Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

In the betting it’s about evens that BoJo will re-introduce restrictions by the end of the year – po

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited July 16 in General
imageIn the betting it’s about evens that BoJo will re-introduce restrictions by the end of the year – politicalbetting.com

One of the big asserions about July 19th is that this will go on being designated “Freedom Day” although the main effort thereafter will be to encourage us all to maintain the habits that we have all become used to. The big difference is that anybody who doesn’r want to follow this can do so without fear of penalty.

Read the full story here

«134567

Comments

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 38,440
    I would definitely bet against them being reintroduced but I do expect the "guidance" to get ever more emphatic.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 86,002
    Given over 50% of us have now been double vaccinated and we should all have been offered both jabs by the end of September, the only reason I could see further restrictions in the winter is if the virus mutates again in such a way as to stop the vaccine providing immunity or because a booster jab is needed and while that is taking place
  • eekeek Posts: 13,645
    HYUFD said:

    Given over 50% of us have now been double vaccinated and we should all have been offered both jabs by the end of September, the only reason I could see further restrictions in the winter is if the virus mutates again in such a way as to stop the vaccine providing immunity or because a booster jab is needed and while that is taking place

    I don't know.

    However I've seen multiple comments today which say that if you wanted to create a mutant variant that could get around our current vaccines then opening things up while people aren't full vaccinated is the easiest way of doing it.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 4,012
    Norway reintroducing stringent border controls, and they’ve put the UK in the harshest ultra red category. The rest of the world sees clearly what a total hash the UK government is making of this. That Wembley footage, beamed throughout the planet, definitely didn’t help.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 62,763
    Boris was absolutely stupid to say it was all irreversible...he got caught out by the Kent variant overpromisint Christmas, now he is doing the same now.

    So many things are out of the government control that coukd effect the future e.g. All we need is for vaccine breakthrough to be a bit bigger than estimated or a new variant that has the same result and it is then back to some form of restrictions.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 6,962
    I would definitely bet on reintroduction tbh on those terms. It is a horrible market to define though, so surprised they are going for this.

    Evens seems a very good price when people in govt are already talking about Winter lockdowns.
    Then you have risk of new variant...

    And the fact that mandatory masks on public transport is basically a no-cost, easy option.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 4,012
    DavidL said:

    dixiedean said:

    Cicero said:

    Reading the UK headlines today, it seems like the government is descending into an absolute shambles.

    Ministers suggesting that France is going "Red" despite having a fraction of the out of control numbers in Britain, which is still theoretically planning to abandon all restrictions. Could anything infuriate a very large number of Tory voters more? Its almost as if Johnson wants to screw things up for his own party... Lib Dems gaining Guildford looks nailed on.

    More to the point, Labour gaining Uxbridge and South Ruislip...

    Seriously though, it really does seem like the Tories have lost the will to live, every day more spectacularly stupid decisions, from Covid to Sleaze and the corrosive acid of the Hard Brexit desolving more and more of the economy and indeed the very fabric of the Union.

    Anyone quoting odds on whether Johnson will hold his own seat? If this tsumani gets going then 1997 could end up looking like a walk in the park...

    And yet they lead the polls by a large amount.
    I know.
    My take on the big picture numbers is that three moves have happened since December 2019.

    1 Most of the residual BXP vote has moved into the Conservative column (see Hartlepool). So C +2 say

    2 A chunk of the Conservative 2019 vote has moved elsewhere, Lib or Lab (see Batley and Spen and Chesham and Amersham). C-4 Lab +4 say.

    3 A chunk of the Labour 2019 vote has peeled off to explicit lefty parties (Hartlepool and Batley) or Greens (elsewhere) possibly because they're pining for Jez. Lab -4, Green +4.

    The first of those effects looks pretty set in stone now. The second is the one that moves over time, according to perceived government competence.

    The third is the interesting one. What's driving it, and can Labour do anything about it?
    Somewhat disappointingly from my point of view as a Unionist you also need to have a movement from Scottish Labour to the SNP worth something like -2 across the UK as well. SLAB are not in a good place.
    And SLab are the last bastion of the Union. Once they irreversibly fall, the Union falls.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 58,366
    Definite lay at evens.

    It would be a tremendous failure to reintroduce restrictions at this point and what would be the point? Previously we could have restrictions in order to buy time to vaccinate people, but now the vaccines rolled out what is the exit plan if we go back into restrictions?

    It would be like deciding to reinvade Afghanistan.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 6,962
    edited July 16
    *deleted double post*
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 38,440
    HYUFD said:

    Given over 50% of us have now been double vaccinated and we should all have been offered both jabs by the end of September, the only reason I could see further restrictions in the winter is if the virus mutates again in such a way as to stop the vaccine providing immunity or because a booster jab is needed and while that is taking place

    I think what our innumerate media are having trouble coming to terms with is that even if being double vaxxed gives you 95% protection against serious illness 5% of 54m adults is still a hell of a lot of people becoming seriously ill. Roughly 2.7m people over the pandemic although many have already been ill, died or recovered. And when you add in a higher proportion of those not vaxxed for whatever reason we have a rough path ahead of us. The next 6 months are going to be hard for the population and hard for the NHS. Those claiming this is over are mistaken.

    But another lockdown would be humiliating and Boris will do his level best to avoid it.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 6,962
    DavidL said:

    I would definitely bet against them being reintroduced but I do expect the "guidance" to get ever more emphatic.

    Care to bet on here... winnings to pb.com? I don't have a Ladbrokes account.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 58,366

    Boris was absolutely stupid to say it was all irreversible...he got caught out by the Kent variant overpromisint Christmas, now he is doing the same now.

    So many things are out of the government control that coukd effect the future e.g. All we need is for vaccine breakthrough to be a bit bigger than estimated or a new variant that has the same result and it is then back to some form of restrictions.

    No he was spot on to say it.

    If he's right he's succeeded and saying that kept people on board while the restrictions were dragged out in order to roll out vaccines.
    If this gets reversed he's failed dismally and needs to go anyway, so whatever he said previously is moot anyway.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 4,012
    HYUFD said:

    Given over 50% of us have now been double vaccinated and we should all have been offered both jabs by the end of September, the only reason I could see further restrictions in the winter is if the virus mutates again in such a way as to stop the vaccine providing immunity or because a booster jab is needed and while that is taking place

    Hungary just announced they are going for third dose. Many other countries are in the starting block. This’ll scare a lot of horses.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 32,646
    Apparently 90,000 through the gates at Silverstone already today.

    How many people are working from home there, I wonder? ;)
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 62,763
    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    Given over 50% of us have now been double vaccinated and we should all have been offered both jabs by the end of September, the only reason I could see further restrictions in the winter is if the virus mutates again in such a way as to stop the vaccine providing immunity or because a booster jab is needed and while that is taking place

    I think what our innumerate media are having trouble coming to terms with is that even if being double vaxxed gives you 95% protection against serious illness 5% of 54m adults is still a hell of a lot of people becoming seriously ill. Roughly 2.7m people over the pandemic although many have already been ill, died or recovered. And when you add in a higher proportion of those not vaxxed for whatever reason we have a rough path ahead of us. The next 6 months are going to be hard for the population and hard for the NHS. Those claiming this is over are mistaken.

    But another lockdown would be humiliating and Boris will do his level best to avoid it.
    The media do seem to react with shock and confusion when some well known face tests positive...how can this happen, they are vaccinated they say....
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 29,865

    Definite lay at evens.

    It would be a tremendous failure to reintroduce restrictions at this point and what would be the point? Previously we could have restrictions in order to buy time to vaccinate people, but now the vaccines rolled out what is the exit plan if we go back into restrictions?

    It would be like deciding to reinvade Afghanistan.

    Which tbf the UK has done in its past.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 62,763

    HYUFD said:

    Given over 50% of us have now been double vaccinated and we should all have been offered both jabs by the end of September, the only reason I could see further restrictions in the winter is if the virus mutates again in such a way as to stop the vaccine providing immunity or because a booster jab is needed and while that is taking place

    Hungary just announced they are going for third dose. Many other countries are in the starting block. This’ll scare a lot of horses.
    That's because they have been using a lot of chinese vaccine...that doesn't work very well.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 12,368
    edited July 16

    DavidL said:

    dixiedean said:

    Cicero said:

    Reading the UK headlines today, it seems like the government is descending into an absolute shambles.

    Ministers suggesting that France is going "Red" despite having a fraction of the out of control numbers in Britain, which is still theoretically planning to abandon all restrictions. Could anything infuriate a very large number of Tory voters more? Its almost as if Johnson wants to screw things up for his own party... Lib Dems gaining Guildford looks nailed on.

    More to the point, Labour gaining Uxbridge and South Ruislip...

    Seriously though, it really does seem like the Tories have lost the will to live, every day more spectacularly stupid decisions, from Covid to Sleaze and the corrosive acid of the Hard Brexit desolving more and more of the economy and indeed the very fabric of the Union.

    Anyone quoting odds on whether Johnson will hold his own seat? If this tsumani gets going then 1997 could end up looking like a walk in the park...

    And yet they lead the polls by a large amount.
    I know.
    My take on the big picture numbers is that three moves have happened since December 2019.

    1 Most of the residual BXP vote has moved into the Conservative column (see Hartlepool). So C +2 say

    2 A chunk of the Conservative 2019 vote has moved elsewhere, Lib or Lab (see Batley and Spen and Chesham and Amersham). C-4 Lab +4 say.

    3 A chunk of the Labour 2019 vote has peeled off to explicit lefty parties (Hartlepool and Batley) or Greens (elsewhere) possibly because they're pining for Jez. Lab -4, Green +4.

    The first of those effects looks pretty set in stone now. The second is the one that moves over time, according to perceived government competence.

    The third is the interesting one. What's driving it, and can Labour do anything about it?
    Somewhat disappointingly from my point of view as a Unionist you also need to have a movement from Scottish Labour to the SNP worth something like -2 across the UK as well. SLAB are not in a good place.
    And SLab are the last bastion of the Union. Once they irreversibly fall, the Union falls.
    My FPT re Mr Sarwar:

    "Haw! "I’m in charge, I’m the boss.” He's not even i/c a separate accounting unit.

    Thge context of the story is interesting - he was slapped down trying to persuade London to lift the suspension of the Aberdeen 9 back in (the Aberdeen cooncillors who went full fat Unionist and hopped into bed with the Tories and Indepedents (not that kind) and were suspenced years ago).

    https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/politics/scottish-politics/3317392/weak-and-pathetic-anas-sarwar-blasted-by-ex-council-boss-over-aberdeen-nine-saga/ "

    Mr Sarwar certainly seems to be doing his best to shore up the Union.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 38,440
    rkrkrk said:

    DavidL said:

    I would definitely bet against them being reintroduced but I do expect the "guidance" to get ever more emphatic.

    Care to bet on here... winnings to pb.com? I don't have a Ladbrokes account.
    I am not particularly flush at the moment but £25 that there is no new mandatory measures as defined by Smarkets after 19th July before 31st December 2021? I think its possible that some of the restrictions re masks might be left in place on "freedom day" but I don't think he will add to them. Winnings to the site.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 12,368
    TOPPING said:

    Definite lay at evens.

    It would be a tremendous failure to reintroduce restrictions at this point and what would be the point? Previously we could have restrictions in order to buy time to vaccinate people, but now the vaccines rolled out what is the exit plan if we go back into restrictions?

    It would be like deciding to reinvade Afghanistan.

    Which tbf the UK has done in its past.
    Three times? So it's an even better comparison.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 58,366
    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    Given over 50% of us have now been double vaccinated and we should all have been offered both jabs by the end of September, the only reason I could see further restrictions in the winter is if the virus mutates again in such a way as to stop the vaccine providing immunity or because a booster jab is needed and while that is taking place

    I think what our innumerate media are having trouble coming to terms with is that even if being double vaxxed gives you 95% protection against serious illness 5% of 54m adults is still a hell of a lot of people becoming seriously ill. Roughly 2.7m people over the pandemic although many have already been ill, died or recovered. And when you add in a higher proportion of those not vaxxed for whatever reason we have a rough path ahead of us. The next 6 months are going to be hard for the population and hard for the NHS. Those claiming this is over are mistaken.

    But another lockdown would be humiliating and Boris will do his level best to avoid it.
    Your maths is wrong. 95% is the protection versus if you were unvaccinated, so 5% isn't your risk of being seriously ill since you didn't have a 100% chance of being seriously ill if you got infected in the first place. If 5% of people originally got seriously ill, and the vaccines have 95% protection, then that means you now have a 0.25% of becoming seriously ill post-vaccines.

    Its not over but its as over as its going to be.

    Now we need to let nature take its course. If some antivaxxers die then that's their choice. If some vaccinated people do that's a shame but it will be at very low risk.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 31,829
    Sandpit said:

    Apparently 90,000 through the gates at Silverstone already today.

    How many people are working from home there, I wonder? ;)

    A fair number, I'd guess.
    In any event, the contest for the championship is over.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 32,646

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    Given over 50% of us have now been double vaccinated and we should all have been offered both jabs by the end of September, the only reason I could see further restrictions in the winter is if the virus mutates again in such a way as to stop the vaccine providing immunity or because a booster jab is needed and while that is taking place

    I think what our innumerate media are having trouble coming to terms with is that even if being double vaxxed gives you 95% protection against serious illness 5% of 54m adults is still a hell of a lot of people becoming seriously ill. Roughly 2.7m people over the pandemic although many have already been ill, died or recovered. And when you add in a higher proportion of those not vaxxed for whatever reason we have a rough path ahead of us. The next 6 months are going to be hard for the population and hard for the NHS. Those claiming this is over are mistaken.

    But another lockdown would be humiliating and Boris will do his level best to avoid it.
    The media do seem to react with shock and confusion when some well known face tests positive...how can this happen, they are vaccinated they say....
    Andrew Marr was the textbook example. He was down for a few days, but back at work shortly afterwards. If he hadn’t been vaccinated he’d have been a serious risk, given his history of sickness.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 38,440

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    Given over 50% of us have now been double vaccinated and we should all have been offered both jabs by the end of September, the only reason I could see further restrictions in the winter is if the virus mutates again in such a way as to stop the vaccine providing immunity or because a booster jab is needed and while that is taking place

    I think what our innumerate media are having trouble coming to terms with is that even if being double vaxxed gives you 95% protection against serious illness 5% of 54m adults is still a hell of a lot of people becoming seriously ill. Roughly 2.7m people over the pandemic although many have already been ill, died or recovered. And when you add in a higher proportion of those not vaxxed for whatever reason we have a rough path ahead of us. The next 6 months are going to be hard for the population and hard for the NHS. Those claiming this is over are mistaken.

    But another lockdown would be humiliating and Boris will do his level best to avoid it.
    Your maths is wrong. 95% is the protection versus if you were unvaccinated, so 5% isn't your risk of being seriously ill since you didn't have a 100% chance of being seriously ill if you got infected in the first place. If 5% of people originally got seriously ill, and the vaccines have 95% protection, then that means you now have a 0.25% of becoming seriously ill post-vaccines.

    Its not over but its as over as its going to be.

    Now we need to let nature take its course. If some antivaxxers die then that's their choice. If some vaccinated people do that's a shame but it will be at very low risk.
    My maths is only wrong if we don't all ultimately catch it, whether it makes us ill or not. At the moment it is looking increasingly probable we will.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 214
    I think everyone, especially the media, is guilty of recency bias, and is assuming we’ll spend the rest of the year with rising cases. There simply aren’t enough covid-naive bodies out there to infect.

    By sometime in August by my reckoning cases will be falling (while they rise towards a September peak in the US). Almost all of the exit wave models I’ve seen show a significant wave now followed by little or no wave in the coming winter. I’ve no reason to doubt the logic. Unless we lock ourselves down now, either by Fiat or through personal behavioural responses.
  • kamskikamski Posts: 2,017

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    Given over 50% of us have now been double vaccinated and we should all have been offered both jabs by the end of September, the only reason I could see further restrictions in the winter is if the virus mutates again in such a way as to stop the vaccine providing immunity or because a booster jab is needed and while that is taking place

    I think what our innumerate media are having trouble coming to terms with is that even if being double vaxxed gives you 95% protection against serious illness 5% of 54m adults is still a hell of a lot of people becoming seriously ill. Roughly 2.7m people over the pandemic although many have already been ill, died or recovered. And when you add in a higher proportion of those not vaxxed for whatever reason we have a rough path ahead of us. The next 6 months are going to be hard for the population and hard for the NHS. Those claiming this is over are mistaken.

    But another lockdown would be humiliating and Boris will do his level best to avoid it.
    Your maths is wrong. 95% is the protection versus if you were unvaccinated, so 5% isn't your risk of being seriously ill since you didn't have a 100% chance of being seriously ill if you got infected in the first place. If 5% of people originally got seriously ill, and the vaccines have 95% protection, then that means you now have a 0.25% of becoming seriously ill post-vaccines.

