I've just been reading about the vaccine situation in Australia. It seems like a complete shambles and they're currently not giving AZ to people under 60 despite having spare domestic production capacity.
What is the latest on vaccoine efficacy for AZT/Moderna/Pfizer, etc. I thought they were all looking good for all the current variants but Leon is semihyper-ventilating about Delta so I wonder if there is some news I've missed.
Just do a Twitter search on ‘delta variant’ - it’s hard to avoid the bad news
Some American authorities are now mandating masks for children over 2. Delta seems to be much worse for kids
I hope the Americans are over-reacting but the data is ominous
Another issue: original Covid had an R0 of 3. Delta has an R0 between 6 and 10. Worse than smallpox. It is brutally infectious. This means you need incredibly high levels of vaccination to get herd immunity, probably unreachably high. Which in turn means Delta is going to rip through every country, unless they are totally isolated or have a massive lockdown
It is not yet clear that the good people of, say, Wokingham, will certainly prefer the Burgon/Pidcock/Sturgeon/Davey/tree hugging alliance to John Redwood. That will be their choice.
Its posh seats which people of working age want to live in. Guildford, St Albans etc yes, Arundel is for the retired posh.
That's right, also within constituencies. In my patch (Hunt's constituency, SW Surrey) the Tories are down to 2 County Councillors out of 7, and both are in the villages where there are masses of wealthy retired people, while they have fallen miles behind the LibDems (and behind Labour at Borough level in some places like mine) in the small towns. Another factor is a college in the area even if not a full-blown university.
On algarkirk's hypothesis, for all the doubts about Starmer's positive ideas, few people will feel he's going to be a puppet of Burgon and Pidcock (if they've even heard of them). Is a possible post-election understanding with Sturgeon going to seem very terrifying in Wokingham? Will voters there care much about that? As for tree-huggers, lots of wealthy folk are quite open to a bit of greenery.
Interesting. In SW Surrey LD strength goes back decades so I shall wait and see, while agreeing that the Tories remain vulnerable in a number of seats. Your remaining argument is strong, that I fully accept. At the next election there is going to be strong contest between the Tories and all others. Personally I think the Tories as the only option for a majority government will hold attractions, that the LDs will do well but as usual spread too thin, and that the Tories will win SW Surrey and Wokingham.
I agree that Nicola is not a threat in Surrey or Wokingham in the same way she is in my English northern borders patch (if I stand up I can see Scotland). But neither is the idea of a government relying on the SNP a positive attraction anywhere in England. They may not be loathed but they are far from loved.
More loved than the others.
‘Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds’
Polling asked voters last week how they thought each UK party leader was performing, with the First Minister receiving a net +24% approval rating in Scotland and +10% across the UK.
By contrast, Boris Johnson scored -35% in Scotland and -8% across the UK, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was given a -17% by people in Scotland and +9% in the UK, and LibDem leader Ed Davey scored -15% and -12% respectively; making Sturgeon the most popular leader in both Scotland and the UK.
The hardline Nats who hate Nicola Sturgeon are BritNats like you.
HYUFD is a Conservative,
Don't be silly. He is many things. A Conservative he is not.
Nigel finds it much easier to associate with authoritarian "Conservatives" that believe in Jackboots, invading Scotland and Spain etc like HYUFD than he does the liberal wing of the Party like myself.
You are a libertarian not a conservative
As are many Conservatives. As is the PM, as were Thatcher and Cameron. As is Truss.
The Party is not just a party for authoritarian Jackboot wearers like yourself and Nigel.
So there’s room in the party for more than just authoritarian jackboot wearers? And you’re happy to be in a party with these people?
Most of Philip's posts on here could easily be written by someone of the far right, with the exception of some incongruous support for BLM, which might be because he doesn't like being labelled as a Faragist, even though he voted for the Brexit Party and up until recently seemed pretty enthusiastic about them. Poor lad is a bit confused.
You're a liar, or pig ignorant.
I've never once been enthusiastic in voting for the Brexit Party. I have only ever been enthusiastic in voting for David Cameron and Boris Johnson's Conservatives.
Voting in a protest vote against what has always been my own party was done in sorrow and regret at what May was turning our party into and that she needed to go. Mission accomplished.
I don't approve of lying , Philip, which is why I do not approve of Johnson, an habitual liar whom you seem to be so in love with. I am sure it is not unrequited because he loves the gullible.
As for you voting Brexit Party, if we accept your very weak excuse, and seeing as you now seem to accept they are a fascist party, would you have voted BNP if they were the best vehicle to get "mission accomplished"? The truth is you voted for a fascist party and you know it. Your pretence now that you are some kind of moderate really does not wash, and it doesn't help that you are getting angry about it. You are a frothing right winger, and at one stage you seemed pretty proud of that. If you were American you would be voting Trump and driving around in a pickup.
Although objectionable to me the Brexit party was not a Fascist party. (I've no idea of its current state.) To label it as such is frankly ludicrous.
Philip seems to accept now that it is a fascist party, but still voted for it. I am of teh centre right so I am not an hysterical lefty engaging in hyperbole. I think there are definite parallels between Faragists and certainly Francoism, though obviously Farage hasn't killed anyone. Alan Sked who was the founder of UKIP says Farage is a racist. I am not aware Farage has attempted to deny it. The Brexit Party used fake news/propaganda to promote it's ideas and drive division. It was very much a form of British Nationalism with an undercurrent of racism with a few fig leaves to cover up the accusation. I would call them crypto-fascists
I do not accept that the Brexit Party is a Fascist Party and I would not have voted for it if I did.
I think the Brexit Party, at the time of 2019, was an empty void protest party. Their claims, their party political broadcasts etc were entirely of a "send a message" sort and not racist or fascist. If there was anything racist there I wouldn't have voted for it.
I voted for it despite Farage, but since the Tories were also led by an authoritarian xenophobe that was a miserable draw as far as that was concerned. So it purely came down to more of the same, or a protest, and I went for the protest.
May is no better than Farage.
Mate that's fine but as AA Gill said of people who watch TOWIE or any of those shows, there isn't a button to press to show that you're watching it ironically. It adds to audience numbers and lo, the series is renewed for another season.
You gave Farage what he craves most, by voting for his party you gave him political legitimacy and influence. You can't do that and then say but I don't like the other stuff. The horse has bolted.
I got him kicked out of the European Parliament and so humiliated then electorally that he didn't even bother standing in the 2019 General Election, and didn't bother standing candidates against Tories once the Tory Party was rehabiliated.
Farage has been destroyed electorally. Job done.
Once the Tory Party was rehabilitated?
Once the Tory Party morphed into the Brexit Party, is what you mean. That's why Farage didn't stand against them at GE19. He knew they'd nicked all his Hard Leaver Xenophobe vote.
Theresa May was the xenophobe, not Boris.
Worth noting that Boris dropped Theresa May/David Cameron's pledge to bring immigration down to the tens of thousands.
But you said Farage decided not to stand against the Tories because they'd "rehabilitated".
If you meant rehabilitated away from xenophobia - which it seems you did - why on earth would that cause Farage (who you and I both consider to be a xenophobe) to give them a free pass?
See the logic fail?
You trip yourself up all the time on this one because you aren't telling the truth about it.
No I don't see the logic fail.
Theresa May and Nigel Farage are two sides of the same coin. Authoritarian xenophobes. Both saw the Brexit vote simply through the prism of xenophobia and immigration. Theresa May reacted to the Brexit vote by doubling down on her xenophobia.
But the UK is not xenophobic. The country is not racist. Which is why neither Farage nor May have ended up being that popular in reality.
The country didn't want doubling down in xenophobia which is all Nigel's May offered. The country wanted its vote in 2016 respecting, but in a friendly manner. May didn't offer that, Farage didn't offer that. Boris did. That's why Boris won in 2016, its why he won in 2019. Its why the voters of the country ran a mile from Farage once there was a rational alternative instead of May's xenophobia.
Farage didn't give the Tories a free pass, he lost support because his hardcore xenophobes are not who voted for him in the Spring. It was sane, normal, mainstream people rejecting May and her closed-minded, bigoted, empty citizens of nowhere authoritarian xenophobia. Farage gave up as he knew the game was up.
It is not yet clear that the good people of, say, Wokingham, will certainly prefer the Burgon/Pidcock/Sturgeon/Davey/tree hugging alliance to John Redwood. That will be their choice.
Its posh seats which people of working age want to live in. Guildford, St Albans etc yes, Arundel is for the retired posh.
That's right, also within constituencies. In my patch (Hunt's constituency, SW Surrey) the Tories are down to 2 County Councillors out of 7, and both are in the villages where there are masses of wealthy retired people, while they have fallen miles behind the LibDems (and behind Labour at Borough level in some places like mine) in the small towns. Another factor is a college in the area even if not a full-blown university.
On algarkirk's hypothesis, for all the doubts about Starmer's positive ideas, few people will feel he's going to be a puppet of Burgon and Pidcock (if they've even heard of them). Is a possible post-election understanding with Sturgeon going to seem very terrifying in Wokingham? Will voters there care much about that? As for tree-huggers, lots of wealthy folk are quite open to a bit of greenery.
Interesting. In SW Surrey LD strength goes back decades so I shall wait and see, while agreeing that the Tories remain vulnerable in a number of seats. Your remaining argument is strong, that I fully accept. At the next election there is going to be strong contest between the Tories and all others. Personally I think the Tories as the only option for a majority government will hold attractions, that the LDs will do well but as usual spread too thin, and that the Tories will win SW Surrey and Wokingham.
I agree that Nicola is not a threat in Surrey or Wokingham in the same way she is in my English northern borders patch (if I stand up I can see Scotland). But neither is the idea of a government relying on the SNP a positive attraction anywhere in England. They may not be loathed but they are far from loved.
More loved than the others.
‘Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds’
Polling asked voters last week how they thought each UK party leader was performing, with the First Minister receiving a net +24% approval rating in Scotland and +10% across the UK.
By contrast, Boris Johnson scored -35% in Scotland and -8% across the UK, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was given a -17% by people in Scotland and +9% in the UK, and LibDem leader Ed Davey scored -15% and -12% respectively; making Sturgeon the most popular leader in both Scotland and the UK.
The hardline Nats who hate Nicola Sturgeon are BritNats like you.
HYUFD is a Conservative,
Don't be silly. He is many things. A Conservative he is not.
Nigel finds it much easier to associate with authoritarian "Conservatives" that believe in Jackboots, invading Scotland and Spain etc like HYUFD than he does the liberal wing of the Party like myself.
You are a libertarian not a conservative
As are many Conservatives. As is the PM, as were Thatcher and Cameron. As is Truss.
The Party is not just a party for authoritarian Jackboot wearers like yourself and Nigel.
On the Marcus Rashford thing, here's my (admittedly cynical take).
He's taken up social causes that are easy to support and difficult to challenge in order to build his brand - Saint Marcus the champion of the underprivileged, squeaky clean, future Knight of the Realm.
That his people have come out swinging with a pre-emptive strike against the Spectator is telling - get your retaliation in first, frame the narrative. The Luvvies are already circling the wagons in defence of Marcus (I'm looking at you BBC and your front page puff piece).
