Enough frivolity , I must away and do some productive stuff. Have to say I had a super haircut and shave at Turkish barber's today, some pleasant chit chat here , with wife playing ABBA in background. Time for a refreshment.
The new album?
There are two new songs (the ones that were recorded in time to go into the new show when it opens next year) but the album doesn't drop 'til November.
Ah ok. I caught a snatch of one of them on the radio earlier. It sounded very like Abba. No 'late life' different sound a la Johnny Cash; no sombre meditations on mortality from Bjorn and Benny, full of soul and gravitas, delivered by the girls in voices coarsened with age, just some more smooth ballady pop. Thank god for that.
Completely wrong. ABBA songs are precisely sombre meditations on mortality. They spring from the Swedish sagas and deal exactly with failure, death and disappointment.
Other than that, great post.
"Take it easy, take it easy, take it nice and slow, that's no way to go, does your mother know?"
That one rocks, and the lyrics are pretty edgy.
That is also my favourite ABBA song (I.e. the one which I dislike the least.) I think it has a trumpet in, possibly, which is always a plus. Interestingly, one of the few with a male lead vocal.
saxophone certainly. deals with at best flirting with underage girls. and When I Kissed the Teacher has the young girl taking the lead. were things less frowned upon in Sweden then?
Hope this is an opportunity for Labour. Arguably Tories are doing this at perfect electoral time... break promises/do the unpopular stuff well before an election.
I'm coming round to the idea that Labour ought to offer lower tax rates for middle class to a) draw clear differential with the Tories b) in exchange for bringing in wealth taxation of some kind.
"The Tories want to protect the already-wealthy, we want to make you wealthy"... not sure it quite works but something along those lines.
It should not be for the middle class. It should be explicitly about labour=workers and hard work and education (including non academic learning) creating life opportunity vs the Tories protecting the already wealthy.
Labour train, invest in and support the workers and their businesses. Labour will reduce the taxes on jobs to help grow your wealth. The Tories protect the rich and elite from paying their fair share, costing you more.
Having been involved in several schools vaccination campaigns, although quite a long time ago now, I can’t see that actually doing it would take very much school time. Per class, anyway!
Presumably one simply sets up in the hall and drags each class out of its classroom in succession to do the needful.
Did you get much whining about human rights in the old days?
Yes, seems pretty balanced to me. I detect too much of the following on PB:
When the government accepts the advice of the scientists (and I agree with it), praise the government. When the government accepts the advice of the scientists (and I don't agree with it), blame the scientists.
Advisors advise, government decide, surely. The JVCI has left it in the hands of government. If you don't like what government does, blame them. Stop bullying (independent) scientists.
Rubbish, the JCVI are second guessing the MHRA. I trust the regulator. Do you?
Where do the JCVI "second guess" the MHRA?
Both say "it's safe". So no "contradictions".
They've got different jobs and they're both doing them.
And yet the MHRA have approved it for 12-15 year olds whole the JCVI have said no. They are undermining the regulator's decision to try and force the government to give vaccines away. This the is their ultimate goal. They have said it many times. You're falling for it. They're forcing the government to "go against the science" and vaccinate anyway hoping that the government will back down and accept that 12-15 vaccines and a wide booster programme is now off the table so start giving away vaccine doses to other countries.
I knew there was a run on toilet paper, but tin foil too?
This advice is not based on assessments of vaccine availability, future supply or costs associated with delivery of a programme.
If you think the JCVI are "liars" why not just say so?
The MHRA has approved it, the JCVI have countermanded that decision and banned its use. Explain that.
They have refused to recommend its use. The MHRA have approved it for use. They are contradicting the regulator. Explain why they have refused to recommend it because of "the science" when our regulator has approved it based on "the science". Even in their own bloody report they say it's safe and beneficial based on "the science" but then refuse to recommend it.
What kind of stupid contradictory position are they going for here?
They are pushing an agenda of giving away vaccines. They want to force the government to "ignore the science" so they can sound off on twitter and media outlets about how the government are "going against the science". We've only seen SAGE scientists do it about a thousand times this year and last over lockdown.