    Its not over but its as over as its going to be.

    Now we need to let nature take its course. If some antivaxxers die then that's their choice. If some vaccinated people do that's a shame but it will be at very low risk.
    Yes, I think media needs to repeat what 95% protection means, because lots of people don't seem to understand this. And tbf it can be confusing.

    If you're reasonably young, and reasonably healthy, and double-vaxxed then your chances of getting seriously ill even if infected are very very low.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 4,012
    Sandpit said:

    Apparently 90,000 through the gates at Silverstone already today.

    How many people are working from home there, I wonder? ;)

    Superspreader event par excellence. And astonishingly bad timing.
  • NerysHughesNerysHughes Posts: 1,960
    If restrictions are reenforced it means the vaccines don't work. But as they do then restrictions won't happen.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 22,766
    I trust you darling but if you're not back by 11 your father will ground you and I won't be able to stop him.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 6,700
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    Given over 50% of us have now been double vaccinated and we should all have been offered both jabs by the end of September, the only reason I could see further restrictions in the winter is if the virus mutates again in such a way as to stop the vaccine providing immunity or because a booster jab is needed and while that is taking place

    I think what our innumerate media are having trouble coming to terms with is that even if being double vaxxed gives you 95% protection against serious illness 5% of 54m adults is still a hell of a lot of people becoming seriously ill. Roughly 2.7m people over the pandemic although many have already been ill, died or recovered. And when you add in a higher proportion of those not vaxxed for whatever reason we have a rough path ahead of us. The next 6 months are going to be hard for the population and hard for the NHS. Those claiming this is over are mistaken.

    But another lockdown would be humiliating and Boris will do his level best to avoid it.
    Your maths is wrong. 95% is the protection versus if you were unvaccinated, so 5% isn't your risk of being seriously ill since you didn't have a 100% chance of being seriously ill if you got infected in the first place. If 5% of people originally got seriously ill, and the vaccines have 95% protection, then that means you now have a 0.25% of becoming seriously ill post-vaccines.

    Its not over but its as over as its going to be.

    Now we need to let nature take its course. If some antivaxxers die then that's their choice. If some vaccinated people do that's a shame but it will be at very low risk.
    My maths is only wrong if we don't all ultimately catch it, whether it makes us ill or not. At the moment it is looking increasingly probable we will.
    Your chance of becoming seriously ill wasn’t 5% before vaccines, let alone with vaccines
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 32,646
    edited July 16
    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Apparently 90,000 through the gates at Silverstone already today.

    How many people are working from home there, I wonder? ;)

    A fair number, I'd guess.
    In any event, the contest for the championship is over.
    Well, if MV stays more than half a second in front of everyone through tonight’s qualifying session, you may well be right.

    Perez in 9th needs to be more of a team mate though, the Mercs could screw up his race playing the team game.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 4,151

    Definite lay at evens.

    It would be a tremendous failure to reintroduce restrictions at this point and what would be the point? Previously we could have restrictions in order to buy time to vaccinate people, but now the vaccines rolled out what is the exit plan if we go back into restrictions?

    It would be like deciding to reinvade Afghanistan.

    For the fifth time?

    We're only on our third time of relaxing Coronavirus restrictions. Afghanistan not the best precedent for this.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 29,568

    HYUFD said:

    Given over 50% of us have now been double vaccinated and we should all have been offered both jabs by the end of September, the only reason I could see further restrictions in the winter is if the virus mutates again in such a way as to stop the vaccine providing immunity or because a booster jab is needed and while that is taking place

    Hungary just announced they are going for third dose. Many other countries are in the starting block. This’ll scare a lot of horses.
    They're using Sputnik V and Sinovac. If only they'd used AZ.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 86,002

    DavidL said:

    dixiedean said:

    Cicero said:

    Reading the UK headlines today, it seems like the government is descending into an absolute shambles.

    Ministers suggesting that France is going "Red" despite having a fraction of the out of control numbers in Britain, which is still theoretically planning to abandon all restrictions. Could anything infuriate a very large number of Tory voters more? Its almost as if Johnson wants to screw things up for his own party... Lib Dems gaining Guildford looks nailed on.

    More to the point, Labour gaining Uxbridge and South Ruislip...

    Seriously though, it really does seem like the Tories have lost the will to live, every day more spectacularly stupid decisions, from Covid to Sleaze and the corrosive acid of the Hard Brexit desolving more and more of the economy and indeed the very fabric of the Union.

    Anyone quoting odds on whether Johnson will hold his own seat? If this tsumani gets going then 1997 could end up looking like a walk in the park...

    And yet they lead the polls by a large amount.
    I know.
    My take on the big picture numbers is that three moves have happened since December 2019.

    1 Most of the residual BXP vote has moved into the Conservative column (see Hartlepool). So C +2 say

    2 A chunk of the Conservative 2019 vote has moved elsewhere, Lib or Lab (see Batley and Spen and Chesham and Amersham). C-4 Lab +4 say.

    3 A chunk of the Labour 2019 vote has peeled off to explicit lefty parties (Hartlepool and Batley) or Greens (elsewhere) possibly because they're pining for Jez. Lab -4, Green +4.

    The first of those effects looks pretty set in stone now. The second is the one that moves over time, according to perceived government competence.

    The third is the interesting one. What's driving it, and can Labour do anything about it?
    Somewhat disappointingly from my point of view as a Unionist you also need to have a movement from Scottish Labour to the SNP worth something like -2 across the UK as well. SLAB are not in a good place.
    And SLab are the last bastion of the Union. Once they irreversibly fall, the Union falls.
    Rubbish, as long as there is a Tory UK government it does not matter what happens in Scotland, indyref2 will be refused.

    In fact the SNP need a minority UK Labour government reliant on their support if they are ever to be allowed another independence referendum again
  • LeonLeon Posts: 9,050
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    Given over 50% of us have now been double vaccinated and we should all have been offered both jabs by the end of September, the only reason I could see further restrictions in the winter is if the virus mutates again in such a way as to stop the vaccine providing immunity or because a booster jab is needed and while that is taking place

    I think what our innumerate media are having trouble coming to terms with is that even if being double vaxxed gives you 95% protection against serious illness 5% of 54m adults is still a hell of a lot of people becoming seriously ill. Roughly 2.7m people over the pandemic although many have already been ill, died or recovered. And when you add in a higher proportion of those not vaxxed for whatever reason we have a rough path ahead of us. The next 6 months are going to be hard for the population and hard for the NHS. Those claiming this is over are mistaken.

    But another lockdown would be humiliating and Boris will do his level best to avoid it.
    Your maths is wrong. 95% is the protection versus if you were unvaccinated, so 5% isn't your risk of being seriously ill since you didn't have a 100% chance of being seriously ill if you got infected in the first place. If 5% of people originally got seriously ill, and the vaccines have 95% protection, then that means you now have a 0.25% of becoming seriously ill post-vaccines.

    Its not over but its as over as its going to be.

    Now we need to let nature take its course. If some antivaxxers die then that's their choice. If some vaccinated people do that's a shame but it will be at very low risk.
    My maths is only wrong if we don't all ultimately catch it, whether it makes us ill or not. At the moment it is looking increasingly probable we will.
    In the end we will surely all get this, unless we find a vaccine with 99.99% efficiency, and this is shipped around the world and the virus is actually eradicated, because it runs out of hosts

    That's not likely, however it is still worth delaying your personal liaision with the Wuhan Lab Lurgy as the longer you wait, the better the treatments, the more superior our understanding of Long Covid, &c


    Incidentally, is there any evidence that the vaccines are protective against Long Covid? We know they are very good at preventing hospitalisation and death, and also quite good at subduing transmission, but what about Long Covid?

    I've read enough reports to believe LC is a thing and I really don't want it
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 31,829
    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Apparently 90,000 through the gates at Silverstone already today.

    How many people are working from home there, I wonder? ;)

    A fair number, I'd guess.
    In any event, the contest for the championship is over.
    Well, if MV stays more than half a second in front of everyone through tonight’s qualifying session, you may well be right.
    It was pretty certain at the last GP.
    Merc bringing their one big upgrade of the season to a GP where they only get one real practice session is obviously non-optimal, but I don't think will make that much difference over the season.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 4,012
    Carnyx said:

    DavidL said:

    dixiedean said:

    Cicero said:

    Reading the UK headlines today, it seems like the government is descending into an absolute shambles.

    Ministers suggesting that France is going "Red" despite having a fraction of the out of control numbers in Britain, which is still theoretically planning to abandon all restrictions. Could anything infuriate a very large number of Tory voters more? Its almost as if Johnson wants to screw things up for his own party... Lib Dems gaining Guildford looks nailed on.

    More to the point, Labour gaining Uxbridge and South Ruislip...

    Seriously though, it really does seem like the Tories have lost the will to live, every day more spectacularly stupid decisions, from Covid to Sleaze and the corrosive acid of the Hard Brexit desolving more and more of the economy and indeed the very fabric of the Union.

    Anyone quoting odds on whether Johnson will hold his own seat? If this tsumani gets going then 1997 could end up looking like a walk in the park...

    And yet they lead the polls by a large amount.
    I know.
    My take on the big picture numbers is that three moves have happened since December 2019.

    1 Most of the residual BXP vote has moved into the Conservative column (see Hartlepool). So C +2 say

    2 A chunk of the Conservative 2019 vote has moved elsewhere, Lib or Lab (see Batley and Spen and Chesham and Amersham). C-4 Lab +4 say.

    3 A chunk of the Labour 2019 vote has peeled off to explicit lefty parties (Hartlepool and Batley) or Greens (elsewhere) possibly because they're pining for Jez. Lab -4, Green +4.

    The first of those effects looks pretty set in stone now. The second is the one that moves over time, according to perceived government competence.

    The third is the interesting one. What's driving it, and can Labour do anything about it?
    Somewhat disappointingly from my point of view as a Unionist you also need to have a movement from Scottish Labour to the SNP worth something like -2 across the UK as well. SLAB are not in a good place.
    And SLab are the last bastion of the Union. Once they irreversibly fall, the Union falls.
    My FPT re Mr Sarwar:

    "Haw! "I’m in charge, I’m the boss.” He's not even i/c a separate accounting unit.

    Thge context of the story is interesting - he was slapped down trying to persuade London to lift the suspension of the Aberdeen 9 back in (the Aberdeen cooncillors who went full fat Unionist and hopped into bed with the Tories and Indepedents (not that kind) and were suspenced years ago).

    https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/politics/scottish-politics/3317392/weak-and-pathetic-anas-sarwar-blasted-by-ex-council-boss-over-aberdeen-nine-saga/ "

    Mr Sarwar certainly seems to be doing his best to shore up the Union.
    Anas is a nice guy, but he is weak. This is widely understood in the small world of Scottish politics.

    Sure, some people grow into the leadership role after they achieve the office of leader, but nothing in Anas’s background indicates the ruthlessness, determination and nous necessary to be a good leader. He has six months to prove himself. Twelve months tops. If he’s still a dud this time next year, the Union’s over.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 3,684
    edited July 16
    The market excludes (re)introduction of self isolation, which is a big omission and among the more likely.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 6,021

    HYUFD said:

    Given over 50% of us have now been double vaccinated and we should all have been offered both jabs by the end of September, the only reason I could see further restrictions in the winter is if the virus mutates again in such a way as to stop the vaccine providing immunity or because a booster jab is needed and while that is taking place

    Hungary just announced they are going for third dose. Many other countries are in the starting block. This’ll scare a lot of horses.
    They’ve been using Sinovac.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 58,366
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    Given over 50% of us have now been double vaccinated and we should all have been offered both jabs by the end of September, the only reason I could see further restrictions in the winter is if the virus mutates again in such a way as to stop the vaccine providing immunity or because a booster jab is needed and while that is taking place

    I think what our innumerate media are having trouble coming to terms with is that even if being double vaxxed gives you 95% protection against serious illness 5% of 54m adults is still a hell of a lot of people becoming seriously ill. Roughly 2.7m people over the pandemic although many have already been ill, died or recovered. And when you add in a higher proportion of those not vaxxed for whatever reason we have a rough path ahead of us. The next 6 months are going to be hard for the population and hard for the NHS. Those claiming this is over are mistaken.

    But another lockdown would be humiliating and Boris will do his level best to avoid it.
    Your maths is wrong. 95% is the protection versus if you were unvaccinated, so 5% isn't your risk of being seriously ill since you didn't have a 100% chance of being seriously ill if you got infected in the first place. If 5% of people originally got seriously ill, and the vaccines have 95% protection, then that means you now have a 0.25% of becoming seriously ill post-vaccines.

    Its not over but its as over as its going to be.

    Now we need to let nature take its course. If some antivaxxers die then that's their choice. If some vaccinated people do that's a shame but it will be at very low risk.
    My maths is only wrong if we don't all ultimately catch it, whether it makes us ill or not. At the moment it is looking increasingly probable we will.
    No because you're confusing vaccine efficacy with the risk of being seriously ill. The risk of being seriously ill was never 100%.

    Put it this way, if vaccine efficacy is 95% for protecting against death it doesn't mean that 5% of vaccinated people will die. It couldn't since 5% of people didn't die in the first place.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 86,002
    edited July 16

    Carnyx said:

    DavidL said:

    dixiedean said:

    Cicero said:

    Reading the UK headlines today, it seems like the government is descending into an absolute shambles.

    Ministers suggesting that France is going "Red" despite having a fraction of the out of control numbers in Britain, which is still theoretically planning to abandon all restrictions. Could anything infuriate a very large number of Tory voters more? Its almost as if Johnson wants to screw things up for his own party... Lib Dems gaining Guildford looks nailed on.

    More to the point, Labour gaining Uxbridge and South Ruislip...

    Seriously though, it really does seem like the Tories have lost the will to live, every day more spectacularly stupid decisions, from Covid to Sleaze and the corrosive acid of the Hard Brexit desolving more and more of the economy and indeed the very fabric of the Union.

    Anyone quoting odds on whether Johnson will hold his own seat? If this tsumani gets going then 1997 could end up looking like a walk in the park...

    And yet they lead the polls by a large amount.
    I know.
    My take on the big picture numbers is that three moves have happened since December 2019.

    1 Most of the residual BXP vote has moved into the Conservative column (see Hartlepool). So C +2 say

    2 A chunk of the Conservative 2019 vote has moved elsewhere, Lib or Lab (see Batley and Spen and Chesham and Amersham). C-4 Lab +4 say.

    3 A chunk of the Labour 2019 vote has peeled off to explicit lefty parties (Hartlepool and Batley) or Greens (elsewhere) possibly because they're pining for Jez. Lab -4, Green +4.

    The first of those effects looks pretty set in stone now. The second is the one that moves over time, according to perceived government competence.

    The third is the interesting one. What's driving it, and can Labour do anything about it?
    Somewhat disappointingly from my point of view as a Unionist you also need to have a movement from Scottish Labour to the SNP worth something like -2 across the UK as well. SLAB are not in a good place.
    And SLab are the last bastion of the Union. Once they irreversibly fall, the Union falls.
    My FPT re Mr Sarwar:

    "Haw! "I’m in charge, I’m the boss.” He's not even i/c a separate accounting unit.

    Thge context of the story is interesting - he was slapped down trying to persuade London to lift the suspension of the Aberdeen 9 back in (the Aberdeen cooncillors who went full fat Unionist and hopped into bed with the Tories and Indepedents (not that kind) and were suspenced years ago).

    https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/politics/scottish-politics/3317392/weak-and-pathetic-anas-sarwar-blasted-by-ex-council-boss-over-aberdeen-nine-saga/ "

    Mr Sarwar certainly seems to be doing his best to shore up the Union.
    Anas is a nice guy, but he is weak. This is widely understood in the small world of Scottish politics.

    Sure, some people grow into the leadership role after they achieve the office of leader, but nothing in Anas’s background indicates the ruthlessness, determination and nous necessary to be a good leader. He has six months to prove himself. Twelve months tops. If he’s still a dud this time next year, the Union’s over.
    As long as we Tories remain in power in the UK the Union will never be over, you Nats have still not realised that legally and constututionally Sturgeon is powerless on the Union without UK government support for indyref2.

    Though of course a minority Labour government offering devomax would be less likely to see a Yes vote in any indyref2 anyway
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 62,763
    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    Given over 50% of us have now been double vaccinated and we should all have been offered both jabs by the end of September, the only reason I could see further restrictions in the winter is if the virus mutates again in such a way as to stop the vaccine providing immunity or because a booster jab is needed and while that is taking place

    I think what our innumerate media are having trouble coming to terms with is that even if being double vaxxed gives you 95% protection against serious illness 5% of 54m adults is still a hell of a lot of people becoming seriously ill. Roughly 2.7m people over the pandemic although many have already been ill, died or recovered. And when you add in a higher proportion of those not vaxxed for whatever reason we have a rough path ahead of us. The next 6 months are going to be hard for the population and hard for the NHS. Those claiming this is over are mistaken.

