But that's the point, you're on the one hand saying your advice to the government is just advice but on the other hand telling us that you should be free to bitch to the media when the government decides that your advice is just advisory.
Simply, you want to pretend that you aren't trying to influence policy decisions outside of your remit by maintaining a pretence that the government is free to ignore your advice but then the first moment this happens you'll bitch to the media that the government is "ignoring the science" or whatever else. It's only been happening for a year.
When you use the phrase "on the one hand [...] on the other hand", you are normally meant to present some sort of contradiction...? I am a scientist employed by a university in a country that believes in free speech and academic freedom. Part of my role as a scientist is to communicate my research to others. 99% of the time, that means talking to other academics, but if policymakers want to listen to me, I'll talk to them. If a radio channel wants to listen to me, I'll talk to them.
So, yes, my advice to govt is just advice. I can't make govt do what I say. (They certainly frequently haven't to date!) And, yes, I should be free to bitch to the media, just like everyone else in the country is free to bitch to the media.
I am absolutely trying to influence policy decisions. I have not said otherwise. Lots of people try to influence policy decisions: MPs do, constituents do when they write to MPs, columnists do when they write columns, PB.com article writers do when they write articles. That's again how democracy works.
Lots of people try to influence policy decisions, the government absorbs all those inputs and comes to a decision. Who is responsible for the decision? Well, the Government is.
If I think the Govt is ignoring the science, I will absolutely bitch about it. I'm a scientist: that's my duty. If the Govt is ignoring fishermen, then the fishing industry bitch about it to the media. I'm not complaining about that. That's how it works.
You keep talking about freedom, but your freedom always seems to mean other people being silenced. That is not what "freedom" means. Freedom means that we are all allowed to say things, to whoever will listen.
None of those people are official government advisors. You are. The government has taken a decision, deal with it. You should have made a better argument rather than presenting 100k cases per day by June 21st that was completely incredulous.
Lots and lots and lots of people are official government advisors and none of them are censored. Here's a list: https://www.gov.uk/government/groups Look how many groups there are. The 4G/TV Co-existence Oversight Board, the Abstraction Reform Advisory Group, the Academy for Social Justice Commissioning learning groups, the Accelerated Capability Environment (ACE), the Action Group on Cross Border Remittances, and on, and on, and on.
So, Inge Hansen is on the 4G/TV Co-existence Oversight Board and here's Inge Hansen talking at the 7th Annual European Spectrum Management Conference, https://eu-ems.com/speakers.asp?event_id=112&page_id=854 Because Inge Hansen, like everyone else who ever sits on a govt advisory board, is free to go about her work and talk to anyone else who will listen.
This is entirely normal and how it has always worked. The only difference is that you don't care what Inge Hansen said on the 4G/TV Co-existence Oversight Board, but you do care what is said on SAGE. The problem is not people who advise govt talking in other forums, the problem is you wanting to censor voices you don't want to hear.
Well, tough. We live in a free society. I can talk to who I want (barring my choice to enter into a contractual relationship that prohibits that). You can talk to who you want (ditto). Freedom -- it's great!
I think Max's frustration is not really rightly aimed at the member of SAGE and whether they do go running off to the media as soon as they dissent. I think the issue is the media, and their constant need for a story. What better story is there than 'Member of SAGE predicts 100,000 cases' etc. I've always objected to Prince Charles opining on climate science because he is a dimwit, and has not earned a seat at the table.
Sorry but he's worried about nightclubs, why on Earth did he open them then
I agree, what use are they in this world? apart from keeping the alcoholic beverage industry in "gravy" (sorry, mixed metaphor)
What use is anything? What a depressing existence to be restricted to activities which are 'useful'.
There are a few on here who we are waiting on providing us a list of worthwhile and acceptable ideas. A few old white blokes, that is. I can hardly wait to see it.
Just in case Walter Mitty aka @Ishmael_Z comes back with another aggressive and offensive post, please inform her/him I have left for the evening! Good afternoon all!
But that's the point, you're on the one hand saying your advice to the government is just advice but on the other hand telling us that you should be free to bitch to the media when the government decides that your advice is just advisory.
Simply, you want to pretend that you aren't trying to influence policy decisions outside of your remit by maintaining a pretence that the government is free to ignore your advice but then the first moment this happens you'll bitch to the media that the government is "ignoring the science" or whatever else. It's only been happening for a year.
When you use the phrase "on the one hand [...] on the other hand", you are normally meant to present some sort of contradiction...? I am a scientist employed by a university in a country that believes in free speech and academic freedom. Part of my role as a scientist is to communicate my research to others. 99% of the time, that means talking to other academics, but if policymakers want to listen to me, I'll talk to them. If a radio channel wants to listen to me, I'll talk to them.
So, yes, my advice to govt is just advice. I can't make govt do what I say. (They certainly frequently haven't to date!) And, yes, I should be free to bitch to the media, just like everyone else in the country is free to bitch to the media.
I am absolutely trying to influence policy decisions. I have not said otherwise. Lots of people try to influence policy decisions: MPs do, constituents do when they write to MPs, columnists do when they write columns, PB.com article writers do when they write articles. That's again how democracy works.
Lots of people try to influence policy decisions, the government absorbs all those inputs and comes to a decision. Who is responsible for the decision? Well, the Government is.
If I think the Govt is ignoring the science, I will absolutely bitch about it. I'm a scientist: that's my duty. If the Govt is ignoring fishermen, then the fishing industry bitch about it to the media. I'm not complaining about that. That's how it works.
You keep talking about freedom, but your freedom always seems to mean other people being silenced. That is not what "freedom" means. Freedom means that we are all allowed to say things, to whoever will listen.
None of those people are official government advisors. You are. The government has taken a decision, deal with it. You should have made a better argument rather than presenting 100k cases per day by June 21st that was completely incredulous.
Lots and lots and lots of people are official government advisors and none of them are censored. Here's a list: https://www.gov.uk/government/groups Look how many groups there are. The 4G/TV Co-existence Oversight Board, the Abstraction Reform Advisory Group, the Academy for Social Justice Commissioning learning groups, the Accelerated Capability Environment (ACE), the Action Group on Cross Border Remittances, and on, and on, and on.
So, Inge Hansen is on the 4G/TV Co-existence Oversight Board and here's Inge Hansen talking at the 7th Annual European Spectrum Management Conference, https://eu-ems.com/speakers.asp?event_id=112&page_id=854 Because Inge Hansen, like everyone else who ever sits on a govt advisory board, is free to go about her work and talk to anyone else who will listen.
This is entirely normal and how it has always worked. The only difference is that you don't care what Inge Hansen said on the 4G/TV Co-existence Oversight Board, but you do care what is said on SAGE. The problem is not people who advise govt talking in other forums, the problem is you wanting to censor voices you don't want to hear.
Well, tough. We live in a free society. I can talk to who I want (barring my choice to enter into a contractual relationship that prohibits that). You can talk to who you want (ditto). Freedom -- it's great!
But they're not advising the government during a pandemic! How can you not see why it's not the same? Scientists are always so smart but also completely oblivious at the same time. So many of my uni mates are the same.
You're a government advisor, your freedom should be curtailed until you stop being one. You sell the policy of the day or resign. Those are the choices. I have no such position and can shit on the government's decisions as much as I want (and I do, a lot).
Industry people absolutely don't have that capability if they sit on advisory bodies. One of our people is on the government's City strategy advisory body and he had to sign all kinds of stuff saying he couldn't talk about this to the media (not that he would, I mean he's a regulatory affairs person no one cares about what he's saying).
You're inventing scenarios to justify your hypocrisy. Advisors advise. They don't go and bitch about decisions that have gone against them. If you want to do that then resign your position and make it clear that you could no longer take part in a process that was anti-science/ignored experts or whatever else.
The whole point is that you're not part of the great unwashed, you're in a huge position of privilege being in an advisory role and that comes with responsibility. You've chosen to not bother with the responsibility part. Fine, but it makes you a hypocrite.
And your comment on South Korea is very telling. Do you really believe that the UK could implement a biosecurity police state where everyone's movement data is handed to the state by default? Keeping cases down is not the only consideration in the UK. That you're apparently incapable of seeing that is very worrying as you sit on a SAGE committee.
SAGE requires us not to divulge details of what is discussed on SAGE (beyond what SAGE itself releases through published minutes), and I don't. If SAGE asked me to do or not do anything else, I would follow their requirements, or choose to withdraw. I didn't write any of those requirements: the Government did (or civil servants did, and the Govt signed off on it).
Your bloke on the government's City strategy advisory board, I'm sure he's asked not to divulge details of meetings, but he is allowed to talk to other people about regulatory affairs. Should a newspaper take interest in some matter of regulatory affairs and ring him up for a quote, he'd be free to talk to them and I'm sure he'd be flattered to be asked.
Your bloke and me, we're in the same situation, except, OK, right now, maybe more people care about the stuff I do than the stuff he does.
As for South Korea, I would suggest they've been successful in avoiding national lockdowns because they have been better with locally-led public health teams and with giving more support to those in isolation, things we could do here without any concerns of a "biosecurity police state". We are not South Korea and we don't need policies exactly like South Korea. Lots of countries have avoided national lockdowns through a variety of different mechanisms and policies. Some will translate to the UK, some won't. Giving better support for people isolating is the main one I've been involved with recommending to Govt.
Again, all this talk of "responsibility" amounts to you not wanting to hear what certain people have to say because you disagree with them (us). If there is hypocrisy, it is the person who yells "freedom" yet who's main concern is to censor others.