Having been involved in several schools vaccination campaigns, although quite a long time ago now, I can’t see that actually doing it would take very much school time. Per class, anyway!
Presumably one simply sets up in the hall and drags each class out of its classroom in succession to do the needful.
Did you get much whining about human rights in the old days?
Fieldwork: 27-31 August 2021 Sample size: 2,017 total respondents, 1,729 declared"
Slightly more recent (30/8-2/9) Forschungsgruppe Wahlen: 25/22/17/11/11/7 - the interesting thing about which is that's almost entirely a 3-point shift from Green to SPD, with CFU unchanged (and Linke up 1). Both polls make a centre-left government possible but an SPD-Green/FDP one easy.
Having been involved in several schools vaccination campaigns, although quite a long time ago now, I can’t see that actually doing it would take very much school time. Per class, anyway!
Presumably one simply sets up in the hall and drags each class out of its classroom in succession to do the needful.
Did you get much whining about human rights in the old days?
Yup, Teams of nurses, two jabbing, one loading, maybe another ‘consoling’.
We did have one billy sitch in a Sixth Form College who went round twice and accused us of assault!
Yes, seems pretty balanced to me. I detect too much of the following on PB:
When the government accepts the advice of the scientists (and I agree with it), praise the government. When the government accepts the advice of the scientists (and I don't agree with it), blame the scientists.
Advisors advise, government decide, surely. The JVCI has left it in the hands of government. If you don't like what government does, blame them. Stop bullying (independent) scientists.
Rubbish, the JCVI are second guessing the MHRA. I trust the regulator. Do you?
Where do the JCVI "second guess" the MHRA?
Both say "it's safe". So no "contradictions".
They've got different jobs and they're both doing them.
And yet the MHRA have approved it for 12-15 year olds whole the JCVI have said no. They are undermining the regulator's decision to try and force the government to give vaccines away. This the is their ultimate goal. They have said it many times. You're falling for it. They're forcing the government to "go against the science" and vaccinate anyway hoping that the government will back down and accept that 12-15 vaccines and a wide booster programme is now off the table so start giving away vaccine doses to other countries.
I knew there was a run on toilet paper, but tin foil too?
This advice is not based on assessments of vaccine availability, future supply or costs associated with delivery of a programme.
If you think the JCVI are "liars" why not just say so?
The MHRA has approved it, the JCVI have countermanded that decision and banned its use. Explain that.
What is true is that despite accepting that the vaccine is safe and that despite accepting that the vaccine is useful, they've fed antivaxxers by not recommending its use. While at the same time Tweeting reasons not related to their remit as to their own agenda for not wanting it approved.
Yes, seems pretty balanced to me. I detect too much of the following on PB:
When the government accepts the advice of the scientists (and I agree with it), praise the government. When the government accepts the advice of the scientists (and I don't agree with it), blame the scientists.
Advisors advise, government decide, surely. The JVCI has left it in the hands of government. If you don't like what government does, blame them. Stop bullying (independent) scientists.
Rubbish, the JCVI are second guessing the MHRA. I trust the regulator. Do you?
Where do the JCVI "second guess" the MHRA?
Both say "it's safe". So no "contradictions".
They've got different jobs and they're both doing them.
And yet the MHRA have approved it for 12-15 year olds whole the JCVI have said no. They are undermining the regulator's decision to try and force the government to give vaccines away. This the is their ultimate goal. They have said it many times. You're falling for it. They're forcing the government to "go against the science" and vaccinate anyway hoping that the government will back down and accept that 12-15 vaccines and a wide booster programme is now off the table so start giving away vaccine doses to other countries.
I knew there was a run on toilet paper, but tin foil too?
This advice is not based on assessments of vaccine availability, future supply or costs associated with delivery of a programme.
If you think the JCVI are "liars" why not just say so?
The MHRA has approved it, the JCVI have countermanded that decision and banned its use. Explain that.
They have refused to recommend its use. The MHRA have approved it for use. They are contradicting the regulator. Explain why they have refused to recommend it because of "the science" when our regulator has approved it based on "the science". Even in their own bloody report they say it's safe and beneficial based on "the science" but then refuse to recommend it.