    But another lockdown would be humiliating and Boris will do his level best to avoid it.
    Your maths is wrong. 95% is the protection versus if you were unvaccinated, so 5% isn't your risk of being seriously ill since you didn't have a 100% chance of being seriously ill if you got infected in the first place. If 5% of people originally got seriously ill, and the vaccines have 95% protection, then that means you now have a 0.25% of becoming seriously ill post-vaccines.

    Its not over but its as over as its going to be.

    Now we need to let nature take its course. If some antivaxxers die then that's their choice. If some vaccinated people do that's a shame but it will be at very low risk.
    My maths is only wrong if we don't all ultimately catch it, whether it makes us ill or not. At the moment it is looking increasingly probable we will.
    In the end we will surely all get this, unless we find a vaccine with 99.99% efficiency, and this is shipped around the world and the virus is actually eradicated, because it runs out of hosts

    That's not likely, however it is still worth delaying your personal liaision with the Wuhan Lab Lurgy as the longer you wait, the better the treatments, the more superior our understanding of Long Covid, &c


    Incidentally, is there any evidence that the vaccines are protective against Long Covid? We know they are very good at preventing hospitalisation and death, and also quite good at subduing transmission, but what about Long Covid?

    I've read enough reports to believe LC is a thing and I really don't want it
    Tim Spector said today yes, vaccine significantly reduce long covid...data out soon.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 32,646
    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Apparently 90,000 through the gates at Silverstone already today.

    How many people are working from home there, I wonder? ;)

    A fair number, I'd guess.
    In any event, the contest for the championship is over.
    Well, if MV stays more than half a second in front of everyone through tonight’s qualifying session, you may well be right.
    It was pretty certain at the last GP.
    Merc bringing their one big upgrade of the season to a GP where they only get one real practice session is obviously non-optimal, but I don't think will make that much difference over the season.
    The big difference is that MV had five DNFs last season. So far this year, he seems to have a reliable car. Prototype racing has always been about threading the needle, between performance and reliability.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 12,368

    Carnyx said:

    DavidL said:

    dixiedean said:

    Cicero said:

    Reading the UK headlines today, it seems like the government is descending into an absolute shambles.

    Ministers suggesting that France is going "Red" despite having a fraction of the out of control numbers in Britain, which is still theoretically planning to abandon all restrictions. Could anything infuriate a very large number of Tory voters more? Its almost as if Johnson wants to screw things up for his own party... Lib Dems gaining Guildford looks nailed on.

    More to the point, Labour gaining Uxbridge and South Ruislip...

    Seriously though, it really does seem like the Tories have lost the will to live, every day more spectacularly stupid decisions, from Covid to Sleaze and the corrosive acid of the Hard Brexit desolving more and more of the economy and indeed the very fabric of the Union.

    Anyone quoting odds on whether Johnson will hold his own seat? If this tsumani gets going then 1997 could end up looking like a walk in the park...

    And yet they lead the polls by a large amount.
    I know.
    My take on the big picture numbers is that three moves have happened since December 2019.

    1 Most of the residual BXP vote has moved into the Conservative column (see Hartlepool). So C +2 say

    2 A chunk of the Conservative 2019 vote has moved elsewhere, Lib or Lab (see Batley and Spen and Chesham and Amersham). C-4 Lab +4 say.

    3 A chunk of the Labour 2019 vote has peeled off to explicit lefty parties (Hartlepool and Batley) or Greens (elsewhere) possibly because they're pining for Jez. Lab -4, Green +4.

    The first of those effects looks pretty set in stone now. The second is the one that moves over time, according to perceived government competence.

    The third is the interesting one. What's driving it, and can Labour do anything about it?
    Somewhat disappointingly from my point of view as a Unionist you also need to have a movement from Scottish Labour to the SNP worth something like -2 across the UK as well. SLAB are not in a good place.
    And SLab are the last bastion of the Union. Once they irreversibly fall, the Union falls.
    My FPT re Mr Sarwar:

    "Haw! "I’m in charge, I’m the boss.” He's not even i/c a separate accounting unit.

    Thge context of the story is interesting - he was slapped down trying to persuade London to lift the suspension of the Aberdeen 9 back in (the Aberdeen cooncillors who went full fat Unionist and hopped into bed with the Tories and Indepedents (not that kind) and were suspenced years ago).

    https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/politics/scottish-politics/3317392/weak-and-pathetic-anas-sarwar-blasted-by-ex-council-boss-over-aberdeen-nine-saga/ "

    Mr Sarwar certainly seems to be doing his best to shore up the Union.
    Anas is a nice guy, but he is weak. This is widely understood in the small world of Scottish politics.

    Sure, some people grow into the leadership role after they achieve the office of leader, but nothing in Anas’s background indicates the ruthlessness, determination and nous necessary to be a good leader. He has six months to prove himself. Twelve months tops. If he’s still a dud this time next year, the Union’s over.
    It does rather leave the ScoTories as the bastion, plus a jeep-full of LDs with Mr Galloway buzzing around. And their vote share was what, 18% in that (admittedly subsample) poll? Or am I misoverestimating?
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 28,745
    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    Given over 50% of us have now been double vaccinated and we should all have been offered both jabs by the end of September, the only reason I could see further restrictions in the winter is if the virus mutates again in such a way as to stop the vaccine providing immunity or because a booster jab is needed and while that is taking place

    I think what our innumerate media are having trouble coming to terms with is that even if being double vaxxed gives you 95% protection against serious illness 5% of 54m adults is still a hell of a lot of people becoming seriously ill. Roughly 2.7m people over the pandemic although many have already been ill, died or recovered. And when you add in a higher proportion of those not vaxxed for whatever reason we have a rough path ahead of us. The next 6 months are going to be hard for the population and hard for the NHS. Those claiming this is over are mistaken.

    But another lockdown would be humiliating and Boris will do his level best to avoid it.
    Your maths is wrong. 95% is the protection versus if you were unvaccinated, so 5% isn't your risk of being seriously ill since you didn't have a 100% chance of being seriously ill if you got infected in the first place. If 5% of people originally got seriously ill, and the vaccines have 95% protection, then that means you now have a 0.25% of becoming seriously ill post-vaccines.

    Its not over but its as over as its going to be.

    Now we need to let nature take its course. If some antivaxxers die then that's their choice. If some vaccinated people do that's a shame but it will be at very low risk.
    My maths is only wrong if we don't all ultimately catch it, whether it makes us ill or not. At the moment it is looking increasingly probable we will.
    In the end we will surely all get this, unless we find a vaccine with 99.99% efficiency, and this is shipped around the world and the virus is actually eradicated, because it runs out of hosts

    That's not likely, however it is still worth delaying your personal liaision with the Wuhan Lab Lurgy as the longer you wait, the better the treatments, the more superior our understanding of Long Covid, &c


    Incidentally, is there any evidence that the vaccines are protective against Long Covid? We know they are very good at preventing hospitalisation and death, and also quite good at subduing transmission, but what about Long Covid?

    I've read enough reports to believe LC is a thing and I really don't want it
    According to Prof Spector, yes, the jabs do provide protection against Long Covid. I think he said he's going to release some data on this shortly.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 12,368
    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    Given over 50% of us have now been double vaccinated and we should all have been offered both jabs by the end of September, the only reason I could see further restrictions in the winter is if the virus mutates again in such a way as to stop the vaccine providing immunity or because a booster jab is needed and while that is taking place

    I think what our innumerate media are having trouble coming to terms with is that even if being double vaxxed gives you 95% protection against serious illness 5% of 54m adults is still a hell of a lot of people becoming seriously ill. Roughly 2.7m people over the pandemic although many have already been ill, died or recovered. And when you add in a higher proportion of those not vaxxed for whatever reason we have a rough path ahead of us. The next 6 months are going to be hard for the population and hard for the NHS. Those claiming this is over are mistaken.

    But another lockdown would be humiliating and Boris will do his level best to avoid it.
    Your maths is wrong. 95% is the protection versus if you were unvaccinated, so 5% isn't your risk of being seriously ill since you didn't have a 100% chance of being seriously ill if you got infected in the first place. If 5% of people originally got seriously ill, and the vaccines have 95% protection, then that means you now have a 0.25% of becoming seriously ill post-vaccines.

    Its not over but its as over as its going to be.

    Now we need to let nature take its course. If some antivaxxers die then that's their choice. If some vaccinated people do that's a shame but it will be at very low risk.
    My maths is only wrong if we don't all ultimately catch it, whether it makes us ill or not. At the moment it is looking increasingly probable we will.
    In the end we will surely all get this, unless we find a vaccine with 99.99% efficiency, and this is shipped around the world and the virus is actually eradicated, because it runs out of hosts

    That's not likely, however it is still worth delaying your personal liaision with the Wuhan Lab Lurgy as the longer you wait, the better the treatments, the more superior our understanding of Long Covid, &c


    Incidentally, is there any evidence that the vaccines are protective against Long Covid? We know they are very good at preventing hospitalisation and death, and also quite good at subduing transmission, but what about Long Covid?

    I've read enough reports to believe LC is a thing and I really don't want it
    One of us said this morning (apols, can't remember who) that a study is coming out any day now (by Spector), I think.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 29,568
    edited July 16
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    Given over 50% of us have now been double vaccinated and we should all have been offered both jabs by the end of September, the only reason I could see further restrictions in the winter is if the virus mutates again in such a way as to stop the vaccine providing immunity or because a booster jab is needed and while that is taking place

    I think what our innumerate media are having trouble coming to terms with is that even if being double vaxxed gives you 95% protection against serious illness 5% of 54m adults is still a hell of a lot of people becoming seriously ill. Roughly 2.7m people over the pandemic although many have already been ill, died or recovered. And when you add in a higher proportion of those not vaxxed for whatever reason we have a rough path ahead of us. The next 6 months are going to be hard for the population and hard for the NHS. Those claiming this is over are mistaken.

    But another lockdown would be humiliating and Boris will do his level best to avoid it.
    Your maths is wrong. 95% is the protection versus if you were unvaccinated, so 5% isn't your risk of being seriously ill since you didn't have a 100% chance of being seriously ill if you got infected in the first place. If 5% of people originally got seriously ill, and the vaccines have 95% protection, then that means you now have a 0.25% of becoming seriously ill post-vaccines.

    Its not over but its as over as its going to be.

    Now we need to let nature take its course. If some antivaxxers die then that's their choice. If some vaccinated people do that's a shame but it will be at very low risk.
    My maths is only wrong if we don't all ultimately catch it, whether it makes us ill or not. At the moment it is looking increasingly probable we will.
    That's not how it works. If a million healthy people under 40 get COVID without a vaccine around 30,000 will be hospitalised, if a million double vaccinated healthy under 40s get COVID around 900 will be hospitalised. Pfizer and Moderna reduce the number of people who are hospitalised by around 97% two weeks after the second dose. It doesn't mean that someone under 40 has got a 3% chance of being hospitalised, it means that 97% of those who would otherwise have been hospitalised won't be.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 12,368
    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    dixiedean said:

    Cicero said:

    Reading the UK headlines today, it seems like the government is descending into an absolute shambles.

    Ministers suggesting that France is going "Red" despite having a fraction of the out of control numbers in Britain, which is still theoretically planning to abandon all restrictions. Could anything infuriate a very large number of Tory voters more? Its almost as if Johnson wants to screw things up for his own party... Lib Dems gaining Guildford looks nailed on.

    More to the point, Labour gaining Uxbridge and South Ruislip...

    Seriously though, it really does seem like the Tories have lost the will to live, every day more spectacularly stupid decisions, from Covid to Sleaze and the corrosive acid of the Hard Brexit desolving more and more of the economy and indeed the very fabric of the Union.

    Anyone quoting odds on whether Johnson will hold his own seat? If this tsumani gets going then 1997 could end up looking like a walk in the park...

    And yet they lead the polls by a large amount.
    I know.
    My take on the big picture numbers is that three moves have happened since December 2019.

    1 Most of the residual BXP vote has moved into the Conservative column (see Hartlepool). So C +2 say

    2 A chunk of the Conservative 2019 vote has moved elsewhere, Lib or Lab (see Batley and Spen and Chesham and Amersham). C-4 Lab +4 say.

    3 A chunk of the Labour 2019 vote has peeled off to explicit lefty parties (Hartlepool and Batley) or Greens (elsewhere) possibly because they're pining for Jez. Lab -4, Green +4.

    The first of those effects looks pretty set in stone now. The second is the one that moves over time, according to perceived government competence.

    The third is the interesting one. What's driving it, and can Labour do anything about it?
    Somewhat disappointingly from my point of view as a Unionist you also need to have a movement from Scottish Labour to the SNP worth something like -2 across the UK as well. SLAB are not in a good place.
    And SLab are the last bastion of the Union. Once they irreversibly fall, the Union falls.
    Rubbish, as long as there is a Tory UK government it does not matter what happens in Scotland, indyref2 will be refused.

    In fact the SNP need a minority UK Labour government reliant on their support if they are ever to be allowed another independence referendum again
    Do you think you could have a word with OGH and put up a permanent notice with those sentiments on PB? You know, like a political advertisement? It would save you so much typing. And I am sure he would charge you a donation to PB, so all to the good.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 62,763
    edited July 16
    DavidL is wrong btw. Its 95% reduction in chance of severe covid vs unvaccinated, which was ~10% of those that catch covid, but it is very age dependent...but you can't even quite extrapolate that simply as the 95% figure takes into consideration age and other factors.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 1,879
    HYUFD said:

    Given over 50% of us have now been double vaccinated and we should all have been offered both jabs by the end of September, the only reason I could see further restrictions in the winter is if the virus mutates again in such a way as to stop the vaccine providing immunity or because a booster jab is needed and while that is taking place

    The other possibility is that it happens in the very short term before everyone is double vaccinated if the numbers get bad enough to really spook Johnson. However, that is unlikely, I think.

    The one thing I could possibly see is some mandating of masks coming back in more limited circumstances - be interesting to see whether that would count. Excluding that, I'd put it under 50%, but not far enough under to tempt me.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 4,012
    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    dixiedean said:

    Cicero said:

    Reading the UK headlines today, it seems like the government is descending into an absolute shambles.

    Ministers suggesting that France is going "Red" despite having a fraction of the out of control numbers in Britain, which is still theoretically planning to abandon all restrictions. Could anything infuriate a very large number of Tory voters more? Its almost as if Johnson wants to screw things up for his own party... Lib Dems gaining Guildford looks nailed on.

    More to the point, Labour gaining Uxbridge and South Ruislip...

    Seriously though, it really does seem like the Tories have lost the will to live, every day more spectacularly stupid decisions, from Covid to Sleaze and the corrosive acid of the Hard Brexit desolving more and more of the economy and indeed the very fabric of the Union.

    Anyone quoting odds on whether Johnson will hold his own seat? If this tsumani gets going then 1997 could end up looking like a walk in the park...

    And yet they lead the polls by a large amount.
    I know.
    My take on the big picture numbers is that three moves have happened since December 2019.

    1 Most of the residual BXP vote has moved into the Conservative column (see Hartlepool). So C +2 say

    2 A chunk of the Conservative 2019 vote has moved elsewhere, Lib or Lab (see Batley and Spen and Chesham and Amersham). C-4 Lab +4 say.

    3 A chunk of the Labour 2019 vote has peeled off to explicit lefty parties (Hartlepool and Batley) or Greens (elsewhere) possibly because they're pining for Jez. Lab -4, Green +4.

    The first of those effects looks pretty set in stone now. The second is the one that moves over time, according to perceived government competence.

    The third is the interesting one. What's driving it, and can Labour do anything about it?
    Somewhat disappointingly from my point of view as a Unionist you also need to have a movement from Scottish Labour to the SNP worth something like -2 across the UK as well. SLAB are not in a good place.
    And SLab are the last bastion of the Union. Once they irreversibly fall, the Union falls.
    Rubbish, as long as there is a Tory UK government it does not matter what happens in Scotland, indyref2 will be refused.

    In fact the SNP need a minority UK Labour government reliant on their support if they are ever to be allowed another independence referendum again
    Proving once again that you don’t understand Scottish electoral behaviour.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 4,151
    algarkirk said:

    The market excludes (re)introduction of self isolation, which is a big omission and among the more likely.

    As we're seeing now, given the difficulties in preventing Covid transmission with test and trace, because of infectiousness in the pre-symptomatic phase, then self-isolation as a measure on its own mostly achieves little to reduce spread, but a lot to increase disruption.

    If they decide to reintroduce self isolation then I think they are on a stepping stone to introducing other restrictions.

    But I don't expect this. I expect us to rely on the vaccines alone.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 12,368
    Selebian said:

    HYUFD said:

    Given over 50% of us have now been double vaccinated and we should all have been offered both jabs by the end of September, the only reason I could see further restrictions in the winter is if the virus mutates again in such a way as to stop the vaccine providing immunity or because a booster jab is needed and while that is taking place

    The other possibility is that it happens in the very short term before everyone is double vaccinated if the numbers get bad enough to really spook Johnson. However, that is unlikely, I think.

