a uniform mess. 4) Rub the blended up stuff (Marinade if you are a Remainer) into the pork. Put it in a container over night, with the rest of the blender up stuff poured over it. Put it in the fridge 5) Drink yourself unconscious.
The next day
1) fire up the oven to 200c 2) Put the pork in, skin up. 3) Put the "Sound Barrier" by David Lean on. 4) At the time that Ralph Richardson gives his brand new son in law a job as a test pilot at the funeral for his actual son, (30 min) turn the oven down to 160c 5) Watch the rest of the film 6) Start "Ice Cold In Alex". At about the time the they meet the German patro (40 minutes into Ice Cold in Alex), turn the heat back up to 220. This should be about 2 hours of cooking at the 160c 6) At the point where they are digging the grave (1 hour into the film), turn the oven off and take the meat out to rest. 7) when they start voicing their suspicions to each other about the South African chap taking repeated walks in the desert - 1:15 into the movie - it's ready
That is genius. Thank you so much.
I am seriously considering writing a cook book of the "fling it in the oven and get drunk, while watching classic British black and white movies" form.
The dog that did not bark in the Sunday papers: no lurid revelations about Michael Gove.
It is just about possible that he and the wife simply got fed up of living together and that no third parties or scandals are involved. It does happen.
I have some personal insight into this. And I can confirm it. Feel free to disbelieve me, ofc
There are some scandalous details but nothing like the lurid stuff on Twitter
Michael found Sarah's top of the end range artisanal dildos?
Its unsurprisingly two people who moonlight on Independent SAGE.
I do wonder what the members of SAGE think of a few members deciding to then go and moonlight on another committee who usually take a very public view on opposing most of SAGE advice / government decisions based on their advice.
The "experts" as Guardian calls them are psychologists and educationalists by looks of the quotes and so on. Are they really experts in the evolution of viral mutations? Me thinks not.
Michie isn’t even much of an expert in child psychology, having had to read one of her books.
To be fair, having met a number of child psychologists, a non-trivial proportion do not know anything about children psychology.
The surprising implication of that comment is that you have met a substantial proportion who do know something about child psychology
There is a serious point which is how much confidence we should place in the expert opinions of social psychologists, behavioural scientists and similar. My opinion would be not a lot and much less than we would place in the opinions of experts in areas with a decent track record for predictions and developing things that work.
I encountered an expert on investment on space technology whose ideas, if implemented, would have got his potential clients doing life in the more interesting US prisons.
ITAR - do not fuck with that law. One thing AOC and Marjorie Taylor Greene will agree on is that people who break that law deserve what they get.....
In general, i find that judging an expert is a bit like find a school that teaches, or a car mechanism who can actually improve the condition of your car. Yes, you may not be an expert, but a bit of reading, investigation and an intelligent person can make a judgement....
I wonder if some also worry that vaccinating teens would be tied in with a delay to unlocking. Would opinions be different if these were explicitly disconnected? That is: “regardless of the level of rollout to teens, we will unlock on the 19th. Would you support offering the jab to teens who wanted it (with parental agreement)?”
This thought has crossed my mind. Given schools have been open as much as possible, I’d like to think it would be a given that whether to vaccinate under 18s would have no bearing on unlocking.
My personal take is that as schools will be out at or around unlocking day, anyway, I’d expect infection rates to drop in youngsters, buying quite a bit of time to offer them vaccination without needing to extend restrictions.
Then again, I’m a bit biased. Two of my nieces are currently forbidden from being vaxxed; one becomes eligible in late July (and will grab it then); the other is nearly two years short as it stands.
Do you have to be 18+ to consent to having a jab?
It’s not currently offered to the under-18s (with a few exemptions for those classed as specifically vulnerable or carers of the vulnerable).
As you can’t get the jab other than if it is offered, that means you ain’t getting it if you’re under 18.
Although the MHRA have approved it for ages 12-17, we aren’t offering it as a country. Which means it’s prohibited.
(There are also factors on consent (Foxy can explain it far better), but as I understand it, if you can be judged as able to understand and genuinely give consent, it isn’t as straightforward as a specific age. At 16-17 (my younger niece is 16), it’s pretty much automatic, under that, it’s down to whether you are deemed able to understand (Gillick competence https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/consent-to-treatment/children/ )
Yes, that is correct on consent, though healthcare professionals try to keep parents and children in agreement, ultimately if a child is competent to decide it is their decision.
1) Buy some pork belly. 2) Score the skin/fat. 3) Buy a bag of sage at the supermarket. Put it in the blender (remove the plastic bag and the rubber band, unless you like the flavour). Put 5 big garlic cloves in the blender, and about 50ml of olive oil. Blend until you have a uniform mess. 4) Rub the blended up stuff (Marinade if you are a Remainer) into the pork. Put it in a container over night, with the rest of the blender up stuff poured over it. Put it in the fridge 5) Drink yourself unconscious.
The next day
1) fire up the oven to 200c 2) Put the pork in, skin up. 3) Put the "Sound Barrier" by David Lean on. 4) At the time that Ralph Richardson gives his brand new son in law a job as a test pilot at the funeral for his actual son, (30 min) turn the oven down to 160c 5) Watch the rest of the film 6) Start "Ice Cold In Alex". At about the time the they meet the German patro (40 minutes into Ice Cold in Alex), turn the heat back up to 220. This should be about 2 hours of cooking at the 160c 6) At the point where they are digging the grave (1 hour into the film), turn the oven off and take the meat out to rest. 7) when they start voicing their suspicions to each other about the South African chap taking repeated walks in the desert - 1:15 into the movie - it's ready
That is genius. Thank you so much.
I am seriously considering writing a cook book of the "fling it in the oven and get drunk, while watching classic British black and white movies" form.
I wonder if some also worry that vaccinating teens would be tied in with a delay to unlocking. Would opinions be different if these were explicitly disconnected? That is: “regardless of the level of rollout to teens, we will unlock on the 19th. Would you support offering the jab to teens who wanted it (with parental agreement)?”
This thought has crossed my mind. Given schools have been open as much as possible, I’d like to think it would be a given that whether to vaccinate under 18s would have no bearing on unlocking.
My personal take is that as schools will be out at or around unlocking day, anyway, I’d expect infection rates to drop in youngsters, buying quite a bit of time to offer them vaccination without needing to extend restrictions.
Then again, I’m a bit biased. Two of my nieces are currently forbidden from being vaxxed; one becomes eligible in late July (and will grab it then); the other is nearly two years short as it stands.
Do you have to be 18+ to consent to having a jab?
It’s not currently offered to the under-18s (with a few exemptions for those classed as specifically vulnerable or carers of the vulnerable).
As you can’t get the jab other than if it is offered, that means you ain’t getting it if you’re under 18.
Although the MHRA have approved it for ages 12-17, we aren’t offering it as a country. Which means it’s prohibited.
(There are also factors on consent (Foxy can explain it far better), but as I understand it, if you can be judged as able to understand and genuinely give consent, it isn’t as straightforward as a specific age. At 16-17 (my younger niece is 16), it’s pretty much automatic, under that, it’s down to whether you are deemed able to understand (Gillick competence https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/consent-to-treatment/children/ )
It's not quite prohibited - doctors can prescribe vaccination for 12-17 according to medial needs and circumstances. Quite a few under 17s have already had the vaccination in the UK for such reasons.
Which makes it more frustrating for the 15, 16, and 17 year olds who want to be vaccinated.