What kind of stupid contradictory position are they going for here?
They are pushing an agenda of giving away vaccines. They want to force the government to "ignore the science" so they can sound off on twitter and media outlets about how the government are "going against the science". We've only seen SAGE scientists do it about a thousand times this year and last over lockdown.
Maybe they're looking at a different part of "Science", like e.g. epidemiology instead of medicine/virology?
The JCVI may be able to sell the argument for not vaccinating 12-15 year olds but I cannot see an argument for not boosting the adult population heading into the winter months with some level of waning immunity and a potential worrisome Flu season on top of it all.
I think if they recommend that it's clear what their intentions are and the government will see right through it.
Having been involved in several schools vaccination campaigns, although quite a long time ago now, I can’t see that actually doing it would take very much school time. Per class, anyway!
Schools have to be one of the easiest to vaccinate...they are all there, they are already divided neatly into year groups and subdivided into 30s and you know who they are and all their personal details....very few will have complex medication / medical conditions (compared to a load of oldies).
There is no dragging people around work and family commitments to a centre, worrying about who they are, what is their age, id, yadda yadda yadda.
Hope this is an opportunity for Labour. Arguably Tories are doing this at perfect electoral time... break promises/do the unpopular stuff well before an election.
I'm coming round to the idea that Labour ought to offer lower tax rates for middle class to a) draw clear differential with the Tories b) in exchange for bringing in wealth taxation of some kind.
"The Tories want to protect the already-wealthy, we want to make you wealthy"... not sure it quite works but something along those lines.
It should not be for the middle class. It should be explicitly about labour=workers and hard work and education (including non academic learning) creating life opportunity vs the Tories protecting the already wealthy.
Labour train, invest in and support the workers and their businesses. Labour will reduce the taxes on jobs to help grow your wealth. The Tories protect the rich and elite from paying their fair share, costing you more.
Yes - good point. I mean middle income earners... and would be great if it were particularly targeted at those without university degrees somehow.
Having been involved in several schools vaccination campaigns, although quite a long time ago now, I can’t see that actually doing it would take very much school time. Per class, anyway!
Schools have to be one of the easiest to vaccinate...they are all there, they are already divided nearly into year groups and subdivided into 30s....very few will have complex medication / medical conditions (compared to a load of oldies).
Those with the conditions will already have had it anyway. School vaccination programmes are a piece of piss and it's important to note that the last mile of Pfizer doesn't require a super cold chain any more, it can be done at normal fridge temperatures like AZ. The justification for not recommending is a joke. The government needs to step up and sack the lot of them.
The JCVI may be able to sell the argument for not vaccinating 12-15 year olds but I cannot see an argument for not boosting the adult population heading into the winter months with some level of waning immunity and a potential worrisome Flu season on top of it all.
I think if they recommend that it's clear what their intentions are and the government will see right through it.
My elderly parents recently had their flu jab delayed by a month. Makes me wonder if they are going to be getting flu jab and covid booster at the same time.
Anecdotal, but at my daughter's sixth form college it was the new arrivals' first day (so they would have been keen to come, not skiving). 90 (of about 1,200) have phoned in to say they wouldn't be in because they had tested positive (I think the college had asked them to do an LFT before coming). These are 16/17 year-olds, of course.
PBers who have wondered why most of the questions asked by the media at the evening covid crisis press conferences were, to quote some on here, "utter bollocks", may be interested in this interview with Peston from earlier today:
We need to find a way to tax wealth rather than income. If social care, or indeed anything, is funded by raising income tax or national insurance, people like me are denied the opportunity to contribute. This is not fair.
Just write a fucking cheque to HMRC.
Of course I will. Consider it done. But it needs formalizing and it needs legal force. We don't want social care in England to be reliant on private charity.
Private charity would be giving the money directly to a nursing home. If you give the money to the government, you're relying on them to spend it how you want.
It is a bit different, I suppose. Still charity though. I wonder how much it tends to be per annum?
Yes, seems pretty balanced to me. I detect too much of the following on PB:
When the government accepts the advice of the scientists (and I agree with it), praise the government. When the government accepts the advice of the scientists (and I don't agree with it), blame the scientists.