    The one thing I could possibly see is some mandating of masks coming back in more limited circumstances - be interesting to see whether that would count. Excluding that, I'd put it under 50%, but not far enough under to tempt me.
    I wonder if the betters here woudl find it worth a book on when Messrs Whitty and Vallance resign?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 9,050

    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    Given over 50% of us have now been double vaccinated and we should all have been offered both jabs by the end of September, the only reason I could see further restrictions in the winter is if the virus mutates again in such a way as to stop the vaccine providing immunity or because a booster jab is needed and while that is taking place

    I think what our innumerate media are having trouble coming to terms with is that even if being double vaxxed gives you 95% protection against serious illness 5% of 54m adults is still a hell of a lot of people becoming seriously ill. Roughly 2.7m people over the pandemic although many have already been ill, died or recovered. And when you add in a higher proportion of those not vaxxed for whatever reason we have a rough path ahead of us. The next 6 months are going to be hard for the population and hard for the NHS. Those claiming this is over are mistaken.

    But another lockdown would be humiliating and Boris will do his level best to avoid it.
    Your maths is wrong. 95% is the protection versus if you were unvaccinated, so 5% isn't your risk of being seriously ill since you didn't have a 100% chance of being seriously ill if you got infected in the first place. If 5% of people originally got seriously ill, and the vaccines have 95% protection, then that means you now have a 0.25% of becoming seriously ill post-vaccines.

    Its not over but its as over as its going to be.

    Now we need to let nature take its course. If some antivaxxers die then that's their choice. If some vaccinated people do that's a shame but it will be at very low risk.
    My maths is only wrong if we don't all ultimately catch it, whether it makes us ill or not. At the moment it is looking increasingly probable we will.
    In the end we will surely all get this, unless we find a vaccine with 99.99% efficiency, and this is shipped around the world and the virus is actually eradicated, because it runs out of hosts

    That's not likely, however it is still worth delaying your personal liaision with the Wuhan Lab Lurgy as the longer you wait, the better the treatments, the more superior our understanding of Long Covid, &c


    Incidentally, is there any evidence that the vaccines are protective against Long Covid? We know they are very good at preventing hospitalisation and death, and also quite good at subduing transmission, but what about Long Covid?

    I've read enough reports to believe LC is a thing and I really don't want it
    According to Prof Spector, yes, the jabs do provide protection against Long Covid. I think he said he's going to release some data on this shortly.
    This is a really good Lancet summary of the somewhat confusing maths surrounding vaccines and their efficacy. Reassuringly, it says the Lancet itself has got this wrong, in the past, so it's not just PB-ers

    "It is imperative to dispel any ambiguity about how vaccine efficacy shown in trials translates into protecting individuals and populations. The mRNA-based Pfizer1, 2 and Moderna3 vaccines were shown to have 94–95% efficacy in preventing symptomatic COVID-19, calculated as 100 × (1 minus the attack rate with vaccine divided by the attack rate with placebo).

    "It means that in a population such as the one enrolled in the trials, with a cumulated COVID-19 attack rate over a period of 3 months of about 1% without a vaccine, we would expect roughly 0·05% of vaccinated people would get diseased. It does not mean that 95% of people are protected from disease with the vaccine—a general misconception of vaccine protection also found in a Lancet Infectious Diseases Editorial.

    "In the examples used in the Editorial, those protected are those who would have become diseased with COVID-19 had they not been vaccinated. This distinction is all the more important as, although we know the risk reduction achieved by these vaccines under trial conditions, we do not know whether and how it could vary if the vaccines were deployed on populations with different exposures, transmission levels, and attack rates.

    "Simple mathematics helps. If we vaccinated a population of 100 000 and protected 95% of them, that would leave 5000 individuals diseased over 3 months, which is almost the current overall COVID-19 case rate in the UK. Rather, a 95% vaccine efficacy means that instead of 1000 COVID-19 cases in a population of 100 000 without vaccine (from the placebo arm of the abovementioned trials, approximately 1% would be ill with COVID-19 and 99% would not) we would expect 50 cases (99·95% of the population is disease-free, at least for 3 months)."

    "Accurate description of effects is not hair-splitting; it is much-needed exactness to avoid adding confusion to an extraordinarily complicated and tense scientific and societal debate around COVID-19 vaccines."

    https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00075-X/fulltext
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 62,763
    edited July 16

    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    Given over 50% of us have now been double vaccinated and we should all have been offered both jabs by the end of September, the only reason I could see further restrictions in the winter is if the virus mutates again in such a way as to stop the vaccine providing immunity or because a booster jab is needed and while that is taking place

    I think what our innumerate media are having trouble coming to terms with is that even if being double vaxxed gives you 95% protection against serious illness 5% of 54m adults is still a hell of a lot of people becoming seriously ill. Roughly 2.7m people over the pandemic although many have already been ill, died or recovered. And when you add in a higher proportion of those not vaxxed for whatever reason we have a rough path ahead of us. The next 6 months are going to be hard for the population and hard for the NHS. Those claiming this is over are mistaken.

    But another lockdown would be humiliating and Boris will do his level best to avoid it.
    Your maths is wrong. 95% is the protection versus if you were unvaccinated, so 5% isn't your risk of being seriously ill since you didn't have a 100% chance of being seriously ill if you got infected in the first place. If 5% of people originally got seriously ill, and the vaccines have 95% protection, then that means you now have a 0.25% of becoming seriously ill post-vaccines.

    Its not over but its as over as its going to be.

    Now we need to let nature take its course. If some antivaxxers die then that's their choice. If some vaccinated people do that's a shame but it will be at very low risk.
    My maths is only wrong if we don't all ultimately catch it, whether it makes us ill or not. At the moment it is looking increasingly probable we will.
    In the end we will surely all get this, unless we find a vaccine with 99.99% efficiency, and this is shipped around the world and the virus is actually eradicated, because it runs out of hosts

    That's not likely, however it is still worth delaying your personal liaision with the Wuhan Lab Lurgy as the longer you wait, the better the treatments, the more superior our understanding of Long Covid, &c


    Incidentally, is there any evidence that the vaccines are protective against Long Covid? We know they are very good at preventing hospitalisation and death, and also quite good at subduing transmission, but what about Long Covid?

    I've read enough reports to believe LC is a thing and I really don't want it
    According to Prof Spector, yes, the jabs do provide protection against Long Covid. I think he said he's going to release some data on this shortly.
    iSAGE will be looking to pick apart this claim....as this is their current goal post shifting, where they already massively overclaim about long covid.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 4,012
    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    DavidL said:

    dixiedean said:

    Cicero said:

    Reading the UK headlines today, it seems like the government is descending into an absolute shambles.

    Ministers suggesting that France is going "Red" despite having a fraction of the out of control numbers in Britain, which is still theoretically planning to abandon all restrictions. Could anything infuriate a very large number of Tory voters more? Its almost as if Johnson wants to screw things up for his own party... Lib Dems gaining Guildford looks nailed on.

    More to the point, Labour gaining Uxbridge and South Ruislip...

    Seriously though, it really does seem like the Tories have lost the will to live, every day more spectacularly stupid decisions, from Covid to Sleaze and the corrosive acid of the Hard Brexit desolving more and more of the economy and indeed the very fabric of the Union.

    Anyone quoting odds on whether Johnson will hold his own seat? If this tsumani gets going then 1997 could end up looking like a walk in the park...

    And yet they lead the polls by a large amount.
    I know.
    My take on the big picture numbers is that three moves have happened since December 2019.

    1 Most of the residual BXP vote has moved into the Conservative column (see Hartlepool). So C +2 say

    2 A chunk of the Conservative 2019 vote has moved elsewhere, Lib or Lab (see Batley and Spen and Chesham and Amersham). C-4 Lab +4 say.

    3 A chunk of the Labour 2019 vote has peeled off to explicit lefty parties (Hartlepool and Batley) or Greens (elsewhere) possibly because they're pining for Jez. Lab -4, Green +4.

    The first of those effects looks pretty set in stone now. The second is the one that moves over time, according to perceived government competence.

    The third is the interesting one. What's driving it, and can Labour do anything about it?
    Somewhat disappointingly from my point of view as a Unionist you also need to have a movement from Scottish Labour to the SNP worth something like -2 across the UK as well. SLAB are not in a good place.
    And SLab are the last bastion of the Union. Once they irreversibly fall, the Union falls.
    My FPT re Mr Sarwar:

    "Haw! "I’m in charge, I’m the boss.” He's not even i/c a separate accounting unit.

    Thge context of the story is interesting - he was slapped down trying to persuade London to lift the suspension of the Aberdeen 9 back in (the Aberdeen cooncillors who went full fat Unionist and hopped into bed with the Tories and Indepedents (not that kind) and were suspenced years ago).

    https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/politics/scottish-politics/3317392/weak-and-pathetic-anas-sarwar-blasted-by-ex-council-boss-over-aberdeen-nine-saga/ "

    Mr Sarwar certainly seems to be doing his best to shore up the Union.
    Anas is a nice guy, but he is weak. This is widely understood in the small world of Scottish politics.

    Sure, some people grow into the leadership role after they achieve the office of leader, but nothing in Anas’s background indicates the ruthlessness, determination and nous necessary to be a good leader. He has six months to prove himself. Twelve months tops. If he’s still a dud this time next year, the Union’s over.
    As long as we Tories remain in power in the UK the Union will never be over, you Nats have still not realised that legally and constututionally Sturgeon is powerless on the Union without UK government support for indyref2.

    Though of course a minority Labour government offering devomax would be less likely to see a Yes vote in any indyref2 anyway
    Devomax? It’s the way you tell them FUDHY.

    You’ll be on about “federalism” soon. Is Gogsie Broon funding your pension plan?
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 28,745
    Leon said:



    This is a really good Lancet summary of the somewhat confusing maths surrounding vaccines and their efficacy. Reassuringly, it says the Lancet itself has got this wrong, in the past, so it's not just PB-ers

    "It is imperative to dispel any ambiguity about how vaccine efficacy shown in trials translates into protecting individuals and populations. The mRNA-based Pfizer1, 2 and Moderna3 vaccines were shown to have 94–95% efficacy in preventing symptomatic COVID-19, calculated as 100 × (1 minus the attack rate with vaccine divided by the attack rate with placebo).

    "It means that in a population such as the one enrolled in the trials, with a cumulated COVID-19 attack rate over a period of 3 months of about 1% without a vaccine, we would expect roughly 0·05% of vaccinated people would get diseased. It does not mean that 95% of people are protected from disease with the vaccine—a general misconception of vaccine protection also found in a Lancet Infectious Diseases Editorial.

    "In the examples used in the Editorial, those protected are those who would have become diseased with COVID-19 had they not been vaccinated. This distinction is all the more important as, although we know the risk reduction achieved by these vaccines under trial conditions, we do not know whether and how it could vary if the vaccines were deployed on populations with different exposures, transmission levels, and attack rates.

    "Simple mathematics helps. If we vaccinated a population of 100 000 and protected 95% of them, that would leave 5000 individuals diseased over 3 months, which is almost the current overall COVID-19 case rate in the UK. Rather, a 95% vaccine efficacy means that instead of 1000 COVID-19 cases in a population of 100 000 without vaccine (from the placebo arm of the abovementioned trials, approximately 1% would be ill with COVID-19 and 99% would not) we would expect 50 cases (99·95% of the population is disease-free, at least for 3 months)."

    "Accurate description of effects is not hair-splitting; it is much-needed exactness to avoid adding confusion to an extraordinarily complicated and tense scientific and societal debate around COVID-19 vaccines."

    https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00075-X/fulltext

    Trust the Lancet to get something so absolutely basic wrong!
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 38,440

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    Given over 50% of us have now been double vaccinated and we should all have been offered both jabs by the end of September, the only reason I could see further restrictions in the winter is if the virus mutates again in such a way as to stop the vaccine providing immunity or because a booster jab is needed and while that is taking place

    I think what our innumerate media are having trouble coming to terms with is that even if being double vaxxed gives you 95% protection against serious illness 5% of 54m adults is still a hell of a lot of people becoming seriously ill. Roughly 2.7m people over the pandemic although many have already been ill, died or recovered. And when you add in a higher proportion of those not vaxxed for whatever reason we have a rough path ahead of us. The next 6 months are going to be hard for the population and hard for the NHS. Those claiming this is over are mistaken.

    But another lockdown would be humiliating and Boris will do his level best to avoid it.
    Your maths is wrong. 95% is the protection versus if you were unvaccinated, so 5% isn't your risk of being seriously ill since you didn't have a 100% chance of being seriously ill if you got infected in the first place. If 5% of people originally got seriously ill, and the vaccines have 95% protection, then that means you now have a 0.25% of becoming seriously ill post-vaccines.

    Its not over but its as over as its going to be.

    Now we need to let nature take its course. If some antivaxxers die then that's their choice. If some vaccinated people do that's a shame but it will be at very low risk.
    My maths is only wrong if we don't all ultimately catch it, whether it makes us ill or not. At the moment it is looking increasingly probable we will.
    No because you're confusing vaccine efficacy with the risk of being seriously ill. The risk of being seriously ill was never 100%.

    Put it this way, if vaccine efficacy is 95% for protecting against death it doesn't mean that 5% of vaccinated people will die. It couldn't since 5% of people didn't die in the first place.
    I am happy to be corrected on this but at one time, according to the Mail (I know), approximately 25% of those who caught Covid were needing some form of hospital treatment of whom roughly 1% of all those infected died.

    Post vaccine, AIUI, 95% of those who get Covid will not need hospital treatment but 5% still will of whom a very, very small number may die (probably of something else). Is that not what they mean when they say that the vaccine gives 95% protection from hospitalisation?
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 6,962
    DavidL said:

    rkrkrk said:

    DavidL said:

    I would definitely bet against them being reintroduced but I do expect the "guidance" to get ever more emphatic.

    Care to bet on here... winnings to pb.com? I don't have a Ladbrokes account.
    I am not particularly flush at the moment but £25 that there is no new mandatory measures as defined by Smarkets after 19th July before 31st December 2021? I think its possible that some of the restrictions re masks might be left in place on "freedom day" but I don't think he will add to them. Winnings to the site.
    Deal!
    [But to be clear if masks are removed as a requirement on July 19 & then brought back in -> I think that counts as 'reintroduced']
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 42,918

    DavidL said:

    dixiedean said:

    Cicero said:

    Reading the UK headlines today, it seems like the government is descending into an absolute shambles.

    Ministers suggesting that France is going "Red" despite having a fraction of the out of control numbers in Britain, which is still theoretically planning to abandon all restrictions. Could anything infuriate a very large number of Tory voters more? Its almost as if Johnson wants to screw things up for his own party... Lib Dems gaining Guildford looks nailed on.

    More to the point, Labour gaining Uxbridge and South Ruislip...

    Seriously though, it really does seem like the Tories have lost the will to live, every day more spectacularly stupid decisions, from Covid to Sleaze and the corrosive acid of the Hard Brexit desolving more and more of the economy and indeed the very fabric of the Union.

    Anyone quoting odds on whether Johnson will hold his own seat? If this tsumani gets going then 1997 could end up looking like a walk in the park...

    And yet they lead the polls by a large amount.
    I know.
    My take on the big picture numbers is that three moves have happened since December 2019.

    1 Most of the residual BXP vote has moved into the Conservative column (see Hartlepool). So C +2 say

    2 A chunk of the Conservative 2019 vote has moved elsewhere, Lib or Lab (see Batley and Spen and Chesham and Amersham). C-4 Lab +4 say.

    3 A chunk of the Labour 2019 vote has peeled off to explicit lefty parties (Hartlepool and Batley) or Greens (elsewhere) possibly because they're pining for Jez. Lab -4, Green +4.

    The first of those effects looks pretty set in stone now. The second is the one that moves over time, according to perceived government competence.

    The third is the interesting one. What's driving it, and can Labour do anything about it?
    Somewhat disappointingly from my point of view as a Unionist you also need to have a movement from Scottish Labour to the SNP worth something like -2 across the UK as well. SLAB are not in a good place.
    And SLab are the last bastion of the Union. Once they irreversibly fall, the Union falls.
    Something about this reminds me of Keanu Reeves in The Day the Earth Stood Still: "If the Earth dies, you die. If you die, the Earth survives."
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 86,002
    edited July 16

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    dixiedean said:

    Cicero said:

    Reading the UK headlines today, it seems like the government is descending into an absolute shambles.

    Ministers suggesting that France is going "Red" despite having a fraction of the out of control numbers in Britain, which is still theoretically planning to abandon all restrictions. Could anything infuriate a very large number of Tory voters more? Its almost as if Johnson wants to screw things up for his own party... Lib Dems gaining Guildford looks nailed on.