But that statement from the Rashford camp is very carefully worded, as some on here have noted. He doesn't "need" to partner with brands ... well no-one does, do they, unless they want them to pay for stuff. And "most" of any fees goes to the good good causes. Hmmm.
Brand building doesn't come cheap ... staffers to pay, "operating expenses" and so on.
Yes, I'm an old cynic, but the Spectator is right to shine a light on this.
On a related point, I'm amazed that there hasn't been more of an expose of footballer tax affairs given the public's appetite for taking the super rich down a peg or two. How much of Rashford's £10m salary finds it's way to the HMRC? If I were earning that amount I'd only see, what, £6m of it under PAYE and the rest would go to Rishi (but then I'm not a tax accountant).
Its always baffled me that the public are so supportive of someone who earns £15million plus per year, who has at least 8 houses, loads of super cars, but does not contribute any of that money to help his cause, just a bit of time, which he has plenty of. He could easily buy someone on UC a house per month and still have a £1 million quid to play aorund with. Now that would make a massive difference .He could also get his super rich team mates to do the same.
it baffles me that some of the public are so supportive of an individual who earned huge sums for writing polemics and clowning around on gameshows, and feel that those traits are appropriate qualifications to be Prime Minister
Marcus Rashford earns in 4 days what the PM earns in a year
Marcus Rashford is paid on the basis of a remarkable meritocratic skill. I thought Conservatives would approve of this. Marcus Rashford's economic value as a top footballer is greater than Boris Johnson's is as Prime Minister.
Personally I think the Prime Minister should be paid considerably more than he is. Someone running the country and earning less than a Premiership footballer or unique talent actor or musician is one thing. Earning less than the Principal of an academy school, the CE of a local authority, or an NHS Trust is another matter. They are generally not unique talents, just fortunate to win at a job interview.
I agree with those sentiments. I do approve of Rashford getting paid handsomely for his talent ... market forces.
I don't approve of him becoming a political activist, essentially a multi-millionaire spending other people's money. If he wants to volunteer in a soup kitchen, or whatever, go right ahead ... just don't use it for personal, commercial gain or to agitate for increased taxes for others.
What are your criteria for approval of political activism? The rest of us need to ensure we don't offend.
Don't worry on my account. I have no problem with being offended. You go ahead and engage in whatever political activism you want as long as I get the right to criticise you. How about that as a deal?
Sounds fine, still interested in the criteria for approval of political criticism? Is it the money? That he doesnt belong to a party? That he is on the left? Not educated enough? Too young?
I simply don't understand why someone would think he should not contribute to political life yet it is fine for Starmer, Johnson or Sturgeon to do so, so was asking the question.
Well the obvious answer would be that I get to vote for the policies and tax plans of Starmer, Johnson et al but I don't remember voting for Marcus Rashford. I have no problem with him contributing to political life but, if that's what he wants to do, then I (or The Spectator) get to scrutinize (and disagree with) his political views, question his motives and highlight any hypocrisy (just as Starmer, Johnson et al have to face).
What is not healthy is if there are no-go areas for scrutiny and criticism ... and this feels like one.
And particularly when you vote in local elections. I have voted Lib Dem, Brexit, Loony and Tory in recent years and would consider voting for a certain local party if it ever stood in my ward. Voting LibDem in the last election was not about supporting their programme for government but more about local planning and governance. I'll go back to voting Tory in elections where ideology and economics matter.
These are all pre-boundary changes. The world is going to look very different in 2024.
My understanding is that the LDs theoretically pick up the new seat of Finchley & Muswell Hill, and also become the notional winners in both Esher & Walton and Wimbledon.
The two London seats will be interesting, not least because historically Labour has been the challenger there, not the LDs. Next years locals should be very instructive. But I suspect Raab is toast in Esher & Walton.
It is not yet clear that the good people of, say, Wokingham, will certainly prefer the Burgon/Pidcock/Sturgeon/Davey/tree hugging alliance to John Redwood. That will be their choice.
Its posh seats which people of working age want to live in. Guildford, St Albans etc yes, Arundel is for the retired posh.
That's right, also within constituencies. In my patch (Hunt's constituency, SW Surrey) the Tories are down to 2 County Councillors out of 7, and both are in the villages where there are masses of wealthy retired people, while they have fallen miles behind the LibDems (and behind Labour at Borough level in some places like mine) in the small towns. Another factor is a college in the area even if not a full-blown university.
On algarkirk's hypothesis, for all the doubts about Starmer's positive ideas, few people will feel he's going to be a puppet of Burgon and Pidcock (if they've even heard of them). Is a possible post-election understanding with Sturgeon going to seem very terrifying in Wokingham? Will voters there care much about that? As for tree-huggers, lots of wealthy folk are quite open to a bit of greenery.
Interesting. In SW Surrey LD strength goes back decades so I shall wait and see, while agreeing that the Tories remain vulnerable in a number of seats. Your remaining argument is strong, that I fully accept. At the next election there is going to be strong contest between the Tories and all others. Personally I think the Tories as the only option for a majority government will hold attractions, that the LDs will do well but as usual spread too thin, and that the Tories will win SW Surrey and Wokingham.
I agree that Nicola is not a threat in Surrey or Wokingham in the same way she is in my English northern borders patch (if I stand up I can see Scotland). But neither is the idea of a government relying on the SNP a positive attraction anywhere in England. They may not be loathed but they are far from loved.
More loved than the others.
‘Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds’
Polling asked voters last week how they thought each UK party leader was performing, with the First Minister receiving a net +24% approval rating in Scotland and +10% across the UK.
By contrast, Boris Johnson scored -35% in Scotland and -8% across the UK, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was given a -17% by people in Scotland and +9% in the UK, and LibDem leader Ed Davey scored -15% and -12% respectively; making Sturgeon the most popular leader in both Scotland and the UK.
The hardline Nats who hate Nicola Sturgeon are BritNats like you.
HYUFD is a Conservative,
Don't be silly. He is many things. A Conservative he is not.
Nigel finds it much easier to associate with authoritarian "Conservatives" that believe in Jackboots, invading Scotland and Spain etc like HYUFD than he does the liberal wing of the Party like myself.
You are a libertarian not a conservative
As are many Conservatives. As is the PM, as were Thatcher and Cameron. As is Truss.
The Party is not just a party for authoritarian Jackboot wearers like yourself and Nigel.
On the Marcus Rashford thing, here's my (admittedly cynical take).
He's taken up social causes that are easy to support and difficult to challenge in order to build his brand - Saint Marcus the champion of the underprivileged, squeaky clean, future Knight of the Realm.
That his people have come out swinging with a pre-emptive strike against the Spectator is telling - get your retaliation in first, frame the narrative. The Luvvies are already circling the wagons in defence of Marcus (I'm looking at you BBC and your front page puff piece).
But that statement from the Rashford camp is very carefully worded, as some on here have noted. He doesn't "need" to partner with brands ... well no-one does, do they, unless they want them to pay for stuff. And "most" of any fees goes to the good good causes. Hmmm.
Brand building doesn't come cheap ... staffers to pay, "operating expenses" and so on.
Yes, I'm an old cynic, but the Spectator is right to shine a light on this.
On a related point, I'm amazed that there hasn't been more of an expose of footballer tax affairs given the public's appetite for taking the super rich down a peg or two. How much of Rashford's £10m salary finds it's way to the HMRC? If I were earning that amount I'd only see, what, £6m of it under PAYE and the rest would go to Rishi (but then I'm not a tax accountant).
Its always baffled me that the public are so supportive of someone who earns £15million plus per year, who has at least 8 houses, loads of super cars, but does not contribute any of that money to help his cause, just a bit of time, which he has plenty of. He could easily buy someone on UC a house per month and still have a £1 million quid to play aorund with. Now that would make a massive difference .He could also get his super rich team mates to do the same.
it baffles me that some of the public are so supportive of an individual who earned huge sums for writing polemics and clowning around on gameshows, and feel that those traits are appropriate qualifications to be Prime Minister
Marcus Rashford earns in 4 days what the PM earns in a year
Marcus Rashford is paid on the basis of a remarkable meritocratic skill. I thought Conservatives would approve of this. Marcus Rashford's economic value as a top footballer is greater than Boris Johnson's is as Prime Minister.
Personally I think the Prime Minister should be paid considerably more than he is. Someone running the country and earning less than a Premiership footballer or unique talent actor or musician is one thing. Earning less than the Principal of an academy school, the CE of a local authority, or an NHS Trust is another matter. They are generally not unique talents, just fortunate to win at a job interview.
I agree with those sentiments. I do approve of Rashford getting paid handsomely for his talent ... market forces.
I don't approve of him becoming a political activist, essentially a multi-millionaire spending other people's money. If he wants to volunteer in a soup kitchen, or whatever, go right ahead ... just don't use it for personal, commercial gain or to agitate for increased taxes for others.
What are your criteria for approval of political activism? The rest of us need to ensure we don't offend.
Don't worry on my account. I have no problem with being offended. You go ahead and engage in whatever political activism you want as long as I get the right to criticise you. How about that as a deal?
Sounds fine, still interested in the criteria for approval of political criticism? Is it the money? That he doesnt belong to a party? That he is on the left? Not educated enough? Too young?
I simply don't understand why someone would think he should not contribute to political life yet it is fine for Starmer, Johnson or Sturgeon to do so, so was asking the question.
Well the obvious answer would be that I get to vote for the policies and tax plans of Starmer, Johnson et al but I don't remember voting for Marcus Rashford. I have no problem with him contributing to political life but, if that's what he wants to do, then I (or The Spectator) get to scrutinize (and disagree with) his political views, question his motives and highlight any hypocrisy (just as Starmer, Johnson et al have to face).
What is not healthy is if there are no-go areas for scrutiny and criticism ... and this feels like one.
And particularly when you vote in local elections. I have voted Lib Dem, Brexit, Loony and Tory in recent years and would consider voting for a certain local party if it ever stood in my ward. Voting LibDem in the last election was not about supporting their programme for government but more about local planning and governance. I'll go back to voting Tory in elections where ideology and economics matter.
Er that should be "Voting LibDem in the last *local"* election". I voted Loony in the GE, obvs.
I've just been reading about the vaccine situation in Australia. It seems like a complete shambles and they're currently not giving AZ to people under 60 despite having spare domestic production capacity.
AZ is the cheapest, easiest to use, more or less as effective as the other excellent vaccines, and may well give the most enduring immunity (according to that paper in Nature last week), but because a few people screwed up the injections and the widespread inability to understand risk a large chunk of the world has decided AZ is no good. It would be laughable if it wasn't for the near certainty that hundreds of thousands to millions of lives will end up being lost due to this nonsense.
It is not yet clear that the good people of, say, Wokingham, will certainly prefer the Burgon/Pidcock/Sturgeon/Davey/tree hugging alliance to John Redwood. That will be their choice.
Its posh seats which people of working age want to live in. Guildford, St Albans etc yes, Arundel is for the retired posh.
That's right, also within constituencies. In my patch (Hunt's constituency, SW Surrey) the Tories are down to 2 County Councillors out of 7, and both are in the villages where there are masses of wealthy retired people, while they have fallen miles behind the LibDems (and behind Labour at Borough level in some places like mine) in the small towns. Another factor is a college in the area even if not a full-blown university.