Advisors advise, government decide, surely. The JVCI has left it in the hands of government. If you don't like what government does, blame them. Stop bullying (independent) scientists.
Rubbish, the JCVI are second guessing the MHRA. I trust the regulator. Do you?
Where do the JCVI "second guess" the MHRA?
Both say "it's safe". So no "contradictions".
They've got different jobs and they're both doing them.
And yet the MHRA have approved it for 12-15 year olds whole the JCVI have said no. They are undermining the regulator's decision to try and force the government to give vaccines away. This the is their ultimate goal. They have said it many times. You're falling for it. They're forcing the government to "go against the science" and vaccinate anyway hoping that the government will back down and accept that 12-15 vaccines and a wide booster programme is now off the table so start giving away vaccine doses to other countries.
I knew there was a run on toilet paper, but tin foil too?
This advice is not based on assessments of vaccine availability, future supply or costs associated with delivery of a programme.
If you think the JCVI are "liars" why not just say so?
The MHRA has approved it, the JCVI have countermanded that decision and banned its use. Explain that.
What is true is that despite accepting that the vaccine is safe and that despite accepting that the vaccine is useful, they've fed antivaxxers by not recommending its use. While at the same time Tweeting reasons not related to their remit as to their own agenda for not wanting it approved.
Pathetic.
Of course. The Anti-Vaxxers have absolutely won the argument.
"When formulating advice in relation to childhood immunisations, JCVI has consistently held that the main focus of its decision should be the benefit to children and young people themselves, weighed against any potential harms from vaccination to children and young people"
A decision based on the narrowest criterion of individual self-interest, with no thought given to how many thousands of old people will die because of increased transmission by teenagers.
On that basis every parent of every child should refuse every vaccination, because it could be of risk to the child. And rely on the vaccination of other children to keep their unvaccinated child safe.
The JCVI may be able to sell the argument for not vaccinating 12-15 year olds but I cannot see an argument for not boosting the adult population heading into the winter months with some level of waning immunity and a potential worrisome Flu season on top of it all.
I think if they recommend that it's clear what their intentions are and the government will see right through it.
My elderly parents recently had their flu jab delayed by a month. Makes me wonder if they are going to be getting flu jab and covid booster at the same time.
I'm booked in for my annual flu jab (for early November) and the appointment is marked on the online system as 'flu/covid 2'
Hope this is an opportunity for Labour. Arguably Tories are doing this at perfect electoral time... break promises/do the unpopular stuff well before an election.
I'm coming round to the idea that Labour ought to offer lower tax rates for middle class to a) draw clear differential with the Tories b) in exchange for bringing in wealth taxation of some kind.
"The Tories want to protect the already-wealthy, we want to make you wealthy"... not sure it quite works but something along those lines.
It should not be for the middle class. It should be explicitly about labour=workers and hard work and education (including non academic learning) creating life opportunity vs the Tories protecting the already wealthy.
Labour train, invest in and support the workers and their businesses. Labour will reduce the taxes on jobs to help grow your wealth. The Tories protect the rich and elite from paying their fair share, costing you more.
Yes - good point. I mean middle income earners... and would be great if it were particularly targeted at those without university degrees somehow.
I dont think you even need to exclude graduates. if you target the asset poor, or relatively poor, you should have a good pool to fish from. keeping any wealth tax threshold above say £250k shouldnt scare off too many red wall voters. (or £500k. I havent got the data to know what level or rate would raise how much).
PBers who have wondered why most of the questions asked by the media at the evening covid crisis press conferences were, to quote some on here, "utter bollocks", may be interested in this interview with Peston from earlier today:
The guy is an absolute dickhead rewriting history....i'm obsessed with science, i was ahead of the curve, ministers were behind it....
Your the f##king dickhead who constantly spouted utter shit and had to be put in your place multiple times by JVT, because of the dangerous horseshit you were pushing.
The utter arrogance of these people is just amazing, totally unaccountable....smartest person in the room about everything from social science to natural sciences....that me Prof Peston.
Mr i don't even understand the case data, the government are hiding reinfection information...