    More to the point, Labour gaining Uxbridge and South Ruislip...

    Seriously though, it really does seem like the Tories have lost the will to live, every day more spectacularly stupid decisions, from Covid to Sleaze and the corrosive acid of the Hard Brexit desolving more and more of the economy and indeed the very fabric of the Union.

    Anyone quoting odds on whether Johnson will hold his own seat? If this tsumani gets going then 1997 could end up looking like a walk in the park...

    And yet they lead the polls by a large amount.
    I know.
    My take on the big picture numbers is that three moves have happened since December 2019.

    1 Most of the residual BXP vote has moved into the Conservative column (see Hartlepool). So C +2 say

    2 A chunk of the Conservative 2019 vote has moved elsewhere, Lib or Lab (see Batley and Spen and Chesham and Amersham). C-4 Lab +4 say.

    3 A chunk of the Labour 2019 vote has peeled off to explicit lefty parties (Hartlepool and Batley) or Greens (elsewhere) possibly because they're pining for Jez. Lab -4, Green +4.

    The first of those effects looks pretty set in stone now. The second is the one that moves over time, according to perceived government competence.

    The third is the interesting one. What's driving it, and can Labour do anything about it?
    Somewhat disappointingly from my point of view as a Unionist you also need to have a movement from Scottish Labour to the SNP worth something like -2 across the UK as well. SLAB are not in a good place.
    And SLab are the last bastion of the Union. Once they irreversibly fall, the Union falls.
    Rubbish, as long as there is a Tory UK government it does not matter what happens in Scotland, indyref2 will be refused.

    In fact the SNP need a minority UK Labour government reliant on their support if they are ever to be allowed another independence referendum again
    Proving once again that you don’t understand Scottish electoral behaviour.
    Legally and constitutionally even if 100% of Scots voted SNP Scotland would stay in the Union provided we still had a UK Tory government refusing a legal indyref2 and given Sturgeon has ruled out UDI.

    Salmond realised that, hence he created Alba as a party ready to go for UDI if it got into power, you clearly have not
  • LeonLeon Posts: 9,050
    edited July 16

    Leon said:



    This is a really good Lancet summary of the somewhat confusing maths surrounding vaccines and their efficacy. Reassuringly, it says the Lancet itself has got this wrong, in the past, so it's not just PB-ers

    "It is imperative to dispel any ambiguity about how vaccine efficacy shown in trials translates into protecting individuals and populations. The mRNA-based Pfizer1, 2 and Moderna3 vaccines were shown to have 94–95% efficacy in preventing symptomatic COVID-19, calculated as 100 × (1 minus the attack rate with vaccine divided by the attack rate with placebo).

    "It means that in a population such as the one enrolled in the trials, with a cumulated COVID-19 attack rate over a period of 3 months of about 1% without a vaccine, we would expect roughly 0·05% of vaccinated people would get diseased. It does not mean that 95% of people are protected from disease with the vaccine—a general misconception of vaccine protection also found in a Lancet Infectious Diseases Editorial.

    "In the examples used in the Editorial, those protected are those who would have become diseased with COVID-19 had they not been vaccinated. This distinction is all the more important as, although we know the risk reduction achieved by these vaccines under trial conditions, we do not know whether and how it could vary if the vaccines were deployed on populations with different exposures, transmission levels, and attack rates.

    "Simple mathematics helps. If we vaccinated a population of 100 000 and protected 95% of them, that would leave 5000 individuals diseased over 3 months, which is almost the current overall COVID-19 case rate in the UK. Rather, a 95% vaccine efficacy means that instead of 1000 COVID-19 cases in a population of 100 000 without vaccine (from the placebo arm of the abovementioned trials, approximately 1% would be ill with COVID-19 and 99% would not) we would expect 50 cases (99·95% of the population is disease-free, at least for 3 months)."

    "Accurate description of effects is not hair-splitting; it is much-needed exactness to avoid adding confusion to an extraordinarily complicated and tense scientific and societal debate around COVID-19 vaccines."

    https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00075-X/fulltext

    Trust the Lancet to get something so absolutely basic wrong!
    I'm not sure if the maths above takes into account the greater R0 of Delta?

    Anyway it certainly helps. And my take-away is: FFS get everyone vaxxed. We need to be like France, we need to start threatening people without jabs (unless they have medical exemptions). Certain jobs will need compulsory jabs and many human pleasures should require vaxports or tests

    Unless the virus mutates into something neutral - like a cold - broad, massive and near-universal vaccination is our only road out
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 38,440
    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    Given over 50% of us have now been double vaccinated and we should all have been offered both jabs by the end of September, the only reason I could see further restrictions in the winter is if the virus mutates again in such a way as to stop the vaccine providing immunity or because a booster jab is needed and while that is taking place

    I think what our innumerate media are having trouble coming to terms with is that even if being double vaxxed gives you 95% protection against serious illness 5% of 54m adults is still a hell of a lot of people becoming seriously ill. Roughly 2.7m people over the pandemic although many have already been ill, died or recovered. And when you add in a higher proportion of those not vaxxed for whatever reason we have a rough path ahead of us. The next 6 months are going to be hard for the population and hard for the NHS. Those claiming this is over are mistaken.

    But another lockdown would be humiliating and Boris will do his level best to avoid it.
    Your maths is wrong. 95% is the protection versus if you were unvaccinated, so 5% isn't your risk of being seriously ill since you didn't have a 100% chance of being seriously ill if you got infected in the first place. If 5% of people originally got seriously ill, and the vaccines have 95% protection, then that means you now have a 0.25% of becoming seriously ill post-vaccines.

    Its not over but its as over as its going to be.

    Now we need to let nature take its course. If some antivaxxers die then that's their choice. If some vaccinated people do that's a shame but it will be at very low risk.
    My maths is only wrong if we don't all ultimately catch it, whether it makes us ill or not. At the moment it is looking increasingly probable we will.
    In the end we will surely all get this, unless we find a vaccine with 99.99% efficiency, and this is shipped around the world and the virus is actually eradicated, because it runs out of hosts

    That's not likely, however it is still worth delaying your personal liaision with the Wuhan Lab Lurgy as the longer you wait, the better the treatments, the more superior our understanding of Long Covid, &c


    Incidentally, is there any evidence that the vaccines are protective against Long Covid? We know they are very good at preventing hospitalisation and death, and also quite good at subduing transmission, but what about Long Covid?

    I've read enough reports to believe LC is a thing and I really don't want it
    Long Covid often seems to be related to actual physical damage such as scarring on the lungs or damage to other organs. I am not sure how a vaccine will help with that. A common symptom seems to be prolonged lethargy, similar to that suffered by ME victims in the past. I am not sure we know yet what is causing that but I have not heard of vaccines helping with post viral symptoms.

    Where the vaccines definitely seem to help is that you seem a lot less likely to get LC in the first place because you are much less likely to get seriously ill. If you are unlucky, however, I think you are stuck with the consequences.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 28,745
    edited July 16
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    Given over 50% of us have now been double vaccinated and we should all have been offered both jabs by the end of September, the only reason I could see further restrictions in the winter is if the virus mutates again in such a way as to stop the vaccine providing immunity or because a booster jab is needed and while that is taking place

    I think what our innumerate media are having trouble coming to terms with is that even if being double vaxxed gives you 95% protection against serious illness 5% of 54m adults is still a hell of a lot of people becoming seriously ill. Roughly 2.7m people over the pandemic although many have already been ill, died or recovered. And when you add in a higher proportion of those not vaxxed for whatever reason we have a rough path ahead of us. The next 6 months are going to be hard for the population and hard for the NHS. Those claiming this is over are mistaken.

    But another lockdown would be humiliating and Boris will do his level best to avoid it.
    Your maths is wrong. 95% is the protection versus if you were unvaccinated, so 5% isn't your risk of being seriously ill since you didn't have a 100% chance of being seriously ill if you got infected in the first place. If 5% of people originally got seriously ill, and the vaccines have 95% protection, then that means you now have a 0.25% of becoming seriously ill post-vaccines.

    Its not over but its as over as its going to be.

    Now we need to let nature take its course. If some antivaxxers die then that's their choice. If some vaccinated people do that's a shame but it will be at very low risk.
    My maths is only wrong if we don't all ultimately catch it, whether it makes us ill or not. At the moment it is looking increasingly probable we will.
    No because you're confusing vaccine efficacy with the risk of being seriously ill. The risk of being seriously ill was never 100%.

    Put it this way, if vaccine efficacy is 95% for protecting against death it doesn't mean that 5% of vaccinated people will die. It couldn't since 5% of people didn't die in the first place.
    I am happy to be corrected on this but at one time, according to the Mail (I know), approximately 25% of those who caught Covid were needing some form of hospital treatment of whom roughly 1% of all those infected died.

    Post vaccine, AIUI, 95% of those who get Covid will not need hospital treatment but 5% still will of whom a very, very small number may die (probably of something else). Is that not what they mean when they say that the vaccine gives 95% protection from hospitalisation?
    No, that's not what they mean. They mean that your risk (relative to the unjabbed exposed to the same infectious contacts) is reduced by 95%. So, if for example in an unvaccinated population with a given likelihood of exposure 5% catch Covid and are hospitalised as a result, then 95% effectiveness against hospitalisation means that 5% of 5% = 0.25% of the jabbed population will get hospitalised with the same average level of exposure.
  • eekeek Posts: 13,645
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    dixiedean said:

    Cicero said:

    Reading the UK headlines today, it seems like the government is descending into an absolute shambles.

    Ministers suggesting that France is going "Red" despite having a fraction of the out of control numbers in Britain, which is still theoretically planning to abandon all restrictions. Could anything infuriate a very large number of Tory voters more? Its almost as if Johnson wants to screw things up for his own party... Lib Dems gaining Guildford looks nailed on.

    More to the point, Labour gaining Uxbridge and South Ruislip...

    Seriously though, it really does seem like the Tories have lost the will to live, every day more spectacularly stupid decisions, from Covid to Sleaze and the corrosive acid of the Hard Brexit desolving more and more of the economy and indeed the very fabric of the Union.

    Anyone quoting odds on whether Johnson will hold his own seat? If this tsumani gets going then 1997 could end up looking like a walk in the park...

    And yet they lead the polls by a large amount.
    I know.
    My take on the big picture numbers is that three moves have happened since December 2019.

    1 Most of the residual BXP vote has moved into the Conservative column (see Hartlepool). So C +2 say

    2 A chunk of the Conservative 2019 vote has moved elsewhere, Lib or Lab (see Batley and Spen and Chesham and Amersham). C-4 Lab +4 say.

    3 A chunk of the Labour 2019 vote has peeled off to explicit lefty parties (Hartlepool and Batley) or Greens (elsewhere) possibly because they're pining for Jez. Lab -4, Green +4.

    The first of those effects looks pretty set in stone now. The second is the one that moves over time, according to perceived government competence.

    The third is the interesting one. What's driving it, and can Labour do anything about it?
    Somewhat disappointingly from my point of view as a Unionist you also need to have a movement from Scottish Labour to the SNP worth something like -2 across the UK as well. SLAB are not in a good place.
    And SLab are the last bastion of the Union. Once they irreversibly fall, the Union falls.
    Rubbish, as long as there is a Tory UK government it does not matter what happens in Scotland, indyref2 will be refused.

    In fact the SNP need a minority UK Labour government reliant on their support if they are ever to be allowed another independence referendum again
    Do you think you could have a word with OGH and put up a permanent notice with those sentiments on PB? You know, like a political advertisement? It would save you so much typing. And I am sure he would charge you a donation to PB, so all to the good.
    I suspect HUYFD has it set as a keyboard shortcut whenever he types Scotland.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 42,918
    On topic, having seen the levelling off of case growth, and some common-sense extension of mask-wearing in some areas, I feel slightly more comfortable about 19th July at the end of this week than I did at the start.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 62,763
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    Given over 50% of us have now been double vaccinated and we should all have been offered both jabs by the end of September, the only reason I could see further restrictions in the winter is if the virus mutates again in such a way as to stop the vaccine providing immunity or because a booster jab is needed and while that is taking place

    I think what our innumerate media are having trouble coming to terms with is that even if being double vaxxed gives you 95% protection against serious illness 5% of 54m adults is still a hell of a lot of people becoming seriously ill. Roughly 2.7m people over the pandemic although many have already been ill, died or recovered. And when you add in a higher proportion of those not vaxxed for whatever reason we have a rough path ahead of us. The next 6 months are going to be hard for the population and hard for the NHS. Those claiming this is over are mistaken.

    But another lockdown would be humiliating and Boris will do his level best to avoid it.
    Your maths is wrong. 95% is the protection versus if you were unvaccinated, so 5% isn't your risk of being seriously ill since you didn't have a 100% chance of being seriously ill if you got infected in the first place. If 5% of people originally got seriously ill, and the vaccines have 95% protection, then that means you now have a 0.25% of becoming seriously ill post-vaccines.

    Its not over but its as over as its going to be.

    Now we need to let nature take its course. If some antivaxxers die then that's their choice. If some vaccinated people do that's a shame but it will be at very low risk.
    My maths is only wrong if we don't all ultimately catch it, whether it makes us ill or not. At the moment it is looking increasingly probable we will.
    No because you're confusing vaccine efficacy with the risk of being seriously ill. The risk of being seriously ill was never 100%.

    Put it this way, if vaccine efficacy is 95% for protecting against death it doesn't mean that 5% of vaccinated people will die. It couldn't since 5% of people didn't die in the first place.
    I am happy to be corrected on this but at one time, according to the Mail (I know), approximately 25% of those who caught Covid were needing some form of hospital treatment of whom roughly 1% of all those infected died.

    Post vaccine, AIUI, 95% of those who get Covid will not need hospital treatment but 5% still will of whom a very, very small number may die (probably of something else). Is that not what they mean when they say that the vaccine gives 95% protection from hospitalisation?
    No you are wrong here.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 4,012
    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    DavidL said:

    dixiedean said:

    Cicero said:

    Reading the UK headlines today, it seems like the government is descending into an absolute shambles.

    Ministers suggesting that France is going "Red" despite having a fraction of the out of control numbers in Britain, which is still theoretically planning to abandon all restrictions. Could anything infuriate a very large number of Tory voters more? Its almost as if Johnson wants to screw things up for his own party... Lib Dems gaining Guildford looks nailed on.

    More to the point, Labour gaining Uxbridge and South Ruislip...

    Seriously though, it really does seem like the Tories have lost the will to live, every day more spectacularly stupid decisions, from Covid to Sleaze and the corrosive acid of the Hard Brexit desolving more and more of the economy and indeed the very fabric of the Union.

    Anyone quoting odds on whether Johnson will hold his own seat? If this tsumani gets going then 1997 could end up looking like a walk in the park...

    And yet they lead the polls by a large amount.
    I know.
    My take on the big picture numbers is that three moves have happened since December 2019.

    1 Most of the residual BXP vote has moved into the Conservative column (see Hartlepool). So C +2 say

    2 A chunk of the Conservative 2019 vote has moved elsewhere, Lib or Lab (see Batley and Spen and Chesham and Amersham). C-4 Lab +4 say.

    3 A chunk of the Labour 2019 vote has peeled off to explicit lefty parties (Hartlepool and Batley) or Greens (elsewhere) possibly because they're pining for Jez. Lab -4, Green +4.

    The first of those effects looks pretty set in stone now. The second is the one that moves over time, according to perceived government competence.

    The third is the interesting one. What's driving it, and can Labour do anything about it?
    Somewhat disappointingly from my point of view as a Unionist you also need to have a movement from Scottish Labour to the SNP worth something like -2 across the UK as well. SLAB are not in a good place.
    And SLab are the last bastion of the Union. Once they irreversibly fall, the Union falls.
    My FPT re Mr Sarwar:

    "Haw! "I’m in charge, I’m the boss.” He's not even i/c a separate accounting unit.

    Thge context of the story is interesting - he was slapped down trying to persuade London to lift the suspension of the Aberdeen 9 back in (the Aberdeen cooncillors who went full fat Unionist and hopped into bed with the Tories and Indepedents (not that kind) and were suspenced years ago).

    https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/politics/scottish-politics/3317392/weak-and-pathetic-anas-sarwar-blasted-by-ex-council-boss-over-aberdeen-nine-saga/ "

    Mr Sarwar certainly seems to be doing his best to shore up the Union.
    Anas is a nice guy, but he is weak. This is widely understood in the small world of Scottish politics.

    Sure, some people grow into the leadership role after they achieve the office of leader, but nothing in Anas’s background indicates the ruthlessness, determination and nous necessary to be a good leader. He has six months to prove himself. Twelve months tops. If he’s still a dud this time next year, the Union’s over.
    It does rather leave the ScoTories as the bastion, plus a jeep-full of LDs with Mr Galloway buzzing around. And their vote share was what, 18% in that (admittedly subsample) poll? Or am I misoverestimating?
    The Scons are not a bastion, they are fighting the Wacht am Rhein Mk.II: a hopeless rearguard action, appealing to only die-hard fans of the doomed regime.