1) Buy some pork belly. 2) Score the skin/fat. 3) Buy a bag of sage at the supermarket. Put it in the blender (remove the plastic bag and the rubber band, unless you like the flavour). Put 5 big garlic cloves in the blender, and about 50ml of olive oil. Blend until you have a uniform mess. 4) Rub the blended up stuff (Marinade if you are a Remainer) into the pork. Put it in a container over night, with the rest of the blender up stuff poured over it. Put it in the fridge 5) Drink yourself unconscious.
The next day
1) fire up the oven to 200c 2) Put the pork in, skin up. 3) Put the "Sound Barrier" by David Lean on. 4) At the time that Ralph Richardson gives his brand new son in law a job as a test pilot at the funeral for his actual son, (30 min) turn the oven down to 160c 5) Watch the rest of the film 6) Start "Ice Cold In Alex". At about the time the they meet the German patro (40 minutes into Ice Cold in Alex), turn the heat back up to 220. This should be about 2 hours of cooking at the 160c 6) At the point where they are digging the grave (1 hour into the film), turn the oven off and take the meat out to rest. 7) when they start voicing their suspicions to each other about the South African chap taking repeated walks in the desert - 1:15 into the movie - it's ready
That is genius. Thank you so much.
I am seriously considering writing a cook book of the "fling it in the oven and get drunk, while watching classic British black and white movies" form.
No sign of a queue at the "mass" vaccination event at the Town Hall today so have we reached maximum take-up in Newham? I'd like to hope not but that looks a thoroughly miserable figure compared to the national numbers.
If Delta is going to precipitate a massacre in London then all I can say is it's taking its time getting started. Is it simply possible that so many people have already had Covid that most of the unvaccinated are either repelling Delta successfully, or not suffering symptoms if reinfected?
I just think that most of the population denominators used to determine percentage vaccinations are just cr*p. Even taking into account the generally younger populations which one would expect to result in London “lagging” there are areas which appear to have take-up levels some way below what you would expect.
Crap data arising from an itinerant population, as has also been offered as an explanation for the mysteriously low take-up in Oxford and Cambridge? That also sounds plausible.
Hmmm - the approach of "I don't like this data. Therefore I discard it."
The public are still evenly split on meaning of knee taking..
'Taking the knee' is...
A political statement that goes beyond simply expressing opposition to racism: 40% An apolitical statement that simply expresses opposition to racism and nothing more: 39% Don't know: 21%
It can be what you want it to be. The origins of course were certainly political.
I suppose being opposed to racism is a political statement.
Taking the knee was introduced to modern life by Colin Kaepernick at sporting events as a statement against racism.
The situation in the USA is completely different to that in the UK. Do we take on board political scenarios and protests from anywhere around the world? The English FA already had “kick it out”.
No. If the indigenes of the planet Tharg which circles a main sequence sun in Cassiopeia are cruelly enslaved by their insectoid Q'rr'om overlords, in principle I'm against that, but equally it is not my fucking problem, squire. I don't live in a country where the police shoot black men, or vote for a party which advocates a policy along those lines. What we are looking at is wannabe transatlanticism like Jagger's American accent in the 60s. Anyone feeling strongly about it is welcome to take a flight to philadelphia and punch a cop in the face.
So you were opposed to the repeated interventions in the political structure of Venus perpetrated by this notorious neo-colonialist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Dare), in the name of Spacefleet?
Treen lives matter. That wiki is riveting: who knew the Eagle was founded by the vicar of Southport and had Arthur C Clarke as science advisor?
I wonder if some also worry that vaccinating teens would be tied in with a delay to unlocking. Would opinions be different if these were explicitly disconnected? That is: “regardless of the level of rollout to teens, we will unlock on the 19th. Would you support offering the jab to teens who wanted it (with parental agreement)?”
This thought has crossed my mind. Given schools have been open as much as possible, I’d like to think it would be a given that whether to vaccinate under 18s would have no bearing on unlocking.
My personal take is that as schools will be out at or around unlocking day, anyway, I’d expect infection rates to drop in youngsters, buying quite a bit of time to offer them vaccination without needing to extend restrictions.
Then again, I’m a bit biased. Two of my nieces are currently forbidden from being vaxxed; one becomes eligible in late July (and will grab it then); the other is nearly two years short as it stands.
Do you have to be 18+ to consent to having a jab?
It’s not currently offered to the under-18s (with a few exemptions for those classed as specifically vulnerable or carers of the vulnerable).
As you can’t get the jab other than if it is offered, that means you ain’t getting it if you’re under 18.
Although the MHRA have approved it for ages 12-17, we aren’t offering it as a country. Which means it’s prohibited.
(There are also factors on consent (Foxy can explain it far better), but as I understand it, if you can be judged as able to understand and genuinely give consent, it isn’t as straightforward as a specific age. At 16-17 (my younger niece is 16), it’s pretty much automatic, under that, it’s down to whether you are deemed able to understand (Gillick competence https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/consent-to-treatment/children/ )
It's not quite prohibited - doctors can prescribe vaccination for 12-17 according to medial needs and circumstances. Quite a few under 17s have already had the vaccination in the UK for such reasons.
Which makes it more frustrating for the 15, 16, and 17 year olds who want to be vaccinated.
Yes. I suspect that that there may be an article in the Lancet coming up, about how a staggering number of teenagers claim to be living with someone who is 100% immuno-suppressed.
1) Buy some pork belly. 2) Score the skin/fat. 3) Buy a bag of sage at the supermarket. Put it in the blender (remove the plastic bag and the rubber band, unless you like the flavour). Put 5 big garlic cloves in the blender, and about 50ml of olive oil. Blend until you have a uniform mess. 4) Rub the blended up stuff (Marinade if you are a Remainer) into the pork. Put it in a container over night, with the rest of the blender up stuff poured over it. Put it in the fridge 5) Drink yourself unconscious.
The next day
1) fire up the oven to 200c 2) Put the pork in, skin up. 3) Put the "Sound Barrier" by David Lean on. 4) At the time that Ralph Richardson gives his brand new son in law a job as a test pilot at the funeral for his actual son, (30 min) turn the oven down to 160c 5) Watch the rest of the film 6) Start "Ice Cold In Alex". At about the time the they meet the German patro (40 minutes into Ice Cold in Alex), turn the heat back up to 220. This should be about 2 hours of cooking at the 160c 6) At the point where they are digging the grave (1 hour into the film), turn the oven off and take the meat out to rest. 7) when they start voicing their suspicions to each other about the South African chap taking repeated walks in the desert - 1:15 into the movie - it's ready
Some vegetarian pork belly substitute for me, please
I wonder if some also worry that vaccinating teens would be tied in with a delay to unlocking. Would opinions be different if these were explicitly disconnected? That is: “regardless of the level of rollout to teens, we will unlock on the 19th. Would you support offering the jab to teens who wanted it (with parental agreement)?”
This thought has crossed my mind. Given schools have been open as much as possible, I’d like to think it would be a given that whether to vaccinate under 18s would have no bearing on unlocking.
My personal take is that as schools will be out at or around unlocking day, anyway, I’d expect infection rates to drop in youngsters, buying quite a bit of time to offer them vaccination without needing to extend restrictions.
Then again, I’m a bit biased. Two of my nieces are currently forbidden from being vaxxed; one becomes eligible in late July (and will grab it then); the other is nearly two years short as it stands.
Do you have to be 18+ to consent to having a jab?
