Is it me or has it all gone a bit quiet at the heart of government as the media and medical war against freedom day intensifies.
Is Boris wavering?
Just for you Contrarian.
Boris Johnson may tone down ‘freedom’ rhetoric amid reopening jitters
“ministers had been spooked by internal polling. One said the data showed just 10% of the public support the policy of scrapping all restrictions at once, while another said substantially more people believed the government was moving too quickly than at the last reopening step on 17 May.”
From the Guardian.
It does make most sense in politics to underpromise and overdeliver? Or not?
It's bizzare the 8 week rule is being strict enforced on i The portion of the population where a 3-8 week gap difference will make sod all difference Ii The vaccine primarily where it makes little difference Iii When first dose demand is dropping iv The JCVI is preventing new demand from under 18s. v It is being linked to external incentives
Has no-one in Government considered this lot in the round ?
I suspect slow Pfizer supply is driving this. i.e if they allow a three week gap now, it will be at the expense of those that got their first dose earlier, who will see their gap extend beyond 8 weeks.
However, if the supply comes in batches, which I think it does, there is an argument for using the batch as quickly as possible, then closing the vaccination centre and telling people who aren't yet double-jabbed to come back in August
It does and we'll probably have enough Pfizer and Moderna to do all current people twice by the end of July. Don't forget that the 60m H2 order has commenced and we're now into the second half of our Moderna order which necessitates second doses for Moderna people.
Given the large number of unvaccinated among the under 30s you could argue that we shouldn't be trying to reduce infections among them if we want to reach herd immunity.
And that giving greater long term protection by delaying the second dose for those who are vaccinated is also worth having.
Why are people talking about herd immunity ?
It won't be happening any time soon.
Double jabbed people pass on the virus, as do people who have had it before.
We need over 85% of people (assuming R0 = 7 in unrestricted conditions) to be unable to pass on the virus.
We are miles and miles from that.
Double jabbed get the virus at a much lower rate, and then also pass on the virus at a lower rate. That gives a compound impact on R.
You're wasting your time trying to explain things to a zero covidian.
Who is a zero Covidian ?
This place is amazing, anyone who dares suggest that things are not as perfect as many like to make out are dismissed as extremeists.
FWIW
I agree with removing the restrictions, I agree with not forcing the wearing of masks.
However, I am also quite capable of talking about the negatives of this approach without pretending everything is suddenly great again and this is going away leading us back to 2019.
Who said everything is great again ?
Because everything wasn't great beforehand, never has been and never will be.
Life is about making decisions in an imperfect world, a world in which we all will at some point die.
Its about weighing up the risks and rewards, the potential costs and benefits, of choices and dealing with what happens.
With rights go responsibilities and with choices go consequences.
And people will have many choices - whether to get vaccinated, where to go and what activities to do, whether to wear a mask.
I see from The Times front page they report that the hospitalisations at present are worse than were predicted in the original modelling just two weeks ago.
When it is the other way around that error is ceased upon by many on the forum as evidence of over cautious zero Covid scientists.
When the error is this way around what does that make those same scientists and how come that kind of error gets far less mention on this forum ?
Is it possible that the criteria for hospital admission have been relaxed now that there's less pressure on staff and facilities? Also, current cases are younger people with a better prognosis and therefore more likely to benefit from hospital care if they have severe symptoms. Without a breakdown of the hospitalisation figures into age groups, vaccination status and pre-existing conditions it's difficult to infer much from the raw figures. And I wonder if the original modelling predicted a breakdown along those lines or just a headline figure. If it didn't it wasn't much of a model from a strategy perspective. The inadequacy of the raw figures, flexible sampling methodology and opaque modelling assumptions make the daily numbers a fertile basis for wishful thinking on all sides of the argument.
No idea, but again you are looking for reasons to confirm your conformational bias.
Has is become harder to get into hospital with covid now ? Has the bar been raised to allow the NHS to start getting through the long waiting lists ?
No idea, probably not, but why always only seek an explanation that fits you world view than challenging yourself that maybe, just maybe, those who you disagree with may have been more correct that you first imagined?
It's bizzare the 8 week rule is being strict enforced on i The portion of the population where a 3-8 week gap difference will make sod all difference Ii The vaccine primarily where it makes little difference Iii When first dose demand is dropping iv The JCVI is preventing new demand from under 18s. v It is being linked to external incentives
Has no-one in Government considered this lot in the round ?
I suspect slow Pfizer supply is driving this. i.e if they allow a three week gap now, it will be at the expense of those that got their first dose earlier, who will see their gap extend beyond 8 weeks.
However, if the supply comes in batches, which I think it does, there is an argument for using the batch as quickly as possible, then closing the vaccination centre and telling people who aren't yet double-jabbed to come back in August
It does and we'll probably have enough Pfizer and Moderna to do all current people twice by the end of July. Don't forget that the 60m H2 order has commenced and we're now into the second half of our Moderna order which necessitates second doses for Moderna people.
Given the large number of unvaccinated among the under 30s you could argue that we shouldn't be trying to reduce infections among them if we want to reach herd immunity.
And that giving greater long term protection by delaying the second dose for those who are vaccinated is also worth having.
Why are people talking about herd immunity ?
It won't be happening any time soon.
Double jabbed people pass on the virus, as do people who have had it before.
We need over 85% of people (assuming R0 = 7 in unrestricted conditions) to be unable to pass on the virus.
We are miles and miles from that.
Double jabbed get the virus at a much lower rate, and then also pass on the virus at a lower rate. That gives a compound impact on R.
You're wasting your time trying to explain things to a zero covidian.
Who is a zero Covidian ?
This place is amazing, anyone who dares suggest that things are not as perfect as many like to make out are dismissed as extremeists.
FWIW
I agree with removing the restrictions, I agree with not forcing the wearing of masks.
However, I am also quite capable of talking about the negatives of this approach without pretending everything is suddenly great again and this is going away leading us back to 2019.
Who said everything is great again ?
Because everything wasn't great beforehand, never has been and never will be.
Life is about making decisions in an imperfect world, a world in which we all will at some point die.
Its about weighing up the risks and rewards, the potential costs and benefits, of choices and dealing with what happens.
With rights go responsibilities and with choices go consequences.
And people will have many choices - whether to get vaccinated, where to go and what activities to do, whether to wear a mask.
I see from The Times front page they report that the hospitalisations at present are worse than were predicted in the original modelling just two weeks ago.
When it is the other way around that error is ceased upon by many on the forum as evidence of over cautious zero Covid scientists.
When the error is this way around what does that make those same scientists and how come that kind of error gets far less mention on this forum ?
The Warwick model seems to have been predicting about 1500 hospital admissions and 9000 in hospital by now. Plus over 100k daily infections:
so you pick out the one out of many that over estimated and ignore the ones that under estimated.
I am seeing a pattern here.
Which of the models does the Times claim the reality is exceeding? The LSHTM is the closer, but admissions in reality still lower, and significantly lower on cases / bed occupied / deaths.
I have no idea, I really do not care.
It explains a lot that you are not all over this though, if it were the other way around I have zero doubt you'd know exactly which models had over estimated the cases, you'd know who the individuals were who were involved and they would all be extremist zero Covidians according to some on here.
Because these models provided you a comfort of conformational bias though there has been no such interest taken, not even bothered to find out which the models are since you've no reason to want to better understand them or challenge them.
It's classical human nature, to seek out what you agree with and dismiss anything that counters your views, it's displayed in abundance on this forum.
I would hope that people don't dismiss those models or evidence that doesn't support their position. I would hope that people accept there will be a range of outcomes and be able to overlay their own preferences on that range.
It's bizzare the 8 week rule is being strict enforced on i The portion of the population where a 3-8 week gap difference will make sod all difference Ii The vaccine primarily where it makes little difference Iii When first dose demand is dropping iv The JCVI is preventing new demand from under 18s. v It is being linked to external incentives
Has no-one in Government considered this lot in the round ?
I suspect slow Pfizer supply is driving this. i.e if they allow a three week gap now, it will be at the expense of those that got their first dose earlier, who will see their gap extend beyond 8 weeks.
However, if the supply comes in batches, which I think it does, there is an argument for using the batch as quickly as possible, then closing the vaccination centre and telling people who aren't yet double-jabbed to come back in August
It does and we'll probably have enough Pfizer and Moderna to do all current people twice by the end of July. Don't forget that the 60m H2 order has commenced and we're now into the second half of our Moderna order which necessitates second doses for Moderna people.
Given the large number of unvaccinated among the under 30s you could argue that we shouldn't be trying to reduce infections among them if we want to reach herd immunity.
And that giving greater long term protection by delaying the second dose for those who are vaccinated is also worth having.
Why are people talking about herd immunity ?
It won't be happening any time soon.
Double jabbed people pass on the virus, as do people who have had it before.
We need over 85% of people (assuming R0 = 7 in unrestricted conditions) to be unable to pass on the virus.
We are miles and miles from that.
Double jabbed get the virus at a much lower rate, and then also pass on the virus at a lower rate. That gives a compound impact on R.
You're wasting your time trying to explain things to a zero covidian.
Who is a zero Covidian ?
This place is amazing, anyone who dares suggest that things are not as perfect as many like to make out are dismissed as extremeists.
FWIW
I agree with removing the restrictions, I agree with not forcing the wearing of masks.
However, I am also quite capable of talking about the negatives of this approach without pretending everything is suddenly great again and this is going away leading us back to 2019.
Who said everything is great again ?
Because everything wasn't great beforehand, never has been and never will be.
Life is about making decisions in an imperfect world, a world in which we all will at some point die.
Its about weighing up the risks and rewards, the potential costs and benefits, of choices and dealing with what happens.
With rights go responsibilities and with choices go consequences.
And people will have many choices - whether to get vaccinated, where to go and what activities to do, whether to wear a mask.
I see from The Times front page they report that the hospitalisations at present are worse than were predicted in the original modelling just two weeks ago.
When it is the other way around that error is ceased upon by many on the forum as evidence of over cautious zero Covid scientists.
When the error is this way around what does that make those same scientists and how come that kind of error gets far less mention on this forum ?
The Warwick model seems to have been predicting about 1500 hospital admissions and 9000 in hospital by now. Plus over 100k daily infections:
so you pick out the one out of many that over estimated and ignore the ones that under estimated.
I am seeing a pattern here.
Which of the models does the Times claim the reality is exceeding? The LSHTM is the closer, but admissions in reality still lower, and significantly lower on cases / bed occupied / deaths.