    Only SLab can ever sufficiently regain electoral support from the SNP to stymie the independence movement. They are fast running out of competent legislators capable of leading such an ambitious project. Anas is their last hope, and it’s not looking good in his first months, losing seats in the May GE and hovering in the low teens in the polls.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 38,440
    rkrkrk said:

    DavidL said:

    rkrkrk said:

    DavidL said:

    I would definitely bet against them being reintroduced but I do expect the "guidance" to get ever more emphatic.

    Care to bet on here... winnings to pb.com? I don't have a Ladbrokes account.
    I am not particularly flush at the moment but £25 that there is no new mandatory measures as defined by Smarkets after 19th July before 31st December 2021? I think its possible that some of the restrictions re masks might be left in place on "freedom day" but I don't think he will add to them. Winnings to the site.
    Deal!
    [But to be clear if masks are removed as a requirement on July 19 & then brought back in -> I think that counts as 'reintroduced']
    I agree.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 14,593
    So there's a live discussion in gvt about whether France should go on the red list - requiring £££ hotel quarantine from those who come back.

    As per @breeallegretti and @HarryYorke1

    Some health figures in favour, but it's a massive call requiring ministerial agreement

    1/


    https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1416046961904455684
  • LeonLeon Posts: 9,050
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    Given over 50% of us have now been double vaccinated and we should all have been offered both jabs by the end of September, the only reason I could see further restrictions in the winter is if the virus mutates again in such a way as to stop the vaccine providing immunity or because a booster jab is needed and while that is taking place

    I think what our innumerate media are having trouble coming to terms with is that even if being double vaxxed gives you 95% protection against serious illness 5% of 54m adults is still a hell of a lot of people becoming seriously ill. Roughly 2.7m people over the pandemic although many have already been ill, died or recovered. And when you add in a higher proportion of those not vaxxed for whatever reason we have a rough path ahead of us. The next 6 months are going to be hard for the population and hard for the NHS. Those claiming this is over are mistaken.

    But another lockdown would be humiliating and Boris will do his level best to avoid it.
    Your maths is wrong. 95% is the protection versus if you were unvaccinated, so 5% isn't your risk of being seriously ill since you didn't have a 100% chance of being seriously ill if you got infected in the first place. If 5% of people originally got seriously ill, and the vaccines have 95% protection, then that means you now have a 0.25% of becoming seriously ill post-vaccines.

    Its not over but its as over as its going to be.

    Now we need to let nature take its course. If some antivaxxers die then that's their choice. If some vaccinated people do that's a shame but it will be at very low risk.
    My maths is only wrong if we don't all ultimately catch it, whether it makes us ill or not. At the moment it is looking increasingly probable we will.
    No because you're confusing vaccine efficacy with the risk of being seriously ill. The risk of being seriously ill was never 100%.

    Put it this way, if vaccine efficacy is 95% for protecting against death it doesn't mean that 5% of vaccinated people will die. It couldn't since 5% of people didn't die in the first place.
    I am happy to be corrected on this but at one time, according to the Mail (I know), approximately 25% of those who caught Covid were needing some form of hospital treatment of whom roughly 1% of all those infected died.

    Post vaccine, AIUI, 95% of those who get Covid will not need hospital treatment but 5% still will of whom a very, very small number may die (probably of something else). Is that not what they mean when they say that the vaccine gives 95% protection from hospitalisation?
    See my Lancet link below

    95% means this:

    "a 95% vaccine efficacy means that instead of 1000 COVID-19 cases in a population of 100 000 without vaccine (from the placebo arm of the abovementioned trials, approximately 1% would be ill with COVID-19 and 99% would not) we would expect 50 cases (99·95% of the population is disease-free, at least for 3 months)."

  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 29,568
    edited July 16
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    Given over 50% of us have now been double vaccinated and we should all have been offered both jabs by the end of September, the only reason I could see further restrictions in the winter is if the virus mutates again in such a way as to stop the vaccine providing immunity or because a booster jab is needed and while that is taking place

    I think what our innumerate media are having trouble coming to terms with is that even if being double vaxxed gives you 95% protection against serious illness 5% of 54m adults is still a hell of a lot of people becoming seriously ill. Roughly 2.7m people over the pandemic although many have already been ill, died or recovered. And when you add in a higher proportion of those not vaxxed for whatever reason we have a rough path ahead of us. The next 6 months are going to be hard for the population and hard for the NHS. Those claiming this is over are mistaken.

    But another lockdown would be humiliating and Boris will do his level best to avoid it.
    Your maths is wrong. 95% is the protection versus if you were unvaccinated, so 5% isn't your risk of being seriously ill since you didn't have a 100% chance of being seriously ill if you got infected in the first place. If 5% of people originally got seriously ill, and the vaccines have 95% protection, then that means you now have a 0.25% of becoming seriously ill post-vaccines.

    Its not over but its as over as its going to be.

    Now we need to let nature take its course. If some antivaxxers die then that's their choice. If some vaccinated people do that's a shame but it will be at very low risk.
    My maths is only wrong if we don't all ultimately catch it, whether it makes us ill or not. At the moment it is looking increasingly probable we will.
    No because you're confusing vaccine efficacy with the risk of being seriously ill. The risk of being seriously ill was never 100%.

    Put it this way, if vaccine efficacy is 95% for protecting against death it doesn't mean that 5% of vaccinated people will die. It couldn't since 5% of people didn't die in the first place.
    I am happy to be corrected on this but at one time, according to the Mail (I know), approximately 25% of those who caught Covid were needing some form of hospital treatment of whom roughly 1% of all those infected died.

    Post vaccine, AIUI, 95% of those who get Covid will not need hospital treatment but 5% still will of whom a very, very small number may die (probably of something else). Is that not what they mean when they say that the vaccine gives 95% protection from hospitalisation?
    No, that's definitely not how it works. It's a confusing concept as efficacy compares to the road not taken. It's the reduction in the number of people hospitalised post vaccine. If 1000 people were expected to be hospitalised by COVID, post vaccination only 50 if those would be. However, 1000 hospitalisations means around 20,000 infections. So what's happened is that for 20k expected infections instead of 1k being put in hospital, now only 0.05k are.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 62,763
    edited July 16
    DavidL said:

    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    Given over 50% of us have now been double vaccinated and we should all have been offered both jabs by the end of September, the only reason I could see further restrictions in the winter is if the virus mutates again in such a way as to stop the vaccine providing immunity or because a booster jab is needed and while that is taking place

    I think what our innumerate media are having trouble coming to terms with is that even if being double vaxxed gives you 95% protection against serious illness 5% of 54m adults is still a hell of a lot of people becoming seriously ill. Roughly 2.7m people over the pandemic although many have already been ill, died or recovered. And when you add in a higher proportion of those not vaxxed for whatever reason we have a rough path ahead of us. The next 6 months are going to be hard for the population and hard for the NHS. Those claiming this is over are mistaken.

    But another lockdown would be humiliating and Boris will do his level best to avoid it.
    Your maths is wrong. 95% is the protection versus if you were unvaccinated, so 5% isn't your risk of being seriously ill since you didn't have a 100% chance of being seriously ill if you got infected in the first place. If 5% of people originally got seriously ill, and the vaccines have 95% protection, then that means you now have a 0.25% of becoming seriously ill post-vaccines.

    Its not over but its as over as its going to be.

    Now we need to let nature take its course. If some antivaxxers die then that's their choice. If some vaccinated people do that's a shame but it will be at very low risk.
    My maths is only wrong if we don't all ultimately catch it, whether it makes us ill or not. At the moment it is looking increasingly probable we will.
    In the end we will surely all get this, unless we find a vaccine with 99.99% efficiency, and this is shipped around the world and the virus is actually eradicated, because it runs out of hosts

    That's not likely, however it is still worth delaying your personal liaision with the Wuhan Lab Lurgy as the longer you wait, the better the treatments, the more superior our understanding of Long Covid, &c


    Incidentally, is there any evidence that the vaccines are protective against Long Covid? We know they are very good at preventing hospitalisation and death, and also quite good at subduing transmission, but what about Long Covid?

    I've read enough reports to believe LC is a thing and I really don't want it
    Long Covid often seems to be related to actual physical damage such as scarring on the lungs or damage to other organs. I am not sure how a vaccine will help with that. A common symptom seems to be prolonged lethargy, similar to that suffered by ME victims in the past. I am not sure we know yet what is causing that but I have not heard of vaccines helping with post viral symptoms.

    Where the vaccines definitely seem to help is that you seem a lot less likely to get LC in the first place because you are much less likely to get seriously ill. If you are unlucky, however, I think you are stuck with the consequences.
    Not true....long covid overall isn't correlated to severity in that way. Yes there are those who were badly damaged, but overall no, there are significant numbers who didn't suffer that badly during their 1-2 week illness who still struggle many months later.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 16,601
    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    Given over 50% of us have now been double vaccinated and we should all have been offered both jabs by the end of September, the only reason I could see further restrictions in the winter is if the virus mutates again in such a way as to stop the vaccine providing immunity or because a booster jab is needed and while that is taking place

    Hungary just announced they are going for third dose. Many other countries are in the starting block. This’ll scare a lot of horses.
    They're using Sputnik V and Sinovac. If only they'd used AZ.
    Meanwhile, in America....

    https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/07/pfizer-pushes-for-boosters-as-health-experts-say-theyre-unneeded-unethical/
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 6,021

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    DavidL said:

    dixiedean said:

    Cicero said:

    Reading the UK headlines today, it seems like the government is descending into an absolute shambles.

    Ministers suggesting that France is going "Red" despite having a fraction of the out of control numbers in Britain, which is still theoretically planning to abandon all restrictions. Could anything infuriate a very large number of Tory voters more? Its almost as if Johnson wants to screw things up for his own party... Lib Dems gaining Guildford looks nailed on.

    More to the point, Labour gaining Uxbridge and South Ruislip...

    Seriously though, it really does seem like the Tories have lost the will to live, every day more spectacularly stupid decisions, from Covid to Sleaze and the corrosive acid of the Hard Brexit desolving more and more of the economy and indeed the very fabric of the Union.

    Anyone quoting odds on whether Johnson will hold his own seat? If this tsumani gets going then 1997 could end up looking like a walk in the park...

    And yet they lead the polls by a large amount.
    I know.
    My take on the big picture numbers is that three moves have happened since December 2019.

    1 Most of the residual BXP vote has moved into the Conservative column (see Hartlepool). So C +2 say

    2 A chunk of the Conservative 2019 vote has moved elsewhere, Lib or Lab (see Batley and Spen and Chesham and Amersham). C-4 Lab +4 say.

    3 A chunk of the Labour 2019 vote has peeled off to explicit lefty parties (Hartlepool and Batley) or Greens (elsewhere) possibly because they're pining for Jez. Lab -4, Green +4.

    The first of those effects looks pretty set in stone now. The second is the one that moves over time, according to perceived government competence.

    The third is the interesting one. What's driving it, and can Labour do anything about it?
    Somewhat disappointingly from my point of view as a Unionist you also need to have a movement from Scottish Labour to the SNP worth something like -2 across the UK as well. SLAB are not in a good place.
    And SLab are the last bastion of the Union. Once they irreversibly fall, the Union falls.
    My FPT re Mr Sarwar:

    "Haw! "I’m in charge, I’m the boss.” He's not even i/c a separate accounting unit.

    Thge context of the story is interesting - he was slapped down trying to persuade London to lift the suspension of the Aberdeen 9 back in (the Aberdeen cooncillors who went full fat Unionist and hopped into bed with the Tories and Indepedents (not that kind) and were suspenced years ago).

    https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/politics/scottish-politics/3317392/weak-and-pathetic-anas-sarwar-blasted-by-ex-council-boss-over-aberdeen-nine-saga/ "

    Mr Sarwar certainly seems to be doing his best to shore up the Union.
    Anas is a nice guy, but he is weak. This is widely understood in the small world of Scottish politics.

    Sure, some people grow into the leadership role after they achieve the office of leader, but nothing in Anas’s background indicates the ruthlessness, determination and nous necessary to be a good leader. He has six months to prove himself. Twelve months tops. If he’s still a dud this time next year, the Union’s over.
    It does rather leave the ScoTories as the bastion, plus a jeep-full of LDs with Mr Galloway buzzing around. And their vote share was what, 18% in that (admittedly subsample) poll? Or am I misoverestimating?
    The Scons are not a bastion, they are fighting the Wacht am Rhein Mk.II: a hopeless rearguard action, appealing to only die-hard fans of the doomed regime.

    Only SLab can ever sufficiently regain electoral support from the SNP to stymie the independence movement. They are fast running out of competent legislators capable of leading such an ambitious project. Anas is their last hope, and it’s not looking good in his first months, losing seats in the May GE and hovering in the low teens in the polls.
    And I thought it was supposed to be the English who were obsessed with the war


  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 42,918
    Scott_xP said:

    So there's a live discussion in gvt about whether France should go on the red list - requiring £££ hotel quarantine from those who come back.

    As per @breeallegretti and @HarryYorke1

    Some health figures in favour, but it's a massive call requiring ministerial agreement

    1/


    https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1416046961904455684

    France should be on the red list permanently.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 4,151
    Situation in Ireland is deteriorating as the Delta wave kicks in.

    https://www.rte.ie/news/2021/0716/1235549-covid-figures-friday/

    What I think is interesting, and relevant to the bet of this thread, is that they're talking about surge capacity for hospitals at the same time as continuing to relax restrictions.

    The UK is not alone in reducing restrictions during the Delta wave after completing substantial numbers of vaccinations.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 12,368

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    DavidL said:

    dixiedean said:

    Cicero said:

    Reading the UK headlines today, it seems like the government is descending into an absolute shambles.

    Ministers suggesting that France is going "Red" despite having a fraction of the out of control numbers in Britain, which is still theoretically planning to abandon all restrictions. Could anything infuriate a very large number of Tory voters more? Its almost as if Johnson wants to screw things up for his own party... Lib Dems gaining Guildford looks nailed on.

    More to the point, Labour gaining Uxbridge and South Ruislip...

    Seriously though, it really does seem like the Tories have lost the will to live, every day more spectacularly stupid decisions, from Covid to Sleaze and the corrosive acid of the Hard Brexit desolving more and more of the economy and indeed the very fabric of the Union.

    Anyone quoting odds on whether Johnson will hold his own seat? If this tsumani gets going then 1997 could end up looking like a walk in the park...

    And yet they lead the polls by a large amount.
    I know.
    My take on the big picture numbers is that three moves have happened since December 2019.

    1 Most of the residual BXP vote has moved into the Conservative column (see Hartlepool). So C +2 say

    2 A chunk of the Conservative 2019 vote has moved elsewhere, Lib or Lab (see Batley and Spen and Chesham and Amersham). C-4 Lab +4 say.

    3 A chunk of the Labour 2019 vote has peeled off to explicit lefty parties (Hartlepool and Batley) or Greens (elsewhere) possibly because they're pining for Jez. Lab -4, Green +4.

    The first of those effects looks pretty set in stone now. The second is the one that moves over time, according to perceived government competence.

    The third is the interesting one. What's driving it, and can Labour do anything about it?
    Somewhat disappointingly from my point of view as a Unionist you also need to have a movement from Scottish Labour to the SNP worth something like -2 across the UK as well. SLAB are not in a good place.
    And SLab are the last bastion of the Union. Once they irreversibly fall, the Union falls.
    My FPT re Mr Sarwar:

    "Haw! "I’m in charge, I’m the boss.” He's not even i/c a separate accounting unit.

    Thge context of the story is interesting - he was slapped down trying to persuade London to lift the suspension of the Aberdeen 9 back in (the Aberdeen cooncillors who went full fat Unionist and hopped into bed with the Tories and Indepedents (not that kind) and were suspenced years ago).

    https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/politics/scottish-politics/3317392/weak-and-pathetic-anas-sarwar-blasted-by-ex-council-boss-over-aberdeen-nine-saga/ "

    Mr Sarwar certainly seems to be doing his best to shore up the Union.
    Anas is a nice guy, but he is weak. This is widely understood in the small world of Scottish politics.

    Sure, some people grow into the leadership role after they achieve the office of leader, but nothing in Anas’s background indicates the ruthlessness, determination and nous necessary to be a good leader. He has six months to prove himself. Twelve months tops. If he’s still a dud this time next year, the Union’s over.
    It does rather leave the ScoTories as the bastion, plus a jeep-full of LDs with Mr Galloway buzzing around. And their vote share was what, 18% in that (admittedly subsample) poll? Or am I misoverestimating?
    The Scons are not a bastion, they are fighting the Wacht am Rhein Mk.II: a hopeless rearguard action, appealing to only die-hard fans of the doomed regime.