On algarkirk's hypothesis, for all the doubts about Starmer's positive ideas, few people will feel he's going to be a puppet of Burgon and Pidcock (if they've even heard of them). Is a possible post-election understanding with Sturgeon going to seem very terrifying in Wokingham? Will voters there care much about that? As for tree-huggers, lots of wealthy folk are quite open to a bit of greenery.
Interesting. In SW Surrey LD strength goes back decades so I shall wait and see, while agreeing that the Tories remain vulnerable in a number of seats. Your remaining argument is strong, that I fully accept. At the next election there is going to be strong contest between the Tories and all others. Personally I think the Tories as the only option for a majority government will hold attractions, that the LDs will do well but as usual spread too thin, and that the Tories will win SW Surrey and Wokingham.
I agree that Nicola is not a threat in Surrey or Wokingham in the same way she is in my English northern borders patch (if I stand up I can see Scotland). But neither is the idea of a government relying on the SNP a positive attraction anywhere in England. They may not be loathed but they are far from loved.
More loved than the others.
‘Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds’
Polling asked voters last week how they thought each UK party leader was performing, with the First Minister receiving a net +24% approval rating in Scotland and +10% across the UK.
By contrast, Boris Johnson scored -35% in Scotland and -8% across the UK, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was given a -17% by people in Scotland and +9% in the UK, and LibDem leader Ed Davey scored -15% and -12% respectively; making Sturgeon the most popular leader in both Scotland and the UK.
The hardline Nats who hate Nicola Sturgeon are BritNats like you.
HYUFD is a Conservative,
Don't be silly. He is many things. A Conservative he is not.
Nigel finds it much easier to associate with authoritarian "Conservatives" that believe in Jackboots, invading Scotland and Spain etc like HYUFD than he does the liberal wing of the Party like myself.
You are a libertarian not a conservative
As are many Conservatives. As is the PM, as were Thatcher and Cameron. As is Truss.
The Party is not just a party for authoritarian Jackboot wearers like yourself and Nigel.
On the Marcus Rashford thing, here's my (admittedly cynical take).
He's taken up social causes that are easy to support and difficult to challenge in order to build his brand - Saint Marcus the champion of the underprivileged, squeaky clean, future Knight of the Realm.
That his people have come out swinging with a pre-emptive strike against the Spectator is telling - get your retaliation in first, frame the narrative. The Luvvies are already circling the wagons in defence of Marcus (I'm looking at you BBC and your front page puff piece).
But that statement from the Rashford camp is very carefully worded, as some on here have noted. He doesn't "need" to partner with brands ... well no-one does, do they, unless they want them to pay for stuff. And "most" of any fees goes to the good good causes. Hmmm.
Brand building doesn't come cheap ... staffers to pay, "operating expenses" and so on.
Yes, I'm an old cynic, but the Spectator is right to shine a light on this.
On a related point, I'm amazed that there hasn't been more of an expose of footballer tax affairs given the public's appetite for taking the super rich down a peg or two. How much of Rashford's £10m salary finds it's way to the HMRC? If I were earning that amount I'd only see, what, £6m of it under PAYE and the rest would go to Rishi (but then I'm not a tax accountant).
Its always baffled me that the public are so supportive of someone who earns £15million plus per year, who has at least 8 houses, loads of super cars, but does not contribute any of that money to help his cause, just a bit of time, which he has plenty of. He could easily buy someone on UC a house per month and still have a £1 million quid to play aorund with. Now that would make a massive difference .He could also get his super rich team mates to do the same.
it baffles me that some of the public are so supportive of an individual who earned huge sums for writing polemics and clowning around on gameshows, and feel that those traits are appropriate qualifications to be Prime Minister
Marcus Rashford earns in 4 days what the PM earns in a year
Marcus Rashford is paid on the basis of a remarkable meritocratic skill. I thought Conservatives would approve of this. Marcus Rashford's economic value as a top footballer is greater than Boris Johnson's is as Prime Minister.
Personally I think the Prime Minister should be paid considerably more than he is. Someone running the country and earning less than a Premiership footballer or unique talent actor or musician is one thing. Earning less than the Principal of an academy school, the CE of a local authority, or an NHS Trust is another matter. They are generally not unique talents, just fortunate to win at a job interview.
I agree with those sentiments. I do approve of Rashford getting paid handsomely for his talent ... market forces.
I don't approve of him becoming a political activist, essentially a multi-millionaire spending other people's money. If he wants to volunteer in a soup kitchen, or whatever, go right ahead ... just don't use it for personal, commercial gain or to agitate for increased taxes for others.
What are your criteria for approval of political activism? The rest of us need to ensure we don't offend.
Don't worry on my account. I have no problem with being offended. You go ahead and engage in whatever political activism you want as long as I get the right to criticise you. How about that as a deal?
Sounds fine, still interested in the criteria for approval of political criticism? Is it the money? That he doesnt belong to a party? That he is on the left? Not educated enough? Too young?
I simply don't understand why someone would think he should not contribute to political life yet it is fine for Starmer, Johnson or Sturgeon to do so, so was asking the question.
Well the obvious answer would be that I get to vote for the policies and tax plans of Starmer, Johnson et al but I don't remember voting for Marcus Rashford. I have no problem with him contributing to political life but, if that's what he wants to do, then I (or The Spectator) get to scrutinize (and disagree with) his political views, question his motives and highlight any hypocrisy (just as Starmer, Johnson et al have to face).
What is not healthy is if there are no-go areas for scrutiny and criticism ... and this feels like one.
And particularly when you vote in local elections. I have voted Lib Dem, Brexit, Loony and Tory in recent years and would consider voting for a certain local party if it ever stood in my ward. Voting LibDem in the last election was not about supporting their programme for government but more about local planning and governance. I'll go back to voting Tory in elections where ideology and economics matter.
Er that should be "Voting LibDem in the last *local"* election". I voted Loony in the GE, obvs.
"The Delta variant is different," says Dr. Rick Barr of the Arkansas Children's Health System.
"We have 12 children admitted to the hospital now with Covid... they seem to be much sicker. Most of them are teenagers, and a number of them are in the ICU and have Covid pneumonia."
On the Marcus Rashford thing, here's my (admittedly cynical take).
He's taken up social causes that are easy to support and difficult to challenge in order to build his brand - Saint Marcus the champion of the underprivileged, squeaky clean, future Knight of the Realm.
That his people have come out swinging with a pre-emptive strike against the Spectator is telling - get your retaliation in first, frame the narrative. The Luvvies are already circling the wagons in defence of Marcus (I'm looking at you BBC and your front page puff piece).
But that statement from the Rashford camp is very carefully worded, as some on here have noted. He doesn't "need" to partner with brands ... well no-one does, do they, unless they want them to pay for stuff. And "most" of any fees goes to the good good causes. Hmmm.
Brand building doesn't come cheap ... staffers to pay, "operating expenses" and so on.
Yes, I'm an old cynic, but the Spectator is right to shine a light on this.
On a related point, I'm amazed that there hasn't been more of an expose of footballer tax affairs given the public's appetite for taking the super rich down a peg or two. How much of Rashford's £10m salary finds it's way to the HMRC? If I were earning that amount I'd only see, what, £6m of it under PAYE and the rest would go to Rishi (but then I'm not a tax accountant).
I see. So this multi-millionaire young black sports star from an impecunious background has decided to campaign against child food poverty not because he's genuinely concerned about child food poverty but in order to boost his personal brand and make himself even more rich and famous than he already is. Such a take is not "cynicism". It's something else entirely. Something putrid.
It's also devoid of logic. Like, the 'evidence' for this is that the cause he selected is soft and cuddly and almost impossible to oppose. Implication - in order to show he isn't doing it for brand building reasons, he ought to be campaigning for hardcore divisive stuff. Defund the police perhaps. Then you'd be 100% behind him, right? No sniping from you then? I should cocoa.
He has a vast personal fortune, money he does not need, why not give 50% of that to the poorer people of Manchester if he is that concerned about them? Now that would be good.
That's a VERY high bar you're setting to earn your approval when it comes to young black footballers from working class backgrounds campaigning for government action to end child food poverty. Perhaps some sweet day one of them will manage to clear it. I wonder what you'll use then as a reason to snipe? Will you be able to come up with something new and creative? I say yes. My money's on you to rise to the challenge.
A high bar?? He will be left with £25 million plus earning a million a month. How will he cope?
So a wealthy person can't campaign for government to spend more money on something unless they cough up a chunk of their own.
That effectively means rich people must shut up about politics unless they're campaigning for lower tax and spending cuts.
If you can't see what a nonsense that is, I can't help you.
I think the term "put your money where your mouth is" comes to mind.
Im afraid that if a extremely rich person is campaigning for the Government to spend taxpayers money on some cause then they should donate a decent wedge to that cause.
He has 8 houses, does he need 8 houses? There are numerous poor people in Manchester living in run down over crowded conditions. Why not give away some of these houses?
I don't think I have ever seen such a load of spiteful and envious posts before here. Assumptions made that he is a tax fiddler and doesn't donate his own money based on no evidence provided whatsoever. In the grand scheme of things I know who gets my vote as a decent human being and Rashford beats you hands down. You should be embarrassed to post such stuff.
I do have to laugh at somebody lecturing others on racism when they endorse a party with an Islamophobia problem.
You shouldn't be so harsh on yourself.....
You make jokes about racism, which is pretty low. The Tories have an Islamophobia problem and you know it.
I think the country as a whole has an islamophobia problem, and that is reflected in ALL political parties, at least at the level of voters. Its tricky, because some evil, probably psychopathic, mentally ill, people have been committing atrocities in the name of Islam and your average person on the street reacts to that. That some elements of the muslim religion seem to want to live separate lives in the UK gets on some peoples wicks. Are all muslims terrorists? Of course not, the vast majority are decent everyday people, but the evil ones end up tarring the rest, no matter how unfair that is.
I've just been reading about the vaccine situation in Australia. It seems like a complete shambles and they're currently not giving AZ to people under 60 despite having spare domestic production capacity.
What is the latest on vaccoine efficacy for AZT/Moderna/Pfizer, etc. I thought they were all looking good for all the current variants but Leon is semihyper-ventilating about Delta so I wonder if there is some news I've missed.
This is still the most up to date comparative study. Both vaccines come out pretty well against delta. I think the Canadian numbers have also been basically the same but is based on a smaller data set. The Israeli studies are the most interesting because it could point to efficacy decline being more of an issue for delta than we had previously hoped.
I've just been reading about the vaccine situation in Australia. It seems like a complete shambles and they're currently not giving AZ to people under 60 despite having spare domestic production capacity.
What is the latest on vaccoine efficacy for AZT/Moderna/Pfizer, etc. I thought they were all looking good for all the current variants but Leon is semihyper-ventilating about Delta so I wonder if there is some news I've missed.