I have no idea, I really do not care.
It explains a lot that you are not all over this though, if it were the other way around I have zero doubt you'd know exactly which models had over estimated the cases, you'd know who the individuals were who were involved and they would all be extremist zero Covidians according to some on here.
Because these models provided you a comfort of conformational bias though there has been no such interest taken, not even bothered to find out which the models are since you've no reason to want to better understand them or challenge them.
It's classical human nature, to seek out what you agree with and dismiss anything that counters your views, it's displayed in abundance on this forum.
So you don't even know if the Times is correct? The Warwick and LSHTM models predicted 100k+ cases a day by now, far higher deaths and hospital beds being used. The lower confidence bound of the LSHTM medical admissions is about where reality is on daily admissions.
The bullet point on the Times Front Page is very vague "significantly higher than government advisors predicted"....which ones?
It's bizzare the 8 week rule is being strict enforced on i The portion of the population where a 3-8 week gap difference will make sod all difference Ii The vaccine primarily where it makes little difference Iii When first dose demand is dropping iv The JCVI is preventing new demand from under 18s. v It is being linked to external incentives
Has no-one in Government considered this lot in the round ?
I suspect slow Pfizer supply is driving this. i.e if they allow a three week gap now, it will be at the expense of those that got their first dose earlier, who will see their gap extend beyond 8 weeks.
However, if the supply comes in batches, which I think it does, there is an argument for using the batch as quickly as possible, then closing the vaccination centre and telling people who aren't yet double-jabbed to come back in August
It does and we'll probably have enough Pfizer and Moderna to do all current people twice by the end of July. Don't forget that the 60m H2 order has commenced and we're now into the second half of our Moderna order which necessitates second doses for Moderna people.
Given the large number of unvaccinated among the under 30s you could argue that we shouldn't be trying to reduce infections among them if we want to reach herd immunity.
And that giving greater long term protection by delaying the second dose for those who are vaccinated is also worth having.
Why are people talking about herd immunity ?
It won't be happening any time soon.
Double jabbed people pass on the virus, as do people who have had it before.
We need over 85% of people (assuming R0 = 7 in unrestricted conditions) to be unable to pass on the virus.
We are miles and miles from that.
Double jabbed get the virus at a much lower rate, and then also pass on the virus at a lower rate. That gives a compound impact on R.
You're wasting your time trying to explain things to a zero covidian.
Who is a zero Covidian ?
This place is amazing, anyone who dares suggest that things are not as perfect as many like to make out are dismissed as extremeists.
FWIW
I agree with removing the restrictions, I agree with not forcing the wearing of masks.
However, I am also quite capable of talking about the negatives of this approach without pretending everything is suddenly great again and this is going away leading us back to 2019.
Who said everything is great again ?
Because everything wasn't great beforehand, never has been and never will be.
Life is about making decisions in an imperfect world, a world in which we all will at some point die.
Its about weighing up the risks and rewards, the potential costs and benefits, of choices and dealing with what happens.
With rights go responsibilities and with choices go consequences.
And people will have many choices - whether to get vaccinated, where to go and what activities to do, whether to wear a mask.
I see from The Times front page they report that the hospitalisations at present are worse than were predicted in the original modelling just two weeks ago.
When it is the other way around that error is ceased upon by many on the forum as evidence of over cautious zero Covid scientists.
When the error is this way around what does that make those same scientists and how come that kind of error gets far less mention on this forum ?
The Warwick model seems to have been predicting about 1500 hospital admissions and 9000 in hospital by now. Plus over 100k daily infections:
so you pick out the one out of many that over estimated and ignore the ones that under estimated.
I am seeing a pattern here.
Which of the models does the Times claim the reality is exceeding? The LSHTM is the closer, but admissions in reality still lower, and significantly lower on cases / bed occupied / deaths.
I have no idea, I really do not care.
It explains a lot that you are not all over this though, if it were the other way around I have zero doubt you'd know exactly which models had over estimated the cases, you'd know who the individuals were who were involved and they would all be extremist zero Covidians according to some on here.
Because these models provided you a comfort of conformational bias though there has been no such interest taken, not even bothered to find out which the models are since you've no reason to want to better understand them or challenge them.
It's classical human nature, to seek out what you agree with and dismiss anything that counters your views, it's displayed in abundance on this forum.
So not only do you not provide any data to back up your claims but you say you do not care what the data is.
But you get upset when others provide data which doesn't give the message you want.
And then you accuse others of having issues about conformational bias ?????
Is it me or has it all gone a bit quiet at the heart of government as the media and medical war against freedom day intensifies.
Is Boris wavering?
Just for you Contrarian.
Boris Johnson may tone down ‘freedom’ rhetoric amid reopening jitters
“ministers had been spooked by internal polling. One said the data showed just 10% of the public support the policy of scrapping all restrictions at once, while another said substantially more people believed the government was moving too quickly than at the last reopening step on 17 May.”
From the Guardian.
It does make most sense in politics to underpromise and overdeliver? Or not?
It's going ahead 100%, but it would be wise to play down (Freedom Day, who created this slogan in the first place? It's a bit tone deaf when people are suffering and will continue to do so in the coming months). If they come out all jubilant and triumphant and it goes downhill fast with hospitalisations and deaths then it's something a government may not recover from. They have to get the tone RIGHT.
You can sell the idea of opening up and creating confidence but telling people to still keep their wits about them.
John Lichfield @john_lichfield · 7m Macron will also plead (again) with younger people to go and get jabbed. First vaccinations, in free fall since early June, are improving but still averaging less than 200,000 a day - half the rate in May. Figures for vax coverage for health professionals remain v poor.
The health professionals thing is just bonkers.
France has vaccinated 800k under 18s in the last three weeks but are still over 10m first doses behind the UK.
They're going to experience the Delta surge about 3-4 weeks earlier than the UK in vaccination terms.
France's European Commissioner for the Single Market was crowing yesterday about how many doses have been delivered, and said, "Now it's time to tackle vaccine hesitancy"...
Various European countries (and individual US states) will provide interesting data on levels of vaccination versus Delta over the coming months.
Given what we've seen already some places should either be offering every sort of inducement to increase vaccinations or welding shut their borders.
Ok, I have found what the Times is referring to. They have updated their models again 2 weeks ago and we are now above those retuned predictions.
So they were miles off one way 4 weeks ago, now off the under cooked it. They were predicting ~275. But they are also saying they think cases will plateau and then fall in the next few weeks. The previous models had the peak much later in the summer.
Truss will be remembered for killing off any realistic chance of Rejoin. It will involve dismantling too many other trade deals she has put in place, even if the EU decided to do away with united states ambitions and just become a trade body again, a la the EEC.
For that, the Party will love her.
I thought all her deals, except the recent Aussie one, were the EU arrangements rewritten for the UK.
Two day job questions on this, if I may. I'm looking for clear information.
1 - Do you have an authoritative source that the Govt are accepting lower welfare products (say from Australia) at a policy decision level. I have not heard specifically, despite trying to find out.
2 - Where CIWF stand on the EU move to let material from dead pigs be fed to chickens?
Britain has always accepted lower welfare products, e.g. pork from sow stalls in EU countries that allow them, but within the EU the differences in standards were relatively small. On leaving the EU, tariffs become the default, but we can vary them or remove them in trade deals, such as with Australia. The Australian deal is described here:
The Government's case is (1) that Australia has "among the highest standards in the world", quoting an OIE rating which actually refers to veterinary cover (the OIE does not rate countries for welfare) - see our comment for why this is not true - and (2) that Australian agricultural imports will be limited for a 15-year transition. The latter is true, but from year 1 the level of imports permitted is much higher (500% higher if I recall correctly) than the current level.
Re 2 - we've not taken a position on this yet as it's a fairly new development.
Is it me or has it all gone a bit quiet at the heart of government as the media and medical war against freedom day intensifies.
Is Boris wavering?
Just for you Contrarian.
Boris Johnson may tone down ‘freedom’ rhetoric amid reopening jitters
“ministers had been spooked by internal polling. One said the data showed just 10% of the public support the policy of scrapping all restrictions at once, while another said substantially more people believed the government was moving too quickly than at the last reopening step on 17 May.”
From the Guardian.
It does make most sense in politics to underpromise and overdeliver? Or not?
No-one ever got elected by underpromising and few go on to overdeliver. It's a structural fault with democracy.
John Lichfield @john_lichfield · 7m Macron will also plead (again) with younger people to go and get jabbed. First vaccinations, in free fall since early June, are improving but still averaging less than 200,000 a day - half the rate in May. Figures for vax coverage for health professionals remain v poor.
The health professionals thing is just bonkers.
France has vaccinated 800k under 18s in the last three weeks but are still over 10m first doses behind the UK.
They're going to experience the Delta surge about 3-4 weeks earlier than the UK in vaccination terms.
France's European Commissioner for the Single Market was crowing yesterday about how many doses have been delivered, and said, "Now it's time to tackle vaccine hesitancy"...
Good job no one in the EU might have said anything to promote that hesitancy ....
Ok, I have found what the Times is referring to. They have updated their models again 2 weeks ago and we are now above those retuned predictions.
So they were miles off one way 4 weeks ago, now off the under cooked it. They were predicting ~275. But they are also saying they think cases will plateau and then fall in the next few weeks. The previous models had the peak much later in the summer.
I think we will see a bit of a U-Turn from Boris on Monday because of this. Seems like this wave is moving through faster than originally predicted, I am sure the football is probably giving it a helping hand.
Is it me or has it all gone a bit quiet at the heart of government as the media and medical war against freedom day intensifies.
Is Boris wavering?
More likely, are those who pull the puppet's strings wavering? Look what the UK's signed up to in terms of 'partnerships' with international organisations ... the soft and cuddly words hide an extremely sinister direction of travel.
The i now has its own poll tracker! It's built around two parts. A scraper that downlaods the latest polls. And more importantly, a Bayesian Dirichlet model which uses these polls to model voter intention over time, with dynamically weighted house effects.
Ok, I have found what the Times is referring to. They have updated their models again 2 weeks ago and we are now above those retuned predictions.
So they were miles off one way 4 weeks ago, now off the under cooked it. They were predicting ~275. But they are also saying they think cases will plateau and then fall in the next few weeks. The previous models had the peak much later in the summer.
I think we will see a bit of a U-Turn from Boris on Monday because of this. Seems like this wave is moving through faster than originally predicted, I am sure the football is probably giving it a helping hand.