It’s not currently offered to the under-18s (with a few exemptions for those classed as specifically vulnerable or carers of the vulnerable).
As you can’t get the jab other than if it is offered, that means you ain’t getting it if you’re under 18.
Although the MHRA have approved it for ages 12-17, we aren’t offering it as a country. Which means it’s prohibited.
(There are also factors on consent (Foxy can explain it far better), but as I understand it, if you can be judged as able to understand and genuinely give consent, it isn’t as straightforward as a specific age. At 16-17 (my younger niece is 16), it’s pretty much automatic, under that, it’s down to whether you are deemed able to understand (Gillick competence https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/consent-to-treatment/children/ )
Yes, that is correct on consent, though healthcare professionals try to keep parents and children in agreement, ultimately if a child is competent to decide it is their decision.
Do you agree though? Don't you think it should be the parents' call until the child is an adult him/herself (18)?
The public are still evenly split on meaning of knee taking..
'Taking the knee' is...
A political statement that goes beyond simply expressing opposition to racism: 40% An apolitical statement that simply expresses opposition to racism and nothing more: 39% Don't know: 21%
It can be what you want it to be. The origins of course were certainly political.
I suppose being opposed to racism is a political statement.
Taking the knee was introduced to modern life by Colin Kaepernick at sporting events as a statement against racism.
The situation in the USA is completely different to that in the UK. Do we take on board political scenarios and protests from anywhere around the world? The English FA already had “kick it out”.
No. If the indigenes of the planet Tharg which circles a main sequence sun in Cassiopeia are cruelly enslaved by their insectoid Q'rr'om overlords, in principle I'm against that, but equally it is not my fucking problem, squire. I don't live in a country where the police shoot black men, or vote for a party which advocates a policy along those lines. What we are looking at is wannabe transatlanticism like Jagger's American accent in the 60s. Anyone feeling strongly about it is welcome to take a flight to philadelphia and punch a cop in the face.
So you were opposed to the repeated interventions in the political structure of Venus perpetrated by this notorious neo-colonialist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Dare), in the name of Spacefleet?
Treen lives matter. That wiki is riveting: who knew the Eagle was founded by the vicar of Southport and had Arthur C Clarke as science advisor?
Now you have me trying to remember which comic Hellmuth Walter was the advisor to....
The public are still evenly split on meaning of knee taking..
'Taking the knee' is...
A political statement that goes beyond simply expressing opposition to racism: 40% An apolitical statement that simply expresses opposition to racism and nothing more: 39% Don't know: 21%
It can be what you want it to be. The origins of course were certainly political.
I suppose being opposed to racism is a political statement.
Taking the knee was introduced to modern life by Colin Kaepernick at sporting events as a statement against racism.
The situation in the USA is completely different to that in the UK. Do we take on board political scenarios and protests from anywhere around the world? The English FA already had “kick it out”.
No. If the indigenes of the planet Tharg which circles a main sequence sun in Cassiopeia are cruelly enslaved by their insectoid Q'rr'om overlords, in principle I'm against that, but equally it is not my fucking problem, squire. I don't live in a country where the police shoot black men, or vote for a party which advocates a policy along those lines. What we are looking at is wannabe transatlanticism like Jagger's American accent in the 60s. Anyone feeling strongly about it is welcome to take a flight to philadelphia and punch a cop in the face.
So you were opposed to the repeated interventions in the political structure of Venus perpetrated by this notorious neo-colonialist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Dare), in the name of Spacefleet?
Treen lives matter. That wiki is riveting: who knew the Eagle was founded by the vicar of Southport and had Arthur C Clarke as science advisor?
How many knees do you take to signify TLM? 3 or more?
1) Buy some pork belly. 2) Score the skin/fat. 3) Buy a bag of sage at the supermarket. Put it in the blender (remove the plastic bag and the rubber band, unless you like the flavour). Put 5 big garlic cloves in the blender, and about 50ml of olive oil. Blend until you have a uniform mess. 4) Rub the blended up stuff (Marinade if you are a Remainer) into the pork. Put it in a container over night, with the rest of the blender up stuff poured over it. Put it in the fridge 5) Drink yourself unconscious.
The next day
1) fire up the oven to 200c 2) Put the pork in, skin up. 3) Put the "Sound Barrier" by David Lean on. 4) At the time that Ralph Richardson gives his brand new son in law a job as a test pilot at the funeral for his actual son, (30 min) turn the oven down to 160c 5) Watch the rest of the film 6) Start "Ice Cold In Alex". At about the time the they meet the German patro (40 minutes into Ice Cold in Alex), turn the heat back up to 220. This should be about 2 hours of cooking at the 160c 6) At the point where they are digging the grave (1 hour into the film), turn the oven off and take the meat out to rest. 7) when they start voicing their suspicions to each other about the South African chap taking repeated walks in the desert - 1:15 into the movie - it's ready
Some vegetarian pork belly substitute for me, please
I am not good enough at vegetarian dishes. I do know enough to despise the idea of "big pile of boiled/fried vegetables" that a surprising number of places think is a vegetarian meal.
The public are still evenly split on meaning of knee taking..
'Taking the knee' is...
A political statement that goes beyond simply expressing opposition to racism: 40% An apolitical statement that simply expresses opposition to racism and nothing more: 39% Don't know: 21%
It can be what you want it to be. The origins of course were certainly political.
I suppose being opposed to racism is a political statement.
Taking the knee was introduced to modern life by Colin Kaepernick at sporting events as a statement against racism.
The situation in the USA is completely different to that in the UK. Do we take on board political scenarios and protests from anywhere around the world? The English FA already had “kick it out”.
No. If the indigenes of the planet Tharg which circles a main sequence sun in Cassiopeia are cruelly enslaved by their insectoid Q'rr'om overlords, in principle I'm against that, but equally it is not my fucking problem, squire. I don't live in a country where the police shoot black men, or vote for a party which advocates a policy along those lines. What we are looking at is wannabe transatlanticism like Jagger's American accent in the 60s. Anyone feeling strongly about it is welcome to take a flight to philadelphia and punch a cop in the face.
Might I suggest sending some money to the NAACP?
WTF do I know about them and their politics? I'll pass in favour of more straightforward charities like sightsavers.org (which autocorrected to the less deserving sightseers.org).
I wonder if some also worry that vaccinating teens would be tied in with a delay to unlocking. Would opinions be different if these were explicitly disconnected? That is: “regardless of the level of rollout to teens, we will unlock on the 19th. Would you support offering the jab to teens who wanted it (with parental agreement)?”
This thought has crossed my mind. Given schools have been open as much as possible, I’d like to think it would be a given that whether to vaccinate under 18s would have no bearing on unlocking.
My personal take is that as schools will be out at or around unlocking day, anyway, I’d expect infection rates to drop in youngsters, buying quite a bit of time to offer them vaccination without needing to extend restrictions.
Then again, I’m a bit biased. Two of my nieces are currently forbidden from being vaxxed; one becomes eligible in late July (and will grab it then); the other is nearly two years short as it stands.
Do you have to be 18+ to consent to having a jab?
It’s not currently offered to the under-18s (with a few exemptions for those classed as specifically vulnerable or carers of the vulnerable).
As you can’t get the jab other than if it is offered, that means you ain’t getting it if you’re under 18.
Although the MHRA have approved it for ages 12-17, we aren’t offering it as a country. Which means it’s prohibited.