I see that those of us expecting yet another example of Boris dithering and avoiding making a sensible choice until it's too late and the damage has already been done, and then being forced into a half-baked U-turn, are not being disappointed by today's new announcements.
Still, two half-baked U-turns in five minutes is a bonus.
I really am getting confused. What's he done now?
I assume that it's this;
Vaccines Minister Nadhim Zahawi says a negative test result will no longer be enough to gain access to nightclubs and large indoor events by end of Sept. They must show proof of two jabs.
However, Government does not employ me. Were Govt to pay me my standard consultancy rate, I would keep quiet, as I would for any client. Government has chosen not to do that.
Fark'nell.
So during a national emergency you are not treating giving the government advice similarly to giving a fee-paying client advice and hence give the former a degraded service.
All about the $$$.
Amazing.
During an international emergency, Pfizer are treating pricing* for life-saving vaccines similarly to how they would treat pricing for any other vaccination/pharmaceutical - i.e. looking at the market and pricing of competitors.
All about the $$$
And they've created an amazing vaccine that is saving lives the world over. Better in some ways than AZN, preferable, it seems, in the young, faster acting.
Amazing (in a good way)
*I think? Or have they added an altruistic discount?
The world of commerce is like that. It relies on competitive advantage in order to innovate and hence provide the world with new products, in this case vaccines, that can make them a profit and hence reward shareholders who will as a result place a greater value on their shares which will in turn allow them to continue the process.
Government advisory committees not so much.
Plus @bondegezou could opt out. Fuck you, he* could say. No cash no advice. Instead he seems to think that because he is not being paid it gives him license to provide an inferior service (ie behave in a way that he admits he would not if his client were paying him).
Apoparently unprecedented (Graun) Amber Extreme Heat warning for southern and western parts for several days (roughly anything west or south of Stoke on Trent, but maps provided)
It's unprecedented only because this is the first summer that "Extreme Heat" has been one of the types of severe weather that the Met Office issue warnings for. The temperatures themselves are not unprecedented.
Industry people absolutely don't have that capability if they sit on advisory bodies. One of our people is on the government's City strategy advisory body and he had to sign all kinds of stuff saying he couldn't talk about this to the media (not that he would, I mean he's a regulatory affairs person no one cares about what he's saying).
You're inventing scenarios to justify your hypocrisy. Advisors advise. They don't go and bitch about decisions that have gone against them. If you want to do that then resign your position and make it clear that you could no longer take part in a process that was anti-science/ignored experts or whatever else.
The whole point is that you're not part of the great unwashed, you're in a huge position of privilege being in an advisory role and that comes with responsibility. You've chosen to not bother with the responsibility part. Fine, but it makes you a hypocrite.
And your comment on South Korea is very telling. Do you really believe that the UK could implement a biosecurity police state where everyone's movement data is handed to the state by default? Keeping cases down is not the only consideration in the UK. That you're apparently incapable of seeing that is very worrying as you sit on a SAGE committee.
SAGE requires us not to divulge details of what is discussed on SAGE (beyond what SAGE itself releases through published minutes), and I don't. If SAGE asked me to do or not do anything else, I would follow their requirements, or choose to withdraw. I didn't write any of those requirements: the Government did (or civil servants did, and the Govt signed off on it).
Your bloke on the government's City strategy advisory board, I'm sure he's asked not to divulge details of meetings, but he is allowed to talk to other people about regulatory affairs. Should a newspaper take interest in some matter of regulatory affairs and ring him up for a quote, he'd be free to talk to them and I'm sure he'd be flattered to be asked.
Your bloke and me, we're in the same situation, except, OK, right now, maybe more people care about the stuff I do than the stuff he does.
As for South Korea, I would suggest they've been successful in avoiding national lockdowns because they have been better with locally-led public health teams and with giving more support to those in isolation, things we could do here without any concerns of a "biosecurity police state". We are not South Korea and we don't need policies exactly like South Korea. Lots of countries have avoided national lockdowns through a variety of different mechanisms and policies. Some will translate to the UK, some won't. Giving better support for people isolating is the main one I've been involved with recommending to Govt.
Again, all this talk of "responsibility" amounts to you not wanting to hear what certain people have to say because you disagree with them (us). If there is hypocrisy, it is the person who yells "freedom" yet who's main concern is to censor others.
I do want to hear what you want to say. In SAGE minutes. Your dissent can be recorded there for all time. I don't want to hear it on Channel 4 at 7pm because they think it will take 1% off the government's poll rating or on twitter because the scienctist wants all of the retweets.
Apoparently unprecedented (Graun) Amber Extreme Heat warning for southern and western parts for several days (roughly anything west or south of Stoke on Trent, but maps provided)
It's unprecedented only because this is the first summer that "Extreme Heat" has been one of the types of severe weather that the Met Office issue warnings for. The temperatures themselves are not unprecedented.
There seems to be a growing tendency to "catastrophise" everything that happens these days.
Until Labour is seen as better, the Tories will continue to lead. But it is undeniable, the Tories and Government are becoming more unpopular
Mandatory vaccine passports for young people at nightclubs.
The liberal democrats will probably be against. What should labour do?
Personally I think Labour should say we should close the night clubs and not bother with the passports
Young voters are part of what is left of your vote. Looks like you are intent on losing that too.
FFS.
To govern is to choose. To choose is to divide. To be a convincing opposition aspiring to government is to choose better than the government. This is slightly different from being all things to all people. Labour need to get about 40-45% of the votes, not 100%.
Choosing in opposition is easier than choosing in government because fewer of your mistakes are found out. This is the LOTO's one big job. I don't think people think he is doing it.
Apoparently unprecedented (Graun) Amber Extreme Heat warning for southern and western parts for several days (roughly anything west or south of Stoke on Trent, but maps provided)
It's unprecedented only because this is the first summer that "Extreme Heat" has been one of the types of severe weather that the Met Office issue warnings for. The temperatures themselves are not unprecedented.
But I'm not saying they shouldn't be able to dissent. In fact dissent is necessary as that's the only way to make an informed choice. My issue is specifically that the dissenters will go off to their favourite media organisation and bitch about the decision and try and influence national policy after the fact. Dissent stays in the minutes, that's the only way this works properly.
[...]
I advise my company's management on strategic decisions, sometimes (a lot of the time, in fact) they go against my advice. I don't then go and bitch internally about how they are wrong and fucking everything up, I just get on with life and make sure next time I am better prepared with evidence or business outlines to support my ideas better.
If I disagree with my employer, my 'company', if they go against my advice, I don't then go and bitch internally about how they are wrong. So, just like you.
However, Government does not employ me. Were Govt to pay me my standard consultancy rate, I would keep quiet, as I would for any client. Government has chosen not to do that.
That's incredibly petty. You're in a position of huge responsibility and privilege being able to have some input into the national COVID strategy. Honestly, I'm losing a lot of respect for you and I do read your posts very carefully because of your position and knowledge of the subject and situation.
My responsibility is to speak up. My research is largely publicly funded. My duty as a scientist is to say what I have found out, to give that back to the public. I am hugely grateful that I live in a modern, free, democracy, and that we as a society have learned that we all do best if everyone has that freedom to speak up. My science is contested in public, which makes for better science. How that science might affect policy is contested in public, which makes for better policy.
I am also grateful that I don't live in a country where what I can say and who I can say it to is at someone else's whim.
There are times when some things should be said in confidence, of course. If Government asks me to keep some things in confidence through some particular arrangement, I respect that. If you don't like how the Government is running SAGE and the limits it puts on participants, stop bitching about the participants and start bitching about the Govt that made those decisions.
Great questions from the public. Boris offloaded the first one on to JVT, even though it is a political issue. Question 2. Don't know.
I assume you realise this, but you know the government selects the questions the public ask? I'm mean they are literally the straight men for the message that the government wants to put out.
Well, from reading the BBC report, surely to God they ought to be able to answer the question!
I see that those of us expecting yet another example of Boris dithering and avoiding making a sensible choice until it's too late and the damage has already been done, and then being forced into a half-baked U-turn, are not being disappointed by today's new announcements.
Still, two half-baked U-turns in five minutes is a bonus.
I really am getting confused. What's he done now?
I assume that it's this;
Vaccines Minister Nadhim Zahawi says a negative test result will no longer be enough to gain access to nightclubs and large indoor events by end of Sept. They must show proof of two jabs.
FWIW I was in a supermarket at lunch time, then took a short cut through a bus station. I'd say 75-80%, of all ages, were masked indoors. I didn't wear one and felt quite naughty until I saw other folk not wearing them.
Went in a local boozer on Friday night about half 10 and everyone was maskless and ordering drinks at the bar. So I did the same. Felt good to stand at a bar and order a beer.
Ok! Hats off for mask off. It's the right call.
But I've disappointed myself by still wearing mine. Can't quite seem to break free. Not quite ready.
People can call me an institutionalised pussy whipped libtard cuck and I'd have no real defence.
Why do you need to include, in the list of epithets, the appropriateness of which I wouldn't dream of commenting on, the term "pussy whipped".
Plus "libtard" now that I think about it raises some questions.
Altogether not your best moment.
It was quite a good moment in fact. Piercing satire of all the bad people on the wrong side of history.
I think in time you will reflect on your use of the word "libtard".
I'm not expecting you to do so now, in the heat of posting but you will eventually and when you do, you will I'm sure do the right thing.
What would our hero Steve Baker make of it, do we think?
Not really. Imagine the flapping noise if the Govt made a decision to exclude Michie.
Governments are concerned with what people say ("flapping noise", if you like). That's because we live in a democracy, which is a good thing, yes?