Maybe the models assumed we would lose to Germany?
Ok, I have found what the Times is referring to. They have updated their models again 2 weeks ago and we are now above those retuned predictions.
So they were miles off one way 4 weeks ago, now off the under cooked it. They were predicting ~275. But they are also saying they think cases will plateau and then fall in the next few weeks. The previous models had the peak much later in the summer.
I think we will see a bit of a U-Turn from Boris on Monday because of this. Seems like this wave is moving through faster than originally predicted, I am sure the football is probably giving it a helping hand.
Maybe the models assumed we would lose to Germany?
Well as a member of iSAGE sports committee I had them knocked out by now ;-)
Ok, I have found what the Times is referring to. They have updated their models again 2 weeks ago and we are now above those retuned predictions.
So they were miles off one way 4 weeks ago, now off the under cooked it. They were predicting ~275. But they are also saying they think cases will plateau and then fall in the next few weeks. The previous models had the peak much later in the summer.
I think we will see a bit of a U-Turn from Boris on Monday because of this. Seems like this wave is moving through faster than originally predicted, I am sure the football is probably giving it a helping hand.
But unless they're going shutdown pretty much everything, then it's pointless.
Ok, I have found what the Times is referring to. They have updated their models again 2 weeks ago and we are now above those retuned predictions.
So they were miles off one way 4 weeks ago, now off the under cooked it. They were predicting ~275. But they are also saying they think cases will plateau and then fall in the next few weeks. The previous models had the peak much later in the summer.
I think we will see a bit of a U-Turn from Boris on Monday because of this. Seems like this wave is moving through faster than originally predicted, I am sure the football is probably giving it a helping hand.
But unless they're going shutdown pretty much everything, then it's pointless.
Well yes, but a lot of it is rather performative e.g "Airbridge" travel.
or...I am not massively convinced masks in shops has a massive impact, when you allow people mass gathering in pubs or working out in gyms with no masks.
Is it me or has it all gone a bit quiet at the heart of government as the media and medical war against freedom day intensifies.
Is Boris wavering?
Just for you Contrarian.
Boris Johnson may tone down ‘freedom’ rhetoric amid reopening jitters
“ministers had been spooked by internal polling. One said the data showed just 10% of the public support the policy of scrapping all restrictions at once, while another said substantially more people believed the government was moving too quickly than at the last reopening step on 17 May.”
From the Guardian.
It does make most sense in politics to underpromise and overdeliver? Or not?
It's going ahead 100%, but it would be wise to play down (Freedom Day, who created this slogan in the first place? It's a bit tone deaf when people are suffering and will continue to do so in the coming months). If they come out all jubilant and triumphant and it goes downhill fast with hospitalisations and deaths then it's something a government may not recover from. They have to get the tone RIGHT.
You can sell the idea of opening up and creating confidence but telling people to still keep their wits about them.
Yes messaging and tone is important. But it should match what you really want to happen, no unexpected consequences. The word is want. For example, do you want people to save businesses by taking up the new freedom as you ease off financial support? If the doors open, but people don’t go through them because you have frightened them too much, it doesn’t achieve what you want. In reverse, if you don’t want a free for all that spirals R and illness, you want to ease the nation cautiously into new freedoms, a “it’s all over, everyone back to normal now” message may not achieve the caution you want.
So the question before deciding the tone, is government and advisors united on what they want? I would say today they aren’t.
Ok, I have found what the Times is referring to. They have updated their models again 2 weeks ago and we are now above those retuned predictions.
So they were miles off one way 4 weeks ago, now off the under cooked it. They were predicting ~275. But they are also saying they think cases will plateau and then fall in the next few weeks. The previous models had the peak much later in the summer.
I think we will see a bit of a U-Turn from Boris on Monday because of this. Seems like this wave is moving through faster than originally predicted, I am sure the football is probably giving it a helping hand.
Maybe the models assumed we would lose to Germany?
Well as a member of iSAGE sports committee I had them knocked out by now ;-)
Time to put the betting into Politicalbetting methinks. Apart from the usual array of horse racing bets with which I slowly deplete my monthly stipend, I've dabbled a little in the football.
For all 6 quarter final and semi final matches, I backed the draw at 90 minutes. £10 each time.
3 winners, 3 losers - two came in at 11/4 and one at 11/5 so money has been made.
So, the same again tomorrow? Not quite so simple this time. Paddy have England at 8/5, the draw at 15/8 and Italy at 2/1. I think the Italy odds are very big but the draw has been good to me.
As for the Men's final tomorrow - can Berrettini take a set off Djokovic? Novak is 1/6 to win so to this observer 5/4 to win 3-0 in sets looks very tempting.
Somehow, I find trying to solve the July Cup puzzle more interesting.
Ok, I have found what the Times is referring to. They have updated their models again 2 weeks ago and we are now above those retuned predictions.
So they were miles off one way 4 weeks ago, now off the under cooked it. They were predicting ~275. But they are also saying they think cases will plateau and then fall in the next few weeks. The previous models had the peak much later in the summer.
I think we will see a bit of a U-Turn from Boris on Monday because of this. Seems like this wave is moving through faster than originally predicted, I am sure the football is probably giving it a helping hand.
Maybe the models assumed we would lose to Germany?
Well as a member of iSAGE sports committee I had them knocked out by now ;-)
That’s analytics for you. 😄
In all seriousness, it makes Tony Bloom and Matthew Benham achievements even more incredible.
I used to make a reasonable percentage of my income from sports betting, but it was exclusively on games where there are lots of action instances e.g. cricket. 5-10 years ago the betting exchanges were highly inefficient on ODI run totals, especially casual punters really had very poor concept of likely totals based on different stages of the Innings. Now Sky has the predictions based on models by CricViz people.
Most long term successful sports gamblers made their money in similar fashion e.g. betting NBA totals was Bob Voulgaris specialism or where there are incredibly long seasons of games like MLB.
I would never seriously bet on a game which is often dependent on a single action going one way or another. The fact Tony Bloom has managed to remain profitable at this for 10+ years is incredible.
The other outlier is Billy Walters, who bet NFL / College football, again were a dodgy bounce of the ball can make all the difference and there is limited number of games per season.
Hello, BT here. Watch the big match, not your data. Any data you use from 6pm to midnight on Sunday will be on us. Stream the game or message your friends - all without denting your data. Already used up your allowance? We'll give you extra data so you don't miss out. Find out more at http://go.bt.com/Football_Final/l5Z253
Terms apply (Text STOP to 61998 to opt out of all text message marketing)
Ok, I have found what the Times is referring to. They have updated their models again 2 weeks ago and we are now above those retuned predictions.
So they were miles off one way 4 weeks ago, now off the under cooked it. They were predicting ~275. But they are also saying they think cases will plateau and then fall in the next few weeks. The previous models had the peak much later in the summer.
I think we will see a bit of a U-Turn from Boris on Monday because of this. Seems like this wave is moving through faster than originally predicted, I am sure the football is probably giving it a helping hand.
Yeah but that's over tomorrow and the problem with not doing it is that every week delayed pushes the exit wave a week closer to autumn.
Ok, I have found what the Times is referring to. They have updated their models again 2 weeks ago and we are now above those retuned predictions.
So they were miles off one way 4 weeks ago, now off the under cooked it. They were predicting ~275. But they are also saying they think cases will plateau and then fall in the next few weeks. The previous models had the peak much later in the summer.
I think we will see a bit of a U-Turn from Boris on Monday because of this. Seems like this wave is moving through faster than originally predicted, I am sure the football is probably giving it a helping hand.
Yeah but that's over tomorrow and the problem with not doing it is that every week delayed pushes the exit wave a week closer to autumn.
Oh I am not saying what should happen, I am saying what I think will happen. Boris will see new scary charts, where we are now overshooting the retuned models and do a bit of a U-Turn.
John Lichfield @john_lichfield · 7m Macron will also plead (again) with younger people to go and get jabbed. First vaccinations, in free fall since early June, are improving but still averaging less than 200,000 a day - half the rate in May. Figures for vax coverage for health professionals remain v poor.
The health professionals thing is just bonkers.
We could do with someone going full Reagan and sacking "health professionals" who are anti-vaxxers.
Ok, I have found what the Times is referring to. They have updated their models again 2 weeks ago and we are now above those retuned predictions.
So they were miles off one way 4 weeks ago, now off the under cooked it. They were predicting ~275. But they are also saying they think cases will plateau and then fall in the next few weeks. The previous models had the peak much later in the summer.
I think we will see a bit of a U-Turn from Boris on Monday because of this. Seems like this wave is moving through faster than originally predicted, I am sure the football is probably giving it a helping hand.
Maybe the models assumed we would lose to Germany?
Well as a member of iSAGE sports committee I had them knocked out by now ;-)
That’s analytics for you. 😄
In all seriousness, it makes Tony Bloom and Matthew Benham achievements even more incredible.
I used to make a reasonable percentage of my income from sports betting, but it was exclusively on games where there are lots of action instances e.g. cricket. 5-10 years ago the betting exchanges were highly inefficient on ODI run totals, especially casual punters really had very poor concept of likely totals based on different stages of the Innings. Now Sky has the predictions based on models by CricViz people.
Most long term successful sports gamblers made their money in similar fashion e.g. betting NBA totals was Bob Voulgaris specialism or where there are incredibly long seasons of games like MLB.
I would never seriously bet on a game which is often dependent on a single action going one way or another. The fact Tony Bloom has managed to remain profitable at this for 10+ years is incredible.
The other outlier is Billy Walters, who bet NFL / College football, again were a dodgy bounce of the ball can make all the difference and there is limited number of games per season.
I used to make a fair chunk on golf, back in the day when bookies would price up based on who the public might have heard of from Peter Alliss's entertaining but largely uninformative commentaries. Open up the Racing Post, skim down looking for low form numbers and double-digit odds. Job's a good'un, while it lasted.
Football matches used to be very badly priced as well, and sometimes different bookies would even have different favourites, but it was hard to exploit because of the minimum five-folds rule that was there to protect the football pools.
ETA I'm vaguely surprised Bloom and Benham are allowed to own clubs and bet.
Ok, I have found what the Times is referring to. They have updated their models again 2 weeks ago and we are now above those retuned predictions.
So they were miles off one way 4 weeks ago, now off the under cooked it. They were predicting ~275. But they are also saying they think cases will plateau and then fall in the next few weeks. The previous models had the peak much later in the summer.