(There are also factors on consent (Foxy can explain it far better), but as I understand it, if you can be judged as able to understand and genuinely give consent, it isn’t as straightforward as a specific age. At 16-17 (my younger niece is 16), it’s pretty much automatic, under that, it’s down to whether you are deemed able to understand (Gillick competence https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/consent-to-treatment/children/ )
Yes, that is correct on consent, though healthcare professionals try to keep parents and children in agreement, ultimately if a child is competent to decide it is their decision.
Do you agree though? Don't you think it should be the parents' call until the child is an adult him/herself (18)?
No. Children with capacity have the ability to consent, by definition. The Gillick case established this in the Eighties.
I wonder if some also worry that vaccinating teens would be tied in with a delay to unlocking. Would opinions be different if these were explicitly disconnected? That is: “regardless of the level of rollout to teens, we will unlock on the 19th. Would you support offering the jab to teens who wanted it (with parental agreement)?”
This thought has crossed my mind. Given schools have been open as much as possible, I’d like to think it would be a given that whether to vaccinate under 18s would have no bearing on unlocking.
My personal take is that as schools will be out at or around unlocking day, anyway, I’d expect infection rates to drop in youngsters, buying quite a bit of time to offer them vaccination without needing to extend restrictions.
Then again, I’m a bit biased. Two of my nieces are currently forbidden from being vaxxed; one becomes eligible in late July (and will grab it then); the other is nearly two years short as it stands.
Do you have to be 18+ to consent to having a jab?
It’s not currently offered to the under-18s (with a few exemptions for those classed as specifically vulnerable or carers of the vulnerable).
As you can’t get the jab other than if it is offered, that means you ain’t getting it if you’re under 18.
Although the MHRA have approved it for ages 12-17, we aren’t offering it as a country. Which means it’s prohibited.
(There are also factors on consent (Foxy can explain it far better), but as I understand it, if you can be judged as able to understand and genuinely give consent, it isn’t as straightforward as a specific age. At 16-17 (my younger niece is 16), it’s pretty much automatic, under that, it’s down to whether you are deemed able to understand (Gillick competence https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/consent-to-treatment/children/ )
Yes, that is correct on consent, though healthcare professionals try to keep parents and children in agreement, ultimately if a child is competent to decide it is their decision.
Do you agree though? Don't you think it should be the parents' call until the child is an adult him/herself (18)?
That has been decided at a societal level many. many years ago. The main example was access to contraception.
No sign of a queue at the "mass" vaccination event at the Town Hall today so have we reached maximum take-up in Newham? I'd like to hope not but that looks a thoroughly miserable figure compared to the national numbers.
If Delta is going to precipitate a massacre in London then all I can say is it's taking its time getting started. Is it simply possible that so many people have already had Covid that most of the unvaccinated are either repelling Delta successfully, or not suffering symptoms if reinfected?
I just think that most of the population denominators used to determine percentage vaccinations are just cr*p. Even taking into account the generally younger populations which one would expect to result in London “lagging” there are areas which appear to have take-up levels some way below what you would expect.
Crap data arising from an itinerant population, as has also been offered as an explanation for the mysteriously low take-up in Oxford and Cambridge? That also sounds plausible.
Hmmm - the approach of "I don't like this data. Therefore I discard it."
What could possibly go wrong?
Now now, we know that there is a potential problem with NIMS versus ONS population estimates, which could be feeding into some of the odd vaccination stats we're getting. It's most unlikely to be the whole answer in somewhere like Newham, especially given the known relationship between ethnicity and hesitancy, but it might very well have something to do with it.
No sign of a queue at the "mass" vaccination event at the Town Hall today so have we reached maximum take-up in Newham? I'd like to hope not but that looks a thoroughly miserable figure compared to the national numbers.
If Delta is going to precipitate a massacre in London then all I can say is it's taking its time getting started. Is it simply possible that so many people have already had Covid that most of the unvaccinated are either repelling Delta successfully, or not suffering symptoms if reinfected?
I just think that most of the population denominators used to determine percentage vaccinations are just cr*p. Even taking into account the generally younger populations which one would expect to result in London “lagging” there are areas which appear to have take-up levels some way below what you would expect.
Crap data arising from an itinerant population, as has also been offered as an explanation for the mysteriously low take-up in Oxford and Cambridge? That also sounds plausible.
Hmmm - the approach of "I don't like this data. Therefore I discard it."
What could possibly go wrong?
Now now, we know that there is a potential problem with NIMS versus ONS population estimates, which could be feeding into some of the odd vaccination stats we're getting. It's most unlikely to be the whole answer in somewhere like Newham, especially given the known relationship between ethnicity and hesitancy, but it might very well have something to do with it.
In the case of Newham, vaccine take up is shit, whether you use ONS2019 or NIMS
The difference between the two sets of numbers is a handful of percent.
No sign of a queue at the "mass" vaccination event at the Town Hall today so have we reached maximum take-up in Newham? I'd like to hope not but that looks a thoroughly miserable figure compared to the national numbers.
If Delta is going to precipitate a massacre in London then all I can say is it's taking its time getting started. Is it simply possible that so many people have already had Covid that most of the unvaccinated are either repelling Delta successfully, or not suffering symptoms if reinfected?
I just think that most of the population denominators used to determine percentage vaccinations are just cr*p. Even taking into account the generally younger populations which one would expect to result in London “lagging” there are areas which appear to have take-up levels some way below what you would expect.
Crap data arising from an itinerant population, as has also been offered as an explanation for the mysteriously low take-up in Oxford and Cambridge? That also sounds plausible.
Hmmm - the approach of "I don't like this data. Therefore I discard it."
What could possibly go wrong?
I wouldn't say that's what it is. It's trying to look for explanations for data that is counter-intuitive, even potentially contradictory. It's no worse an explanation than saying that "everybody has already had Covid, so low vaccination levels aren't having a major effect".
The public are still evenly split on meaning of knee taking..
'Taking the knee' is...
A political statement that goes beyond simply expressing opposition to racism: 40% An apolitical statement that simply expresses opposition to racism and nothing more: 39% Don't know: 21%
I think the poll is nonsense, and the 39% who think opposition to racism is apolitical are muddle-headed. Of course opposition to racism is political, whatever form it takes.
I can imagine they got confused when the first question states “a political” and the next “an apolitical”.
In any event the focused on the second half: is it just about racism or about more than just racism
Bedfordshire: Admissions and total patients flat for about the last month, at less than 10% of the January peak; ventilation beds negligible.
Bolton: Admissions, total patients and ventilation beds all had two peaks (late May and early June.) Patients peaked at about a third of levels in January, ventilation beds were closer to previous peaks but the total number was low, at about a dozen. All three indicators now in steady decline for the last few weeks.
East Lancashire (covers Blackburn): Hospital admissions peaked at about 10% of the January peak in mid-June, hospital patients at 20% and ventilation beds at about 40%. Admissions running broadly flat in the high single-figures per day, other indicators have declined.
Manchester: Admissions broadly flat since mid-June and running at about a third of January peak. Hospital patient total about a third of January peak, rate of increase has slowed since mid-June and may be levelling off. Ventilation beds at about half of January peak (20 at last known date) and may still be rising gradually.
Leeds: Patient total has tripled, from a very low base, in the last month and is now at just shy of 10% of the November peak. Admissions in low single figures and either flat or increasing slightly. Ventilation beds negligible.
Scotland: Still increasing, daily admissions currently running at about 30% of January peak, total hospital patients at about 15%, ventilation beds flat or rising marginally.