The point is that Government decides who to ask for advice and they decide what to do with that advice. Sure, some power rests in those advising on important issues, but it is not an untrammeled power. The fantasy that SAGE rules over us is a delusion. Government rules over us. The circumstances of a global pandemic can be said to rule over us. SAGE is a cog in a complex machine feeding advice into government.
Voice of sanity. We don't half get some lurid tripe on here on this topic.
That's a good summary.
The power to control eg the membership of SAGE is there, but informal and public checks and balances are not without influence.
Especially for a Government ddeveloping quite the record of sudden reverse-ferrets.
Apoparently unprecedented (Graun) Amber Extreme Heat warning for southern and western parts for several days (roughly anything west or south of Stoke on Trent, but maps provided)
It's unprecedented only because this is the first summer that "Extreme Heat" has been one of the types of severe weather that the Met Office issue warnings for. The temperatures themselves are not unprecedented.
There seems to be a growing tendency to "catastrophise" everything that happens these days.
There does. However, many use the Met Office warnings in their risk assessments for safe working. My partner does. Seems silly to have snow, cold, high winds, flooding warnings, but nothing for extreme heat.
Don't know whether it's a data issue, but cases reported do look better than expected.
Vastly better than expected.
rcs might have only been off by a day!
I've got my money on data reporting delay. Expect tomorrow and Wednesday to be higher than expected.
It is slightly sus that both Wales and Northern Ireland have recorded their highest ever days of this wave whilst England is so low but I haven't looked at the pattern of NI and Wales reporting figures to get an handle on whether we should have been "expecting" high figures for NI and Wales.
Apoparently unprecedented (Graun) Amber Extreme Heat warning for southern and western parts for several days (roughly anything west or south of Stoke on Trent, but maps provided)
It's unprecedented only because this is the first summer that "Extreme Heat" has been one of the types of severe weather that the Met Office issue warnings for. The temperatures themselves are not unprecedented.
There seems to be a growing tendency to "catastrophise" everything that happens these days.
The system of Severe Weather Warnings is pretty useful for helping people who can take countermeasures in advance that will save life to do so, rather than waiting for stuff to happen and react to it.
Obviously the media tend to overdramatise this sort of thing, but the warnings are not in themselves catastrophising.
The Met Office previously had a system of heat health alerts, but these clearly weren't proving as useful, so they have taken a sensible decision to incorporate it into the severe weather warning service instead.
But I'm not saying they shouldn't be able to dissent. In fact dissent is necessary as that's the only way to make an informed choice. My issue is specifically that the dissenters will go off to their favourite media organisation and bitch about the decision and try and influence national policy after the fact. Dissent stays in the minutes, that's the only way this works properly.
[...]
I advise my company's management on strategic decisions, sometimes (a lot of the time, in fact) they go against my advice. I don't then go and bitch internally about how they are wrong and fucking everything up, I just get on with life and make sure next time I am better prepared with evidence or business outlines to support my ideas better.
If I disagree with my employer, my 'company', if they go against my advice, I don't then go and bitch internally about how they are wrong. So, just like you.
However, Government does not employ me. Were Govt to pay me my standard consultancy rate, I would keep quiet, as I would for any client. Government has chosen not to do that.
That's incredibly petty. You're in a position of huge responsibility and privilege being able to have some input into the national COVID strategy. Honestly, I'm losing a lot of respect for you and I do read your posts very carefully because of your position and knowledge of the subject and situation.
My responsibility is to speak up. My research is largely publicly funded. My duty as a scientist is to say what I have found out, to give that back to the public. I am hugely grateful that I live in a modern, free, democracy, and that we as a society have learned that we all do best if everyone has that freedom to speak up. My science is contested in public, which makes for better science. How that science might affect policy is contested in public, which makes for better policy.
I am also grateful that I don't live in a country where what I can say and who I can say it to is at someone else's whim.
There are times when some things should be said in confidence, of course. If Government asks me to keep some things in confidence through some particular arrangement, I respect that. If you don't like how the Government is running SAGE and the limits it puts on participants, stop bitching about the participants and start bitching about the Govt that made those decisions.
It doesn't make for better policy. It makes for muddled thinking and partial u-turns that aren't properly executed. We've had a year of evidence that shows this. You go and sell the policy or you resign. Those are the options.
But I'm not saying they shouldn't be able to dissent. In fact dissent is necessary as that's the only way to make an informed choice. My issue is specifically that the dissenters will go off to their favourite media organisation and bitch about the decision and try and influence national policy after the fact. Dissent stays in the minutes, that's the only way this works properly.
[...]
I advise my company's management on strategic decisions, sometimes (a lot of the time, in fact) they go against my advice. I don't then go and bitch internally about how they are wrong and fucking everything up, I just get on with life and make sure next time I am better prepared with evidence or business outlines to support my ideas better.
If I disagree with my employer, my 'company', if they go against my advice, I don't then go and bitch internally about how they are wrong. So, just like you.
However, Government does not employ me. Were Govt to pay me my standard consultancy rate, I would keep quiet, as I would for any client. Government has chosen not to do that.
That's incredibly petty. You're in a position of huge responsibility and privilege being able to have some input into the national COVID strategy. Honestly, I'm losing a lot of respect for you and I do read your posts very carefully because of your position and knowledge of the subject and situation.
My responsibility is to speak up. My research is largely publicly funded. My duty as a scientist is to say what I have found out, to give that back to the public. I am hugely grateful that I live in a modern, free, democracy, and that we as a society have learned that we all do best if everyone has that freedom to speak up. My science is contested in public, which makes for better science. How that science might affect policy is contested in public, which makes for better policy.
I am also grateful that I don't live in a country where what I can say and who I can say it to is at someone else's whim.
There are times when some things should be said in confidence, of course. If Government asks me to keep some things in confidence through some particular arrangement, I respect that. If you don't like how the Government is running SAGE and the limits it puts on participants, stop bitching about the participants and start bitching about the Govt that made those decisions.
'I would keep quiet'
What are you not "keeping quiet" about out of interest ?
Don't know whether it's a data issue, but cases reported do look better than expected.
Vastly better than expected.
rcs might have only been off by a day!
Well, we'll see. I must admit that I hadn't quite expected the rush of people back into nightclubs.
I'm increasingly coming to the conclusion that we will need to be go to fairly serious lengths to ensure that people get jabbed. That's the only way to minimise transmission. That means that we need to get secondary school pupils vaccinated asap - and in the same way that they get their BCG vaccinations already. Line up, here it comes.
However, Government does not employ me. Were Govt to pay me my standard consultancy rate, I would keep quiet, as I would for any client. Government has chosen not to do that.
Fark'nell.
So during a national emergency you are not treating giving the government advice similarly to giving a fee-paying client advice and hence give the former a degraded service.
All about the $$$.
Amazing.
During an international emergency, Pfizer are treating pricing* for life-saving vaccines similarly to how they would treat pricing for any other vaccination/pharmaceutical - i.e. looking at the market and pricing of competitors.
All about the $$$
And they've created an amazing vaccine that is saving lives the world over. Better in some ways than AZN, preferable, it seems, in the young, faster acting.
Amazing (in a good way)
*I think? Or have they added an altruistic discount?
The world of commerce is like that. It relies on competitive advantage in order to innovate and hence provide the world with new products, in this case vaccines, that can make them a profit and hence reward shareholders who will as a result place a greater value on their shares which will in turn allow them to continue the process.
Government advisory committees not so much.
Plus @bondegezou could opt out. Fuck you, he* could say. No cash no advice. Instead he seems to think that because he is not being paid it gives him license to provide an inferior service (ie behave in a way that he admits he would not if his client were paying him).
*or she
Ok, I accept that re Pfizer.
On consulting/grant research, I've also done a bit of both (both via my employer*, rather than privately, so may be different to bondegezou) and I think you're wrong to say the consulting is the superior product.
If you provide grant money, the research is done openly, it get's published and peer reviewed. The protocol may well get published and peer reviewed. You get the input of the scientists who got the grant, of others in peer review. When it's published you'll get a further indication (if it has any kind of profile) of whether other scientists agree/think the methodology is sound.
If you contract out a report, then you get one (or a small team) of scientists input. You'd better trust that scientist or know what you're doing, otherwise it could be severely flawed.
*which means, for me, both pay the same, although the consultancy work probably works out more expensive to the funder as the uni puts some other overheads in. The uni also has some pure-consultancy units outside of academic departments and positions within those generally pay more for the equivalent role, because you work on what the consultancy is bringing in, not what you want to work on. You get paid more because you have less freedom. You may see that as a moral failing, but people make those kinds of choices all the time - money buys compromises from a workforce. This is getting long, but we often get approached to do private reports, but we normally try and convert those into more open agreements, where we will do the report, but also publish in a journal and cna potentialy look at other things with the data acquired. Most funders are happy with this when we lay it out like that (they'll get a mention in any other outputs, it doesn't normally get cheaper, sometimes it adds costs, but sometimes we'll fund a bit of it ourselves if it's something we wanted to look at anyway and the project can act as seed-funding for a larger bid later)
@benrileysmith Boris Johnson just said the NHS Test and Trace app pinging is ‘one of the only shots we’ve got left in our locker to stop the chain reaction” of Covid spread.
He'll be furious when he finds out who emptied the locker.
My responsibility is to speak up. My research is largely publicly funded. My duty as a scientist is to say what I have found out, to give that back to the public. I am hugely grateful that I live in a modern, free, democracy, and that we as a society have learned that we all do best if everyone has that freedom to speak up. My science is contested in public, which makes for better science. How that science might affect policy is contested in public, which makes for better policy.