I think we will see a bit of a U-Turn from Boris on Monday because of this. Seems like this wave is moving through faster than originally predicted, I am sure the football is probably giving it a helping hand.
Maybe the models assumed we would lose to Germany?
Well as a member of iSAGE sports committee I had them knocked out by now ;-)
That’s analytics for you. 😄
In all seriousness, it makes Tony Bloom and Matthew Benham achievements even more incredible.
I used to make a reasonable percentage of my income from sports betting, but it was exclusively on games where there are lots of action instances e.g. cricket. 5-10 years ago the betting exchanges were highly inefficient on ODI run totals, especially casual punters really had very poor concept of likely totals based on different stages of the Innings. Now Sky has the predictions based on models by CricViz people.
Most long term successful sports gamblers made their money in similar fashion e.g. betting NBA totals was Bob Voulgaris specialism or where there are incredibly long seasons of games like MLB.
I would never seriously bet on a game which is often dependent on a single action going one way or another. The fact Tony Bloom has managed to remain profitable at this for 10+ years is incredible.
The other outlier is Billy Walters, who bet NFL / College football, again were a dodgy bounce of the ball can make all the difference and there is limited number of games per season.
I find inverting the pyramid game to game for differential fascinating. Scientists, like economists and PR in politics, should be supporting the game plan, not telling you what direction to take.
I think England should tweak the game plan and completely kill the game as a spectacle to stand best chance to bring the trophy home. Focus on killing the game as a spectacle will be more important than putting fire in their belly in team talk.
I’m not a big fan of going to back five believing you are more secure. If you concede a midfield presser and midfield pass option to your opponents, you can concede too much possession and territory, leaving opponents with possession playing too close your defensive line, and it leaves you looking like you are playing crap and without passion.
I would make one tweak to formation, Henderson for Mount. But I would change duty around quite a bit. I think the way our defence plays narrow has been sussed out. I would play a deeper defensive line with lots of pressing in front of it. I would play a long ball game. We have people who intuitively know where they should be, we should use that and their pace.
Ok, I have found what the Times is referring to. They have updated their models again 2 weeks ago and we are now above those retuned predictions.
So they were miles off one way 4 weeks ago, now off the under cooked it. They were predicting ~275. But they are also saying they think cases will plateau and then fall in the next few weeks. The previous models had the peak much later in the summer.
I think we will see a bit of a U-Turn from Boris on Monday because of this. Seems like this wave is moving through faster than originally predicted, I am sure the football is probably giving it a helping hand.
Maybe the models assumed we would lose to Germany?
Well as a member of iSAGE sports committee I had them knocked out by now ;-)
That’s analytics for you. 😄
In all seriousness, it makes Tony Bloom and Matthew Benham achievements even more incredible.
I used to make a reasonable percentage of my income from sports betting, but it was exclusively on games where there are lots of action instances e.g. cricket. 5-10 years ago the betting exchanges were highly inefficient on ODI run totals, especially casual punters really had very poor concept of likely totals based on different stages of the Innings. Now Sky has the predictions based on models by CricViz people.
Most long term successful sports gamblers made their money in similar fashion e.g. betting NBA totals was Bob Voulgaris specialism or where there are incredibly long seasons of games like MLB.
I would never seriously bet on a game which is often dependent on a single action going one way or another. The fact Tony Bloom has managed to remain profitable at this for 10+ years is incredible.
The other outlier is Billy Walters, who bet NFL / College football, again were a dodgy bounce of the ball can make all the difference and there is limited number of games per season.
I used to make a fair chunk on golf, back in the day when bookies would price up based on who the public might have heard of from Peter Alliss's entertaining but largely uninformative commentaries. Open up the Racing Post, skim down looking for low form numbers and double-digit odds. Job's a good'un, while it lasted.
Football matches used to be very badly priced as well, and sometimes different bookies would even have different favourites, but it was hard to exploit because of the minimum five-folds rule that was there to protect the football pools.
ETA I'm vaguely surprised Bloom and Benham are allowed to own clubs and bet.
Yes I honestly don't know how Bloom and Benham are allowed to do it. I think it is something to do with technically they run their betting as an investment / analysis business, but I don't know, if players aren't allowed to bet on anything football related but two owners of EPL clubs make their millions from it...scratches head.
Also, I believe Bloom at one point also owned a sports book....
None of this is some shady secret either, although both very private and for obvious reasons secretive about the specifics, everybody knows there two have made insane amounts of money out of betting on football, specifically in the Asian markets, where they have a different type of sports book on football matches.
Ok, I have found what the Times is referring to. They have updated their models again 2 weeks ago and we are now above those retuned predictions.
So they were miles off one way 4 weeks ago, now off the under cooked it. They were predicting ~275. But they are also saying they think cases will plateau and then fall in the next few weeks. The previous models had the peak much later in the summer.
I think we will see a bit of a U-Turn from Boris on Monday because of this. Seems like this wave is moving through faster than originally predicted, I am sure the football is probably giving it a helping hand.
Maybe the models assumed we would lose to Germany?
Well as a member of iSAGE sports committee I had them knocked out by now ;-)
That’s analytics for you. 😄
In all seriousness, it makes Tony Bloom and Matthew Benham achievements even more incredible.
I used to make a reasonable percentage of my income from sports betting, but it was exclusively on games where there are lots of action instances e.g. cricket. 5-10 years ago the betting exchanges were highly inefficient on ODI run totals, especially casual punters really had very poor concept of likely totals based on different stages of the Innings. Now Sky has the predictions based on models by CricViz people.
Most long term successful sports gamblers made their money in similar fashion e.g. betting NBA totals was Bob Voulgaris specialism or where there are incredibly long seasons of games like MLB.
I would never seriously bet on a game which is often dependent on a single action going one way or another. The fact Tony Bloom has managed to remain profitable at this for 10+ years is incredible.
The other outlier is Billy Walters, who bet NFL / College football, again were a dodgy bounce of the ball can make all the difference and there is limited number of games per season.
I used to make a fair chunk on golf, back in the day when bookies would price up based on who the public might have heard of from Peter Alliss's entertaining but largely uninformative commentaries. Open up the Racing Post, skim down looking for low form numbers and double-digit odds. Job's a good'un, while it lasted.
Football matches used to be very badly priced as well, and sometimes different bookies would even have different favourites, but it was hard to exploit because of the minimum five-folds rule that was there to protect the football pools.
ETA I'm vaguely surprised Bloom and Benham are allowed to own clubs and bet.
As well as this screen in my hand, I have TV on wall with the most beautiful landscape rolling by. I also have a score on Michael Woods for KoM at 50-1.
It was the headline I was sniggering over, not the snide allusion to Sunak’s height.
Was it deliberate or did TSE/Quincel just not think it through?
It wasn't deliberate, but it was noticed before publication. The Sunak's height thing honestly wasn't noticed until a final proof-read, hence the italicised note afterwards.
Ok, I have found what the Times is referring to. They have updated their models again 2 weeks ago and we are now above those retuned predictions.
So they were miles off one way 4 weeks ago, now off the under cooked it. They were predicting ~275. But they are also saying they think cases will plateau and then fall in the next few weeks. The previous models had the peak much later in the summer.
I think we will see a bit of a U-Turn from Boris on Monday because of this. Seems like this wave is moving through faster than originally predicted, I am sure the football is probably giving it a helping hand.
Maybe the models assumed we would lose to Germany?
Well as a member of iSAGE sports committee I had them knocked out by now ;-)
That’s analytics for you. 😄
In all seriousness, it makes Tony Bloom and Matthew Benham achievements even more incredible.
I used to make a reasonable percentage of my income from sports betting, but it was exclusively on games where there are lots of action instances e.g. cricket. 5-10 years ago the betting exchanges were highly inefficient on ODI run totals, especially casual punters really had very poor concept of likely totals based on different stages of the Innings. Now Sky has the predictions based on models by CricViz people.
Most long term successful sports gamblers made their money in similar fashion e.g. betting NBA totals was Bob Voulgaris specialism or where there are incredibly long seasons of games like MLB.
I would never seriously bet on a game which is often dependent on a single action going one way or another. The fact Tony Bloom has managed to remain profitable at this for 10+ years is incredible.
The other outlier is Billy Walters, who bet NFL / College football, again were a dodgy bounce of the ball can make all the difference and there is limited number of games per season.
I used to make a fair chunk on golf, back in the day when bookies would price up based on who the public might have heard of from Peter Alliss's entertaining but largely uninformative commentaries. Open up the Racing Post, skim down looking for low form numbers and double-digit odds. Job's a good'un, while it lasted.
Football matches used to be very badly priced as well, and sometimes different bookies would even have different favourites, but it was hard to exploit because of the minimum five-folds rule that was there to protect the football pools.
ETA I'm vaguely surprised Bloom and Benham are allowed to own clubs and bet.
Yes I honestly don't know how Bloom and Benham are allowed to do it. I think it is something to do with technically they run their betting as an investment / analysis business, but I don't know, if players aren't allowed to bet on anything football related but two owners of EPL clubs make their millions from it...scratches head.
Also, I believe Bloom at one point also owned a sports book....
None of this is some shady secret either, although both very private and for obvious reasons secretive about the specifics, everybody knows there two have made insane amounts of money out of betting on football, specifically in the Asian markets, where they have a different type of sports book on football matches.
"These rules apply to everyone involved in football, from the players and managers, to the match officials and club staff.
A worldwide ban on betting on football was introduced for all those involved in the game at Premier League, English Football League, National League and The FA Women's Super League and The FA Women's Championship levels, as well as those at clubs in the Northern, Southern and Isthmian leagues and all other Participants who do not fall into the category below.
Participants covered by the ban will be prohibited from betting, either directly or indirectly, on any football match or competition that takes place anywhere in the world."
Not just Bloom and Benham but also the Coates at Stoke and Vincent Tan at Cardiff appear to be exempt somehow. How they are not seen as indirectly betting on football, whereas Trippier gets a 3 month ban for telling his friend he is considering moving to Madrid, or a non league keeper gets banned for eating a pie, I do not understand.
It's bizzare the 8 week rule is being strict enforced on i The portion of the population where a 3-8 week gap difference will make sod all difference Ii The vaccine primarily where it makes little difference Iii When first dose demand is dropping iv The JCVI is preventing new demand from under 18s. v It is being linked to external incentives
Has no-one in Government considered this lot in the round ?