Just do a Twitter search on ‘delta variant’ - it’s hard to avoid the bad news
Some American authorities are now mandating masks for children over 2. Delta seems to be much worse for kids
I hope the Americans are over-reacting but the data is ominous
Another issue: original Covid had an R0 of 3. Delta has an R0 between 6 and 10. Worse than smallpox. It is brutally infectious. This means you need incredibly high levels of vaccination to get herd immunity, probably unreachably high. Which in turn means Delta is going to rip through every country, unless they are totally isolated or have a massive lockdown
It's worth noting *why* Delta causes problems with vaccines. It's not that the virus is not being recognised by the immune system, and all to do with higher levels of viral shedding. Simply, people with Delta are pumping out up to (and I'm not kidding) 1,000x the level of viral particles into the air. This means that the headstart the body gets through a vaccine is diminished, and contributes to the large number of asymptomatic cases of Delta we're seeing. (Simply the immune system doesn't get enough of a headstart to prevent noticeable infection levels, but it does - most of the time - to prevent it getting really serious.)
We therefore need to stimulate a more robust immune response - and we need to make sure that everyone has been jabbed. Mix-and-matching the vaccines will help with the former. And we know what we need to do with the latter.
So what do we reckon the case numbers with be today? Wednesday is normally moving day.
54,303
I'd suggest closer to 60k, I expect there is going to be a lot of backfilling from Friday-Sunday in the Monday numbers related to the England match that will have been sent in on Monday after the weekend.
I do have to laugh at somebody lecturing others on racism when they endorse a party with an Islamophobia problem.
You shouldn't be so harsh on yourself.....
You make jokes about racism, which is pretty low. The Tories have an Islamophobia problem and you know it.
I think the country as a whole has an islamophobia problem, and that is reflected in ALL political parties, at least at the level of voters. Its tricky, because some evil, probably psychopathic, mentally ill, people have been committing atrocities in the name of Islam and your average person on the street reacts to that. That some elements of the muslim religion seem to want to live separate lives in the UK gets on some peoples wicks. Are all muslims terrorists? Of course not, the vast majority are decent everyday people, but the evil ones end up tarring the rest, no matter how unfair that is.
Its wrong to discriminate against Muslims, but there is a greater threat to society from Islamic extremists than there is the other way around. Same thing all around the globe wherever people adopt extremist religions.
I've just been reading about the vaccine situation in Australia. It seems like a complete shambles and they're currently not giving AZ to people under 60 despite having spare domestic production capacity.
And now 50% of people are under lockdown again ..
One of the flag bearers for zero covid (Western country at least). not looking so rosy now. This is why elimination/keeping it out was always going to be impossible, short of never allowing anyone else into/back into Australia. At some point you need to build herd immunity, preferably via vaccines.
Sorry, voting for a party is now not supporting that party.
Am I drunk
Nope, but perhaps you are seeing this too much from a partisan perspective.
I have voted Conservative, Labour, Independent, and Lib Dem in the last few years. I forget, but I might even have voted Green as well. By your thinking, I was 'supporting' those parties. I was not: I have no loyalty, or even faith particularly, in them. I just tried to pick the best candidate/party for the job - often amidst a sadly restricted choice.
I didn't particularly support the local Co-Op when I went in earlier for some orange juice and a pack of crisps; and I won't feel guilty if I go to Tescos in the next few days.
Co-Op v Tesco as analogy for who you vote for?
You can't mean that. It implies you have no ideology whatsoever. I know it can be a dirty word - ideology - but the total absence of it leaves a person with no political underpinning. No framework within which to decide what sort of policies they want to see.
I actually switched from our Local Mini-Coop to the Mini-Tesco because, whilst previously a customer of the former due to their nicer food, they have been inconsistent in the staff wearing masks for the last year.
Analogy as to how we judge politicians?
That's crazy. The Co-op have a fantastic rosé - Coeur de Cardeline at £8 a pop (down from around £11 in previous vintages). It's excellent. Tescos, meanwhile, got rid of its wine by the case business which was great and now has a very meh collection.
Stick with the Co-op is my advice.
Oh masks you say? Can't say I noticed either way. Was in Londis earlier (for some reason they have a St. Veran from 2011 on the shelves, a huge oversight/mispricing) - it's 50:50 on masks.
"The Delta variant is different," says Dr. Rick Barr of the Arkansas Children's Health System.
"We have 12 children admitted to the hospital now with Covid... they seem to be much sicker. Most of them are teenagers, and a number of them are in the ICU and have Covid pneumonia."
The JCVI is in direct contradiction with the MHRA now on vaccinations for kids. Lots of mealy mouthed "... is very low" "it is the JCVI's view" in their report.
Sorry, voting for a party is now not supporting that party.
Am I drunk
Nope, but perhaps you are seeing this too much from a partisan perspective.
I have voted Conservative, Labour, Independent, and Lib Dem in the last few years. I forget, but I might even have voted Green as well. By your thinking, I was 'supporting' those parties. I was not: I have no loyalty, or even faith particularly, in them. I just tried to pick the best candidate/party for the job - often amidst a sadly restricted choice.
I didn't particularly support the local Co-Op when I went in earlier for some orange juice and a pack of crisps; and I won't feel guilty if I go to Tescos in the next few days.
Co-Op v Tesco as analogy for who you vote for?
You can't mean that. It implies you have no ideology whatsoever. I know it can be a dirty word - ideology - but the total absence of it leaves a person with no political underpinning. No framework within which to decide what sort of policies they want to see.
I actually switched from our Local Mini-Coop to the Mini-Tesco because, whilst previously a customer of the former due to their nicer food, they have been inconsistent in the staff wearing masks for the last year.
Analogy as to how we judge politicians?
That's crazy. The Co-op have a fantastic rosé - Coeur de Cardeline at £8 a pop (down from around £11 in previous vintages). It's excellent. Tescos, meanwhile, got rid of its wine by the case business which was great and now has a very meh collection.
Stick with the Co-op is my advice.
Oh masks you say? Can't say I noticed either way. Was in Londis earlier (for some reason they have a st. veran from 2011 on the shelves, a huge oversigh/mispricing) - it's 50:50 on masks.
Co-Op do a lovely cheap red as well, I think it's a Merlot from recollection
I've just been reading about the vaccine situation in Australia. It seems like a complete shambles and they're currently not giving AZ to people under 60 despite having spare domestic production capacity.
What is the latest on vaccoine efficacy for AZT/Moderna/Pfizer, etc. I thought they were all looking good for all the current variants but Leon is semihyper-ventilating about Delta so I wonder if there is some news I've missed.
Just do a Twitter search on ‘delta variant’ - it’s hard to avoid the bad news
Some American authorities are now mandating masks for children over 2. Delta seems to be much worse for kids
I hope the Americans are over-reacting but the data is ominous
Another issue: original Covid had an R0 of 3. Delta has an R0 between 6 and 10. Worse than smallpox. It is brutally infectious. This means you need incredibly high levels of vaccination to get herd immunity, probably unreachably high. Which in turn means Delta is going to rip through every country, unless they are totally isolated or have a massive lockdown
Yay! Lets drop all restrictions and reopen the nightclubs!!!
"The Delta variant is different," says Dr. Rick Barr of the Arkansas Children's Health System.
"We have 12 children admitted to the hospital now with Covid... they seem to be much sicker. Most of them are teenagers, and a number of them are in the ICU and have Covid pneumonia."
I'm too hot and tired to ponder the numbers, but all those pauses and restrictions on the use of vaccines back in the spring are looking like particularly stupid decisions now.
I've just been reading about the vaccine situation in Australia. It seems like a complete shambles and they're currently not giving AZ to people under 60 despite having spare domestic production capacity.
What is the latest on vaccoine efficacy for AZT/Moderna/Pfizer, etc. I thought they were all looking good for all the current variants but Leon is semihyper-ventilating about Delta so I wonder if there is some news I've missed.
Just do a Twitter search on ‘delta variant’ - it’s hard to avoid the bad news
Some American authorities are now mandating masks for children over 2. Delta seems to be much worse for kids
I hope the Americans are over-reacting but the data is ominous
Another issue: original Covid had an R0 of 3. Delta has an R0 between 6 and 10. Worse than smallpox. It is brutally infectious. This means you need incredibly high levels of vaccination to get herd immunity, probably unreachably high. Which in turn means Delta is going to rip through every country, unless they are totally isolated or have a massive lockdown
It's worth noting *why* Delta causes problems with vaccines. It's not that the virus is not being recognised by the immune system, and all to do with higher levels of viral shedding. Simply, people with Delta are pumping out up to (and I'm not kidding) 1,000x the level of viral particles into the air. This means that the headstart the body gets through a vaccine is diminished, and contributes to the large number of asymptomatic cases of Delta we're seeing. (Simply the immune system doesn't get enough of a headstart to prevent noticeable infection levels, but it does - most of the time - to prevent it getting really serious.)
We therefore need to stimulate a more robust immune response - and we need to make sure that everyone has been jabbed. Mix-and-matching the vaccines will help with the former. And we know what we need to do with the latter.
We may end up moving to three dose vaccines with an 8 week gap for dose 2 and a 16 week gap for dose 3. It means the world needs to make an additional 5.5bn doses, so far we've only administered 3.8bn out of potentially 16.5bn needed rather than 11bn. That's potentially a massive challenge ahead of us.
‘Not sure why Lord Frost wants to change the NI Protocol. Here's Boris Johnson clearly saying it's a "brilliant deal" and that there will be no checks from GB to NI or NI to GB.’
I've just been reading about the vaccine situation in Australia. It seems like a complete shambles and they're currently not giving AZ to people under 60 despite having spare domestic production capacity.
What is the latest on vaccoine efficacy for AZT/Moderna/Pfizer, etc. I thought they were all looking good for all the current variants but Leon is semihyper-ventilating about Delta so I wonder if there is some news I've missed.
Just do a Twitter search on ‘delta variant’ - it’s hard to avoid the bad news
Some American authorities are now mandating masks for children over 2. Delta seems to be much worse for kids
I hope the Americans are over-reacting but the data is ominous
Another issue: original Covid had an R0 of 3. Delta has an R0 between 6 and 10. Worse than smallpox. It is brutally infectious. This means you need incredibly high levels of vaccination to get herd immunity, probably unreachably high. Which in turn means Delta is going to rip through every country, unless they are totally isolated or have a massive lockdown
It's worth noting *why* Delta causes problems with vaccines. It's not that the virus is not being recognised by the immune system, and all to do with higher levels of viral shedding. Simply, people with Delta are pumping out up to (and I'm not kidding) 1,000x the level of viral particles into the air. This means that the headstart the body gets through a vaccine is diminished, and contributes to the large number of asymptomatic cases of Delta we're seeing. (Simply the immune system doesn't get enough of a headstart to prevent noticeable infection levels, but it does - most of the time - to prevent it getting really serious.)
We therefore need to stimulate a more robust immune response - and we need to make sure that everyone has been jabbed. Mix-and-matching the vaccines will help with the former. And we know what we need to do with the latter.
Its also why i am giving densely populated indoor settings a miss....it does also rather make the nighclubs decision look ill advised....this variant means an individual sheds x1000, so lets put 1000 people rammed into a small sweaty room.
These are all pre-boundary changes. The world is going to look very different in 2024.