All political popularity is relative. It may be true that the government is becoming less popular absolutely. Given the disasters we are surrounded by, and the prospects of future ones, that may not be surprising. But whether it is becoming relatively less popular as compared with the alternatives is much less clear.
The evidence that the 30 something % of people who would vote Labour is increasing is small. The sense that Labour support is enthusiastic, taking to the streets, dancing in spontaneous outbursts of joy towards their Supreme Leader is smaller still.
I think everyone calling this a peak is being extremely premature. We've just thrown open the doors to nightclubs and unlimited internal socialising. I think we're going to see cases a over 100k per day by mid-August but not many resulting hospitalisations as they will be concentrated among under 30s.
Apoparently unprecedented (Graun) Amber Extreme Heat warning for southern and western parts for several days (roughly anything west or south of Stoke on Trent, but maps provided)
It's unprecedented only because this is the first summer that "Extreme Heat" has been one of the types of severe weather that the Met Office issue warnings for. The temperatures themselves are not unprecedented.
There seems to be a growing tendency to "catastrophise" everything that happens these days.
I think what happened in Germany last week can be rightly described as a catastrophe as can the recent heatwave in Northern Canada and the North Western United States.
Don't know whether it's a data issue, but cases reported do look better than expected.
Vastly better than expected.
rcs might have only been off by a day!
Well, we'll see. I must admit that I hadn't quite expected the rush of people back into nightclubs.
I'm increasingly coming to the conclusion that we will need to be go to fairly serious lengths to ensure that people get jabbed. That's the only way to minimise transmission. That means that we need to get secondary school pupils vaccinated asap - and in the same way that they get their BCG vaccinations already. Line up, here it comes.
Been saying this for about a month. We need to incentivise the less enthusiastic to take their jabs.
However, Government does not employ me. Were Govt to pay me my standard consultancy rate, I would keep quiet, as I would for any client. Government has chosen not to do that.
Fark'nell.
So during a national emergency you are not treating giving the government advice similarly to giving a fee-paying client advice and hence give the former a degraded service.
All about the $$$.
Amazing.
During an international emergency, Pfizer are treating pricing* for life-saving vaccines similarly to how they would treat pricing for any other vaccination/pharmaceutical - i.e. looking at the market and pricing of competitors.
All about the $$$
And they've created an amazing vaccine that is saving lives the world over. Better in some ways than AZN, preferable, it seems, in the young, faster acting.
Amazing (in a good way)
*I think? Or have they added an altruistic discount?
The world of commerce is like that. It relies on competitive advantage in order to innovate and hence provide the world with new products, in this case vaccines, that can make them a profit and hence reward shareholders who will as a result place a greater value on their shares which will in turn allow them to continue the process.
Government advisory committees not so much.
Plus @bondegezou could opt out. Fuck you, he* could say. No cash no advice. Instead he seems to think that because he is not being paid it gives him license to provide an inferior service (ie behave in a way that he admits he would not if his client were paying him).
*or she
"He" is fine.
I am not providing an inferior service. I have worked my proverbial socks off, worked long hours, worked through the weekends, not taken holiday, worked myself to the point my hands were cramping, providing research for the Government, through SAGE sub-committees and direct to DHSC. The Government laid out the contractual arrangements (or lack of contractual arrangements) for those activities. I agreed to those and have followed them (and gone far beyond them in terms of hours worked).
If you buy a car and you don't pay for the chrome hub plates, that doesn't mean the rest of the car is inferior. It just means you don't get the chrome hub plates. Government has not asked for, nor paid for, the extra of me not doing my job of communicating my science to the public. Ergo, I continue to communicate my science to the public, as is my job, as I am paid to do by my employer.
I think that's a sensible decision because science is better done in the open. Whatever I think, it's the Government's choice how they contract with me. If you don't think I should talk to the media about my work while also talking to Govt about my work, I think you're wrong, but whatever, it's a free country, you can make your point here, you can vote for a different Govt at the next election.
I think everyone calling this a peak is being extremely premature. We've just thrown open the doors to nightclubs and unlimited internal socialising. I think we're going to see cases a over 100k per day by mid-August but not many resulting hospitalisations as they will be concentrated among under 30s.
That's entirely possible - especially given how transmissible Delta is.
I'm wondering if maybe @Leon is right - maybe we should have time limited vaccine passports, and you can only get into the nightclub with proof of double vaccination.
I am increasing suspecting that the latest data is showing lower vaccine efficiency hence the nightclub rules and you just can't get away with having an infected unvaccinated person in a big crowd without infecting a reason number of even vaccinated people.
It's rampant in my village and it seemingly makes no difference whether or not you are double jabbed, although the latter have a significantly lesser illness. That said, Sir Patrick Vallance said before that 60% of those admitted to hospital have been fully vaccinated.
Don't know whether it's a data issue, but cases reported do look better than expected.
Vastly better than expected.
rcs might have only been off by a day!
I've got my money on data reporting delay. Expect tomorrow and Wednesday to be higher than expected.
It is slightly sus that both Wales and Northern Ireland have recorded their highest ever days of this wave whilst England is so low but I haven't looked at the pattern of NI and Wales reporting figures to get an handle on whether we should have been "expecting" high figures for NI and Wales.
You don't suppose that the weekend effect is accidentally on purpose higher than usual for England? Would they stoop so low on Freedom Day?
So 2 jabs needed for nightclub entry from September and for events with large crowds, glad to see the PM was reading my posts earlier, even if it means full Freedom Day lasted less than 24 hours before some restrictions were reimposed
But I'm not saying they shouldn't be able to dissent. In fact dissent is necessary as that's the only way to make an informed choice. My issue is specifically that the dissenters will go off to their favourite media organisation and bitch about the decision and try and influence national policy after the fact. Dissent stays in the minutes, that's the only way this works properly.
[...]
I advise my company's management on strategic decisions, sometimes (a lot of the time, in fact) they go against my advice. I don't then go and bitch internally about how they are wrong and fucking everything up, I just get on with life and make sure next time I am better prepared with evidence or business outlines to support my ideas better.
If I disagree with my employer, my 'company', if they go against my advice, I don't then go and bitch internally about how they are wrong. So, just like you.
However, Government does not employ me. Were Govt to pay me my standard consultancy rate, I would keep quiet, as I would for any client. Government has chosen not to do that.
That's incredibly petty. You're in a position of huge responsibility and privilege being able to have some input into the national COVID strategy. Honestly, I'm losing a lot of respect for you and I do read your posts very carefully because of your position and knowledge of the subject and situation.
My responsibility is to speak up. My research is largely publicly funded. My duty as a scientist is to say what I have found out, to give that back to the public. I am hugely grateful that I live in a modern, free, democracy, and that we as a society have learned that we all do best if everyone has that freedom to speak up. My science is contested in public, which makes for better science. How that science might affect policy is contested in public, which makes for better policy.
I am also grateful that I don't live in a country where what I can say and who I can say it to is at someone else's whim.
There are times when some things should be said in confidence, of course. If Government asks me to keep some things in confidence through some particular arrangement, I respect that. If you don't like how the Government is running SAGE and the limits it puts on participants, stop bitching about the participants and start bitching about the Govt that made those decisions.
It doesn't make for better policy. It makes for muddled thinking and partial u-turns that aren't properly executed. We've had a year of evidence that shows this. You go and sell the policy or you resign. Those are the options.
Really surprised that you are taking this line Max. Group think and unspoken reservations seem to me the last thing that we want right now. I'd far rather have a bit of confusion or Boris changing his position 7 times before breakfast than have a situation where important reservations simply weren't heard. We are muddling our way forward here making lots of mistakes as we go along. The important thing is that mistakes are picked up on and reversed as quickly as possible.
I am increasing suspecting that the latest data is showing lower vaccine efficiency hence the nightclub rules and you just can't get away with having an infected unvaccinated person in a big crowd without infecting a reason number of even vaccinated people.
It's rampant in my village and it seemingly makes no difference whether or not you are double jabbed, although the latter have a significantly lesser illness. That said, Sir Patrick Vallance said before that 60% of those admitted to hospital have been fully vaccinated.
Did he say that, I missed that.... are you sure he said fully vaccinated rather than partially vaccinated? Because that's a massive shift, a week or so ago, we were looking at more like 85-90% were not fully vaccinated, same with cases.
Don't know whether it's a data issue, but cases reported do look better than expected.
Vastly better than expected.
rcs might have only been off by a day!
I've got my money on data reporting delay. Expect tomorrow and Wednesday to be higher than expected.
It is slightly sus that both Wales and Northern Ireland have recorded their highest ever days of this wave whilst England is so low but I haven't looked at the pattern of NI and Wales reporting figures to get an handle on whether we should have been "expecting" high figures for NI and Wales.
Wales doesn't report on Sunday so the highlight figure is for 2 days.
What is the danger for someone having many multiple doses of vaccine? Because there will surely now be demand amongst young anti-vaccers to get someone else to take their jabs for them, and there is no ID required in the process, so this black market will start to appear over the next few weeks.
I think everyone calling this a peak is being extremely premature. We've just thrown open the doors to nightclubs and unlimited internal socialising. I think we're going to see cases a over 100k per day by mid-August but not many resulting hospitalisations as they will be concentrated among under 30s.
Agreed - it's definitely not the peak.
We won't have to wait long to prove that either, as we'll almost certainly hit 60,000 this week and it's reasonably likely we'll have a day exceeding 70,000.
100,000 by mid-August is a reasonable guess. Potentially even higher as clubbing will make it spread like wildfire amongst the ages with the lowest vaccination rates.