Wales: Ventilation beds negligible, admissions very low and possibly falling, hospital patient total constant at about 40 (2% of January peak) for the past month.
London: Admissions broadly flat at less than 5% of the daily rate for the January peak; possible signs of a slight increase in the most recent numbers but too soon to tell. Total patient count up by only about 100 over the whole of the last month and still at less than 5% of January peak. Ventilation beds approximately doubled in the last month but still at only just over 5% of January peak.
Cornwall: Patients at about 10% of January peak, admissions and ventilation beds too low to discern a definite trend.
And in my neck of the woods...
Cambridge: three patients in hospital, numbers all at or close to zero since May.
Overall, if Delta is going to cricket bat the NHS then there is precious little sign of it.
Why are there these stories about Manchester in crisis?
Don’t worry, the SAJ is going to save us from the zerovidians
‘Javid said: “We need to be clear that cases are going to rise significantly. I know many people will be cautious about the easing of restrictions – that’s completely understandable. But no date we choose will ever come without risk, so we have to take a broad and balanced view.
“We are going to have to learn to accept the existence of Covid and find ways to cope with it – just as we already do with flu.”’
This eminently sensible statement was then completely misrepresented and skewed by, yes, some idiot Little Hitler scientist from Scotland
‘Reacting to the comments, Prof Stephen Reicher at the University of St Andrews, a member of the Sage subcommittee advising on behavioural science, tweeted: “It is frightening to have a ‘health’ secretary who still thinks Covid is flu’
THAT’S NOT WHAT JAVID SAID AND YOU KNOW IT
At some point the more irresponsible scientists need punishing. This guy would be a good place to start
He is also an ex-Banker so risk is a concept that he is more comfortable with than many in the Government
(mind you, he did work at Deutsche...)
What really worries me about Javid is I sort of think he's a chump, but a lucky one. I'm an ex-banker too, and what I've seen of him has never impressed me historically, not does his jumping in with both feet now. Undoubtedly he has spent more time and more thought on what's right and wrong at the moment than I have, but I personally don't feel fully comfortable with him at the helm.
(I very much hope I'm wrong and am singing his praises in six months' time)
No sign of a queue at the "mass" vaccination event at the Town Hall today so have we reached maximum take-up in Newham? I'd like to hope not but that looks a thoroughly miserable figure compared to the national numbers.
If Delta is going to precipitate a massacre in London then all I can say is it's taking its time getting started. Is it simply possible that so many people have already had Covid that most of the unvaccinated are either repelling Delta successfully, or not suffering symptoms if reinfected?
I just think that most of the population denominators used to determine percentage vaccinations are just cr*p. Even taking into account the generally younger populations which one would expect to result in London “lagging” there are areas which appear to have take-up levels some way below what you would expect.
Crap data arising from an itinerant population, as has also been offered as an explanation for the mysteriously low take-up in Oxford and Cambridge? That also sounds plausible.
Hmmm - the approach of "I don't like this data. Therefore I discard it."
What could possibly go wrong?
Now now, we know that there is a potential problem with NIMS versus ONS population estimates, which could be feeding into some of the odd vaccination stats we're getting. It's most unlikely to be the whole answer in somewhere like Newham, especially given the known relationship between ethnicity and hesitancy, but it might very well have something to do with it.
In the case of Newham, vaccine take up is shit, whether you use ONS2019 or NIMS
The difference between the two sets of numbers is a handful of percent.
Bedfordshire: Admissions and total patients flat for about the last month, at less than 10% of the January peak; ventilation beds negligible.
Bolton: Admissions, total patients and ventilation beds all had two peaks (late May and early June.) Patients peaked at about a third of levels in January, ventilation beds were closer to previous peaks but the total number was low, at about a dozen. All three indicators now in steady decline for the last few weeks.
East Lancashire (covers Blackburn): Hospital admissions peaked at about 10% of the January peak in mid-June, hospital patients at 20% and ventilation beds at about 40%. Admissions running broadly flat in the high single-figures per day, other indicators have declined.
Manchester: Admissions broadly flat since mid-June and running at about a third of January peak. Hospital patient total about a third of January peak, rate of increase has slowed since mid-June and may be levelling off. Ventilation beds at about half of January peak (20 at last known date) and may still be rising gradually.
Leeds: Patient total has tripled, from a very low base, in the last month and is now at just shy of 10% of the November peak. Admissions in low single figures and either flat or increasing slightly. Ventilation beds negligible.
Scotland: Still increasing, daily admissions currently running at about 30% of January peak, total hospital patients at about 15%, ventilation beds flat or rising marginally.
Wales: Ventilation beds negligible, admissions very low and possibly falling, hospital patient total constant at about 40 (2% of January peak) for the past month.
London: Admissions broadly flat at less than 5% of the daily rate for the January peak; possible signs of a slight increase in the most recent numbers but too soon to tell. Total patient count up by only about 100 over the whole of the last month and still at less than 5% of January peak. Ventilation beds approximately doubled in the last month but still at only just over 5% of January peak.
Cornwall: Patients at about 10% of January peak, admissions and ventilation beds too low to discern a definite trend.
And in my neck of the woods...
Cambridge: three patients in hospital, numbers all at or close to zero since May.
Overall, if Delta is going to cricket bat the NHS then there is precious little sign of it.
Good summary. To add, Bolton cases peak in June was about 80% of the November peak and pretty close to January one. Early days in the development of Leeds outbreak (which is very recent, initially studenty and in the rapid growth phase) and for the next Scottish tick up (which, and my they hide their MSOA data well, looked rather unstudenty), but no reason to think they should contradict what we've already seen.
The question is, given we're already seeing another kick of 70% per week case rises, and that further unlockdown will charge that further, what is the worst we can get to. We may have rebased cases to deaths over the last few months but, in the very short term, you'd have to still assume that a further eight fold increase in cases* would drive a near eight fold increase in Hospitalisations and deaths per the new base.
* you presumably end up at herd immunity fairly quickly, but with opening up totally, and a fair percentage not fully protected, peaking at 3% of the population getting COVID in a week at peak doesn't sound outlandish.
James Ward @JamesWard73 · 3h Finally, just keeping an eye on the male:female split, in case the football makes a difference. Case rates continue to be more male-biased than normal, and particularly in the 15-40s (and, more surprisingly, the 75-90s). But there’s been no big shifts in recent days. /end
This was the plan for Dominic Cummings to run the whole NHS from Number 10. Maybe The Saj is right to wonder if the game is worth the candle.
Indeed, I noted this in my header on 17/5/2020:
"It is quite striking how at the first whiff of gunpowder the policy of the last 30 years of localised commissioning and increased independence of providers vapourised. Since March the NHS has had a top down system more centralised than ever in its history. Decision making descends from Whitehall, and while some of these decisions may well have been mistaken or reckless, others have been more successful. Even Mr Corbyn must have raised a quizzical eyebrow at the requisitioning of the Private Hospitals, and effective abolition of private medical practice in the UK for the first time in history.
How long will this centralised system continue? Or will services be restored to local organisational control, with all the risks of fragmentation and loss of political control?"
Responsibility for those mushrooming waiting lists is now Javid's. I don't think that he has a real plan to address them. The billion pounds allocated is a fraction of what is financially needed, but the bigger problems are going to be personnel and buildings.
My own Trust is cancelling some lists already owing to staff shortages, for example.