My understanding is that the LDs theoretically pick up the new seat of Finchley & Muswell Hill, and also become the notional winners in both Esher & Walton and Wimbledon.
The two London seats will be interesting, not least because historically Labour has been the challenger there, not the LDs. Next years locals should be very instructive. But I suspect Raab is toast in Esher & Walton.
What boundary changes? The proposals are going to gut a stack of Tory seats, I can't see why they would want to push them through. Virtue signal that they're doing it yes, but make the changes? Naah - people assume that an announcement is it actually happening anyway.
I've just been reading about the vaccine situation in Australia. It seems like a complete shambles and they're currently not giving AZ to people under 60 despite having spare domestic production capacity.
What is the latest on vaccoine efficacy for AZT/Moderna/Pfizer, etc. I thought they were all looking good for all the current variants but Leon is semihyper-ventilating about Delta so I wonder if there is some news I've missed.
Just do a Twitter search on ‘delta variant’ - it’s hard to avoid the bad news
Some American authorities are now mandating masks for children over 2. Delta seems to be much worse for kids
I hope the Americans are over-reacting but the data is ominous
Another issue: original Covid had an R0 of 3. Delta has an R0 between 6 and 10. Worse than smallpox. It is brutally infectious. This means you need incredibly high levels of vaccination to get herd immunity, probably unreachably high. Which in turn means Delta is going to rip through every country, unless they are totally isolated or have a massive lockdown
It's worth noting *why* Delta causes problems with vaccines. It's not that the virus is not being recognised by the immune system, and all to do with higher levels of viral shedding. Simply, people with Delta are pumping out up to (and I'm not kidding) 1,000x the level of viral particles into the air. This means that the headstart the body gets through a vaccine is diminished, and contributes to the large number of asymptomatic cases of Delta we're seeing. (Simply the immune system doesn't get enough of a headstart to prevent noticeable infection levels, but it does - most of the time - to prevent it getting really serious.)
We therefore need to stimulate a more robust immune response - and we need to make sure that everyone has been jabbed. Mix-and-matching the vaccines will help with the former. And we know what we need to do with the latter.
We may end up moving to three dose vaccines with an 8 week gap for dose 2 and a 16 week gap for dose 3. It means the world needs to make an additional 5.5bn doses, so far we've only administered 3.8bn out of potentially 16.5bn needed rather than 11bn. That's potentially a massive challenge ahead of us.
I've just been reading about the vaccine situation in Australia. It seems like a complete shambles and they're currently not giving AZ to people under 60 despite having spare domestic production capacity.
What is the latest on vaccoine efficacy for AZT/Moderna/Pfizer, etc. I thought they were all looking good for all the current variants but Leon is semihyper-ventilating about Delta so I wonder if there is some news I've missed.
Just do a Twitter search on ‘delta variant’ - it’s hard to avoid the bad news
Some American authorities are now mandating masks for children over 2. Delta seems to be much worse for kids
I hope the Americans are over-reacting but the data is ominous
Another issue: original Covid had an R0 of 3. Delta has an R0 between 6 and 10. Worse than smallpox. It is brutally infectious. This means you need incredibly high levels of vaccination to get herd immunity, probably unreachably high. Which in turn means Delta is going to rip through every country, unless they are totally isolated or have a massive lockdown
It's worth noting *why* Delta causes problems with vaccines. It's not that the virus is not being recognised by the immune system, and all to do with higher levels of viral shedding. Simply, people with Delta are pumping out up to (and I'm not kidding) 1,000x the level of viral particles into the air. This means that the headstart the body gets through a vaccine is diminished, and contributes to the large number of asymptomatic cases of Delta we're seeing. (Simply the immune system doesn't get enough of a headstart to prevent noticeable infection levels, but it does - most of the time - to prevent it getting really serious.)
We therefore need to stimulate a more robust immune response - and we need to make sure that everyone has been jabbed. Mix-and-matching the vaccines will help with the former. And we know what we need to do with the latter.
Yes, I read that 1000x figure. Delta is a monster
This is why kids are getting the bug now. It’s not because the virus has adapted to target children, it’s because Delta is just so infectious more kids are exposed to this higher viral load so they succumb
‘As delta variant spreads, medical experts warn of risk to young children.’
What we need now with covid is a breakthrough on treatment and also something to be given as soon as you get it to minimize progression from mild disease to ICU admission.
I seemed to remember the government announcing some sort of trial of anti-virals to be given to network of people as soon as somebody within that group tested positive.
I've just been reading about the vaccine situation in Australia. It seems like a complete shambles and they're currently not giving AZ to people under 60 despite having spare domestic production capacity.
What is the latest on vaccoine efficacy for AZT/Moderna/Pfizer, etc. I thought they were all looking good for all the current variants but Leon is semihyper-ventilating about Delta so I wonder if there is some news I've missed.
Just do a Twitter search on ‘delta variant’ - it’s hard to avoid the bad news
Some American authorities are now mandating masks for children over 2. Delta seems to be much worse for kids
I hope the Americans are over-reacting but the data is ominous
Another issue: original Covid had an R0 of 3. Delta has an R0 between 6 and 10. Worse than smallpox. It is brutally infectious. This means you need incredibly high levels of vaccination to get herd immunity, probably unreachably high. Which in turn means Delta is going to rip through every country, unless they are totally isolated or have a massive lockdown
Yay! Lets drop all restrictions and reopen the nightclubs!!!
Absolutely! Vaccines have been offered to everyone now.
If anyone doesn't want to get vaccinated then we shouldn't act like headless chickens. We should as a nation have more backbone that Leon after he's emptied his wine cellar.
I've just been reading about the vaccine situation in Australia. It seems like a complete shambles and they're currently not giving AZ to people under 60 despite having spare domestic production capacity.
What is the latest on vaccoine efficacy for AZT/Moderna/Pfizer, etc. I thought they were all looking good for all the current variants but Leon is semihyper-ventilating about Delta so I wonder if there is some news I've missed.
Just do a Twitter search on ‘delta variant’ - it’s hard to avoid the bad news
Some American authorities are now mandating masks for children over 2. Delta seems to be much worse for kids
I hope the Americans are over-reacting but the data is ominous
Another issue: original Covid had an R0 of 3. Delta has an R0 between 6 and 10. Worse than smallpox. It is brutally infectious. This means you need incredibly high levels of vaccination to get herd immunity, probably unreachably high. Which in turn means Delta is going to rip through every country, unless they are totally isolated or have a massive lockdown
It's worth noting *why* Delta causes problems with vaccines. It's not that the virus is not being recognised by the immune system, and all to do with higher levels of viral shedding. Simply, people with Delta are pumping out up to (and I'm not kidding) 1,000x the level of viral particles into the air. This means that the headstart the body gets through a vaccine is diminished, and contributes to the large number of asymptomatic cases of Delta we're seeing. (Simply the immune system doesn't get enough of a headstart to prevent noticeable infection levels, but it does - most of the time - to prevent it getting really serious.)
We therefore need to stimulate a more robust immune response - and we need to make sure that everyone has been jabbed. Mix-and-matching the vaccines will help with the former. And we know what we need to do with the latter.
We may end up moving to three dose vaccines with an 8 week gap for dose 2 and a 16 week gap for dose 3. It means the world needs to make an additional 5.5bn doses, so far we've only administered 3.8bn out of potentially 16.5bn needed rather than 11bn. That's potentially a massive challenge ahead of us.
Can only mean that PHE have a data problem. I mean I keep being told that cases are going to keep going up... Seriously, with the ONS antibody survey, and the fact that many many kids are already out of school, this is no surprise. Hopefully will continue to go in the right direction.
It is not yet clear that the good people of, say, Wokingham, will certainly prefer the Burgon/Pidcock/Sturgeon/Davey/tree hugging alliance to John Redwood. That will be their choice.
Its posh seats which people of working age want to live in. Guildford, St Albans etc yes, Arundel is for the retired posh.
That's right, also within constituencies. In my patch (Hunt's constituency, SW Surrey) the Tories are down to 2 County Councillors out of 7, and both are in the villages where there are masses of wealthy retired people, while they have fallen miles behind the LibDems (and behind Labour at Borough level in some places like mine) in the small towns. Another factor is a college in the area even if not a full-blown university.
On algarkirk's hypothesis, for all the doubts about Starmer's positive ideas, few people will feel he's going to be a puppet of Burgon and Pidcock (if they've even heard of them). Is a possible post-election understanding with Sturgeon going to seem very terrifying in Wokingham? Will voters there care much about that? As for tree-huggers, lots of wealthy folk are quite open to a bit of greenery.
Interesting. In SW Surrey LD strength goes back decades so I shall wait and see, while agreeing that the Tories remain vulnerable in a number of seats. Your remaining argument is strong, that I fully accept. At the next election there is going to be strong contest between the Tories and all others. Personally I think the Tories as the only option for a majority government will hold attractions, that the LDs will do well but as usual spread too thin, and that the Tories will win SW Surrey and Wokingham.
I agree that Nicola is not a threat in Surrey or Wokingham in the same way she is in my English northern borders patch (if I stand up I can see Scotland). But neither is the idea of a government relying on the SNP a positive attraction anywhere in England. They may not be loathed but they are far from loved.
More loved than the others.
‘Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds’
Polling asked voters last week how they thought each UK party leader was performing, with the First Minister receiving a net +24% approval rating in Scotland and +10% across the UK.
By contrast, Boris Johnson scored -35% in Scotland and -8% across the UK, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was given a -17% by people in Scotland and +9% in the UK, and LibDem leader Ed Davey scored -15% and -12% respectively; making Sturgeon the most popular leader in both Scotland and the UK.
The hardline Nats who hate Nicola Sturgeon are BritNats like you.
HYUFD is a Conservative,
Don't be silly. He is many things. A Conservative he is not.
Nigel finds it much easier to associate with authoritarian "Conservatives" that believe in Jackboots, invading Scotland and Spain etc like HYUFD than he does the liberal wing of the Party like myself.
You are a libertarian not a conservative
As are many Conservatives. As is the PM, as were Thatcher and Cameron. As is Truss.
The Party is not just a party for authoritarian Jackboot wearers like yourself and Nigel.
On the Marcus Rashford thing, here's my (admittedly cynical take).
He's taken up social causes that are easy to support and difficult to challenge in order to build his brand - Saint Marcus the champion of the underprivileged, squeaky clean, future Knight of the Realm.
That his people have come out swinging with a pre-emptive strike against the Spectator is telling - get your retaliation in first, frame the narrative. The Luvvies are already circling the wagons in defence of Marcus (I'm looking at you BBC and your front page puff piece).
But that statement from the Rashford camp is very carefully worded, as some on here have noted. He doesn't "need" to partner with brands ... well no-one does, do they, unless they want them to pay for stuff. And "most" of any fees goes to the good good causes. Hmmm.
Brand building doesn't come cheap ... staffers to pay, "operating expenses" and so on.
Yes, I'm an old cynic, but the Spectator is right to shine a light on this.
On a related point, I'm amazed that there hasn't been more of an expose of footballer tax affairs given the public's appetite for taking the super rich down a peg or two. How much of Rashford's £10m salary finds it's way to the HMRC? If I were earning that amount I'd only see, what, £6m of it under PAYE and the rest would go to Rishi (but then I'm not a tax accountant).