But I'm not saying they shouldn't be able to dissent. In fact dissent is necessary as that's the only way to make an informed choice. My issue is specifically that the dissenters will go off to their favourite media organisation and bitch about the decision and try and influence national policy after the fact. Dissent stays in the minutes, that's the only way this works properly.
[...]
I advise my company's management on strategic decisions, sometimes (a lot of the time, in fact) they go against my advice. I don't then go and bitch internally about how they are wrong and fucking everything up, I just get on with life and make sure next time I am better prepared with evidence or business outlines to support my ideas better.
If I disagree with my employer, my 'company', if they go against my advice, I don't then go and bitch internally about how they are wrong. So, just like you.
However, Government does not employ me. Were Govt to pay me my standard consultancy rate, I would keep quiet, as I would for any client. Government has chosen not to do that.
That's incredibly petty. You're in a position of huge responsibility and privilege being able to have some input into the national COVID strategy. Honestly, I'm losing a lot of respect for you and I do read your posts very carefully because of your position and knowledge of the subject and situation.
My responsibility is to speak up. My research is largely publicly funded. My duty as a scientist is to say what I have found out, to give that back to the public. I am hugely grateful that I live in a modern, free, democracy, and that we as a society have learned that we all do best if everyone has that freedom to speak up. My science is contested in public, which makes for better science. How that science might affect policy is contested in public, which makes for better policy.
I am also grateful that I don't live in a country where what I can say and who I can say it to is at someone else's whim.
There are times when some things should be said in confidence, of course. If Government asks me to keep some things in confidence through some particular arrangement, I respect that. If you don't like how the Government is running SAGE and the limits it puts on participants, stop bitching about the participants and start bitching about the Govt that made those decisions.
It doesn't make for better policy. It makes for muddled thinking and partial u-turns that aren't properly executed. We've had a year of evidence that shows this. You go and sell the policy or you resign. Those are the options.
Really surprised that you are taking this line Max. Group think and unspoken reservations seem to me the last thing that we want right now. I'd far rather have a bit of confusion or Boris changing his position 7 times before breakfast than have a situation where important reservations simply weren't heard. We are muddling our way forward here making lots of mistakes as we go along. The important thing is that mistakes are picked up on and reversed as quickly as possible.
We'd see the dissent in the minutes and resignations. MPC members who dissent don't go and cry to the FT about how the governor or other members aren't listening or being economically illiterate.
We've had a year of living under the tyranny of scientists. It has been a disaster and we need to make sure people who are accountable to us are making the decisions. I can't vote out people from SAGE.
I think everyone calling this a peak is being extremely premature. We've just thrown open the doors to nightclubs and unlimited internal socialising. I think we're going to see cases a over 100k per day by mid-August but not many resulting hospitalisations as they will be concentrated among under 30s.
Here’s a question though:
How closely will 600,000 people a day (roughly) having to isolate resemble a lockdown de facto?
I am increasing suspecting that the latest data is showing lower vaccine efficiency hence the nightclub rules and you just can't get away with having an infected unvaccinated person in a big crowd without infecting a reason number of even vaccinated people.
It's rampant in my village and it seemingly makes no difference whether or not you are double jabbed, although the latter have a significantly lesser illness. That said, Sir Patrick Vallance said before that 60% of those admitted to hospital have been fully vaccinated.
Did he say that, I missed that.... are you sure he said fully vaccinated rather than partially vaccinated? Because that's a massive shift, a week or so ago, we were looking at more like 85-90% were not fully vaccinated, same with cases.
My responsibility is to speak up. My research is largely publicly funded. My duty as a scientist is to say what I have found out, to give that back to the public. I am hugely grateful that I live in a modern, free, democracy, and that we as a society have learned that we all do best if everyone has that freedom to speak up. My science is contested in public, which makes for better science. How that science might affect policy is contested in public, which makes for better policy.
I am increasing suspecting that the latest data is showing lower vaccine efficiency hence the nightclub rules and you just can't get away with having an infected unvaccinated person in a big crowd without infecting a reason number of even vaccinated people.
It's rampant in my village and it seemingly makes no difference whether or not you are double jabbed, although the latter have a significantly lesser illness. That said, Sir Patrick Vallance said before that 60% of those admitted to hospital have been fully vaccinated.
Did he say that, I missed that.... are you sure he said fully vaccinated rather than partially vaccinated? Because that's a massive shift, a week or so ago, we were looking at more like 85-90% were not fully vaccinated, same with cases.
But I'm not saying they shouldn't be able to dissent. In fact dissent is necessary as that's the only way to make an informed choice. My issue is specifically that the dissenters will go off to their favourite media organisation and bitch about the decision and try and influence national policy after the fact. Dissent stays in the minutes, that's the only way this works properly.
[...]
I advise my company's management on strategic decisions, sometimes (a lot of the time, in fact) they go against my advice. I don't then go and bitch internally about how they are wrong and fucking everything up, I just get on with life and make sure next time I am better prepared with evidence or business outlines to support my ideas better.
If I disagree with my employer, my 'company', if they go against my advice, I don't then go and bitch internally about how they are wrong. So, just like you.
However, Government does not employ me. Were Govt to pay me my standard consultancy rate, I would keep quiet, as I would for any client. Government has chosen not to do that.
That's incredibly petty. You're in a position of huge responsibility and privilege being able to have some input into the national COVID strategy. Honestly, I'm losing a lot of respect for you and I do read your posts very carefully because of your position and knowledge of the subject and situation.
My responsibility is to speak up. My research is largely publicly funded. My duty as a scientist is to say what I have found out, to give that back to the public. I am hugely grateful that I live in a modern, free, democracy, and that we as a society have learned that we all do best if everyone has that freedom to speak up. My science is contested in public, which makes for better science. How that science might affect policy is contested in public, which makes for better policy.
I am also grateful that I don't live in a country where what I can say and who I can say it to is at someone else's whim.
There are times when some things should be said in confidence, of course. If Government asks me to keep some things in confidence through some particular arrangement, I respect that. If you don't like how the Government is running SAGE and the limits it puts on participants, stop bitching about the participants and start bitching about the Govt that made those decisions.
It doesn't make for better policy. It makes for muddled thinking and partial u-turns that aren't properly executed. We've had a year of evidence that shows this. You go and sell the policy or you resign. Those are the options.
Really surprised that you are taking this line Max. Group think and unspoken reservations seem to me the last thing that we want right now. I'd far rather have a bit of confusion or Boris changing his position 7 times before breakfast than have a situation where important reservations simply weren't heard. We are muddling our way forward here making lots of mistakes as we go along. The important thing is that mistakes are picked up on and reversed as quickly as possible.
We'd see the dissent in the minutes and resignations. MPC members who dissent don't go and cry to the FT about how the governor or other members aren't listening or being economically illiterate.
We've had a year of living under the tyranny of scientists. It has been a disaster and we need to make sure people who are accountable to us are making the decisions. I can't vote out people from SAGE.
I think "following the science" is generally an unacceptable cop out by politicians. At the end of the day they have to balance harms and make the calls. Scientists, however, do not speak with one voice. Thank god. We need to hear the different voices and assess both their credibility and reasoning. I take your point that some people on SAGE are taking it as licence to talk way outside their expertise but that should simply be a part of the assessment process. Sometimes insight can come from surprising places and should not be disregarded simply because of where it comes from.
I also think that the more SAGE speaks in many voices the less likely your dictatorship of science is to occur. An artificial consensus strikes me as genuinely dangerous.
I am increasing suspecting that the latest data is showing lower vaccine efficiency hence the nightclub rules and you just can't get away with having an infected unvaccinated person in a big crowd without infecting a reason number of even vaccinated people.
It's rampant in my village and it seemingly makes no difference whether or not you are double jabbed, although the latter have a significantly lesser illness. That said, Sir Patrick Vallance said before that 60% of those admitted to hospital have been fully vaccinated.
Did he say that, I missed that.... are you sure he said fully vaccinated rather than partially vaccinated? Because that's a massive shift, a week or so ago, we were looking at more like 85-90% were not fully vaccinated, same with cases.
17:24 What percentage of new cases have been vaccinated? David from Wiltshire asks how many people testing positive have been vaccinated.
The PM says the number of people testing positive who are fully vaccinated is rising but that does not mean the vaccine is not working.
Sir Patrick Vallance says 60% of those admitted to hospital have been fully vaccinated but he stresses this is "not surprising" as most people have now been vaccinated.
Vallance goes on to say the vaccines are most effective at stopping severe disease - and while they do help prevent you get it in the first place, that is not their main aim.
so that is 60% which is way more than the 12% MaxPB was using from the old figure.
What we really need now is the length of hospital stays and whether it's way less than it was before.
I am increasing suspecting that the latest data is showing lower vaccine efficiency hence the nightclub rules and you just can't get away with having an infected unvaccinated person in a big crowd without infecting a reason number of even vaccinated people.
It's rampant in my village and it seemingly makes no difference whether or not you are double jabbed, although the latter have a significantly lesser illness. That said, Sir Patrick Vallance said before that 60% of those admitted to hospital have been fully vaccinated.
Did he say that, I missed that.... are you sure he said fully vaccinated rather than partially vaccinated? Because that's a massive shift, a week or so ago, we were looking at more like 85-90% were not fully vaccinated, same with cases.
Context is crucial though. Among adults we are at something like 70% fully jabbed, and the ones going to hospital after two jabs are likely to be older, with weaker immune systems. If everyone was double jabbed, every hospital admission would be to double jabbed people.
I am increasing suspecting that the latest data is showing lower vaccine efficiency hence the nightclub rules and you just can't get away with having an infected unvaccinated person in a big crowd without infecting a reason number of even vaccinated people.