Anecdotal, but at my daughter's sixth form college it was the new arrivals' first day (so they would have been keen to come, not skiving). 90 (of about 1,200) have phoned in to say they wouldn't be in because they had tested positive (I think the college had asked them to do an LFT before coming). These are 16/17 year-olds, of course.
Yes, seems pretty balanced to me. I detect too much of the following on PB:
When the government accepts the advice of the scientists (and I agree with it), praise the government. When the government accepts the advice of the scientists (and I don't agree with it), blame the scientists.
Advisors advise, government decide, surely. The JVCI has left it in the hands of government. If you don't like what government does, blame them. Stop bullying (independent) scientists.
Rubbish, the JCVI are second guessing the MHRA. I trust the regulator. Do you?
Where do the JCVI "second guess" the MHRA?
Both say "it's safe". So no "contradictions".
They've got different jobs and they're both doing them.
And yet the MHRA have approved it for 12-15 year olds whole the JCVI have said no. They are undermining the regulator's decision to try and force the government to give vaccines away. This the is their ultimate goal. They have said it many times. You're falling for it. They're forcing the government to "go against the science" and vaccinate anyway hoping that the government will back down and accept that 12-15 vaccines and a wide booster programme is now off the table so start giving away vaccine doses to other countries.
I knew there was a run on toilet paper, but tin foil too?
This advice is not based on assessments of vaccine availability, future supply or costs associated with delivery of a programme.
If you think the JCVI are "liars" why not just say so?
The MHRA has approved it, the JCVI have countermanded that decision and banned its use. Explain that.
From those conclusions, it is hard to see why they would be against an "optional" vaccination campaign as opposed to a "universal" one. I wonder if they only considered similar campaigns to the existing ones with a very strong recommendation to take the vaccine was given, when alternatives such as leaving it to parents but offering it free, or even allowing private firms to offer it are available and plausible.
Which is not remotely the same as "banned its use' which is what you claimed. They have been asked to provide a recommendation on the basis of the available science. That is what they have done. They have also pointed out to the governments a path to get round their recommendation and how as more science emerges the recommendation may change.
I suspect the CMOs will bow to the political pressure the JCVI have not, and let's hope that turns out to have been the right decision.
Yes, seems pretty balanced to me. I detect too much of the following on PB:
When the government accepts the advice of the scientists (and I agree with it), praise the government. When the government accepts the advice of the scientists (and I don't agree with it), blame the scientists.
Advisors advise, government decide, surely. The JVCI has left it in the hands of government. If you don't like what government does, blame them. Stop bullying (independent) scientists.
Rubbish, the JCVI are second guessing the MHRA. I trust the regulator. Do you?
Where do the JCVI "second guess" the MHRA?
Both say "it's safe". So no "contradictions".
They've got different jobs and they're both doing them.
And yet the MHRA have approved it for 12-15 year olds whole the JCVI have said no. They are undermining the regulator's decision to try and force the government to give vaccines away. This the is their ultimate goal. They have said it many times. You're falling for it. They're forcing the government to "go against the science" and vaccinate anyway hoping that the government will back down and accept that 12-15 vaccines and a wide booster programme is now off the table so start giving away vaccine doses to other countries.
I knew there was a run on toilet paper, but tin foil too?
This advice is not based on assessments of vaccine availability, future supply or costs associated with delivery of a programme.
If you think the JCVI are "liars" why not just say so?
The MHRA has approved it, the JCVI have countermanded that decision and banned its use. Explain that.
What is true is that despite accepting that the vaccine is safe and that despite accepting that the vaccine is useful, they've fed antivaxxers by not recommending its use. While at the same time Tweeting reasons not related to their remit as to their own agenda for not wanting it approved.
Pathetic.
I think you and Max have lost the plot. There's nothing whatsoever in the JVCI document to fuel anti-vaxxers. Quite the opposite.
Enough frivolity , I must away and do some productive stuff. Have to say I had a super haircut and shave at Turkish barber's today, some pleasant chit chat here , with wife playing ABBA in background. Time for a refreshment.
The new album?
There are two new songs (the ones that were recorded in time to go into the new show when it opens next year) but the album doesn't drop 'til November.