Its always baffled me that the public are so supportive of someone who earns £15million plus per year, who has at least 8 houses, loads of super cars, but does not contribute any of that money to help his cause, just a bit of time, which he has plenty of. He could easily buy someone on UC a house per month and still have a £1 million quid to play aorund with. Now that would make a massive difference .He could also get his super rich team mates to do the same.
it baffles me that some of the public are so supportive of an individual who earned huge sums for writing polemics and clowning around on gameshows, and feel that those traits are appropriate qualifications to be Prime Minister
Marcus Rashford earns in 4 days what the PM earns in a year
Marcus Rashford is paid on the basis of a remarkable meritocratic skill. I thought Conservatives would approve of this. Marcus Rashford's economic value as a top footballer is greater than Boris Johnson's is as Prime Minister.
Personally I think the Prime Minister should be paid considerably more than he is. Someone running the country and earning less than a Premiership footballer or unique talent actor or musician is one thing. Earning less than the Principal of an academy school, the CE of a local authority, or an NHS Trust is another matter. They are generally not unique talents, just fortunate to win at a job interview.
I agree with those sentiments. I do approve of Rashford getting paid handsomely for his talent ... market forces.
I don't approve of him becoming a political activist, essentially a multi-millionaire spending other people's money. If he wants to volunteer in a soup kitchen, or whatever, go right ahead ... just don't use it for personal, commercial gain or to agitate for increased taxes for others.
What are your criteria for approval of political activism? The rest of us need to ensure we don't offend.
Don't worry on my account. I have no problem with being offended. You go ahead and engage in whatever political activism you want as long as I get the right to criticise you. How about that as a deal?
Sounds fine, still interested in the criteria for approval of political criticism? Is it the money? That he doesnt belong to a party? That he is on the left? Not educated enough? Too young?
I simply don't understand why someone would think he should not contribute to political life yet it is fine for Starmer, Johnson or Sturgeon to do so, so was asking the question.
Well the obvious answer would be that I get to vote for the policies and tax plans of Starmer, Johnson et al but I don't remember voting for Marcus Rashford. I have no problem with him contributing to political life but, if that's what he wants to do, then I (or The Spectator) get to scrutinize (and disagree with) his political views, question his motives and highlight any hypocrisy (just as Starmer, Johnson et al have to face).
What is not healthy is if there are no-go areas for scrutiny and criticism ... and this feels like one.
Thanks for the answer, but "I have no problem with him contributing to political life" seems quite contradictory to "I don't approve of him becoming a political activist" a few minutes earlier. It is clearly not a no go area for criticism as you and many others are doing so. It is a free country, but expect such contradictions to be questioned and it is difficult not to assume that the real reason for the criticism is simply you don't like his politics and don't want to listen it. That assumption may be incorrect on my part, but I still don't understand.
OK, a qualifier "I don't approve of him becoming a political activist* if he's not allowed to be scrutinized / criticised and if he's using it for commercial gain" ... then I have a problem.
I don't really know his politics but the issue of FSM is more nuanced than "free stuff = good" ... for example, who's going to pay, how much, is it even the job of schools to feed children, what about parental responsibility, and so on.
I suppose I have two issues with Team Rashford: the shutting down of any hint of questioning and the feeling that a brand is being built on the back of involvement in politics.
Maybe I'm just weird but I don't like feeling like I'm being manipulated.
I've just been reading about the vaccine situation in Australia. It seems like a complete shambles and they're currently not giving AZ to people under 60 despite having spare domestic production capacity.
What is the latest on vaccoine efficacy for AZT/Moderna/Pfizer, etc. I thought they were all looking good for all the current variants but Leon is semihyper-ventilating about Delta so I wonder if there is some news I've missed.
Just do a Twitter search on ‘delta variant’ - it’s hard to avoid the bad news
Some American authorities are now mandating masks for children over 2. Delta seems to be much worse for kids
I hope the Americans are over-reacting but the data is ominous
Another issue: original Covid had an R0 of 3. Delta has an R0 between 6 and 10. Worse than smallpox. It is brutally infectious. This means you need incredibly high levels of vaccination to get herd immunity, probably unreachably high. Which in turn means Delta is going to rip through every country, unless they are totally isolated or have a massive lockdown
It's worth noting *why* Delta causes problems with vaccines. It's not that the virus is not being recognised by the immune system, and all to do with higher levels of viral shedding. Simply, people with Delta are pumping out up to (and I'm not kidding) 1,000x the level of viral particles into the air. This means that the headstart the body gets through a vaccine is diminished, and contributes to the large number of asymptomatic cases of Delta we're seeing. (Simply the immune system doesn't get enough of a headstart to prevent noticeable infection levels, but it does - most of the time - to prevent it getting really serious.)
We therefore need to stimulate a more robust immune response - and we need to make sure that everyone has been jabbed. Mix-and-matching the vaccines will help with the former. And we know what we need to do with the latter.
We may end up moving to three dose vaccines with an 8 week gap for dose 2 and a 16 week gap for dose 3. It means the world needs to make an additional 5.5bn doses, so far we've only administered 3.8bn out of potentially 16.5bn needed rather than 11bn. That's potentially a massive challenge ahead of us.
And J&J looks like a duffer....
Really? Trashing vaccines Francis?
No, but in single shot form it has been shown thar it doesn't work very well against Delta variant. Now maybe they can reformulate and go with 2nd doses, but more work needed.
As with previous waves it depends on where it goes next. We have had plateaus followed by further big spikes AND by further reductions. So it is balancing off the end of English school year vs the general unlocking. Who knows.
I've just been reading about the vaccine situation in Australia. It seems like a complete shambles and they're currently not giving AZ to people under 60 despite having spare domestic production capacity.
What is the latest on vaccoine efficacy for AZT/Moderna/Pfizer, etc. I thought they were all looking good for all the current variants but Leon is semihyper-ventilating about Delta so I wonder if there is some news I've missed.
This is still the most up to date comparative study. Both vaccines come out pretty well against delta. I think the Canadian numbers have also been basically the same but is based on a smaller data set. The Israeli studies are the most interesting because it could point to efficacy decline being more of an issue for delta than we had previously hoped.
Thank you - they seem to be extraordinarily good given the speed of their development. Leon refers to alarm bells about the Delta variant affecting children quite seriously in the US. I'm a little sceptical as it would surely have emerged in other countries already - India/UK/Europe.
With the EU responding instantly to Frost's speech by rejecting any notion of compromise, surely the time is coming where we simply have to invoke Article 16?
It seems like its the only way to be taken seriously.
I've just been reading about the vaccine situation in Australia. It seems like a complete shambles and they're currently not giving AZ to people under 60 despite having spare domestic production capacity.
What is the latest on vaccoine efficacy for AZT/Moderna/Pfizer, etc. I thought they were all looking good for all the current variants but Leon is semihyper-ventilating about Delta so I wonder if there is some news I've missed.
Just do a Twitter search on ‘delta variant’ - it’s hard to avoid the bad news
Some American authorities are now mandating masks for children over 2. Delta seems to be much worse for kids
I hope the Americans are over-reacting but the data is ominous
Another issue: original Covid had an R0 of 3. Delta has an R0 between 6 and 10. Worse than smallpox. It is brutally infectious. This means you need incredibly high levels of vaccination to get herd immunity, probably unreachably high. Which in turn means Delta is going to rip through every country, unless they are totally isolated or have a massive lockdown
Yay! Lets drop all restrictions and reopen the nightclubs!!!
Absolutely! Vaccines have been offered to everyone now.
If anyone doesn't want to get vaccinated then we shouldn't act like headless chickens. We should as a nation have more backbone that Leon after he's emptied his wine cellar.
Very true. My kids have been offered the vaccine which is why they're immune now to the pox as it mutates away to target them.
As with previous waves it depends on where it goes next. We have had plateaus followed by further big spikes AND by further reductions. So it is balancing off the end of English school year vs the general unlocking. Who knows.
Yep - if one can disconnect from the possible misery a positive case can mean, its a fascination exercise now. We're changing too things at once (poor science) and they should operate in opposite directions too (even worse science). I think effect of the schools regularly testing has been huge in the current case rise, as I suspect many many of the cases were asymptomatic, and would not have been detected in previous waves. This in itself is shifting the perceptions about how bad this wave is compared to others.
These are all pre-boundary changes. The world is going to look very different in 2024.
My understanding is that the LDs theoretically pick up the new seat of Finchley & Muswell Hill, and also become the notional winners in both Esher & Walton and Wimbledon.
The two London seats will be interesting, not least because historically Labour has been the challenger there, not the LDs. Next years locals should be very instructive. But I suspect Raab is toast in Esher & Walton.
What boundary changes? The proposals are going to gut a stack of Tory seats, I can't see why they would want to push them through. Virtue signal that they're doing it yes, but make the changes? Naah - people assume that an announcement is it actually happening anyway.
My understanding was that the changes are, in effect, already the law. The process was changed this time round and the MPs don’t actually get a vote to stop them.
One of the most depressing programmes I saw was the documentary on Dignitas. They interviewed some old bloke with MND who was there to kill himself and was, of course, compos mentis, as you have to be. And his wife, when they were sitting there waiting for the nurse to come in with the deadly cocktail, said something like, you have a lovely wine cellar at home for people to enjoy...
And I thought why not go home that minute, spend another two months drinking the fucking wine cellar yourself then get back to Switzerland if you must.
I've just been reading about the vaccine situation in Australia. It seems like a complete shambles and they're currently not giving AZ to people under 60 despite having spare domestic production capacity.
What is the latest on vaccoine efficacy for AZT/Moderna/Pfizer, etc. I thought they were all looking good for all the current variants but Leon is semihyper-ventilating about Delta so I wonder if there is some news I've missed.
Just do a Twitter search on ‘delta variant’ - it’s hard to avoid the bad news
Some American authorities are now mandating masks for children over 2. Delta seems to be much worse for kids
I hope the Americans are over-reacting but the data is ominous
Another issue: original Covid had an R0 of 3. Delta has an R0 between 6 and 10. Worse than smallpox. It is brutally infectious. This means you need incredibly high levels of vaccination to get herd immunity, probably unreachably high. Which in turn means Delta is going to rip through every country, unless they are totally isolated or have a massive lockdown
It's worth noting *why* Delta causes problems with vaccines. It's not that the virus is not being recognised by the immune system, and all to do with higher levels of viral shedding. Simply, people with Delta are pumping out up to (and I'm not kidding) 1,000x the level of viral particles into the air. This means that the headstart the body gets through a vaccine is diminished, and contributes to the large number of asymptomatic cases of Delta we're seeing. (Simply the immune system doesn't get enough of a headstart to prevent noticeable infection levels, but it does - most of the time - to prevent it getting really serious.)
We therefore need to stimulate a more robust immune response - and we need to make sure that everyone has been jabbed. Mix-and-matching the vaccines will help with the former. And we know what we need to do with the latter.
We may end up moving to three dose vaccines with an 8 week gap for dose 2 and a 16 week gap for dose 3. It means the world needs to make an additional 5.5bn doses, so far we've only administered 3.8bn out of potentially 16.5bn needed rather than 11bn. That's potentially a massive challenge ahead of us.