It's rampant in my village and it seemingly makes no difference whether or not you are double jabbed, although the latter have a significantly lesser illness. That said, Sir Patrick Vallance said before that 60% of those admitted to hospital have been fully vaccinated.
Did he say that, I missed that.... are you sure he said fully vaccinated rather than partially vaccinated? Because that's a massive shift, a week or so ago, we were looking at more like 85-90% were not fully vaccinated, same with cases.
So 2 jabs needed for nightclub entry from September, glad to see the PM was reading my posts earlier
And a pub. And a football ground, probably, theatre. Anywhere crowded probably. because the PM refused to rule it out.
Medical apartheid. Checkpoint Charlie Britain.
Get jabbed and then you can be free, if not then you will face quarantine for foreign travel and refusal of entry to nightclubs and other large events. Your choice
I am increasing suspecting that the latest data is showing lower vaccine efficiency hence the nightclub rules and you just can't get away with having an infected unvaccinated person in a big crowd without infecting a reason number of even vaccinated people.
It's rampant in my village and it seemingly makes no difference whether or not you are double jabbed, although the latter have a significantly lesser illness. That said, Sir Patrick Vallance said before that 60% of those admitted to hospital have been fully vaccinated.
Did he say that, I missed that.... are you sure he said fully vaccinated rather than partially vaccinated? Because that's a massive shift, a week or so ago, we were looking at more like 85-90% were not fully vaccinated, same with cases.
Nobody will ever really know who infected them, but local evidence appears to be that unvaccinated people can infect double jabbed people, but double jabbed people aren't infecting double jabbed wives, partners, and other close connections.
On consulting/grant research, I've also done a bit of both (both via my employer*, rather than privately, so may be different to bondegezou) and I think you're wrong to say the consulting is the superior product.
If you provide grant money, the research is done openly, it get's published and peer reviewed. The protocol may well get published and peer reviewed. You get the input of the scientists who got the grant, of others in peer review. When it's published you'll get a further indication (if it has any kind of profile) of whether other scientists agree/think the methodology is sound.
If you contract out a report, then you get one (or a small team) of scientists input. You'd better trust that scientist or know what you're doing, otherwise it could be severely flawed.
*which means, for me, both pay the same, although the consultancy work probably works out more expensive to the funder as the uni puts some other overheads in. The uni also has some pure-consultancy units outside of academic departments and positions within those generally pay more for the equivalent role, because you work on what the consultancy is bringing in, not what you want to work on. You get paid more because you have less freedom. You may see that as a moral failing, but people make those kinds of choices all the time - money buys compromises from a workforce. This is getting long, but we often get approached to do private reports, but we normally try and convert those into more open agreements, where we will do the report, but also publish in a journal and cna potentialy look at other things with the data acquired. Most funders are happy with this when we lay it out like that (they'll get a mention in any other outputs, it doesn't normally get cheaper, sometimes it adds costs, but sometimes we'll fund a bit of it ourselves if it's something we wanted to look at anyway and the project can act as seed-funding for a larger bid later)
Agreed: research done in public is the better product!
My job is to do research and then generate research outputs. I am judged on those research outputs. My employer, the university, is partly funded based on the quality and quantity of those research outputs.
If I am funded to do research through a grant, the grant funder gets the research done, and I/my employer get a research output (or 5).
If you want some research done for you and you alone, then we will charge more because we are missing out on those research outputs. You have to carry that cost.
This is basic economics. I find it odd that those who decry lockdowns for their damage to the economy and decry lockdowns for their restrictions on personal freedoms should be those arguing that during a lockdown, we abandon our usual economic practices and freedoms.
I have worked ridiculous hours, because, yes, there was an emergency. Others have suffered worse than just long hours during this pandemic. But I still broadly expect my work to be recompensed, generally through income to my employer. (SAGE work by academics is not paid; I do far more advising of government through work that is paid for.)
Government contracts with academics in a multitude of ways all the time. They know how we work. They made choices. SAGE and its current working practices are the result. I am happy to praise the Govt's handling of this aspect. I think the Govt got it right making SAGE very transparent. I was struck early in the pandemic when we were talking to No. 10 how No. 10 under Cummings was much more instinctively transparent than the DHSC. I praise that too. (I do not praise many other decisions taken by this Govt or Cummings.)
I am increasing suspecting that the latest data is showing lower vaccine efficiency hence the nightclub rules and you just can't get away with having an infected unvaccinated person in a big crowd without infecting a reason number of even vaccinated people.
It's rampant in my village and it seemingly makes no difference whether or not you are double jabbed, although the latter have a significantly lesser illness. That said, Sir Patrick Vallance said before that 60% of those admitted to hospital have been fully vaccinated.
Did he say that, I missed that.... are you sure he said fully vaccinated rather than partially vaccinated? Because that's a massive shift, a week or so ago, we were looking at more like 85-90% were not fully vaccinated, same with cases.
I am increasing suspecting that the latest data is showing lower vaccine efficiency hence the nightclub rules and you just can't get away with having an infected unvaccinated person in a big crowd without infecting a reason number of even vaccinated people.
It's rampant in my village and it seemingly makes no difference whether or not you are double jabbed, although the latter have a significantly lesser illness. That said, Sir Patrick Vallance said before that 60% of those admitted to hospital have been fully vaccinated.
Did he say that, I missed that.... are you sure he said fully vaccinated rather than partially vaccinated? Because that's a massive shift, a week or so ago, we were looking at more like 85-90% were not fully vaccinated, same with cases.
I think everyone calling this a peak is being extremely premature. We've just thrown open the doors to nightclubs and unlimited internal socialising. I think we're going to see cases a over 100k per day by mid-August but not many resulting hospitalisations as they will be concentrated among under 30s.
Here’s a question though:
How closely will 600,000 people a day (roughly) having to isolate resemble a lockdown de facto?
It's the @rcs1000 theory- when cases get numerous enough, people take matters into their own hands and isolate de facto for themselves. (The moral question is how acceptable that is when some people can afford to burrow away much more easily than others.) The other question is how much absence is needed to throw a significant chunk of business into disarray? A bit like an infectious disease, I can imagine a threshold where localised problems coalesce into something nationwide.
I am increasing suspecting that the latest data is showing lower vaccine efficiency hence the nightclub rules and you just can't get away with having an infected unvaccinated person in a big crowd without infecting a reason number of even vaccinated people.
It's rampant in my village and it seemingly makes no difference whether or not you are double jabbed, although the latter have a significantly lesser illness. That said, Sir Patrick Vallance said before that 60% of those admitted to hospital have been fully vaccinated.
Did he say that, I missed that.... are you sure he said fully vaccinated rather than partially vaccinated? Because that's a massive shift, a week or so ago, we were looking at more like 85-90% were not fully vaccinated, same with cases.
Context is crucial though. Among adults we are at something like 70% fully jabbed, and the ones going to hospital after two jabs are likely to be older, with weaker immune systems. If everyone was double jabbed, every hospital admission would be to double jabbed people.
Of course....but the figures from a week or two ago was more like 10-15%. If Vallence didn't misspeak that's jumped to 60%.
I am starting to think Israel mighe be right and the UK initial figures on protection are too optimistic.
I am increasing suspecting that the latest data is showing lower vaccine efficiency hence the nightclub rules and you just can't get away with having an infected unvaccinated person in a big crowd without infecting a reason number of even vaccinated people.
It's rampant in my village and it seemingly makes no difference whether or not you are double jabbed, although the latter have a significantly lesser illness. That said, Sir Patrick Vallance said before that 60% of those admitted to hospital have been fully vaccinated.
Did he say that, I missed that.... are you sure he said fully vaccinated rather than partially vaccinated? Because that's a massive shift, a week or so ago, we were looking at more like 85-90% were not fully vaccinated, same with cases.
That's really bad news. We aren't talking about refuseniks filling up beds.
That seem out of whack with the information.last week, zoe app and what Dr Foxy said yesterday.
I thought he said 16% not 60%. 16% matches up with the 12% from earlier last month and the 15% figure we got a few days ago.
The Beeb and the Graun are both independently reporting 60%. Vallance apparently said that this was unsurprising given the proportion of the population that's now been double-jabbed (who are also predominantly elderly and/or vulnerable, of course.)
I am increasing suspecting that the latest data is showing lower vaccine efficiency hence the nightclub rules and you just can't get away with having an infected unvaccinated person in a big crowd without infecting a reason number of even vaccinated people.
It's rampant in my village and it seemingly makes no difference whether or not you are double jabbed, although the latter have a significantly lesser illness. That said, Sir Patrick Vallance said before that 60% of those admitted to hospital have been fully vaccinated.
Did he say that, I missed that.... are you sure he said fully vaccinated rather than partially vaccinated? Because that's a massive shift, a week or so ago, we were looking at more like 85-90% were not fully vaccinated, same with cases.
I am increasing suspecting that the latest data is showing lower vaccine efficiency hence the nightclub rules and you just can't get away with having an infected unvaccinated person in a big crowd without infecting a reason number of even vaccinated people.
It's rampant in my village and it seemingly makes no difference whether or not you are double jabbed, although the latter have a significantly lesser illness. That said, Sir Patrick Vallance said before that 60% of those admitted to hospital have been fully vaccinated.
Did he say that, I missed that.... are you sure he said fully vaccinated rather than partially vaccinated? Because that's a massive shift, a week or so ago, we were looking at more like 85-90% were not fully vaccinated, same with cases.
I am increasing suspecting that the latest data is showing lower vaccine efficiency hence the nightclub rules and you just can't get away with having an infected unvaccinated person in a big crowd without infecting a reason number of even vaccinated people.