I suspect slow Pfizer supply is driving this. i.e if they allow a three week gap now, it will be at the expense of those that got their first dose earlier, who will see their gap extend beyond 8 weeks.
However, if the supply comes in batches, which I think it does, there is an argument for using the batch as quickly as possible, then closing the vaccination centre and telling people who aren't yet double-jabbed to come back in August
It does and we'll probably have enough Pfizer and Moderna to do all current people twice by the end of July. Don't forget that the 60m H2 order has commenced and we're now into the second half of our Moderna order which necessitates second doses for Moderna people.
Given the large number of unvaccinated among the under 30s you could argue that we shouldn't be trying to reduce infections among them if we want to reach herd immunity.
And that giving greater long term protection by delaying the second dose for those who are vaccinated is also worth having.
Why are people talking about herd immunity ?
It won't be happening any time soon.
Double jabbed people pass on the virus, as do people who have had it before.
We need over 85% of people (assuming R0 = 7 in unrestricted conditions) to be unable to pass on the virus.
We are miles and miles from that.
Double jabbed get the virus at a much lower rate, and then also pass on the virus at a lower rate. That gives a compound impact on R.
You're wasting your time trying to explain things to a zero covidian.
Who is a zero Covidian ?
This place is amazing, anyone who dares suggest that things are not as perfect as many like to make out are dismissed as extremeists.
FWIW
I agree with removing the restrictions, I agree with not forcing the wearing of masks.
However, I am also quite capable of talking about the negatives of this approach without pretending everything is suddenly great again and this is going away leading us back to 2019.
Who said everything is great again ?
Because everything wasn't great beforehand, never has been and never will be.
Life is about making decisions in an imperfect world, a world in which we all will at some point die.
Its about weighing up the risks and rewards, the potential costs and benefits, of choices and dealing with what happens.
With rights go responsibilities and with choices go consequences.
And people will have many choices - whether to get vaccinated, where to go and what activities to do, whether to wear a mask.
I see from The Times front page they report that the hospitalisations at present are worse than were predicted in the original modelling just two weeks ago.
When it is the other way around that error is ceased upon by many on the forum as evidence of over cautious zero Covid scientists.
When the error is this way around what does that make those same scientists and how come that kind of error gets far less mention on this forum ?
The Warwick model seems to have been predicting about 1500 hospital admissions and 9000 in hospital by now. Plus over 100k daily infections:
so you pick out the one out of many that over estimated and ignore the ones that under estimated.
I am seeing a pattern here.
Which of the models does the Times claim the reality is exceeding? The LSHTM is the closer, but admissions in reality still lower, and significantly lower on cases / bed occupied / deaths.
I have no idea, I really do not care.
It explains a lot that you are not all over this though, if it were the other way around I have zero doubt you'd know exactly which models had over estimated the cases, you'd know who the individuals were who were involved and they would all be extremist zero Covidians according to some on here.
Because these models provided you a comfort of conformational bias though there has been no such interest taken, not even bothered to find out which the models are since you've no reason to want to better understand them or challenge them.
It's classical human nature, to seek out what you agree with and dismiss anything that counters your views, it's displayed in abundance on this forum.
So not only do you not provide any data to back up your claims but you say you do not care what the data is.
But you get upset when others provide data which doesn't give the message you want.
And then you accuse others of having issues about conformational bias ?????
The error lies not in any of the models per se, but in those who place any faith in any of the model's predictions. No model can predict outcomes in complex adaptive systems. It is epistemologically impossible to do so because such systems are both acutely sensitive to initial conditions and create emergent properties (Black Swans). Models, and efforts to refine them, help us understand the main drivers within the complex adaptive system, and hence to design our policies and countermeasures.
Anyone who relies on the models for actual predictions does not understand complex adaptive systems.
"Disinformation like the media’s early reporting of people falling down and dying on the streets in China? Or perhaps dismissing the increasingly likely lab leak hypothesis as an “alt-right conspiracy theory”? This list is endless. And ongoing."
It's bizzare the 8 week rule is being strict enforced on i The portion of the population where a 3-8 week gap difference will make sod all difference Ii The vaccine primarily where it makes little difference Iii When first dose demand is dropping iv The JCVI is preventing new demand from under 18s. v It is being linked to external incentives
Has no-one in Government considered this lot in the round ?
I suspect slow Pfizer supply is driving this. i.e if they allow a three week gap now, it will be at the expense of those that got their first dose earlier, who will see their gap extend beyond 8 weeks.
However, if the supply comes in batches, which I think it does, there is an argument for using the batch as quickly as possible, then closing the vaccination centre and telling people who aren't yet double-jabbed to come back in August
It does and we'll probably have enough Pfizer and Moderna to do all current people twice by the end of July. Don't forget that the 60m H2 order has commenced and we're now into the second half of our Moderna order which necessitates second doses for Moderna people.
Given the large number of unvaccinated among the under 30s you could argue that we shouldn't be trying to reduce infections among them if we want to reach herd immunity.
And that giving greater long term protection by delaying the second dose for those who are vaccinated is also worth having.
Why are people talking about herd immunity ?
It won't be happening any time soon.
Double jabbed people pass on the virus, as do people who have had it before.
We need over 85% of people (assuming R0 = 7 in unrestricted conditions) to be unable to pass on the virus.
We are miles and miles from that.
Double jabbed get the virus at a much lower rate, and then also pass on the virus at a lower rate. That gives a compound impact on R.
You're wasting your time trying to explain things to a zero covidian.
Who is a zero Covidian ?
This place is amazing, anyone who dares suggest that things are not as perfect as many like to make out are dismissed as extremeists.
FWIW
I agree with removing the restrictions, I agree with not forcing the wearing of masks.
However, I am also quite capable of talking about the negatives of this approach without pretending everything is suddenly great again and this is going away leading us back to 2019.
Who said everything is great again ?
Because everything wasn't great beforehand, never has been and never will be.
Life is about making decisions in an imperfect world, a world in which we all will at some point die.
Its about weighing up the risks and rewards, the potential costs and benefits, of choices and dealing with what happens.
With rights go responsibilities and with choices go consequences.
And people will have many choices - whether to get vaccinated, where to go and what activities to do, whether to wear a mask.
I see from The Times front page they report that the hospitalisations at present are worse than were predicted in the original modelling just two weeks ago.
When it is the other way around that error is ceased upon by many on the forum as evidence of over cautious zero Covid scientists.
When the error is this way around what does that make those same scientists and how come that kind of error gets far less mention on this forum ?
Perhaps because most of those in hospital now are younger people who are unlikely to be seriously affected by the virus.
"Disinformation like the media’s early reporting of people falling down and dying on the streets in China? Or perhaps dismissing the increasingly likely lab leak hypothesis as an “alt-right conspiracy theory”? This list is endless. And ongoing."
Remember all the early images we saw of people dropping dead in the streets of Wuhan and elsewhere
A couple of similar images emerged, early on - in Italy and Iran - but there has been nothing since, despite 10m dead, and a plague sweeping the world
So: either those images were real but the virus has somehow changed, OR they were faked for a reason
Who benefited from this kind of fake news? China?
Not just early on - just a couple of months ago, we were treated to the sight of people dying for a lack of oxygen on the streets of India, due to the Delta variant.
Over here, no one seems to care about Delta any more.
It's bizzare the 8 week rule is being strict enforced on i The portion of the population where a 3-8 week gap difference will make sod all difference Ii The vaccine primarily where it makes little difference Iii When first dose demand is dropping iv The JCVI is preventing new demand from under 18s. v It is being linked to external incentives
Has no-one in Government considered this lot in the round ?
I suspect slow Pfizer supply is driving this. i.e if they allow a three week gap now, it will be at the expense of those that got their first dose earlier, who will see their gap extend beyond 8 weeks.
However, if the supply comes in batches, which I think it does, there is an argument for using the batch as quickly as possible, then closing the vaccination centre and telling people who aren't yet double-jabbed to come back in August
It does and we'll probably have enough Pfizer and Moderna to do all current people twice by the end of July. Don't forget that the 60m H2 order has commenced and we're now into the second half of our Moderna order which necessitates second doses for Moderna people.
Given the large number of unvaccinated among the under 30s you could argue that we shouldn't be trying to reduce infections among them if we want to reach herd immunity.
And that giving greater long term protection by delaying the second dose for those who are vaccinated is also worth having.
Why are people talking about herd immunity ?
It won't be happening any time soon.
Double jabbed people pass on the virus, as do people who have had it before.
We need over 85% of people (assuming R0 = 7 in unrestricted conditions) to be unable to pass on the virus.
We are miles and miles from that.
Double jabbed get the virus at a much lower rate, and then also pass on the virus at a lower rate. That gives a compound impact on R.
You're wasting your time trying to explain things to a zero covidian.
Who is a zero Covidian ?
This place is amazing, anyone who dares suggest that things are not as perfect as many like to make out are dismissed as extremeists.
FWIW
I agree with removing the restrictions, I agree with not forcing the wearing of masks.
However, I am also quite capable of talking about the negatives of this approach without pretending everything is suddenly great again and this is going away leading us back to 2019.
Who said everything is great again ?
Because everything wasn't great beforehand, never has been and never will be.
Life is about making decisions in an imperfect world, a world in which we all will at some point die.
Its about weighing up the risks and rewards, the potential costs and benefits, of choices and dealing with what happens.
With rights go responsibilities and with choices go consequences.
And people will have many choices - whether to get vaccinated, where to go and what activities to do, whether to wear a mask.
I see from The Times front page they report that the hospitalisations at present are worse than were predicted in the original modelling just two weeks ago.
When it is the other way around that error is ceased upon by many on the forum as evidence of over cautious zero Covid scientists.
When the error is this way around what does that make those same scientists and how come that kind of error gets far less mention on this forum ?
Perhaps because most of those in hospital now are younger people who are unlikely to be seriously affected by the virus.
But they probably have been seriously affected by the virus if they're in hospital.
Maybe it's time for women to play best of 5 sets at Wimbledon. It looks like this final is going to be over in a very short time.
I think either this or men to play 3 sets (as they do in all non-grand slams, I believe) is a no brainer. The women's tour has had the fitness to match the men for at least a decade or two.
Maybe it's time for women to play best of 5 sets at Wimbledon. It looks like this final is going to be over in a very short time.
I think either this or men to play 3 sets (as they do in all non-grand slams, I believe) is a no brainer. The women's tour has had the fitness to match the men for at least a decade or two.