Best comment I’ve seen on vaccine take up. “ Look, either get vaccinated before more strains appear or we all have to learn the Greek alphabet. Those are the options.”
No sign of a queue at the "mass" vaccination event at the Town Hall today so have we reached maximum take-up in Newham? I'd like to hope not but that looks a thoroughly miserable figure compared to the national numbers.
If Delta is going to precipitate a massacre in London then all I can say is it's taking its time getting started. Is it simply possible that so many people have already had Covid that most of the unvaccinated are either repelling Delta successfully, or not suffering symptoms if reinfected?
I just think that most of the population denominators used to determine percentage vaccinations are just cr*p. Even taking into account the generally younger populations which one would expect to result in London “lagging” there are areas which appear to have take-up levels some way below what you would expect.
Crap data arising from an itinerant population, as has also been offered as an explanation for the mysteriously low take-up in Oxford and Cambridge? That also sounds plausible.
Hmmm - the approach of "I don't like this data. Therefore I discard it."
What could possibly go wrong?
Now now, we know that there is a potential problem with NIMS versus ONS population estimates, which could be feeding into some of the odd vaccination stats we're getting. It's most unlikely to be the whole answer in somewhere like Newham, especially given the known relationship between ethnicity and hesitancy, but it might very well have something to do with it.
In the case of Newham, vaccine take up is shit, whether you use ONS2019 or NIMS
The difference between the two sets of numbers is a handful of percent.
Why do either of them have to be accurate?
Well, we have various checks on the data - including other surveys, public service provision etc etc. The population of Newham isn't accidentally 40% less than we think it is.
No sign of a queue at the "mass" vaccination event at the Town Hall today so have we reached maximum take-up in Newham? I'd like to hope not but that looks a thoroughly miserable figure compared to the national numbers.
If Delta is going to precipitate a massacre in London then all I can say is it's taking its time getting started. Is it simply possible that so many people have already had Covid that most of the unvaccinated are either repelling Delta successfully, or not suffering symptoms if reinfected?
London did get absolutely smashed in the winter, I would not be surprised even with low vaccination rate if it is at herd immunity levels.
No sign of a queue at the "mass" vaccination event at the Town Hall today so have we reached maximum take-up in Newham? I'd like to hope not but that looks a thoroughly miserable figure compared to the national numbers.
If you choose not to get vaccinated it's no-one's fault but your own. Nobody can claim they haven't been able to get enough information about the subject.
No sign of a queue at the "mass" vaccination event at the Town Hall today so have we reached maximum take-up in Newham? I'd like to hope not but that looks a thoroughly miserable figure compared to the national numbers.
If Delta is going to precipitate a massacre in London then all I can say is it's taking its time getting started. Is it simply possible that so many people have already had Covid that most of the unvaccinated are either repelling Delta successfully, or not suffering symptoms if reinfected?
London did get absolutely smashed in the winter, I would not be surprised even with low vaccination rate if it is at herd immunity levels.
No sign of a queue at the "mass" vaccination event at the Town Hall today so have we reached maximum take-up in Newham? I'd like to hope not but that looks a thoroughly miserable figure compared to the national numbers.
If Delta is going to precipitate a massacre in London then all I can say is it's taking its time getting started. Is it simply possible that so many people have already had Covid that most of the unvaccinated are either repelling Delta successfully, or not suffering symptoms if reinfected?
London did get absolutely smashed in the winter, I would not be surprised even with low vaccination rate if it is at herd immunity levels.
Would an anti-vaxer have the vaccine if it were available orally? Like the Salk polio vaccine which was swallowed on a lump of sugar in the 1950s, having been an injection up to that point. "A spoonful of sugar makes the medicine go down .."
Good header - good reminder. I do find this polling surprising - I would not have guessed such strong support for restrictions but it has been remarkably consistent.
It's support for prioritising life over economic growth - nothing to do with "restrictions".
I want the current restrictions to be eased but I like the idea people value life more than economic prosperity because it changes or re-frames the national debate and priorities.
I agree. It's irrational that the public sign up to a sentiment like "one Covid death is one too many" but it's at the same time heartening. Who wants a public who can and do weigh up the value of a human life, objectively and dispassionately, and arrive at the correct answer of £27,000? - Not me.
The NHS does this all the time. They have to decide whether a very expensive treatment is justified or not, because funds are not unlimited. People prefer not to talk about it most of the time, which is understandable.
Good header - good reminder. I do find this polling surprising - I would not have guessed such strong support for restrictions but it has been remarkably consistent.
It's support for prioritising life over economic growth - nothing to do with "restrictions".
I want the current restrictions to be eased but I like the idea people value life more than economic prosperity because it changes or re-frames the national debate and priorities.
I agree. It's irrational that the public sign up to a sentiment like "one Covid death is one too many" but it's at the same time heartening. Who wants a public who can and do weigh up the value of a human life, objectively and dispassionately, and arrive at the correct answer of £27,000? - Not me.
The NHS does this all the time. They have to decide whether a very expensive treatment is justified or not, because funds are not unlimited. People prefer not to talk about it most of the time, which is understandable.
It's why the media are able to whip up major campaigns whenever a new "wonder drug" comes along for rare syndromes.
Good header - good reminder. I do find this polling surprising - I would not have guessed such strong support for restrictions but it has been remarkably consistent.
It's support for prioritising life over economic growth - nothing to do with "restrictions".
I want the current restrictions to be eased but I like the idea people value life more than economic prosperity because it changes or re-frames the national debate and priorities.
I agree. It's irrational that the public sign up to a sentiment like "one Covid death is one too many" but it's at the same time heartening. Who wants a public who can and do weigh up the value of a human life, objectively and dispassionately, and arrive at the correct answer of £27,000? - Not me.
The NHS does this all the time. They have to decide whether a very expensive treatment is justified or not, because funds are not unlimited. People prefer not to talk about it most of the time, which is understandable.
Apart from Americans who love to talk about things like NHS "death panels".
No sign of a queue at the "mass" vaccination event at the Town Hall today so have we reached maximum take-up in Newham? I'd like to hope not but that looks a thoroughly miserable figure compared to the national numbers.
If Delta is going to precipitate a massacre in London then all I can say is it's taking its time getting started. Is it simply possible that so many people have already had Covid that most of the unvaccinated are either repelling Delta successfully, or not suffering symptoms if reinfected?
London did get absolutely smashed in the winter, I would not be surprised even with low vaccination rate if it is at herd immunity levels.
Good header - good reminder. I do find this polling surprising - I would not have guessed such strong support for restrictions but it has been remarkably consistent.
It's support for prioritising life over economic growth - nothing to do with "restrictions".
I want the current restrictions to be eased but I like the idea people value life more than economic prosperity because it changes or re-frames the national debate and priorities.
I agree. It's irrational that the public sign up to a sentiment like "one Covid death is one too many" but it's at the same time heartening. Who wants a public who can and do weigh up the value of a human life, objectively and dispassionately, and arrive at the correct answer of £27,000? - Not me.
The NHS does this all the time. They have to decide whether a very expensive treatment is justified or not, because funds are not unlimited. People prefer not to talk about it most of the time, which is understandable.
Oh yes, absolutely. Because resources are finite. And by the way, NICE - for whom arriving at this sort of decision is their raison d'etre - is one of our most successful conceptual exports.