It's rampant in my village and it seemingly makes no difference whether or not you are double jabbed, although the latter have a significantly lesser illness. That said, Sir Patrick Vallance said before that 60% of those admitted to hospital have been fully vaccinated.
Did he say that, I missed that.... are you sure he said fully vaccinated rather than partially vaccinated? Because that's a massive shift, a week or so ago, we were looking at more like 85-90% were not fully vaccinated, same with cases.
Nobody will ever really know who infected them, but local evidence appears to be that unvaccinated people can infect double jabbed people, but double jabbed people aren't infecting double jabbed wives, partners, and other close connections.
Which is why vaccine passports would have been a really good measure. We could have opened up more, more safely. It has been a tragic failure of the government not to see this, damaging both in terms of the health impact and the economic impact.
Too late now, though, just as Boris starts getting round to introducing them.
I am increasing suspecting that the latest data is showing lower vaccine efficiency hence the nightclub rules and you just can't get away with having an infected unvaccinated person in a big crowd without infecting a reason number of even vaccinated people.
It's rampant in my village and it seemingly makes no difference whether or not you are double jabbed, although the latter have a significantly lesser illness. That said, Sir Patrick Vallance said before that 60% of those admitted to hospital have been fully vaccinated.
Did he say that, I missed that.... are you sure he said fully vaccinated rather than partially vaccinated? Because that's a massive shift, a week or so ago, we were looking at more like 85-90% were not fully vaccinated, same with cases.
I am increasing suspecting that the latest data is showing lower vaccine efficiency hence the nightclub rules and you just can't get away with having an infected unvaccinated person in a big crowd without infecting a reason number of even vaccinated people.
It's rampant in my village and it seemingly makes no difference whether or not you are double jabbed, although the latter have a significantly lesser illness. That said, Sir Patrick Vallance said before that 60% of those admitted to hospital have been fully vaccinated.
Did he say that, I missed that.... are you sure he said fully vaccinated rather than partially vaccinated? Because that's a massive shift, a week or so ago, we were looking at more like 85-90% were not fully vaccinated, same with cases.
"We project that roughly half of the hospitalisations and deaths occurring in the summer 2021 are likely to be in vaccinated individuals, depending upon vaccine coverage (Fig. 14). Admissions are projected to be split relatively evenly between the 45-64, 65-74 and 75+ year age groups, while deaths are likely to be concentrated in the 75+ age group (Fig. 15). • These projections are subject to considerable uncertainty. It is not possible to accurately predict how mobility and contacts will change following the easing of restrictions. We have presented our results in terms of low, medium and high assumptions for mobility, in addition to considering relaxations in the protective measures individuals employ, and these make a considerable difference to the results. • Furthermore, there remains enormous uncertainty in the characteristics of the Delta B.1.617.2 variant (in terms of immune escape and transmissibility) and the effectiveness of vaccines in preventing infection and serious disease. A range of scenarios is presented to cover these different possibilities. "
I am increasing suspecting that the latest data is showing lower vaccine efficiency hence the nightclub rules and you just can't get away with having an infected unvaccinated person in a big crowd without infecting a reason number of even vaccinated people.
It's rampant in my village and it seemingly makes no difference whether or not you are double jabbed, although the latter have a significantly lesser illness. That said, Sir Patrick Vallance said before that 60% of those admitted to hospital have been fully vaccinated.
Did he say that, I missed that.... are you sure he said fully vaccinated rather than partially vaccinated? Because that's a massive shift, a week or so ago, we were looking at more like 85-90% were not fully vaccinated, same with cases.
I am increasing suspecting that the latest data is showing lower vaccine efficiency hence the nightclub rules and you just can't get away with having an infected unvaccinated person in a big crowd without infecting a reason number of even vaccinated people.
It's rampant in my village and it seemingly makes no difference whether or not you are double jabbed, although the latter have a significantly lesser illness. That said, Sir Patrick Vallance said before that 60% of those admitted to hospital have been fully vaccinated.
Did he say that, I missed that.... are you sure he said fully vaccinated rather than partially vaccinated? Because that's a massive shift, a week or so ago, we were looking at more like 85-90% were not fully vaccinated, same with cases.
I think Max's frustration is not really rightly aimed at the member of SAGE and whether they do go running off to the media as soon as they dissent. I think the issue is the media, and their constant need for a story. What better story is there than 'Member of SAGE predicts 100,000 cases' etc. I've always objected to Prince Charles opining on climate science because he is a dimwit, and has not earned a seat at the table.
Broadly speaking, sure, I agree. A lot of media behaviour is terrible. There is a lot of scaremongering. There is a lot of setting up false dichotomies and adversarial positions. I have been in the media a little bit during the pandemic and it's often not left me feeling particularly positive about the media!
(There are exceptions to that. I think the very public airing of the science has made the science better. I think the media are taking science and health journalism a lot more seriously!)
But I'd rather this media than some police state where we can't say anything. I am a liberal and I hold freedoms dear. The freedom of scientists to bitch about govt actions, even those scientists on unpaid advisory committees for the govt, is part of that package of freedoms.
So 2 jabs needed for nightclub entry from September, glad to see the PM was reading my posts earlier
And a pub. And a football ground, probably, theatre. Anywhere crowded probably. because the PM refused to rule it out.
Medical apartheid. Checkpoint Charlie Britain.
Get jabbed and then you can be free, if not then you will face quarantine for foreign travel and refusal of entry to nightclubs and other large events. Your choice
It's just a threat to encourage young people to hit the needle. There's no serious practical prospect of vaxports for nightclubs and the like. That's my take.
I see that those of us expecting yet another example of Boris dithering and avoiding making a sensible choice until it's too late and the damage has already been done, and then being forced into a half-baked U-turn, are not being disappointed by today's new announcements.
Still, two half-baked U-turns in five minutes is a bonus.
I really am getting confused. What's he done now?
I assume that it's this;
Vaccines Minister Nadhim Zahawi says a negative test result will no longer be enough to gain access to nightclubs and large indoor events by end of Sept. They must show proof of two jabs.
So 2 jabs needed for nightclub entry from September, glad to see the PM was reading my posts earlier
And a pub. And a football ground, probably, theatre. Anywhere crowded probably. because the PM refused to rule it out.
Medical apartheid. Checkpoint Charlie Britain.
Get jabbed and then you can be free, if not then you will face quarantine for foreign travel and refusal of entry to nightclubs and other large events. Your choice
No. I have a third choice. I have the choice to fund and vote for a party that will restore my liberty and chuck authoritarian scum like you out of office.
I am increasing suspecting that the latest data is showing lower vaccine efficiency hence the nightclub rules and you just can't get away with having an infected unvaccinated person in a big crowd without infecting a reason number of even vaccinated people.
It's rampant in my village and it seemingly makes no difference whether or not you are double jabbed, although the latter have a significantly lesser illness. That said, Sir Patrick Vallance said before that 60% of those admitted to hospital have been fully vaccinated.
Did he say that, I missed that.... are you sure he said fully vaccinated rather than partially vaccinated? Because that's a massive shift, a week or so ago, we were looking at more like 85-90% were not fully vaccinated, same with cases.
That's really bad news. We aren't talking about refuseniks filling up beds.
That seem out of whack with the information.last week, zoe app and what Dr Foxy said yesterday.
I thought he said 16% not 60%. 16% matches up with the 12% from earlier last month and the 15% figure we got a few days ago.
That would make sense. I'm waiting for the replay to become available to hear what he said for myself.
I just rewatched on sky news youtube and he definitely says 60%.
Lets hope he just misspoke.
Of course the media haven't pulled him up on it and said are you sure....
It's not any easy number to interpret, though. If the population at risk of hospitalisation are 95%+ double-jabbed (which, roughly speaking, they are), then you'd expect many or most of those now being hospitalised to be double-jabbed.
What we really want to know is what the number is, compared with the number which would have been expected if they were unjabbed. It's very hard to tease this out of the UK figures.
A question I do not understand the answer to is why is a negative test will not be accepted but two jabs is? We are surely far less likely to be infected by a negative testee than a double jabber.
Is it:
1 To "force" the young to take the vaccine? 2 That LFT test results can easily and deliberately be misreported by the user? 3 Some other reason?
I am increasing suspecting that the latest data is showing lower vaccine efficiency hence the nightclub rules and you just can't get away with having an infected unvaccinated person in a big crowd without infecting a reason number of even vaccinated people.
It's rampant in my village and it seemingly makes no difference whether or not you are double jabbed, although the latter have a significantly lesser illness. That said, Sir Patrick Vallance said before that 60% of those admitted to hospital have been fully vaccinated.
Did he say that, I missed that.... are you sure he said fully vaccinated rather than partially vaccinated? Because that's a massive shift, a week or so ago, we were looking at more like 85-90% were not fully vaccinated, same with cases.
Comments
You're a government advisor, your freedom should be curtailed until you stop being one. You sell the policy of the day or resign. Those are the choices. I have no such position and can shit on the government's decisions as much as I want (and I do, a lot).
https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1417159800706670593?s=20
Your bloke on the government's City strategy advisory board, I'm sure he's asked not to divulge details of meetings, but he is allowed to talk to other people about regulatory affairs. Should a newspaper take interest in some matter of regulatory affairs and ring him up for a quote, he'd be free to talk to them and I'm sure he'd be flattered to be asked.
Your bloke and me, we're in the same situation, except, OK, right now, maybe more people care about the stuff I do than the stuff he does.