    Only SLab can ever sufficiently regain electoral support from the SNP to stymie the independence movement. They are fast running out of competent legislators capable of leading such an ambitious project. Anas is their last hope, and it’s not looking good in his first months, losing seats in the May GE and hovering in the low teens in the polls.
    When compared with Wendy Alexander, and of course a lot of Labour MPs and MSPs who got their jotters in various elections, too.

    Jackie Baillie always had more bite, so to speak, but was always a bit tainted by her love of living on top of the nuke bases in the Clyde. Even so I'm mildly surprised she hasn't managed to win any of the leadership elections - heaven knows there have been plenty of chances.

  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 62,763
    edited July 16
    Scott_xP said:

    So there's a live discussion in gvt about whether France should go on the red list - requiring £££ hotel quarantine from those who come back.

    As per @breeallegretti and @HarryYorke1

    Some health figures in favour, but it's a massive call requiring ministerial agreement

    1/


    https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1416046961904455684

    Everybody repeat after me....Airbridges don't work....by the time you start seeing signs somewhere has a problem, they already have a massive problem.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 6,021

    Situation in Ireland is deteriorating as the Delta wave kicks in.

    https://www.rte.ie/news/2021/0716/1235549-covid-figures-friday/

    What I think is interesting, and relevant to the bet of this thread, is that they're talking about surge capacity for hospitals at the same time as continuing to relax restrictions.

    The UK is not alone in reducing restrictions during the Delta wave after completing substantial numbers of vaccinations.

    England, Scotland, Wales, both jurisdictions on the island of Ireland. It’s almost as if we are not that exceptional after all.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 86,002
    edited July 16

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    DavidL said:

    dixiedean said:

    Cicero said:

    Reading the UK headlines today, it seems like the government is descending into an absolute shambles.

    Ministers suggesting that France is going "Red" despite having a fraction of the out of control numbers in Britain, which is still theoretically planning to abandon all restrictions. Could anything infuriate a very large number of Tory voters more? Its almost as if Johnson wants to screw things up for his own party... Lib Dems gaining Guildford looks nailed on.

    More to the point, Labour gaining Uxbridge and South Ruislip...

    Seriously though, it really does seem like the Tories have lost the will to live, every day more spectacularly stupid decisions, from Covid to Sleaze and the corrosive acid of the Hard Brexit desolving more and more of the economy and indeed the very fabric of the Union.

    Anyone quoting odds on whether Johnson will hold his own seat? If this tsumani gets going then 1997 could end up looking like a walk in the park...

    And yet they lead the polls by a large amount.
    I know.
    My take on the big picture numbers is that three moves have happened since December 2019.

    1 Most of the residual BXP vote has moved into the Conservative column (see Hartlepool). So C +2 say

    2 A chunk of the Conservative 2019 vote has moved elsewhere, Lib or Lab (see Batley and Spen and Chesham and Amersham). C-4 Lab +4 say.

    3 A chunk of the Labour 2019 vote has peeled off to explicit lefty parties (Hartlepool and Batley) or Greens (elsewhere) possibly because they're pining for Jez. Lab -4, Green +4.

    The first of those effects looks pretty set in stone now. The second is the one that moves over time, according to perceived government competence.

    The third is the interesting one. What's driving it, and can Labour do anything about it?
    Somewhat disappointingly from my point of view as a Unionist you also need to have a movement from Scottish Labour to the SNP worth something like -2 across the UK as well. SLAB are not in a good place.
    And SLab are the last bastion of the Union. Once they irreversibly fall, the Union falls.
    My FPT re Mr Sarwar:

    "Haw! "I’m in charge, I’m the boss.” He's not even i/c a separate accounting unit.

    Thge context of the story is interesting - he was slapped down trying to persuade London to lift the suspension of the Aberdeen 9 back in (the Aberdeen cooncillors who went full fat Unionist and hopped into bed with the Tories and Indepedents (not that kind) and were suspenced years ago).

    https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/politics/scottish-politics/3317392/weak-and-pathetic-anas-sarwar-blasted-by-ex-council-boss-over-aberdeen-nine-saga/ "

    Mr Sarwar certainly seems to be doing his best to shore up the Union.
    Anas is a nice guy, but he is weak. This is widely understood in the small world of Scottish politics.

    Sure, some people grow into the leadership role after they achieve the office of leader, but nothing in Anas’s background indicates the ruthlessness, determination and nous necessary to be a good leader. He has six months to prove himself. Twelve months tops. If he’s still a dud this time next year, the Union’s over.
    It does rather leave the ScoTories as the bastion, plus a jeep-full of LDs with Mr Galloway buzzing around. And their vote share was what, 18% in that (admittedly subsample) poll? Or am I misoverestimating?
    The Scons are not a bastion, they are fighting the Wacht am Rhein Mk.II: a hopeless rearguard action, appealing to only die-hard fans of the doomed regime.

    Only SLab can ever sufficiently regain electoral support from the SNP to stymie the independence movement. They are fast running out of competent legislators capable of leading such an ambitious project. Anas is their last hope, and it’s not looking good in his first months, losing seats in the May GE and hovering in the low teens in the polls.
    It does not need SLab to stymie the independence movement, Boris and Gove are doing a fine job refusing to allow indyref2.

    Sturgeon by ruling out UDI has confirmed she will then do nothing about it as long as she keeps the perks of FM.

    You have been had, at least MalcG has seen the writing on the wall and hence has gone to Alba
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 56,149
    F1: getting bored waiting to see Norris' odds... pre-qualifying tosh essentially ready to go...

  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 4,012
    Sleaze.

    Boris Johnson's Scotland adviser claims £6k expenses for speaking six times in Lords last year

    EXCLUSIVE: Lord McInnes will soon become a Special Advisor to Boris Johnson and is likely to play a key role in the Tories' plan to strengthen the Union.

    https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnsons-scotland-adviser-claims-24542202.amp
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 58,366
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    Given over 50% of us have now been double vaccinated and we should all have been offered both jabs by the end of September, the only reason I could see further restrictions in the winter is if the virus mutates again in such a way as to stop the vaccine providing immunity or because a booster jab is needed and while that is taking place

    I think what our innumerate media are having trouble coming to terms with is that even if being double vaxxed gives you 95% protection against serious illness 5% of 54m adults is still a hell of a lot of people becoming seriously ill. Roughly 2.7m people over the pandemic although many have already been ill, died or recovered. And when you add in a higher proportion of those not vaxxed for whatever reason we have a rough path ahead of us. The next 6 months are going to be hard for the population and hard for the NHS. Those claiming this is over are mistaken.

    But another lockdown would be humiliating and Boris will do his level best to avoid it.
    Your maths is wrong. 95% is the protection versus if you were unvaccinated, so 5% isn't your risk of being seriously ill since you didn't have a 100% chance of being seriously ill if you got infected in the first place. If 5% of people originally got seriously ill, and the vaccines have 95% protection, then that means you now have a 0.25% of becoming seriously ill post-vaccines.

    Its not over but its as over as its going to be.

    Now we need to let nature take its course. If some antivaxxers die then that's their choice. If some vaccinated people do that's a shame but it will be at very low risk.
    My maths is only wrong if we don't all ultimately catch it, whether it makes us ill or not. At the moment it is looking increasingly probable we will.
    No because you're confusing vaccine efficacy with the risk of being seriously ill. The risk of being seriously ill was never 100%.

    Put it this way, if vaccine efficacy is 95% for protecting against death it doesn't mean that 5% of vaccinated people will die. It couldn't since 5% of people didn't die in the first place.
    I am happy to be corrected on this but at one time, according to the Mail (I know), approximately 25% of those who caught Covid were needing some form of hospital treatment of whom roughly 1% of all those infected died.

    Post vaccine, AIUI, 95% of those who get Covid will not need hospital treatment but 5% still will of whom a very, very small number may die (probably of something else). Is that not what they mean when they say that the vaccine gives 95% protection from hospitalisation?
    No that is not what it means.

    95 efficacy means that of those who would have needed hospitalisation without a vaccine, only 5% of them still need hospitalisation. It does not mean 5% of those infected need it.

    You're using all infections (or all people) as your denominator, but the denominator should be the people who would have needed hospitalisation if we didn't have a vaccine.

    Think of it this way, you can split the population into three groups. One group would have never needed hospitalisation even without a vaccine, they still don't. Then of those who would have needed hospitalisation, 95% no longer do, 5% still do.

    Does that make more sense?
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 8,895

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    DavidL said:

    dixiedean said:

    Cicero said:

    Reading the UK headlines today, it seems like the government is descending into an absolute shambles.

    Ministers suggesting that France is going "Red" despite having a fraction of the out of control numbers in Britain, which is still theoretically planning to abandon all restrictions. Could anything infuriate a very large number of Tory voters more? Its almost as if Johnson wants to screw things up for his own party... Lib Dems gaining Guildford looks nailed on.

    More to the point, Labour gaining Uxbridge and South Ruislip...

    Seriously though, it really does seem like the Tories have lost the will to live, every day more spectacularly stupid decisions, from Covid to Sleaze and the corrosive acid of the Hard Brexit desolving more and more of the economy and indeed the very fabric of the Union.

    Anyone quoting odds on whether Johnson will hold his own seat? If this tsumani gets going then 1997 could end up looking like a walk in the park...

    And yet they lead the polls by a large amount.
    I know.
    My take on the big picture numbers is that three moves have happened since December 2019.

    1 Most of the residual BXP vote has moved into the Conservative column (see Hartlepool). So C +2 say

    2 A chunk of the Conservative 2019 vote has moved elsewhere, Lib or Lab (see Batley and Spen and Chesham and Amersham). C-4 Lab +4 say.

    3 A chunk of the Labour 2019 vote has peeled off to explicit lefty parties (Hartlepool and Batley) or Greens (elsewhere) possibly because they're pining for Jez. Lab -4, Green +4.

    The first of those effects looks pretty set in stone now. The second is the one that moves over time, according to perceived government competence.

    The third is the interesting one. What's driving it, and can Labour do anything about it?
    Somewhat disappointingly from my point of view as a Unionist you also need to have a movement from Scottish Labour to the SNP worth something like -2 across the UK as well. SLAB are not in a good place.
    And SLab are the last bastion of the Union. Once they irreversibly fall, the Union falls.
    My FPT re Mr Sarwar:

    "Haw! "I’m in charge, I’m the boss.” He's not even i/c a separate accounting unit.

    Thge context of the story is interesting - he was slapped down trying to persuade London to lift the suspension of the Aberdeen 9 back in (the Aberdeen cooncillors who went full fat Unionist and hopped into bed with the Tories and Indepedents (not that kind) and were suspenced years ago).

    https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/politics/scottish-politics/3317392/weak-and-pathetic-anas-sarwar-blasted-by-ex-council-boss-over-aberdeen-nine-saga/ "

    Mr Sarwar certainly seems to be doing his best to shore up the Union.
    Anas is a nice guy, but he is weak. This is widely understood in the small world of Scottish politics.

    Sure, some people grow into the leadership role after they achieve the office of leader, but nothing in Anas’s background indicates the ruthlessness, determination and nous necessary to be a good leader. He has six months to prove himself. Twelve months tops. If he’s still a dud this time next year, the Union’s over.
    As long as we Tories remain in power in the UK the Union will never be over, you Nats have still not realised that legally and constututionally Sturgeon is powerless on the Union without UK government support for indyref2.

    Though of course a minority Labour government offering devomax would be less likely to see a Yes vote in any indyref2 anyway
    Devomax? It’s the way you tell them FUDHY.

    You’ll be on about “federalism” soon. Is Gogsie Broon funding your pension plan?
    To be fair, it was reported last time that Alex Salmond's goal was devomax, and Nicola Sturgeon does not seem in any great hurry for independence (as criticised by Salmond).
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 4,012
    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    DavidL said:

    dixiedean said:

    Cicero said:

    Reading the UK headlines today, it seems like the government is descending into an absolute shambles.

    Ministers suggesting that France is going "Red" despite having a fraction of the out of control numbers in Britain, which is still theoretically planning to abandon all restrictions. Could anything infuriate a very large number of Tory voters more? Its almost as if Johnson wants to screw things up for his own party... Lib Dems gaining Guildford looks nailed on.

    More to the point, Labour gaining Uxbridge and South Ruislip...

    Seriously though, it really does seem like the Tories have lost the will to live, every day more spectacularly stupid decisions, from Covid to Sleaze and the corrosive acid of the Hard Brexit desolving more and more of the economy and indeed the very fabric of the Union.

    Anyone quoting odds on whether Johnson will hold his own seat? If this tsumani gets going then 1997 could end up looking like a walk in the park...

    And yet they lead the polls by a large amount.
    I know.
    My take on the big picture numbers is that three moves have happened since December 2019.

    1 Most of the residual BXP vote has moved into the Conservative column (see Hartlepool). So C +2 say

    2 A chunk of the Conservative 2019 vote has moved elsewhere, Lib or Lab (see Batley and Spen and Chesham and Amersham). C-4 Lab +4 say.

    3 A chunk of the Labour 2019 vote has peeled off to explicit lefty parties (Hartlepool and Batley) or Greens (elsewhere) possibly because they're pining for Jez. Lab -4, Green +4.

    The first of those effects looks pretty set in stone now. The second is the one that moves over time, according to perceived government competence.

    The third is the interesting one. What's driving it, and can Labour do anything about it?
    Somewhat disappointingly from my point of view as a Unionist you also need to have a movement from Scottish Labour to the SNP worth something like -2 across the UK as well. SLAB are not in a good place.
    And SLab are the last bastion of the Union. Once they irreversibly fall, the Union falls.
    My FPT re Mr Sarwar:

    "Haw! "I’m in charge, I’m the boss.” He's not even i/c a separate accounting unit.

    Thge context of the story is interesting - he was slapped down trying to persuade London to lift the suspension of the Aberdeen 9 back in (the Aberdeen cooncillors who went full fat Unionist and hopped into bed with the Tories and Indepedents (not that kind) and were suspenced years ago).

    https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/politics/scottish-politics/3317392/weak-and-pathetic-anas-sarwar-blasted-by-ex-council-boss-over-aberdeen-nine-saga/ "

    Mr Sarwar certainly seems to be doing his best to shore up the Union.
    Anas is a nice guy, but he is weak. This is widely understood in the small world of Scottish politics.

    Sure, some people grow into the leadership role after they achieve the office of leader, but nothing in Anas’s background indicates the ruthlessness, determination and nous necessary to be a good leader. He has six months to prove himself. Twelve months tops. If he’s still a dud this time next year, the Union’s over.
    It does rather leave the ScoTories as the bastion, plus a jeep-full of LDs with Mr Galloway buzzing around. And their vote share was what, 18% in that (admittedly subsample) poll? Or am I misoverestimating?
    The Scons are not a bastion, they are fighting the Wacht am Rhein Mk.II: a hopeless rearguard action, appealing to only die-hard fans of the doomed regime.

    Only SLab can ever sufficiently regain electoral support from the SNP to stymie the independence movement. They are fast running out of competent legislators capable of leading such an ambitious project. Anas is their last hope, and it’s not looking good in his first months, losing seats in the May GE and hovering in the low teens in the polls.
    When compared with Wendy Alexander, and of course a lot of Labour MPs and MSPs who got their jotters in various elections, too.

    Jackie Baillie always had more bite, so to speak, but was always a bit tainted by her love of living on top of the nuke bases in the Clyde. Even so I'm mildly surprised she hasn't managed to win any of the leadership elections - heaven knows there have been plenty of chances.

    There is a simple explanation: she is thoroughly disliked within her own party. A real bad un.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 38,440
    edited July 16
    Scott_xP said:

    So there's a live discussion in gvt about whether France should go on the red list - requiring £££ hotel quarantine from those who come back.

    As per @breeallegretti and @HarryYorke1

    Some health figures in favour, but it's a massive call requiring ministerial agreement

    1/


    https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1416046961904455684

    Ok. So going back to my earlier arithmetic of our 54m roughly 45m will be vaxxed. Of those in normal circumstances pre vaccine maybe 3-5% would be hospitalised. That would be 1.35-2.25m. Post vaccine 5% of them might still need medical treatment so that would be 67,500 - 112,500 would still go to hospital. The percentages of the unvaxxed would be as before. Not nearly as many as I said but still a significant number of people.

    Edit, whoops, seemed to have replied to the wrong post.
  • GB News in crisis as exec quits and presenter is pulled for ‘taking the knee’

    https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/jul/16/gb-news-pulls-guto-harri-off-air-taking-the-knee-row
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 58,366
    DavidL said:

    Scott_xP said:

    So there's a live discussion in gvt about whether France should go on the red list - requiring £££ hotel quarantine from those who come back.

    As per @breeallegretti and @HarryYorke1

    Some health figures in favour, but it's a massive call requiring ministerial agreement

    1/


    https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1416046961904455684

    Ok. So going back to my earlier arithmetic of our 54m roughly 45m will be vaxxed. Of those in normal circumstances pre vaccine maybe 3-5% would be hospitalised. That would be 1.35-2.25m. Post vaccine 5% of them might still need medical treatment so that would be 67,500 - 112,500 would still go to hospital. The percentages of the unvaxxed would be as before. Not nearly as many as I said but still a significant number of people.