The distinction seems to be one of those "Because that's the way it is done" things. Like the 110m and 100m hurdles.
Maybe it's time for women to play best of 5 sets at Wimbledon. It looks like this final is going to be over in a very short time.
I think either this or men to play 3 sets (as they do in all non-grand slams, I believe) is a no brainer. The women's tour has had the fitness to match the men for at least a decade or two.
Indeed. Every year I'm amazed it isn't a bigger thing to have that debate - I'd have thought the women would be happy to play five sets in the Grand Slams as well, what reason would there be for them not to? As you point out the men don't play five sets generally.
It's bizzare the 8 week rule is being strict enforced on i The portion of the population where a 3-8 week gap difference will make sod all difference Ii The vaccine primarily where it makes little difference Iii When first dose demand is dropping iv The JCVI is preventing new demand from under 18s. v It is being linked to external incentives
Has no-one in Government considered this lot in the round ?
I suspect slow Pfizer supply is driving this. i.e if they allow a three week gap now, it will be at the expense of those that got their first dose earlier, who will see their gap extend beyond 8 weeks.
However, if the supply comes in batches, which I think it does, there is an argument for using the batch as quickly as possible, then closing the vaccination centre and telling people who aren't yet double-jabbed to come back in August
It does and we'll probably have enough Pfizer and Moderna to do all current people twice by the end of July. Don't forget that the 60m H2 order has commenced and we're now into the second half of our Moderna order which necessitates second doses for Moderna people.
Given the large number of unvaccinated among the under 30s you could argue that we shouldn't be trying to reduce infections among them if we want to reach herd immunity.
And that giving greater long term protection by delaying the second dose for those who are vaccinated is also worth having.
Why are people talking about herd immunity ?
It won't be happening any time soon.
Double jabbed people pass on the virus, as do people who have had it before.
We need over 85% of people (assuming R0 = 7 in unrestricted conditions) to be unable to pass on the virus.
We are miles and miles from that.
Double jabbed get the virus at a much lower rate, and then also pass on the virus at a lower rate. That gives a compound impact on R.
You're wasting your time trying to explain things to a zero covidian.
Who is a zero Covidian ?
This place is amazing, anyone who dares suggest that things are not as perfect as many like to make out are dismissed as extremeists.
FWIW
I agree with removing the restrictions, I agree with not forcing the wearing of masks.
However, I am also quite capable of talking about the negatives of this approach without pretending everything is suddenly great again and this is going away leading us back to 2019.
Who said everything is great again ?
Because everything wasn't great beforehand, never has been and never will be.
Life is about making decisions in an imperfect world, a world in which we all will at some point die.
Its about weighing up the risks and rewards, the potential costs and benefits, of choices and dealing with what happens.
With rights go responsibilities and with choices go consequences.
And people will have many choices - whether to get vaccinated, where to go and what activities to do, whether to wear a mask.
I see from The Times front page they report that the hospitalisations at present are worse than were predicted in the original modelling just two weeks ago.
When it is the other way around that error is ceased upon by many on the forum as evidence of over cautious zero Covid scientists.
When the error is this way around what does that make those same scientists and how come that kind of error gets far less mention on this forum ?
Perhaps because most of those in hospital now are younger people who are unlikely to be seriously affected by the virus.
But they probably have been seriously affected by the virus if they're in hospital.
Indeed, arguably more suited to aggressive treatment, as more likely to respond to ventilation/ECMO etc.
Liz Truss might be popular with the membership but do they see her as Prime Minister material? My impression is that she is a competent minister and something of a happy warrior which party members tend to like. However she does seem to fundamentally lack gravitas and she's a bit too keen to wander into a soundbite. The disgraceful cheese speech is very hard to forget. I think if she did run for the leadership she'd be a bit like Andrea Leadsom. Respected as a minister and well liked because she's happy to do battle in the media but just not quite imaginable in the top job.
To declare a bias I'm a big fan of Truss. While for obvious personal financial reasons my book hopes it's Sunak, she would be my preferred other choice.
But it's worth noting that any criticism of her comes back to that speech to Conference. While the speech was amusing, it was her first speech as Cabinet Secretary. Since then she's been in Cabinet for seven more years and nobody has anything new to criticise her with. That's rather remarkable!
By the time of the next election, which Boris will almost certainly be PM until, she will be one of the countries longest standing Cabinet Secretaries and have been in Cabinet for a decade.
So yes she has the necessary gravitas. She learns too, which is important.
That is a thought actually.
Who has the longest consecutive spell in cabinet at the moment? Gove had a year out from 2014-15. Shapps had six months as Minister of State. Hancock has quit. May, Hammond and Hunt were I think the only ones there from the start by 2019.
Is it Truss? I think she might be the only one continuously in Cabinet since the Coalition days.
Liz Truss might be popular with the membership but do they see her as Prime Minister material? My impression is that she is a competent minister and something of a happy warrior which party members tend to like. However she does seem to fundamentally lack gravitas and she's a bit too keen to wander into a soundbite. The disgraceful cheese speech is very hard to forget. I think if she did run for the leadership she'd be a bit like Andrea Leadsom. Respected as a minister and well liked because she's happy to do battle in the media but just not quite imaginable in the top job.
To declare a bias I'm a big fan of Truss. While for obvious personal financial reasons my book hopes it's Sunak, she would be my preferred other choice.
But it's worth noting that any criticism of her comes back to that speech to Conference. While the speech was amusing, it was her first speech as Cabinet Secretary. Since then she's been in Cabinet for seven more years and nobody has anything new to criticise her with. That's rather remarkable!
By the time of the next election, which Boris will almost certainly be PM until, she will be one of the countries longest standing Cabinet Secretaries and have been in Cabinet for a decade.
So yes she has the necessary gravitas. She learns too, which is important.
That is a thought actually.
Who has the longest consecutive spell in cabinet at the moment? Gove had a year out from 2014-15. Shapps had six months as Minister of State. Hancock has quit. May, Hammond and Hunt were I think the only ones there from the start by 2019.
Is it Truss? I think she might be the only one continuously in Cabinet since the Coalition days.
A quick look would suggest you are correct.
Vote Truss for the change that is needed.
She’ll go down like a bucket of cold sick in the Red Wall.
Hello, BT here. Watch the big match, not your data. Any data you use from 6pm to midnight on Sunday will be on us. Stream the game or message your friends - all without denting your data. Already used up your allowance? We'll give you extra data so you don't miss out. Find out more at http://go.bt.com/Football_Final/l5Z253
Terms apply (Text STOP to 61998 to opt out of all text message marketing)
What could possibly go wrong there?
(Apart from a million or two people all trying to stream high quality video at the same time, for two hours or more. Hope they’ve got good CDN arrangements with BBC and ITV.)
Maybe it's time for women to play best of 5 sets at Wimbledon. It looks like this final is going to be over in a very short time.
I’ve long advocated equal pay for equal sets. Shorter women’s games has long let the top female players milk the tournaments doubles pot too, in a way that the men cannot.
Perhaps the virus just runs out of people without antibodies or something....
I think the early departure from the Euros may have something to do with it
Schools out and the national team also out. Will happen for England soon too. I don’t believe we will get to 100,000 positive cases a day. Nowhere near.
Maybe it's time for women to play best of 5 sets at Wimbledon. It looks like this final is going to be over in a very short time.
I think either this or men to play 3 sets (as they do in all non-grand slams, I believe) is a no brainer. The women's tour has had the fitness to match the men for at least a decade or two.
Indeed. Every year I'm amazed it isn't a bigger thing to have that debate - I'd have thought the women would be happy to play five sets in the Grand Slams as well, what reason would there be for them not to? As you point out the men don't play five sets generally.
It was mentioned a few years back, in the context of the prize money being equalised for the two competitions, but seems to have been ignored ever since.
Maybe it's time for women to play best of 5 sets at Wimbledon. It looks like this final is going to be over in a very short time.
I think either this or men to play 3 sets (as they do in all non-grand slams, I believe) is a no brainer. The women's tour has had the fitness to match the men for at least a decade or two.
Indeed. Every year I'm amazed it isn't a bigger thing to have that debate - I'd have thought the women would be happy to play five sets in the Grand Slams as well, what reason would there be for them not to? As you point out the men don't play five sets generally.
It was mentioned a few years back, in the context of the prize money being equalised for the two competitions, but seems to have been ignored ever since.
AIUI the women want to play the five sets, but the tournament organisers are resistant because they fear it would make scheduling more difficult.
Or possibly, because they are sexist pigs who don’t think women can last five sets. One or the other.
Maybe it's time for women to play best of 5 sets at Wimbledon. It looks like this final is going to be over in a very short time.
I think either this or men to play 3 sets (as they do in all non-grand slams, I believe) is a no brainer. The women's tour has had the fitness to match the men for at least a decade or two.
Indeed. Every year I'm amazed it isn't a bigger thing to have that debate - I'd have thought the women would be happy to play five sets in the Grand Slams as well, what reason would there be for them not to? As you point out the men don't play five sets generally.
It was mentioned a few years back, in the context of the prize money being equalised for the two competitions, but seems to have been ignored ever since.
AIUI the women want to play the five sets, but the tournament organisers are resistant because they fear it would make scheduling more difficult.
Or possibly, because they are sexist pigs who don’t think women can last five sets. One or the other.
I can believe it will cause scheduling issues, but that's very much a solvable problem if there was any will.
Maybe it's time for women to play best of 5 sets at Wimbledon. It looks like this final is going to be over in a very short time.
I think either this or men to play 3 sets (as they do in all non-grand slams, I believe) is a no brainer. The women's tour has had the fitness to match the men for at least a decade or two.
Indeed. Every year I'm amazed it isn't a bigger thing to have that debate - I'd have thought the women would be happy to play five sets in the Grand Slams as well, what reason would there be for them not to? As you point out the men don't play five sets generally.
It was mentioned a few years back, in the context of the prize money being equalised for the two competitions, but seems to have been ignored ever since.
AIUI the women want to play the five sets, but the tournament organisers are resistant because they fear it would make scheduling more difficult.
Or possibly, because they are sexist pigs who don’t think women can last five sets. One or the other.
I can believe it will cause scheduling issues, but that's very much a solvable problem if there was any will.
"Disinformation like the media’s early reporting of people falling down and dying on the streets in China? Or perhaps dismissing the increasingly likely lab leak hypothesis as an “alt-right conspiracy theory”? This list is endless. And ongoing."