As for South Korea, I would suggest they've been successful in avoiding national lockdowns because they have been better with locally-led public health teams and with giving more support to those in isolation, things we could do here without any concerns of a "biosecurity police state". We are not South Korea and we don't need policies exactly like South Korea. Lots of countries have avoided national lockdowns through a variety of different mechanisms and policies. Some will translate to the UK, some won't. Giving better support for people isolating is the main one I've been involved with recommending to Govt.
Again, all this talk of "responsibility" amounts to you not wanting to hear what certain people have to say because you disagree with them (us). If there is hypocrisy, it is the person who yells "freedom" yet who's main concern is to censor others.
rcs might have only been off by a day!
That may be the older, bar going type though.
This hasn't been my experience of the pandemic so far.
Government advisory committees not so much.
Plus @bondegezou could opt out. Fuck you, he* could say. No cash no advice. Instead he seems to think that because he is not being paid it gives him license to provide an inferior service (ie behave in a way that he admits he would not if his client were paying him).
*or she
It is an effing tragedy. I see/hope there will be a black market in double-jabbed proof and a lot of swapping of NHS app logins.
Choosing in opposition is easier than choosing in government because fewer of your mistakes are found out. This is the LOTO's one big job. I don't think people think he is doing it.
I am also grateful that I don't live in a country where what I can say and who I can say it to is at someone else's whim.
There are times when some things should be said in confidence, of course. If Government asks me to keep some things in confidence through some particular arrangement, I respect that. If you don't like how the Government is running SAGE and the limits it puts on participants, stop bitching about the participants and start bitching about the Govt that made those decisions.
(But you could buy a pint when you were 16)
The power to control eg the membership of SAGE is there, but informal and public checks and balances are not without influence.
Especially for a Government ddeveloping quite the record of sudden reverse-ferrets.
Seems silly to have snow, cold, high winds, flooding warnings, but nothing for extreme heat.
Obviously the media tend to overdramatise this sort of thing, but the warnings are not in themselves catastrophising.
The Met Office previously had a system of heat health alerts, but these clearly weren't proving as useful, so they have taken a sensible decision to incorporate it into the severe weather warning service instead.
Quite nauseating.
What are you not "keeping quiet" about out of interest ?
I'm increasingly coming to the conclusion that we will need to be go to fairly serious lengths to ensure that people get jabbed. That's the only way to minimise transmission. That means that we need to get secondary school pupils vaccinated asap - and in the same way that they get their BCG vaccinations already. Line up, here it comes.
https://twitter.com/RP131/status/1417163167868805124/photo/1
On consulting/grant research, I've also done a bit of both (both via my employer*, rather than privately, so may be different to bondegezou) and I think you're wrong to say the consulting is the superior product.
If you provide grant money, the research is done openly, it get's published and peer reviewed. The protocol may well get published and peer reviewed. You get the input of the scientists who got the grant, of others in peer review. When it's published you'll get a further indication (if it has any kind of profile) of whether other scientists agree/think the methodology is sound.
If you contract out a report, then you get one (or a small team) of scientists input. You'd better trust that scientist or know what you're doing, otherwise it could be severely flawed.
*which means, for me, both pay the same, although the consultancy work probably works out more expensive to the funder as the uni puts some other overheads in. The uni also has some pure-consultancy units outside of academic departments and positions within those generally pay more for the equivalent role, because you work on what the consultancy is bringing in, not what you want to work on. You get paid more because you have less freedom. You may see that as a moral failing, but people make those kinds of choices all the time - money buys compromises from a workforce.
This is getting long, but we often get approached to do private reports, but we normally try and convert those into more open agreements, where we will do the report, but also publish in a journal and cna potentialy look at other things with the data acquired. Most funders are happy with this when we lay it out like that (they'll get a mention in any other outputs, it doesn't normally get cheaper, sometimes it adds costs, but sometimes we'll fund a bit of it ourselves if it's something we wanted to look at anyway and the project can act as seed-funding for a larger bid later)
Boris Johnson just said the NHS Test and Trace app pinging is ‘one of the only shots we’ve got left in our locker to stop the chain reaction” of Covid spread.
He'll be furious when he finds out who emptied the locker.
New voices are always welcome.
--AS
The evidence that the 30 something % of people who would vote Labour is increasing is small. The sense that Labour support is enthusiastic, taking to the streets, dancing in spontaneous outbursts of joy towards their Supreme Leader is smaller still.
I am not providing an inferior service. I have worked my proverbial socks off, worked long hours, worked through the weekends, not taken holiday, worked myself to the point my hands were cramping, providing research for the Government, through SAGE sub-committees and direct to DHSC. The Government laid out the contractual arrangements (or lack of contractual arrangements) for those activities. I agreed to those and have followed them (and gone far beyond them in terms of hours worked).
If you buy a car and you don't pay for the chrome hub plates, that doesn't mean the rest of the car is inferior. It just means you don't get the chrome hub plates. Government has not asked for, nor paid for, the extra of me not doing my job of communicating my science to the public. Ergo, I continue to communicate my science to the public, as is my job, as I am paid to do by my employer.
I think that's a sensible decision because science is better done in the open. Whatever I think, it's the Government's choice how they contract with me. If you don't think I should talk to the media about my work while also talking to Govt about my work, I think you're wrong, but whatever, it's a free country, you can make your point here, you can vote for a different Govt at the next election.
I'm wondering if maybe @Leon is right - maybe we should have time limited vaccine passports, and you can only get into the nightclub with proof of double vaccination.
You will be jabbed. You will obey. Or you will be turned into a second class citizen.
Get jabbed or else, as the Mail has it.
Not much, a few thousand at most, but enough to get the figure beneath 40k.
We won't have to wait long to prove that either, as we'll almost certainly hit 60,000 this week and it's reasonably likely we'll have a day exceeding 70,000.
100,000 by mid-August is a reasonable guess. Potentially even higher as clubbing will make it spread like wildfire amongst the ages with the lowest vaccination rates.
Medical apartheid. Checkpoint Charlie Britain.
We've had a year of living under the tyranny of scientists. It has been a disaster and we need to make sure people who are accountable to us are making the decisions. I can't vote out people from SAGE.
Meeting up with an under-age girl is now known as meeting for "non-policing purposes". Love that euphemism!
How closely will 600,000 people a day (roughly) having to isolate resemble a lockdown de facto?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-57864699
anyonr for a tea dance?
That seem out of whack with the information last week, zoe app and what Dr Foxy said yesterday, sounds like things going south.
I also think that the more SAGE speaks in many voices the less likely your dictatorship of science is to occur. An artificial consensus strikes me as genuinely dangerous.
What we really need now is the length of hospital stays and whether it's way less than it was before.
My job is to do research and then generate research outputs. I am judged on those research outputs. My employer, the university, is partly funded based on the quality and quantity of those research outputs.
If I am funded to do research through a grant, the grant funder gets the research done, and I/my employer get a research output (or 5).
If you want some research done for you and you alone, then we will charge more because we are missing out on those research outputs. You have to carry that cost.
This is basic economics. I find it odd that those who decry lockdowns for their damage to the economy and decry lockdowns for their restrictions on personal freedoms should be those arguing that during a lockdown, we abandon our usual economic practices and freedoms.
I have worked ridiculous hours, because, yes, there was an emergency. Others have suffered worse than just long hours during this pandemic. But I still broadly expect my work to be recompensed, generally through income to my employer. (SAGE work by academics is not paid; I do far more advising of government through work that is paid for.)
Government contracts with academics in a multitude of ways all the time. They know how we work. They made choices. SAGE and its current working practices are the result. I am happy to praise the Govt's handling of this aspect. I think the Govt got it right making SAGE very transparent. I was struck early in the pandemic when we were talking to No. 10 how No. 10 under Cummings was much more instinctively transparent than the DHSC. I praise that too. (I do not praise many other decisions taken by this Govt or Cummings.)
--AS
I am starting to think Israel mighe be right and the UK initial figures on protection are too optimistic.
Too late now, though, just as Boris starts getting round to introducing them.
Lets hope he just misspoke.
Of course the media haven't pulled him up on it and said are you sure....
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1001174/S1304_LSHTM_Updated_roadmap_assessment_prior_to_delayed_step_4.2__7_July_2021__1_.pdf
"We project that roughly half of the hospitalisations and deaths occurring in the summer
2021 are likely to be in vaccinated individuals, depending upon vaccine coverage (Fig.
14). Admissions are projected to be split relatively evenly between the 45-64, 65-74 and
75+ year age groups, while deaths are likely to be concentrated in the 75+ age group
(Fig. 15).
• These projections are subject to considerable uncertainty. It is not possible to accurately
predict how mobility and contacts will change following the easing of restrictions. We
have presented our results in terms of low, medium and high assumptions for mobility, in
addition to considering relaxations in the protective measures individuals employ, and
these make a considerable difference to the results.
• Furthermore, there remains enormous uncertainty in the characteristics of the Delta
B.1.617.2 variant (in terms of immune escape and transmissibility) and the effectiveness
of vaccines in preventing infection and serious disease. A range of scenarios is
presented to cover these different possibilities. "
https://twitter.com/EdwardJDavey/status/1417155225257922570?s=20
(There are exceptions to that. I think the very public airing of the science has made the science better. I think the media are taking science and health journalism a lot more seriously!)
But I'd rather this media than some police state where we can't say anything. I am a liberal and I hold freedoms dear. The freedom of scientists to bitch about govt actions, even those scientists on unpaid advisory committees for the govt, is part of that package of freedoms.
What we really want to know is what the number is, compared with the number which would have been expected if they were unjabbed. It's very hard to tease this out of the UK figures.
Is it:
1 To "force" the young to take the vaccine?
2 That LFT test results can easily and deliberately be misreported by the user?
3 Some other reason?