Ah ok. I caught a snatch of one of them on the radio earlier. It sounded very like Abba. No 'late life' different sound a la Johnny Cash; no sombre meditations on mortality from Bjorn and Benny, full of soul and gravitas, delivered by the girls in voices coarsened with age, just some more smooth ballady pop. Thank god for that.
Completely wrong. ABBA songs are precisely sombre meditations on mortality. They spring from the Swedish sagas and deal exactly with failure, death and disappointment.
Other than that, great post.
"Take it easy, take it easy, take it nice and slow, that's no way to go, does your mother know?"
That one rocks, and the lyrics are pretty edgy.
Not quite F R Leavis, now, are you?
If he were still with us, his fave ABBA track (from a textual perspective) would be exactly the same as mine, trust me. And for the same reasons.
Hope this is an opportunity for Labour. Arguably Tories are doing this at perfect electoral time... break promises/do the unpopular stuff well before an election.
I'm coming round to the idea that Labour ought to offer lower tax rates for middle class to a) draw clear differential with the Tories b) in exchange for bringing in wealth taxation of some kind.
"The Tories want to protect the already-wealthy, we want to make you wealthy"... not sure it quite works but something along those lines.
The problem with that approach is that the prime target for wealth taxation is property, and going after people's houses is electoral death.
Property wealth is 35% of total apparently... [not including public pensions].
Feels like it must be possible to draw a line somewhere on property that would be acceptable to people... and as a bonus help counter an unhelpful impression that Labour is too London-centric.
Well there you go: strip out pensions and property is the predominant source of wealth in Great Britain. Much, probably most, of the residuum is held as other physical possessions and cash in the bank; short of empowering the bailiffs to wander the land basically nicking people's stuff to flog it off, there wouldn't seem to be much prospect of extracting much in the way of revenue from the latter.
Now, the Government could try, for example, levying a charge of 0.25% of the value of every home in the land each year (which would presently rake in something in the order of £19bn) to help pay the bills - but my God can you imagine the deafening screams of agony that would follow? First and foremost from the largest cohort of homeowners (yes, their elderly core vote) but ultimately from everyone. Because any such tax visited upon rental properties would immediately be passed on to the tenants.
At the end of the day we always come back to spiralling costs being imposed upon the incomes of working age people, because (a) the retired are the most powerful constituency in the electorate and (b) people who are still working can always, if they are very lucky, earn more to compensate. As distinct from the stickbangers, who are basically on fixed incomes and mostly unwilling to, or simply incapable of, going back to work.
The JCVI may be able to sell the argument for not vaccinating 12-15 year olds but I cannot see an argument for not boosting the adult population heading into the winter months with some level of waning immunity and a potential worrisome Flu season on top of it all.
I think if they recommend that it's clear what their intentions are and the government will see right through it.
The European Centre for Disease Control says:
Based on current evidence, there is no urgent need for the administration of booster doses of vaccines to fully vaccinated individuals in the general population, according to a technical report issued by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC). The report also notes that additional doses should already be considered for people with severely weakened immune systems as part of their primary vaccination.
The JCVI may be able to sell the argument for not vaccinating 12-15 year olds but I cannot see an argument for not boosting the adult population heading into the winter months with some level of waning immunity and a potential worrisome Flu season on top of it all.
I think if they recommend that it's clear what their intentions are and the government will see right through it.
My elderly parents recently had their flu jab delayed by a month. Makes me wonder if they are going to be getting flu jab and covid booster at the same time.
I'm booked in for my annual flu jab (for early November) and the appointment is marked on the online system as 'flu/covid 2'
PBers who have wondered why most of the questions asked by the media at the evening covid crisis press conferences were, to quote some on here, "utter bollocks", may be interested in this interview with Peston from earlier today:
The guy is an absolute dickhead rewriting history....i'm obsessed with science, i was ahead of the curve, ministers were behind it....
Your the f##king dickhead who constantly spouted utter shit and had to be put in your place multiple times by JVT, because of the dangerous horseshit you were pushing.