Hello, BT here. Watch the big match, not your data. Any data you use from 6pm to midnight on Sunday will be on us. Stream the game or message your friends - all without denting your data. Already used up your allowance? We'll give you extra data so you don't miss out. Find out more at http://go.bt.com/Football_Final/l5Z253
Terms apply (Text STOP to 61998 to opt out of all text message marketing)
What could possibly go wrong there?
(Apart from a million or two people all trying to stream high quality video at the same time, for two hours or more. Hope they’ve got good CDN arrangements with BBC and ITV.)
I received the same text (almost word for word) from EE so I'm guessing it's something to do with EE/BT's sponsorship of England and Wembley.
BREAKING: Netherlands reports 10,345 new coronavirus cases, an increase of 803% from last week
When this wave is over, I wonder if we'll be able to see a correlation between the rate of rise in different countries and the vaccination levels of those countries. I'd expect countries with higher vaccination rate to show a slower increase, but any signal might get drowned out by other effects, e.g. testing levels, or even sporting events.
Hello, BT here. Watch the big match, not your data. Any data you use from 6pm to midnight on Sunday will be on us. Stream the game or message your friends - all without denting your data. Already used up your allowance? We'll give you extra data so you don't miss out. Find out more at http://go.bt.com/Football_Final/l5Z253
Terms apply (Text STOP to 61998 to opt out of all text message marketing)
What could possibly go wrong there?
(Apart from a million or two people all trying to stream high quality video at the same time, for two hours or more. Hope they’ve got good CDN arrangements with BBC and ITV.)
I received the same text (almost word for word) from EE so I'm guessing it's something to do with EE/BT's sponsorship of England and Wembley.
Not had that, and I'm a BT subscriber. Not that I'm bovvered.
Maybe it's time for women to play best of 5 sets at Wimbledon. It looks like this final is going to be over in a very short time.
I’ve long advocated equal pay for equal sets. Shorter women’s games has long let the top female players milk the tournaments doubles pot too, in a way that the men cannot.
I'm not sure there's fan appetite for best of 5 women's matches. Their tennis product is (in general and with exceptions) not as good as the men's. The equal pay is only at slams and is symbolic, not related to time on court or box office power. By setting equal pay (for these slam events where the men and women share the draw and the venue) the tennis world is making a statement that women's hard work and talent is valued as much as men's.
As a General note in the UK from the 1st of May to the 1st of July new cases has doubled 4 time and hospital admissions have doubled twice.
Deaths are still being kept low, fortunately. I think that this was what we rather expected; once we'd vaccinated all, or most, adults we'd both recognise the cases in children and adolescents and see the severity in adults decrease.
Maybe it's time for women to play best of 5 sets at Wimbledon. It looks like this final is going to be over in a very short time.
I’ve long advocated equal pay for equal sets. Shorter women’s games has long let the top female players milk the tournaments doubles pot too, in a way that the men cannot.
I'm not sure there's fan appetite for best of 5 women's matches. Their tennis product is (in general and with exceptions) not as good as the men's. The equal pay is only at slams and is symbolic, not related to time on court or box office power. By setting equal pay (for these slam events where the men and women share the draw and the venue) the tennis world is making a statement that women's hard work and talent is valued as much as men's.
"Disinformation like the media’s early reporting of people falling down and dying on the streets in China? Or perhaps dismissing the increasingly likely lab leak hypothesis as an “alt-right conspiracy theory”? This list is endless. And ongoing."
Remember all the early images we saw of people dropping dead in the streets of Wuhan and elsewhere
A couple of similar images emerged, early on - in Italy and Iran - but there has been nothing since, despite 10m dead, and a plague sweeping the world
So: either those images were real but the virus has somehow changed, OR they were faked for a reason
Who benefited from this kind of fake news? China?
Or they were real but with another cause than (or together with) a SARSCoV2 infection.
(Too late to edit, but): I think the ones in China and Iran were genuine, but if the ones in China were fake then I doubt any foreign power was responsible for faking them. In Iran too, if a foreign power had come in and faked them, we'd probably have heard an allegation to that effect from the government by now.
BREAKING: Netherlands reports 10,345 new coronavirus cases, an increase of 803% from last week
Holy fuck
That's the same Delta curve as India. Almost vertical. A rocket shooting up, not a plane taking off
At this rate - tripling every three days - Holland will have 250,000 cases a day in ten days, and the entire nation will have Delta ten days after that
Maybe it's time for women to play best of 5 sets at Wimbledon. It looks like this final is going to be over in a very short time.
I’ve long advocated equal pay for equal sets. Shorter women’s games has long let the top female players milk the tournaments doubles pot too, in a way that the men cannot.
I'm not sure there's fan appetite for best of 5 women's matches. Their tennis product is (in general and with exceptions) not as good as the men's. The equal pay is only at slams and is symbolic, not related to time on court or box office power. By setting equal pay (for these slam events where the men and women share the draw and the venue) the tennis world is making a statement that women's hard work and talent is valued as much as men's.
Without wishing to degenerate this, if the product isn’t as good, why have equal pay? I think you are probably right, in that the depth of talent in women’s tennis is less than in the men’s, and as a rule there are more easy early round wins. But I do think there is an issue with three sets vs five.
Maybe it's time for women to play best of 5 sets at Wimbledon. It looks like this final is going to be over in a very short time.
I’ve long advocated equal pay for equal sets. Shorter women’s games has long let the top female players milk the tournaments doubles pot too, in a way that the men cannot.
I'm not sure there's fan appetite for best of 5 women's matches. Their tennis product is (in general and with exceptions) not as good as the men's. The equal pay is only at slams and is symbolic, not related to time on court or box office power. By setting equal pay (for these slam events where the men and women share the draw and the venue) the tennis world is making a statement that women's hard work and talent is valued as much as men's.
Maybe it's time for women to play best of 5 sets at Wimbledon. It looks like this final is going to be over in a very short time.
I’ve long advocated equal pay for equal sets. Shorter women’s games has long let the top female players milk the tournaments doubles pot too, in a way that the men cannot.
I'm not sure there's fan appetite for best of 5 women's matches. Their tennis product is (in general and with exceptions) not as good as the men's. The equal pay is only at slams and is symbolic, not related to time on court or box office power. By setting equal pay (for these slam events where the men and women share the draw and the venue) the tennis world is making a statement that women's hard work and talent is valued as much as men's.
But its rewarding less work, so its only half a statement. I only watch tennis occasionally but I cannot say I notice that much of a difference, and the top ones surely have the talent and physicality for best of 5, I don't see what the big deal is that is holding off from it.
Fan appetite certainly isnt a reason, under that argument there wouldn't be nearly as much reporting on women's football and cricket as there is (albeit it isn't that much), and women's tennis is much more high profile than those. There's appetite for the best women to prove themselves over best of 5, people like long matches featuring the best.
As a General note in the UK from the 1st of May to the 1st of July new cases has doubled 4 time and hospital admissions have doubled twice.
Deaths are still being kept low, fortunately. I think that this was what we rather expected; once we'd vaccinated all, or most, adults we'd both recognise the cases in children and adolescents and see the severity in adults decrease.
And, mostly unreported, almost exclusively over 60’s. Still a tragedy for any involved, but I would like to know how many are voluntarily unvaccinated and how many have died in hospital from a combination of things that includes Covid.
Maybe it's time for women to play best of 5 sets at Wimbledon. It looks like this final is going to be over in a very short time.
I’ve long advocated equal pay for equal sets. Shorter women’s games has long let the top female players milk the tournaments doubles pot too, in a way that the men cannot.
I'm not sure there's fan appetite for best of 5 women's matches. Their tennis product is (in general and with exceptions) not as good as the men's. The equal pay is only at slams and is symbolic, not related to time on court or box office power. By setting equal pay (for these slam events where the men and women share the draw and the venue) the tennis world is making a statement that women's hard work and talent is valued as much as men's.
More than men's, in fact.
No, Rob, equal, as I explained.
The effort required is different. I agree that the prize money should be the same, but so should the rules of the game.
As a General note in the UK from the 1st of May to the 1st of July new cases has doubled 4 time and hospital admissions have doubled twice.
Deaths are still being kept low, fortunately. I think that this was what we rather expected; once we'd vaccinated all, or most, adults we'd both recognise the cases in children and adolescents and see the severity in adults decrease.
And, mostly unreported, almost exclusively over 60’s. Still a tragedy for any involved, but I would like to know how many are voluntarily unvaccinated and how many have died in hospital from a combination of things that includes Covid.
Wasn't it only around 5% of hospitalisations that were double-jabbed?
As a General note in the UK from the 1st of May to the 1st of July new cases has doubled 4 time and hospital admissions have doubled twice.
Deaths are still being kept low, fortunately. I think that this was what we rather expected; once we'd vaccinated all, or most, adults we'd both recognise the cases in children and adolescents and see the severity in adults decrease.
And, mostly unreported, almost exclusively over 60’s. Still a tragedy for any involved, but I would like to know how many are voluntarily unvaccinated and how many have died in hospital from a combination of things that includes Covid.
Wasn't it only around 5% of hospitalisations that were double-jabbed?
12% of hospitalisations are double jabbed and about 10% of cases. But deaths very low, ~120 in 6 months.
As a General note in the UK from the 1st of May to the 1st of July new cases has doubled 4 time and hospital admissions have doubled twice.
Deaths are still being kept low, fortunately. I think that this was what we rather expected; once we'd vaccinated all, or most, adults we'd both recognise the cases in children and adolescents and see the severity in adults decrease.
And, mostly unreported, almost exclusively over 60’s. Still a tragedy for any involved, but I would like to know how many are voluntarily unvaccinated and how many have died in hospital from a combination of things that includes Covid.
Wasn't it only around 5% of hospitalisations that were double-jabbed?
Possibly. There is also the issue of the very elderly and frail going to hospital, that’s what happens, and also picking up Covid, despite being double jabbed.
As a General note in the UK from the 1st of May to the 1st of July new cases has doubled 4 time and hospital admissions have doubled twice.
Deaths are still being kept low, fortunately. I think that this was what we rather expected; once we'd vaccinated all, or most, adults we'd both recognise the cases in children and adolescents and see the severity in adults decrease.
And, mostly unreported, almost exclusively over 60’s. Still a tragedy for any involved, but I would like to know how many are voluntarily unvaccinated and how many have died in hospital from a combination of things that includes Covid.