I disagree wholly with @kinabalu here. I don't find it heartening at all. I want a public who know that the value of life is more than just not dying. Who will - whether by calculation or instinct - know that the risk to life in walking Striding Edge, in climbing Snowdon, in sailing the Sea of the Hebrides, in getting lost in the euphoria of a sweaty club; in joining the chorus in your church or your stadium of choice, in socialising heartily, carelessly; in falling in love; in cherishing your family; in bringing life and opportunity to your children and grnadchildren; in doing whatever it is that proves you ALIVE is worth it in comparison to counting off another day safe at home without dying. I want a public who sees their own safety as a consideration, not a guiding principle. I don't want to get to 90 and find I've never actually lived a day.
There's a time and a place for safety. Let's slow traffic down so we don't imperil the lives of those working beside them. Let's make sure our ships are adequately stashed with lifeboats. But let us not let safety prevent us from living.
Shock horror its another moonlighting Indy sage member saying you can't have personal responsibility. He is on the government behaviour committee....are there any on that committee that aren't also part of indy sage and spend their days rallying against the government?
Good header - good reminder. I do find this polling surprising - I would not have guessed such strong support for restrictions but it has been remarkably consistent.
It's support for prioritising life over economic growth - nothing to do with "restrictions".
I want the current restrictions to be eased but I like the idea people value life more than economic prosperity because it changes or re-frames the national debate and priorities.
I agree. It's irrational that the public sign up to a sentiment like "one Covid death is one too many" but it's at the same time heartening. Who wants a public who can and do weigh up the value of a human life, objectively and dispassionately, and arrive at the correct answer of £27,000? - Not me.
The NHS does this all the time. They have to decide whether a very expensive treatment is justified or not, because funds are not unlimited. People prefer not to talk about it most of the time, which is understandable.
Oh yes, absolutely. Because resources are finite. And by the way, NICE - for whom arriving at this sort of decision is their raison d'etre - is one of our most successful conceptual exports.
I disagree wholly with @kinabalu here. I don't find it heartening at all. I want a public who know that the value of life is more than just not dying. Who will - whether by calculation or instinct - know that the risk to life in walking Striding Edge, in climbing Snowdon, in sailing the Sea of the Hebrides, in getting lost in the euphoria of a sweaty club; in joining the chorus in your church or your stadium of choice, in socialising heartily, carelessly; in falling in love; in cherishing your family; in bringing life and opportunity to your children and grnadchildren; in doing whatever it is that proves you ALIVE is worth it in comparison to counting off another day safe at home without dying. I want a public who sees their own safety as a consideration, not a guiding principle. I don't want to get to 90 and find I've never actually lived a day.
There's a time and a place for safety. Let's slow traffic down so we don't imperil the lives of those working beside them. Let's make sure our ships are adequately stashed with lifeboats. But let us not let safety prevent us from living.
A beautifully written post if I may say so. And I quite agree. There is a time for living well, and a time to die well. I'd like to see both encouraged rather than shied away from.
The article says his tweet was liked by 44,000 people. Even Boris Johnson doesn't agree with her. She's toxic. How can anyone with a soul dislike showing solidarity with the downtrodden?
Shock horror its another moonlighting Indy sage member saying you can't have personal responsibility. He is on the government behaviour committee....are there any on that committee that aren't also part of indy sage and spend their days rallying against the government?
Personally I think its a good thing that these government advisors have outed and discredited themselves as nutty cranks by speaking in public.
White man patronises ethnic minority woman talking about race.
Totally predictable that "progressives" would side with the... former.
Why is it patronising to engage with Patel about race if you don't agree with what she says?
Also why is it a shock for "progressives" would side with the former. If they support the former and totally disagree with "reactionaries and racists" like Patel, it's hardly a surprise
Tomorrow's papers have a midnight embargo for one of the main stories.
I have memories from just over a couple of decades ago of leaving Brixton tube station after catching one of the last tubes south of an evening and being able to pick up the first edition of the next day's paper from outside the station. A midnight embargo seems like a bizarrely retrograde step.
Shock horror its another moonlighting Indy sage member saying you can't have personal responsibility. He is on the government behaviour committee....are there any on that committee that aren't also part of indy sage and spend their days rallying against the government?
Personally I think its a good thing that these government advisors have outed and discredited themselves as nutty cranks by speaking in public.
Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
They really shouldn't still be on proper sage if they go off and join the cranks. For starters they are given access to privileged information. There is one thing have a difference of opinion, but some literally sit in the meeting, come out of it and run to the media and say government doing it all wrong and the advice is totally misguided.....and of course we have had some of these sub-committee have sensitive information leak...now who could do that....
Whatever it is the Mail has on its front page as a secondary story and that we can't see for a couple of hours, all the other papers are either the footy or Indy SAGE get back in the bunker it isn't safe stories.
Shock horror its another moonlighting Indy sage member saying you can't have personal responsibility. He is on the government behaviour committee....are there any on that committee that aren't also part of indy sage and spend their days rallying against the government?
Personally I think its a good thing that these government advisors have outed and discredited themselves as nutty cranks by speaking in public.
Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
They really shouldn't still be on proper sage if they go off and join the cranks. For starters they are given access to privileged information.
Disagreed completely.
If there's privileged information that's part of the problem, the science as much as possible should be open sourced and accessible to everyone to peer reviewed.
However more importantly these people were always cranks - but its only because they've been speaking up that their crankiness has been identifiable.
Had they remained anonymous and on SAGE they'd have been every bit as much of a crank, but that would be known to nobody but themselves.
White man patronises ethnic minority woman talking about race.
Totally predictable that "progressives" would side with the... former.
Why is it patronising to engage with Patel about race if you don't agree with what she says?
Also why is it a shock for "progressives" would side with the former. If they support the former and totally disagree with "reactionaries and racists" like Patel, it's hardly a surprise
Yes, I agree completely.
I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy from people who would make that argument in a heartbeat if the positions were reversed.
Interesting bit of bias by omission from the BBC here. Lots of focus on football fans and their flags and them being antisemitic....the bus incident, a man said he wanted to slit his throat for palestine, shank him, followed by a load of antisemitic abuse.
Whatever it is the Mail has on its front page as a secondary story and that we can't see for a couple of hours, all the other papers are either the footy or Indy SAGE get back in the bunker it isn't safe stories.
Whatever it is the Mail has on its front page as a secondary story and that we can't see for a couple of hours, all the other papers are either the footy or Indy SAGE get back in the bunker it isn't safe stories.
Part of the i front page is hidden too.
I missed that.... can't be that big a story if "mobile ban in schools" is the lead story. Exclusive hidden wild swimming spot revealed? They obviously don't want the guardian scooping the story.
Good header - good reminder. I do find this polling surprising - I would not have guessed such strong support for restrictions but it has been remarkably consistent.
It's support for prioritising life over economic growth - nothing to do with "restrictions".
I want the current restrictions to be eased but I like the idea people value life more than economic prosperity because it changes or re-frames the national debate and priorities.
I agree. It's irrational that the public sign up to a sentiment like "one Covid death is one too many" but it's at the same time heartening. Who wants a public who can and do weigh up the value of a human life, objectively and dispassionately, and arrive at the correct answer of £27,000? - Not me.
The NHS does this all the time. They have to decide whether a very expensive treatment is justified or not, because funds are not unlimited. People prefer not to talk about it most of the time, which is understandable.
Oh yes, absolutely. Because resources are finite. And by the way, NICE - for whom arriving at this sort of decision is their raison d'etre - is one of our most successful conceptual exports.