    Edit, whoops, seemed to have replied to the wrong post.
    Yes that's more like it - and that's assuming everyone gets infected which probably won't happen (once the virus runs out of uninfected and unvaccinated people to infect, it will find it much tougher to spread).
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 6,021
    DavidL said:

    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    Given over 50% of us have now been double vaccinated and we should all have been offered both jabs by the end of September, the only reason I could see further restrictions in the winter is if the virus mutates again in such a way as to stop the vaccine providing immunity or because a booster jab is needed and while that is taking place

    I think what our innumerate media are having trouble coming to terms with is that even if being double vaxxed gives you 95% protection against serious illness 5% of 54m adults is still a hell of a lot of people becoming seriously ill. Roughly 2.7m people over the pandemic although many have already been ill, died or recovered. And when you add in a higher proportion of those not vaxxed for whatever reason we have a rough path ahead of us. The next 6 months are going to be hard for the population and hard for the NHS. Those claiming this is over are mistaken.

    But another lockdown would be humiliating and Boris will do his level best to avoid it.
    Your maths is wrong. 95% is the protection versus if you were unvaccinated, so 5% isn't your risk of being seriously ill since you didn't have a 100% chance of being seriously ill if you got infected in the first place. If 5% of people originally got seriously ill, and the vaccines have 95% protection, then that means you now have a 0.25% of becoming seriously ill post-vaccines.

    Its not over but its as over as its going to be.

    Now we need to let nature take its course. If some antivaxxers die then that's their choice. If some vaccinated people do that's a shame but it will be at very low risk.
    My maths is only wrong if we don't all ultimately catch it, whether it makes us ill or not. At the moment it is looking increasingly probable we will.
    In the end we will surely all get this, unless we find a vaccine with 99.99% efficiency, and this is shipped around the world and the virus is actually eradicated, because it runs out of hosts

    That's not likely, however it is still worth delaying your personal liaision with the Wuhan Lab Lurgy as the longer you wait, the better the treatments, the more superior our understanding of Long Covid, &c


    Incidentally, is there any evidence that the vaccines are protective against Long Covid? We know they are very good at preventing hospitalisation and death, and also quite good at subduing transmission, but what about Long Covid?

    I've read enough reports to believe LC is a thing and I really don't want it
    Long Covid often seems to be related to actual physical damage such as scarring on the lungs or damage to other organs. I am not sure how a vaccine will help with that. A common symptom seems to be prolonged lethargy, similar to that suffered by ME victims in the past. I am not sure we know yet what is causing that but I have not heard of vaccines helping with post viral symptoms.

    Where the vaccines definitely seem to help is that you seem a lot less likely to get LC in the first place because you are much less likely to get seriously ill. If you are unlucky, however, I think you are stuck with the consequences.
    Agree with all that save that there is some evidence, for whatever reason, that some cases of LC have been successfully treated with vaccines. Don’t ask me how or why, I’m just reporting what I’ve read.

    https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/vaccination-may-ease-symptoms-of-long-covid
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 12,368

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    DavidL said:

    dixiedean said:

    Cicero said:

    Reading the UK headlines today, it seems like the government is descending into an absolute shambles.

    Ministers suggesting that France is going "Red" despite having a fraction of the out of control numbers in Britain, which is still theoretically planning to abandon all restrictions. Could anything infuriate a very large number of Tory voters more? Its almost as if Johnson wants to screw things up for his own party... Lib Dems gaining Guildford looks nailed on.

    More to the point, Labour gaining Uxbridge and South Ruislip...

    Seriously though, it really does seem like the Tories have lost the will to live, every day more spectacularly stupid decisions, from Covid to Sleaze and the corrosive acid of the Hard Brexit desolving more and more of the economy and indeed the very fabric of the Union.

    Anyone quoting odds on whether Johnson will hold his own seat? If this tsumani gets going then 1997 could end up looking like a walk in the park...

    And yet they lead the polls by a large amount.
    I know.
    My take on the big picture numbers is that three moves have happened since December 2019.

    1 Most of the residual BXP vote has moved into the Conservative column (see Hartlepool). So C +2 say

    2 A chunk of the Conservative 2019 vote has moved elsewhere, Lib or Lab (see Batley and Spen and Chesham and Amersham). C-4 Lab +4 say.

    3 A chunk of the Labour 2019 vote has peeled off to explicit lefty parties (Hartlepool and Batley) or Greens (elsewhere) possibly because they're pining for Jez. Lab -4, Green +4.

    The first of those effects looks pretty set in stone now. The second is the one that moves over time, according to perceived government competence.

    The third is the interesting one. What's driving it, and can Labour do anything about it?
    Somewhat disappointingly from my point of view as a Unionist you also need to have a movement from Scottish Labour to the SNP worth something like -2 across the UK as well. SLAB are not in a good place.
    And SLab are the last bastion of the Union. Once they irreversibly fall, the Union falls.
    My FPT re Mr Sarwar:

    "Haw! "I’m in charge, I’m the boss.” He's not even i/c a separate accounting unit.

    Thge context of the story is interesting - he was slapped down trying to persuade London to lift the suspension of the Aberdeen 9 back in (the Aberdeen cooncillors who went full fat Unionist and hopped into bed with the Tories and Indepedents (not that kind) and were suspenced years ago).

    https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/politics/scottish-politics/3317392/weak-and-pathetic-anas-sarwar-blasted-by-ex-council-boss-over-aberdeen-nine-saga/ "

    Mr Sarwar certainly seems to be doing his best to shore up the Union.
    Anas is a nice guy, but he is weak. This is widely understood in the small world of Scottish politics.

    Sure, some people grow into the leadership role after they achieve the office of leader, but nothing in Anas’s background indicates the ruthlessness, determination and nous necessary to be a good leader. He has six months to prove himself. Twelve months tops. If he’s still a dud this time next year, the Union’s over.
    As long as we Tories remain in power in the UK the Union will never be over, you Nats have still not realised that legally and constututionally Sturgeon is powerless on the Union without UK government support for indyref2.

    Though of course a minority Labour government offering devomax would be less likely to see a Yes vote in any indyref2 anyway
    Devomax? It’s the way you tell them FUDHY.

    You’ll be on about “federalism” soon. Is Gogsie Broon funding your pension plan?
    To be fair, it was reported last time that Alex Salmond's goal was devomax, and Nicola Sturgeon does not seem in any great hurry for independence (as criticised by Salmond).
    It was, as a step in progress, but Mr Cameron absolutely refused to consider it back in, IIRC, 2012.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 9,050

    Scott_xP said:

    So there's a live discussion in gvt about whether France should go on the red list - requiring £££ hotel quarantine from those who come back.

    As per @breeallegretti and @HarryYorke1

    Some health figures in favour, but it's a massive call requiring ministerial agreement

    1/


    https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1416046961904455684

    Everybody repeat after me....Airbridges don't work....by the time you start seeing signs somewhere has a problem, they already have a massive problem.
    There is a reasonable argument for opening all the borders in Europe, but closing - or restricting - all the external borders. No country inside the EU or without will escape the variants we have now, but perhaps we can still choke off future iterations
  • eekeek Posts: 13,645

    GB News in crisis as exec quits and presenter is pulled for ‘taking the knee’

    https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/jul/16/gb-news-pulls-guto-harri-off-air-taking-the-knee-row

    From the article

    Sources suggested he had come under pressure to dial down the focus on local reporting and free debate in favour of full-blooded culture war topics, so chose to resign.

    So they clearly wish to go for Casino-Royale's type viewers. I wonder how many of them actually exist and are going to spend time watching TV to annoy themselves.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 62,763
    edited July 16
    DavidL said:

    Scott_xP said:

    So there's a live discussion in gvt about whether France should go on the red list - requiring £££ hotel quarantine from those who come back.

    As per @breeallegretti and @HarryYorke1

    Some health figures in favour, but it's a massive call requiring ministerial agreement

    1/


    https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1416046961904455684

    Ok. So going back to my earlier arithmetic of our 54m roughly 45m will be vaxxed. Of those in normal circumstances pre vaccine maybe 3-5% would be hospitalised. That would be 1.35-2.25m. Post vaccine 5% of them might still need medical treatment so that would be 67,500 - 112,500 would still go to hospital. The percentages of the unvaxxed would be as before. Not nearly as many as I said but still a significant number of people.

    Edit, whoops, seemed to have replied to the wrong post.
    But again you can't do that simplistic calculation e.g. a vaccinated person who catches covid has much reduced viral load and makes it less likely they will pass it on to even an unvaccinated person (I believe the estimate is 70% less likely). Then in turn they haven't been exposed to such a large viral load, which reduces the chances it becomes severe etc etc etc.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 6,021
    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    DavidL said:

    dixiedean said:

    Cicero said:

    Reading the UK headlines today, it seems like the government is descending into an absolute shambles.

    Ministers suggesting that France is going "Red" despite having a fraction of the out of control numbers in Britain, which is still theoretically planning to abandon all restrictions. Could anything infuriate a very large number of Tory voters more? Its almost as if Johnson wants to screw things up for his own party... Lib Dems gaining Guildford looks nailed on.

    More to the point, Labour gaining Uxbridge and South Ruislip...

    Seriously though, it really does seem like the Tories have lost the will to live, every day more spectacularly stupid decisions, from Covid to Sleaze and the corrosive acid of the Hard Brexit desolving more and more of the economy and indeed the very fabric of the Union.

    Anyone quoting odds on whether Johnson will hold his own seat? If this tsumani gets going then 1997 could end up looking like a walk in the park...

    And yet they lead the polls by a large amount.
    I know.
    My take on the big picture numbers is that three moves have happened since December 2019.

    1 Most of the residual BXP vote has moved into the Conservative column (see Hartlepool). So C +2 say

    2 A chunk of the Conservative 2019 vote has moved elsewhere, Lib or Lab (see Batley and Spen and Chesham and Amersham). C-4 Lab +4 say.

    3 A chunk of the Labour 2019 vote has peeled off to explicit lefty parties (Hartlepool and Batley) or Greens (elsewhere) possibly because they're pining for Jez. Lab -4, Green +4.

    The first of those effects looks pretty set in stone now. The second is the one that moves over time, according to perceived government competence.

    The third is the interesting one. What's driving it, and can Labour do anything about it?
    Somewhat disappointingly from my point of view as a Unionist you also need to have a movement from Scottish Labour to the SNP worth something like -2 across the UK as well. SLAB are not in a good place.
    And SLab are the last bastion of the Union. Once they irreversibly fall, the Union falls.
    My FPT re Mr Sarwar:

    "Haw! "I’m in charge, I’m the boss.” He's not even i/c a separate accounting unit.

    Thge context of the story is interesting - he was slapped down trying to persuade London to lift the suspension of the Aberdeen 9 back in (the Aberdeen cooncillors who went full fat Unionist and hopped into bed with the Tories and Indepedents (not that kind) and were suspenced years ago).

    https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/politics/scottish-politics/3317392/weak-and-pathetic-anas-sarwar-blasted-by-ex-council-boss-over-aberdeen-nine-saga/ "

    Mr Sarwar certainly seems to be doing his best to shore up the Union.
    Anas is a nice guy, but he is weak. This is widely understood in the small world of Scottish politics.

    Sure, some people grow into the leadership role after they achieve the office of leader, but nothing in Anas’s background indicates the ruthlessness, determination and nous necessary to be a good leader. He has six months to prove himself. Twelve months tops. If he’s still a dud this time next year, the Union’s over.
    It does rather leave the ScoTories as the bastion, plus a jeep-full of LDs with Mr Galloway buzzing around. And their vote share was what, 18% in that (admittedly subsample) poll? Or am I misoverestimating?
    The Scons are not a bastion, they are fighting the Wacht am Rhein Mk.II: a hopeless rearguard action, appealing to only die-hard fans of the doomed regime.

    Only SLab can ever sufficiently regain electoral support from the SNP to stymie the independence movement. They are fast running out of competent legislators capable of leading such an ambitious project. Anas is their last hope, and it’s not looking good in his first months, losing seats in the May GE and hovering in the low teens in the polls.
    It does not need SLab to stymie the independence movement, Boris and Gove are doing a fine job refusing to allow indyref2.

    Sturgeon by ruling out UDI has confirmed she will then do nothing about it as long as she keeps the perks of FM.

    You have been had, at least MalcG has seen the writing on the wall and hence has gone to Alba
    Mate, opposing Scottish Independence is like opposing the sun coming up tomorrow. Relax, all things must pass, including countries,
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 29,568

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    Given over 50% of us have now been double vaccinated and we should all have been offered both jabs by the end of September, the only reason I could see further restrictions in the winter is if the virus mutates again in such a way as to stop the vaccine providing immunity or because a booster jab is needed and while that is taking place

    I think what our innumerate media are having trouble coming to terms with is that even if being double vaxxed gives you 95% protection against serious illness 5% of 54m adults is still a hell of a lot of people becoming seriously ill. Roughly 2.7m people over the pandemic although many have already been ill, died or recovered. And when you add in a higher proportion of those not vaxxed for whatever reason we have a rough path ahead of us. The next 6 months are going to be hard for the population and hard for the NHS. Those claiming this is over are mistaken.

    But another lockdown would be humiliating and Boris will do his level best to avoid it.
    Your maths is wrong. 95% is the protection versus if you were unvaccinated, so 5% isn't your risk of being seriously ill since you didn't have a 100% chance of being seriously ill if you got infected in the first place. If 5% of people originally got seriously ill, and the vaccines have 95% protection, then that means you now have a 0.25% of becoming seriously ill post-vaccines.

    Its not over but its as over as its going to be.

    Now we need to let nature take its course. If some antivaxxers die then that's their choice. If some vaccinated people do that's a shame but it will be at very low risk.
    My maths is only wrong if we don't all ultimately catch it, whether it makes us ill or not. At the moment it is looking increasingly probable we will.
    No because you're confusing vaccine efficacy with the risk of being seriously ill. The risk of being seriously ill was never 100%.

    Put it this way, if vaccine efficacy is 95% for protecting against death it doesn't mean that 5% of vaccinated people will die. It couldn't since 5% of people didn't die in the first place.
    I am happy to be corrected on this but at one time, according to the Mail (I know), approximately 25% of those who caught Covid were needing some form of hospital treatment of whom roughly 1% of all those infected died.

    Post vaccine, AIUI, 95% of those who get Covid will not need hospital treatment but 5% still will of whom a very, very small number may die (probably of something else). Is that not what they mean when they say that the vaccine gives 95% protection from hospitalisation?
    No that is not what it means.

    95 efficacy means that of those who would have needed hospitalisation without a vaccine, only 5% of them still need hospitalisation. It does not mean 5% of those infected need it.

    You're using all infections (or all people) as your denominator, but the denominator should be the people who would have needed hospitalisation if we didn't have a vaccine.

    Think of it this way, you can split the population into three groups. One group would have never needed hospitalisation even without a vaccine, they still don't. Then of those who would have needed hospitalisation, 95% no longer do, 5% still do.

    Does that make more sense?
    It also takes into account expected infections but not reduction in spread which is a cumulative factor. The best way to think about it is that to get 1k hospitalisations previously around 20k people would need to be exposed to COVID, now we'd need to expose 200k people (AZ, Pfizer and Moderna stop 90% of people from getting symptomatic disease) to COVID to get to that same level of hospitalisations. The individual risk is now 1/200 rather than 1/20, but once reduction in spread by double jabbed people is cumulated it will probably be more like 1/400.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 6,700
    Scott_xP said:

    So there's a live discussion in gvt about whether France should go on the red list - requiring £££ hotel quarantine from those who come back.

    As per @breeallegretti and @HarryYorke1

    Some health figures in favour, but it's a massive call requiring ministerial agreement

    1/


    https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1416046961904455684

    It would also, frankly, require a hotel capacity that doesn’t exist
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 62,763
    edited July 16
    51,870...49....717 (from a days ago).

    Its coming home, its come home, COVID coming home....

    I don't know why the COVID dashboard now is so delayed on reporting hospital admissions.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 32,646

    Scott_xP said:

    So there's a live discussion in gvt about whether France should go on the red list - requiring £££ hotel quarantine from those who come back.

    As per @breeallegretti and @HarryYorke1

    Some health figures in favour, but it's a massive call requiring ministerial agreement

    1/


    https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1416046961904455684

    Everybody repeat after me....Airbridges don't work....by the time you start seeing signs somewhere has a problem, they already have a massive problem.
    Indeed, whoever would have thought the Balearics might have a massive outbreak in the past couple of weeks.
  • eekeek Posts: 13,645
    51,870 new cases today (4.4% of 1,177,716 tests)
    49 deaths
    717 admitted to hospital on Monday
Sign In or Register to comment.