And J&J looks like a duffer....
It might become a two/three dose vaccine or one to potentially mix in with Pfizer and Moderna so the sequence is Moderna - J&J - Moderna with 8 and 16 week gaps in between. It does the job against original COVID but personally I'm glad the UK chose not to take delivery of it given our issues with delta and it not being approved for a multi-dose regime or mix and match.
Sorry, voting for a party is now not supporting that party.
Am I drunk
Nope, but perhaps you are seeing this too much from a partisan perspective.
I have voted Conservative, Labour, Independent, and Lib Dem in the last few years. I forget, but I might even have voted Green as well. By your thinking, I was 'supporting' those parties. I was not: I have no loyalty, or even faith particularly, in them. I just tried to pick the best candidate/party for the job - often amidst a sadly restricted choice.
I didn't particularly support the local Co-Op when I went in earlier for some orange juice and a pack of crisps; and I won't feel guilty if I go to Tescos in the next few days.
Co-Op v Tesco as analogy for who you vote for?
You can't mean that. It implies you have no ideology whatsoever. I know it can be a dirty word - ideology - but the total absence of it leaves a person with no political underpinning. No framework within which to decide what sort of policies they want to see.
Of course I have an ideology - or perhaps ideologies. They just don't fit in with the classic ideologies of the UK's political parties. Even though they've adapted and evolved over time (and I hope they continue to do so), I don't particularly want to have to distort and squeeze them to 'support' any particular party.
When I last seriously considered joining a political party (I think back in 2015), I was torn between the Conservatives and the Lib Dems. I then decided that the uncertainty probably meant I shouldn't do it...
I do have to laugh at somebody lecturing others on racism when they endorse a party with an Islamophobia problem.
You shouldn't be so harsh on yourself.....
You make jokes about racism, which is pretty low. The Tories have an Islamophobia problem and you know it.
I think the country as a whole has an islamophobia problem, and that is reflected in ALL political parties, at least at the level of voters. Its tricky, because some evil, probably psychopathic, mentally ill, people have been committing atrocities in the name of Islam and your average person on the street reacts to that. That some elements of the muslim religion seem to want to live separate lives in the UK gets on some peoples wicks. Are all muslims terrorists? Of course not, the vast majority are decent everyday people, but the evil ones end up tarring the rest, no matter how unfair that is.
Its wrong to discriminate against Muslims, but there is a greater threat to society from Islamic extremists than there is the other way around. Same thing all around the globe wherever people adopt extremist religions.
Organised religion is a pox on the globe.
Most extremists are outside organised religion.
Far more religious people do community work, help with foodbanks, help the homeless etc than are terrorists, which is hardly surprising given 84% of the global population are a member of a religion of some form.
Given a quarter of the world's population are Muslims now it is true of Islam too
"The Delta variant is different," says Dr. Rick Barr of the Arkansas Children's Health System.
"We have 12 children admitted to the hospital now with Covid... they seem to be much sicker. Most of them are teenagers, and a number of them are in the ICU and have Covid pneumonia."
I'm too hot and tired to ponder the numbers, but all those pauses and restrictions on the use of vaccines back in the spring are looking like particularly stupid decisions now.
I got my second AZT jab last Saturday - I'm 67 and in Spain the 65-69 cohort got left behind while Spain p****d around deciding who not to give AZT to. Delta is now surging in the country and I've no doubt many in my cohort will fall victim to these shenanigens. Hope I will be OK because my area is relatively light on cases. However, it has been a close and concerning shave! About 10 more days before I should be well protected.
I've just been reading about the vaccine situation in Australia. It seems like a complete shambles and they're currently not giving AZ to people under 60 despite having spare domestic production capacity.
What is the latest on vaccoine efficacy for AZT/Moderna/Pfizer, etc. I thought they were all looking good for all the current variants but Leon is semihyper-ventilating about Delta so I wonder if there is some news I've missed.
This is still the most up to date comparative study. Both vaccines come out pretty well against delta. I think the Canadian numbers have also been basically the same but is based on a smaller data set. The Israeli studies are the most interesting because it could point to efficacy decline being more of an issue for delta than we had previously hoped.
Thank you - they seem to be extraordinarily good given the speed of their development. Leon refers to alarm bells about the Delta variant affecting children quite seriously in the US. I'm a little sceptical as it would surely have emerged in other countries already - India/UK/Europe.
Indeed. That post had more than a whiff of Fog of War / Wine.
One of the most depressing programmes I saw was the documentary on Dignitas. They interviewed some old bloke with MND who was there to kill himself and was, of course, compos mentis, as you have to be. And his wife, when they were sitting there waiting for the nurse to come in with the deadly cocktail, said something like, you have a lovely wine cellar at home for people to enjoy...
And I thought why not go home that minute, spend another two months drinking the fucking wine cellar yourself then get back to Switzerland if you must.
Perhaps because he was in pain, or because in a few months he might not be compos mentis enough, or physically able, to travel?
We really need to have a strong debate over end-of-life in this country. Thousands of people are suffering when they don't want to suffer. But it is a moral and practical minefield.
As with previous waves it depends on where it goes next. We have had plateaus followed by further big spikes AND by further reductions. So it is balancing off the end of English school year vs the general unlocking. Who knows.
Yep - if one can disconnect from the possible misery a positive case can mean, its a fascination exercise now. We're changing too things at once (poor science) and they should operate in opposite directions too (even worse science). I think effect of the schools regularly testing has been huge in the current case rise, as I suspect many many of the cases were asymptomatic, and would not have been detected in previous waves. This in itself is shifting the perceptions about how bad this wave is compared to others.
I'm pretty skeptical the general unlocking will have any impact whatsoever. Most people were living much more relaxed lines in May before this wave got going than they are now - bit of a whitehall fantasy that they can dial social interaction up and down that much. If you didn't already consider lockdown over in mid-May and act as you liked, you're unlikely to change your behaviour now with the press in bed wetter mode. Nightclubs are open, but all the people going have been having house parties all Summer anyway.
Can only mean that PHE have a data problem. I mean I keep being told that cases are going to keep going up... Seriously, with the ONS antibody survey, and the fact that many many kids are already out of school, this is no surprise. Hopefully will continue to go in the right direction.
I'm not celebrating yet, I think we need to see the effect of unrestricted indoor socialising before making any judgements. It will be the Wednesday after next before we really get to see that as this weekend will be the first big nights on the town days. However, the levelling off in case growth is definitely welcome, the football effect seems to finally be out of the system and with schools breaking up this week it will be another big reduction in spread.
"40% of UK hospitalisations are vaccinated" is good, in an image. The age distribution of who we've given vaccines to suggests that if they didn't work, ~90% hospitalisations would be vaccinated. Actual figures imply that vaccines stopped ~92% of recipients ending up in hospital.
TLDR - why should we put non vulnerable children at risk of side effects to protect adults too thick to get vaccinated themselves ?
The counter argument looking at the ONS data sets by age group is that, even for Delta and Delta Plus, for the over-25s we are already at well above herd immunity levels of vaccine/acquired immunity - 92-97%. To get to the stage where we can lift all restrictions and not worry about spikes in infections, we do need to address the bulk of the under-25s, and vaccines are the quickest and - from a public health perspective, albeit not an individual person's perspective - safest, and best ways to achieve that.
Personally, I don't know the 'correct' answer to that question, although my personal preference would be to vaccinate everyone over 6 months old who (or whose parents) wants it.
"40% of UK hospitalisations are vaccinated" is good, in an image. The age distribution of who we've given vaccines to suggests that if they didn't work, ~90% hospitalisations would be vaccinated. Actual figures imply that vaccines stopped ~92% of recipients ending up in hospital.
I do have to laugh at somebody lecturing others on racism when they endorse a party with an Islamophobia problem.
You shouldn't be so harsh on yourself.....
You make jokes about racism, which is pretty low. The Tories have an Islamophobia problem and you know it.
I think the country as a whole has an islamophobia problem, and that is reflected in ALL political parties, at least at the level of voters. Its tricky, because some evil, probably psychopathic, mentally ill, people have been committing atrocities in the name of Islam and your average person on the street reacts to that. That some elements of the muslim religion seem to want to live separate lives in the UK gets on some peoples wicks. Are all muslims terrorists? Of course not, the vast majority are decent everyday people, but the evil ones end up tarring the rest, no matter how unfair that is.
Its wrong to discriminate against Muslims, but there is a greater threat to society from Islamic extremists than there is the other way around. Same thing all around the globe wherever people adopt extremist religions.
Organised religion is a pox on the globe.
Two things: Remove the issue from Islam for a moment. If in the UK there were, say, 2,000 or even 200 self identifying Methodists who went around blowing people up, organising violence and generally causing mayhem, including killing little girls, then the public at large would have some sort of problem with Methodism as a whole. The BBC and the Guardian would be critically appraisingf the wider issues of what has gone wrong. Think how the history of the IRA and of various prot loonies in NI affect in little way the way people think about the wider cultural and religious communities.
Secondly, the view, I am sure sincerely held, that organised religion is a pox on the globe won't really do. Firstly it is false - just think of those nice sincere decent people running the food banks in their spare time; secondly religion is (in this respect if no other) like sex. It is a naturally occurring phenomenon with some malign effects, some great and indispensable features and is, despite the efforts of those who should know better, ineradicable.
"The Delta variant is different," says Dr. Rick Barr of the Arkansas Children's Health System.
"We have 12 children admitted to the hospital now with Covid... they seem to be much sicker. Most of them are teenagers, and a number of them are in the ICU and have Covid pneumonia."
Hospitalisation risk 86% higher for the unvaccinated for Delta compared to Alpha compared to only 36% higher for the vaccinated is the key stat however
I've just been reading about the vaccine situation in Australia. It seems like a complete shambles and they're currently not giving AZ to people under 60 despite having spare domestic production capacity.
What is the latest on vaccoine efficacy for AZT/Moderna/Pfizer, etc. I thought they were all looking good for all the current variants but Leon is semihyper-ventilating about Delta so I wonder if there is some news I've missed.
This is still the most up to date comparative study. Both vaccines come out pretty well against delta. I think the Canadian numbers have also been basically the same but is based on a smaller data set. The Israeli studies are the most interesting because it could point to efficacy decline being more of an issue for delta than we had previously hoped.
Thank you - they seem to be extraordinarily good given the speed of their development. Leon refers to alarm bells about the Delta variant affecting children quite seriously in the US. I'm a little sceptical as it would surely have emerged in other countries already - India/UK/Europe.
Perhaps it has
‘Children’s hospital admissions England only. Yellow - delta variant.’
The hospital admissions data on the covid dashboard are now a week behind....what the hell is going on.
Filter on England it's fully up to date with the latest NHS release also out at 4pm (used to be 1 day behind). UK figures massively delayed by celtic incompetence.
One of the most depressing programmes I saw was the documentary on Dignitas. They interviewed some old bloke with MND who was there to kill himself and was, of course, compos mentis, as you have to be. And his wife, when they were sitting there waiting for the nurse to come in with the deadly cocktail, said something like, you have a lovely wine cellar at home for people to enjoy...