I disagree wholly with @kinabalu here. I don't find it heartening at all. I want a public who know that the value of life is more than just not dying. Who will - whether by calculation or instinct - know that the risk to life in walking Striding Edge, in climbing Snowdon, in sailing the Sea of the Hebrides, in getting lost in the euphoria of a sweaty club; in joining the chorus in your church or your stadium of choice, in socialising heartily, carelessly; in falling in love; in cherishing your family; in bringing life and opportunity to your children and grnadchildren; in doing whatever it is that proves you ALIVE is worth it in comparison to counting off another day safe at home without dying. I want a public who sees their own safety as a consideration, not a guiding principle. I don't want to get to 90 and find I've never actually lived a day.
There's a time and a place for safety. Let's slow traffic down so we don't imperil the lives of those working beside them. Let's make sure our ships are adequately stashed with lifeboats. But let us not let safety prevent us from living.
I completely agree with your lovely post. At the end of the day there are no absolutes, it is a question of the balance of risks. As modern humans we hate to contemplate our own mortality, much less those of our loved ones. But every day we make decisions that involve a balance between the risk of death or injury to us or our loved ones and our own happiness. Our fathers took great risks in WW2 for the sake of our freedom from tyranny. We have the luxury of taking a more risk averse approach to life, but if we indulge too much in that we will ruin it for sure.
White man patronises ethnic minority woman talking about race.
Totally predictable that "progressives" would side with the... former.
Priti Patel is white.
She's a liar and she's thick . She's been sacked twice for dishonesty. The question isn't what colour she is but what's she doing being our Home Secretary?
Comments
As you can’t get the jab other than if it is offered, that means you ain’t getting it if you’re under 18.
Although the MHRA have approved it for ages 12-17, we aren’t offering it as a country. Which means it’s prohibited.
(There are also factors on consent (Foxy can explain it far better), but as I understand it, if you can be judged as able to understand and genuinely give consent, it isn’t as straightforward as a specific age. At 16-17 (my younger niece is 16), it’s pretty much automatic, under that, it’s down to whether you are deemed able to understand (Gillick competence https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/consent-to-treatment/children/ )
In the spirit of the world cup, I give you
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCmhR2JK1VE
Omg they just brought me the best lamb dish I’ve ever had
ITAR - do not fuck with that law. One thing AOC and Marjorie Taylor Greene will agree on is that people who break that law deserve what they get.....
In general, i find that judging an expert is a bit like find a school that teaches, or a car mechanism who can actually improve the condition of your car. Yes, you may not be an expert, but a bit of reading, investigation and an intelligent person can make a judgement....
What could possibly go wrong?
Harris still favourite for the nomination at 3.2 vs Biden 3.55.
Which means Biden more likely to win IF he is the candidate - which obviously makes sense.
A pretty good summary can be found here - https://learning.nspcc.org.uk/child-protection-system/gillick-competence-fraser-guidelines#case-history-legislation-and-guidance
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/jul/04/johnson-set-to-press-on-with-plans-for-greater-control-over-nhs
The difference between the two sets of numbers is a handful of percent.
In any event the focused on the second half: is it just about racism or about more than just racism
(I very much hope I'm wrong and am singing his praises in six months' time)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57716131
Violating China data collection rules....i presume they weren't sending enough to the government.
The question is, given we're already seeing another kick of 70% per week case rises, and that further unlockdown will charge that further, what is the worst we can get to. We may have rebased cases to deaths over the last few months but, in the very short term, you'd have to still assume that a further eight fold increase in cases* would drive a near eight fold increase in Hospitalisations and deaths per the new base.
* you presumably end up at herd immunity fairly quickly, but with opening up totally, and a fair percentage not fully protected, peaking at 3% of the population getting COVID in a week at peak doesn't sound outlandish.
@JamesWard73
·
3h
Finally, just keeping an eye on the male:female split, in case the football makes a difference. Case rates continue to be more male-biased than normal, and particularly in the 15-40s (and, more surprisingly, the 75-90s). But there’s been no big shifts in recent days. /end
"It is quite striking how at the first whiff of gunpowder the policy of the last 30 years of localised commissioning and increased independence of providers vapourised. Since March the NHS has had a top down system more centralised than ever in its history. Decision making descends from Whitehall, and while some of these decisions may well have been mistaken or reckless, others have been more successful. Even Mr Corbyn must have raised a quizzical eyebrow at the requisitioning of the Private Hospitals, and effective abolition of private medical practice in the UK for the first time in history.
How long will this centralised system continue? Or will services be restored to local organisational control, with all the risks of fragmentation and loss of political control?"
Responsibility for those mushrooming waiting lists is now Javid's. I don't think that he has a real plan to address them. The billion pounds allocated is a fraction of what is financially needed, but the bigger problems are going to be personnel and buildings.
My own Trust is cancelling some lists already owing to staff shortages, for example.
“ Look, either get vaccinated before more strains appear or we all have to learn the Greek alphabet. Those are the options.”
"A spoonful of sugar makes the medicine go down .."
https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/gary-neville-priti-patel-england-24457225
Hardly a “tongue lashing”
I disagree wholly with @kinabalu here. I don't find it heartening at all. I want a public who know that the value of life is more than just not dying. Who will - whether by calculation or instinct - know that the risk to life in walking Striding Edge, in climbing Snowdon, in sailing the Sea of the Hebrides, in getting lost in the euphoria of a sweaty club; in joining the chorus in your church or your stadium of choice, in socialising heartily, carelessly; in falling in love; in cherishing your family; in bringing life and opportunity to your children and grnadchildren; in doing whatever it is that proves you ALIVE is worth it in comparison to counting off another day safe at home without dying. I want a public who sees their own safety as a consideration, not a guiding principle. I don't want to get to 90 and find I've never actually lived a day.
There's a time and a place for safety. Let's slow traffic down so we don't imperil the lives of those working beside them. Let's make sure our ships are adequately stashed with lifeboats. But let us not let safety prevent us from living.
Totally predictable that "progressives" would side with the... former.
https://youtu.be/GEVY-zBS0G0
Shock horror its another moonlighting Indy sage member saying you can't have personal responsibility. He is on the government behaviour committee....are there any on that committee that aren't also part of indy sage and spend their days rallying against the government?
I'd like to see both encouraged rather than shied away from.
Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9754419/Trumps-White-House-physician-says-Democrats-demand-Joe-Biden-cognitive-test.html
Also why is it a shock for "progressives" would side with the former. If they support the former and totally disagree with "reactionaries and racists" like Patel, it's hardly a surprise
IE giving people/business more time to prepare as per my suggestion on here the other day
Received my paper vaccine certificate yesterday from the NHS. I'm just hoping it'll be accepted everywhere as much as an electronic version would be.
If there's privileged information that's part of the problem, the science as much as possible should be open sourced and accessible to everyone to peer reviewed.
However more importantly these people were always cranks - but its only because they've been speaking up that their crankiness has been identifiable.
Had they remained anonymous and on SAGE they'd have been every bit as much of a crank, but that would be known to nobody but themselves.
I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy from people who would make that argument in a heartbeat if the positions were reversed.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-57705786
Interesting bit of bias by omission from the BBC here. Lots of focus on football fans and their flags and them being antisemitic....the bus incident, a man said he wanted to slit his throat for palestine, shank him, followed by a load of antisemitic abuse.
How boring, I'm off to bed.
Wills and Kate?
However, if people want to regularly do so, they need to accept being treated as a political figure in turn.
https://www.tomorrowspapers.co.uk/