The utter arrogance of these people is just utter amazing, totally unaccountable....smartest person in the room about everything from social science to natural sciences....that me Prof Peston.
Mr i don't even understand the case data, the government are hiding reinfection information...
Which is not remotely the same as "banned its use' which is what you claimed. They have been asked to provide a recommendation on the basis of the available science. That is what they have done. They have also pointed out to the governments a path to get round their recommendation and how as more science emerges the recommendation may change.
I suspect the CMOs will bow to the political pressure the JCVI have not, and let's hope that turns out to have been the right decision.
Bullshit. The MHRA looked at the same science and approved it. What has led the JCVI to not do the same? You still haven't answered the question and after reading the report I'm not surprised because they haven't exactly said why either. The whole thing is "hey this vaccine is great, it's safe and beneficial for everyone" and then it makes an about turn and ends with "but we're not going to recommend it" without really going into it.
PBers who have wondered why most of the questions asked by the media at the evening covid crisis press conferences were, to quote some on here, "utter bollocks", may be interested in this interview with Peston from earlier today:
The guy is an absolute dickhead rewriting history....i'm obsessed with science, i was ahead of the curve, ministers were behind it....
Your the f##king dickhead who constantly spouted utter shit and had to be put in your place multiple times by JVT, because of the dangerous horseshit you were pushing.
The utter arrogance of these people is just utter amazing, totally unaccountable....smartest person in the room about everything from social science to natural sciences....that me Prof Peston.
Mr i don't even understand the case data, the government are hiding reinfection information...
Has he ever corrected that last item?
Not that I saw, but he never does, he just moves on to the next bullshit claim. He just leaves it hanging in the wind that it might be true.
If i was a government minister I would have his greatest hits to hand and as soon as he does his Prof Peston I am the smartest man in the room act, just repeat back to him all the times he has demonstrated how little he actually understands.
Yes, seems pretty balanced to me. I detect too much of the following on PB:
When the government accepts the advice of the scientists (and I agree with it), praise the government. When the government accepts the advice of the scientists (and I don't agree with it), blame the scientists.
Advisors advise, government decide, surely. The JVCI has left it in the hands of government. If you don't like what government does, blame them. Stop bullying (independent) scientists.
Rubbish, the JCVI are second guessing the MHRA. I trust the regulator. Do you?
Where do the JCVI "second guess" the MHRA?
Both say "it's safe". So no "contradictions".
They've got different jobs and they're both doing them.
And yet the MHRA have approved it for 12-15 year olds whole the JCVI have said no. They are undermining the regulator's decision to try and force the government to give vaccines away. This the is their ultimate goal. They have said it many times. You're falling for it. They're forcing the government to "go against the science" and vaccinate anyway hoping that the government will back down and accept that 12-15 vaccines and a wide booster programme is now off the table so start giving away vaccine doses to other countries.
I knew there was a run on toilet paper, but tin foil too?
This advice is not based on assessments of vaccine availability, future supply or costs associated with delivery of a programme.
If you think the JCVI are "liars" why not just say so?
The MHRA has approved it, the JCVI have countermanded that decision and banned its use. Explain that.
What is true is that despite accepting that the vaccine is safe and that despite accepting that the vaccine is useful, they've fed antivaxxers by not recommending its use. While at the same time Tweeting reasons not related to their remit as to their own agenda for not wanting it approved.
Pathetic.
I think you and Max have lost the plot. There's nothing whatsoever in the JVCI document to fuel anti-vaxxers. Quite the opposite.
The whole report is "this is great, we're not recommending it" how is that not going to give anti-vaxxers a new talking point? It literally writes itself "UK scientists refuse to recommend vaccines for kids". It's true as well.
Enough frivolity , I must away and do some productive stuff. Have to say I had a super haircut and shave at Turkish barber's today, some pleasant chit chat here , with wife playing ABBA in background. Time for a refreshment.
The new album?
There are two new songs (the ones that were recorded in time to go into the new show when it opens next year) but the album doesn't drop 'til November.
Ah ok. I caught a snatch of one of them on the radio earlier. It sounded very like Abba. No 'late life' different sound a la Johnny Cash; no sombre meditations on mortality from Bjorn and Benny, full of soul and gravitas, delivered by the girls in voices coarsened with age, just some more smooth ballady pop. Thank god for that.