As a (well) over 60, I agree. Some at least of those, fortunately few, whom I have known of who died had all sorts of other things wrong, often enough to have carried them off before long.
As a General note in the UK from the 1st of May to the 1st of July new cases has doubled 4 time and hospital admissions have doubled twice.
Deaths are still being kept low, fortunately. I think that this was what we rather expected; once we'd vaccinated all, or most, adults we'd both recognise the cases in children and adolescents and see the severity in adults decrease.
And, mostly unreported, almost exclusively over 60’s. Still a tragedy for any involved, but I would like to know how many are voluntarily unvaccinated and how many have died in hospital from a combination of things that includes Covid.
Wasn't it only around 5% of hospitalisations that were double-jabbed?
12% of hospitalisations are double jabbed and about 10% of cases.
Thanks. I wonder how many of those had only recently got the second jab.
"Disinformation like the media’s early reporting of people falling down and dying on the streets in China? Or perhaps dismissing the increasingly likely lab leak hypothesis as an “alt-right conspiracy theory”? This list is endless. And ongoing."
Remember all the early images we saw of people dropping dead in the streets of Wuhan and elsewhere
A couple of similar images emerged, early on - in Italy and Iran - but there has been nothing since, despite 10m dead, and a plague sweeping the world
So: either those images were real but the virus has somehow changed, OR they were faked for a reason
Who benefited from this kind of fake news? China?
Or they were real but with another cause than (or together with) a SARSCoV2 infection.
(Too late to edit, but): I think the ones in China and Iran were genuine, but if the ones in China were fake then I doubt any foreign power was responsible for faking them. In Iran too, if a foreign power had come in and faked them, we'd probably have heard an allegation to that effect from the government by now.
What surprises me is that there hasn't been any serious investigation of all this, from anyone
It is clear that some people were gaming the social media messages about Covid from the get-go, not least the Chinese disguising a possible lab origin, and hyping the bat-eaters in the market. That video of the woman eating the bat springs to mind
10 million have died and the plague still roils the world, and yet there is a distinct absence of mad conspiracy theories, if you ask me, and a near-total lack of scrutiny, of all this, by western governments. Why? Are we mentally and politically paralysed by the bug?
Comments
Boris Johnson may tone down ‘freedom’ rhetoric amid reopening jitters
“ministers had been spooked by internal polling. One said the data showed just 10% of the public support the policy of scrapping all restrictions at once, while another said substantially more people believed the government was moving too quickly than at the last reopening step on 17 May.”
From the Guardian.
It does make most sense in politics to underpromise and overdeliver? Or not?
Has is become harder to get into hospital with covid now ? Has the bar been raised to allow the NHS to start getting through the long waiting lists ?
No idea, probably not, but why always only seek an explanation that fits you world view than challenging yourself that maybe, just maybe, those who you disagree with may have been more correct that you first imagined?
The bullet point on the Times Front Page is very vague "significantly higher than government advisors predicted"....which ones?
But you get upset when others provide data which doesn't give the message you want.
And then you accuse others of having issues about conformational bias ?????
You can sell the idea of opening up and creating confidence but telling people to still keep their wits about them.
Given what we've seen already some places should either be offering every sort of inducement to increase vaccinations or welding shut their borders.
So they were miles off one way 4 weeks ago, now off the under cooked it. They were predicting ~275. But they are also saying they think cases will plateau and then fall in the next few weeks. The previous models had the peak much later in the summer.
https://www.ciwf.org.uk/our-campaigns/other-campaigns/trade-and-animal-welfare/#start
Britain has always accepted lower welfare products, e.g. pork from sow stalls in EU countries that allow them, but within the EU the differences in standards were relatively small. On leaving the EU, tariffs become the default, but we can vary them or remove them in trade deals, such as with Australia. The Australian deal is described here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-agrees-historic-trade-deal-with-australia
and our comment is here (based on the previous Auatrlian publication of details):
https://www.ciwf.org.uk/news/2021/06/uk-australian-trade-deal-will-put-animals-at-risk
The Government's case is (1) that Australia has "among the highest standards in the world", quoting an OIE rating which actually refers to veterinary cover (the OIE does not rate countries for welfare) - see our comment for why this is not true - and (2) that Australian agricultural imports will be limited for a 15-year transition. The latter is true, but from year 1 the level of imports permitted is much higher (500% higher if I recall correctly) than the current level.
Re 2 - we've not taken a position on this yet as it's a fairly new development.
https://twitter.com/tomjs/status/1413574541369032705?s=20
or...I am not massively convinced masks in shops has a massive impact, when you allow people mass gathering in pubs or working out in gyms with no masks.
So the question before deciding the tone, is government and advisors united on what they want? I would say today they aren’t.
Time to put the betting into Politicalbetting methinks. Apart from the usual array of horse racing bets with which I slowly deplete my monthly stipend, I've dabbled a little in the football.
For all 6 quarter final and semi final matches, I backed the draw at 90 minutes. £10 each time.
3 winners, 3 losers - two came in at 11/4 and one at 11/5 so money has been made.
So, the same again tomorrow? Not quite so simple this time. Paddy have England at 8/5, the draw at 15/8 and Italy at 2/1. I think the Italy odds are very big but the draw has been good to me.
As for the Men's final tomorrow - can Berrettini take a set off Djokovic? Novak is 1/6 to win so to this observer 5/4 to win 3-0 in sets looks very tempting.
Somehow, I find trying to solve the July Cup puzzle more interesting.
I used to make a reasonable percentage of my income from sports betting, but it was exclusively on games where there are lots of action instances e.g. cricket. 5-10 years ago the betting exchanges were highly inefficient on ODI run totals, especially casual punters really had very poor concept of likely totals based on different stages of the Innings. Now Sky has the predictions based on models by CricViz people.
Most long term successful sports gamblers made their money in similar fashion e.g. betting NBA totals was Bob Voulgaris specialism or where there are incredibly long seasons of games like MLB.
I would never seriously bet on a game which is often dependent on a single action going one way or another. The fact Tony Bloom has managed to remain profitable at this for 10+ years is incredible.
The other outlier is Billy Walters, who bet NFL / College football, again were a dodgy bounce of the ball can make all the difference and there is limited number of games per season.
Hello, BT here. Watch the big match, not your data. Any data you use from 6pm to midnight on Sunday will be on us. Stream the game or message your friends - all without denting your data. Already used up your allowance? We'll give you extra data so you don't miss out. Find out more at http://go.bt.com/Football_Final/l5Z253
Terms apply (Text STOP to 61998 to opt out of all text message marketing)
Football matches used to be very badly priced as well, and sometimes different bookies would even have different favourites, but it was hard to exploit because of the minimum five-folds rule that was there to protect the football pools.
ETA I'm vaguely surprised Bloom and Benham are allowed to own clubs and bet.
I think England should tweak the game plan and completely kill the game as a spectacle to stand best chance to bring the trophy home. Focus on killing the game as a spectacle will be more important than putting fire in their belly in team talk.
I’m not a big fan of going to back five believing you are more secure. If you concede a midfield presser and midfield pass option to your opponents, you can concede too much possession and territory, leaving opponents with possession playing too close your defensive line, and it leaves you looking like you are playing crap and without passion.
I would make one tweak to formation, Henderson for Mount. But I would change duty around quite a bit. I think the way our defence plays narrow has been sussed out. I would play a deeper defensive line with lots of pressing in front of it. I would play a long ball game. We have people who intuitively know where they should be, we should use that and their pace.
Must be odds on extra time for a good bet.
Also, I believe Bloom at one point also owned a sports book....
None of this is some shady secret either, although both very private and for obvious reasons secretive about the specifics, everybody knows there two have made insane amounts of money out of betting on football, specifically in the Asian markets, where they have a different type of sports book on football matches.
"These rules apply to everyone involved in football, from the players and managers, to the match officials and club staff.
A worldwide ban on betting on football was introduced for all those involved in the game at Premier League, English Football League, National League and The FA Women's Super League and The FA Women's Championship levels, as well as those at clubs in the Northern, Southern and Isthmian leagues and all other Participants who do not fall into the category below.
Participants covered by the ban will be prohibited from betting, either directly or indirectly, on any football match or competition that takes place anywhere in the world."
Not just Bloom and Benham but also the Coates at Stoke and Vincent Tan at Cardiff appear to be exempt somehow. How they are not seen as indirectly betting on football, whereas Trippier gets a 3 month ban for telling his friend he is considering moving to Madrid, or a non league keeper gets banned for eating a pie, I do not understand.
Anyone who relies on the models for actual predictions does not understand complex adaptive systems.
https://twitter.com/UncleMoses11/status/1413843096077488133?s=20
This is a good question
Remember all the early images we saw of people dropping dead in the streets of Wuhan and elsewhere
A couple of similar images emerged, early on - in Italy and Iran - but there has been nothing since, despite 10m dead, and a plague sweeping the world
So: either those images were real but the virus has somehow changed, OR they were faked for a reason
Who benefited from this kind of fake news? China?
Over here, no one seems to care about Delta any more.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2021/jul/10/flying-ants-could-swarm-euro-2020-final-at-wembley
Summat of a turn up. It's coming...
Like the 110m and 100m hurdles.
She’ll go down like a bucket of cold sick in the Red Wall.
(Apart from a million or two people all trying to stream high quality video at the same time, for two hours or more. Hope they’ve got good CDN arrangements with BBC and ITV.)
Or possibly, because they are sexist pigs who don’t think women can last five sets. One or the other.
Vaccination in Netherlands (1x, 2x): >60%, 39%.
That's the same Delta curve as India. Almost vertical. A rocket shooting up, not a plane taking off
At this rate - tripling every three days - Holland will have 250,000 cases a day in ten days, and the entire nation will have Delta ten days after that
Fan appetite certainly isnt a reason, under that argument there wouldn't be nearly as much reporting on women's football and cricket as there is (albeit it isn't that much), and women's tennis is much more high profile than those. There's appetite for the best women to prove themselves over best of 5, people like long matches featuring the best.
Thanks. I wonder how many of those had only recently got the second jab.
It is clear that some people were gaming the social media messages about Covid from the get-go, not least the Chinese disguising a possible lab origin, and hyping the bat-eaters in the market. That video of the woman eating the bat springs to mind
10 million have died and the plague still roils the world, and yet there is a distinct absence of mad conspiracy theories, if you ask me, and a near-total lack of scrutiny, of all this, by western governments. Why? Are we mentally and politically paralysed by the bug?