And I thought why not go home that minute, spend another two months drinking the fucking wine cellar yourself then get back to Switzerland if you must.
Perhaps because he was in pain, or because in a few months he might not be compos mentis enough, or physically able, to travel?
We really need to have a strong debate over end-of-life in this country. Thousands of people are suffering when they don't want to suffer. But it is a moral and practical minefield.
Oh definitely. In this case, he didn't seem in pain but he also seemed the type not to show it. It just seemed so agonising.
Is there some sort of wired statistical thing happening with the seven day figure at the moment. So the last three reporting days have been very encouraging but they’ve produced a big percentage hike in the seven day figures. Because the seven day figures collate totals of 3-4 days before. Which I think means a couple more days of “encouraging” figures and we could start seeing quite significant drops a la Scotland.
I've just been reading about the vaccine situation in Australia. It seems like a complete shambles and they're currently not giving AZ to people under 60 despite having spare domestic production capacity.
What is the latest on vaccoine efficacy for AZT/Moderna/Pfizer, etc. I thought they were all looking good for all the current variants but Leon is semihyper-ventilating about Delta so I wonder if there is some news I've missed.
Just do a Twitter search on ‘delta variant’ - it’s hard to avoid the bad news
Some American authorities are now mandating masks for children over 2. Delta seems to be much worse for kids
I hope the Americans are over-reacting but the data is ominous
Another issue: original Covid had an R0 of 3. Delta has an R0 between 6 and 10. Worse than smallpox. It is brutally infectious. This means you need incredibly high levels of vaccination to get herd immunity, probably unreachably high. Which in turn means Delta is going to rip through every country, unless they are totally isolated or have a massive lockdown
Yay! Lets drop all restrictions and reopen the nightclubs!!!
Absolutely! Vaccines have been offered to everyone now.
If anyone doesn't want to get vaccinated then we shouldn't act like headless chickens. We should as a nation have more backbone that Leon after he's emptied his wine cellar.
Very true. My kids have been offered the vaccine which is why they're immune now to the pox as it mutates away to target them.
Chicken pox or covid?
Calling covid the pox just makes you seem childish.
"The Delta variant is different," says Dr. Rick Barr of the Arkansas Children's Health System.
"We have 12 children admitted to the hospital now with Covid... they seem to be much sicker. Most of them are teenagers, and a number of them are in the ICU and have Covid pneumonia."
The JCVI is in direct contradiction with the MHRA now on vaccinations for kids. Lots of mealy mouthed "... is very low" "it is the JCVI's view" in their report.
At least it exposes the 'lets follow the science' bollox.
With covid there is little settled science and when the facts change ...
Okay... what's the machine on the right? A way of getting corks into bottles, or something to restrain SeanT when he tries to drink the cellar's entire contents?
It’s definitely encouraging - if it’s not just a statistical glitch caused by schools closing?
Last day of term is today.
Here last day of term was meant to be last Friday, but such was the power of being pinged and burst bubbles and things that they almost all gave up late last Wednesday. And even in the frozen north it's about a million degrees in the shade so apart from wild swimming (aka swimming) and going to the pub everyone else has given up too.
It’s definitely encouraging - if it’s not just a statistical glitch caused by schools closing?
Scotland cases have continued to decline over the last two weeks, so I don't think it's a glitch.
Simply, schools are big vectors for transmission.
You may have been very close with your wild prediction. Kudos, if so. I will eat humble pie and groveling gravy
However I’m finding it hard to reconcile the two strands of data. Cases are plateauing in the UK even as we open up, and yet there’s a new strain of the bug which is horribly infectious and nasty, and we’re still some distance from herd immunity
Does delta just collapse perhaps? Holland is also intriguing
Comments
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jul/21/tory-mps-suspended-for-trying-to-influence-judge-in-elphicke-case
Some American authorities are now mandating masks for children over 2. Delta seems to be much worse for kids
I hope the Americans are over-reacting but the data is ominous
Another issue: original Covid had an R0 of 3. Delta has an R0 between 6 and 10. Worse than smallpox. It is brutally infectious. This means you need incredibly high levels of vaccination to get herd immunity, probably unreachably high. Which in turn means Delta is going to rip through every country, unless they are totally isolated or have a massive lockdown
Excellent. A celeb on PB.
Theresa May and Nigel Farage are two sides of the same coin. Authoritarian xenophobes. Both saw the Brexit vote simply through the prism of xenophobia and immigration. Theresa May reacted to the Brexit vote by doubling down on her xenophobia.
But the UK is not xenophobic. The country is not racist. Which is why neither Farage nor May have ended up being that popular in reality.
The country didn't want doubling down in xenophobia which is all Nigel's May offered. The country wanted its vote in 2016 respecting, but in a friendly manner. May didn't offer that, Farage didn't offer that. Boris did. That's why Boris won in 2016, its why he won in 2019. Its why the voters of the country ran a mile from Farage once there was a rational alternative instead of May's xenophobia.
Farage didn't give the Tories a free pass, he lost support because his hardcore xenophobes are not who voted for him in the Spring. It was sane, normal, mainstream people rejecting May and her closed-minded, bigoted, empty citizens of nowhere authoritarian xenophobia. Farage gave up as he knew the game was up.
Hang on!
These are all pre-boundary changes. The world is going to look very different in 2024.
My understanding is that the LDs theoretically pick up the new seat of Finchley & Muswell Hill, and also become the notional winners in both Esher & Walton and Wimbledon.
The two London seats will be interesting, not least because historically Labour has been the challenger there, not the LDs. Next years locals should be very instructive. But I suspect Raab is toast in Esher & Walton.
https://twitter.com/FRANCE24/status/1417821190631006208
"We have 12 children admitted to the hospital now with Covid... they seem to be much sicker. Most of them are teenagers, and a number of them are in the ICU and have Covid pneumonia."
https://twitter.com/cnnnewsroom/status/1417572641884495873?s=21
We have to start vaxing our kids NOW
This is also alarming
‘Virulence of Delta, the evidence
medrxiv.org/content/10.110…
Compared with the non-variant of concerns
Increases with Delta variant
120% (93-153%) for hospitalization
287% (198-399%) for ICU admission
137% (50-230%) for death.’
‘A significantly larger and more lethal pandemic’
https://twitter.com/rougematisse/status/1417697218291773443?s=21
This is still the most up to date comparative study. Both vaccines come out pretty well against delta. I think the Canadian numbers have also been basically the same but is based on a smaller data set. The Israeli studies are the most interesting because it could point to efficacy decline being more of an issue for delta than we had previously hoped.
We therefore need to stimulate a more robust immune response - and we need to make sure that everyone has been jabbed. Mix-and-matching the vaccines will help with the former. And we know what we need to do with the latter.
Hmmm....
Organised religion is a pox on the globe.
Stick with the Co-op is my advice.
Oh masks you say? Can't say I noticed either way. Was in Londis earlier (for some reason they have a St. Veran from 2011 on the shelves, a huge oversight/mispricing) - it's 50:50 on masks.
https://twitter.com/davidschneider/status/1417829779957592065?s=21
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-57861067
On 21 July, 44,104 new cases and 73 deaths within 28 days of a positive test were reported across the UK.
46,388,744 people have now received the first dose of a #vaccine. 36,404,566 have received a 2nd dose. https://t.co/sX1RPuIYuH
https://twitter.com/PHE_uk/status/1417862082528165891?s=19
7 day increase slower too +40.7% to +35.8%
This is why kids are getting the bug now. It’s not because the virus has adapted to target children, it’s because Delta is just so infectious more kids are exposed to this higher viral load so they succumb
‘As delta variant spreads, medical experts warn of risk to young children.’
https://twitter.com/nbcnews/status/1417722781400248321?s=21
I seemed to remember the government announcing some sort of trial of anti-virals to be given to network of people as soon as somebody within that group tested positive.
If anyone doesn't want to get vaccinated then we shouldn't act like headless chickens. We should as a nation have more backbone that Leon after he's emptied his wine cellar.
I don't really know his politics but the issue of FSM is more nuanced than "free stuff = good" ... for example, who's going to pay, how much, is it even the job of schools to feed children, what about parental responsibility, and so on.
I suppose I have two issues with Team Rashford: the shutting down of any hint of questioning and the feeling that a brand is being built on the back of involvement in politics.
Maybe I'm just weird but I don't like feeling like I'm being manipulated.
It seems like its the only way to be taken seriously.
Why should kids die because some morons are selfish idiots?
Make the jabs mandatory. Punish avoidance
I can barely wait.
https://twitter.com/PaulNuki/status/1417556793014816768?s=20
TLDR - why should we put non vulnerable children at risk of side effects to protect adults too thick to get vaccinated themselves ?
And I thought why not go home that minute, spend another two months drinking the fucking wine cellar yourself then get back to Switzerland if you must.
When I last seriously considered joining a political party (I think back in 2015), I was torn between the Conservatives and the Lib Dems. I then decided that the uncertainty probably meant I shouldn't do it...
Far more religious people do community work, help with foodbanks, help the homeless etc than are terrorists, which is hardly surprising given 84% of the global population are a member of a religion of some form.
Given a quarter of the world's population are Muslims now it is true of Islam too
Simply, schools are big vectors for transmission.
I may yet be able to go to a nightclub in October (!).
We really need to have a strong debate over end-of-life in this country. Thousands of people are suffering when they don't want to suffer. But it is a moral and practical minefield.
The age distribution of who we've given vaccines to suggests that if they didn't work, ~90% hospitalisations would be vaccinated.
Actual figures imply that vaccines stopped ~92% of recipients ending up in hospital.
https://twitter.com/PaulMainwood/status/1417819167458267136?s=20
Personally, I don't know the 'correct' answer to that question, although my personal preference would be to vaccinate everyone over 6 months old who (or whose parents) wants it.
Secondly, the view, I am sure sincerely held, that organised religion is a pox on the globe won't really do. Firstly it is false - just think of those nice sincere decent people running the food banks in their spare time; secondly religion is (in this respect if no other) like sex. It is a naturally occurring phenomenon with some malign effects, some great and indispensable features and is, despite the efforts of those who should know better, ineradicable.
https://twitter.com/RougeMatisse/status/1417715996920590337?s=20
Sad article here from Alabama where only a third are fully vaccinated in a state which is now restriction free (compared to Vermont for example where 67% are fully vaccinated now)
https://twitter.com/kathrynw5/status/1417832222019792904?s=20
‘Children’s hospital admissions England only. Yellow - delta variant.’
https://twitter.com/kidscovidgamble/status/1417809284079960072?s=21
NB - I have not checked the source of that graph. Caveat emptor
Calling covid the pox just makes you seem childish.
With covid there is little settled science and when the facts change ...
I hope Davey goes hard on this. In their target group I suspect opposing this bill is a winner.
https://twitter.com/doddsjane/status/1417567921681969155?s=21
However I’m finding it hard to reconcile the two strands of data. Cases are plateauing in the UK even as we open up, and yet there’s a new strain of the bug which is horribly infectious and nasty, and we’re still some distance from herd immunity
Does delta just collapse perhaps? Holland is also intriguing