Completely wrong. ABBA songs are precisely sombre meditations on mortality. They spring from the Swedish sagas and deal exactly with failure, death and disappointment....
And Dancing Queen with ancient ritual rites ?
A sadistic piece of work by the group in that the intro, exuberant piano finger run plus opening melody bars, just compels you onto the dance floor, it's that good, but once you're up and going for it, and faced with actually dancing to the whole song, it becomes very hard to do, at least with any fluency or style, because it's not in truth much of a groove, it's quite lumpy and turgid, however by then it's too late, you're marooned out there, totally helpless, shuffling around and glancing longingly back at your seat for what is rather a long three and a half minutes.
"ABBA concealed the distress of their ditties with as many deliciously gaudy overdubs as the era's analog recording techniques could muster. Embedded in some of the brightest whiteness pop has ever known, ABBA invented their own blues, one that hasn't left the radio. They whispered private anguish in the midst of the party."
Enough frivolity , I must away and do some productive stuff. Have to say I had a super haircut and shave at Turkish barber's today, some pleasant chit chat here , with wife playing ABBA in background. Time for a refreshment.
The new album?
There are two new songs (the ones that were recorded in time to go into the new show when it opens next year) but the album doesn't drop 'til November.
Ah ok. I caught a snatch of one of them on the radio earlier. It sounded very like Abba. No 'late life' different sound a la Johnny Cash; no sombre meditations on mortality from Bjorn and Benny, full of soul and gravitas, delivered by the girls in voices coarsened with age, just some more smooth ballady pop. Thank god for that.
Completely wrong. ABBA songs are precisely sombre meditations on mortality. They spring from the Swedish sagas and deal exactly with failure, death and disappointment....
And Dancing Queen with ancient ritual rites ?
A sadistic piece of work by the group in that the intro, exuberant piano finger run plus opening melody bars, just compels you onto the dance floor, it's that good, but once you're up and going for it, and faced with actually dancing to the whole song, it becomes very hard to do, at least with any fluency or style, because it's not in truth much of a groove, it's quite lumpy and turgid, however by then it's too late, you're marooned out there, totally helpless, shuffling around and glancing longingly back at your seat for what is rather a long three and a half minutes.
Favourite of witless wedding DJs everywhere. You must be able to dance to it, because it's got the word 'dancing' in it. Except you can't. When our wedding DJ asked for a list if sings definitely not to play it consisted of this song and this song alone. We did basically give him a playsuit of 45 songs though. He didn't have too much room for manoeuvre.
Yep, me and you have this. It's our area. We know.
In summary: 1. Expect cases to rise in kids in the coming weeks 2. Kids are unlikely to get very sick from COVID (tho a few will & nobody wants it to be their child) 3. We must be vigilant about the indirect effects of high case #s in kids (e.g. onward transmission & absences)
Yes, seems pretty balanced to me. I detect too much of the following on PB:
When the government accepts the advice of the scientists (and I agree with it), praise the government. When the government accepts the advice of the scientists (and I don't agree with it), blame the scientists.
Advisors advise, government decide, surely. The JVCI has left it in the hands of government. If you don't like what government does, blame them. Stop bullying (independent) scientists.
Rubbish, the JCVI are second guessing the MHRA. I trust the regulator. Do you?
Where do the JCVI "second guess" the MHRA?
Both say "it's safe". So no "contradictions".
They've got different jobs and they're both doing them.
And yet the MHRA have approved it for 12-15 year olds whole the JCVI have said no. They are undermining the regulator's decision to try and force the government to give vaccines away. This the is their ultimate goal. They have said it many times. You're falling for it. They're forcing the government to "go against the science" and vaccinate anyway hoping that the government will back down and accept that 12-15 vaccines and a wide booster programme is now off the table so start giving away vaccine doses to other countries.
I knew there was a run on toilet paper, but tin foil too?
This advice is not based on assessments of vaccine availability, future supply or costs associated with delivery of a programme.
If you think the JCVI are "liars" why not just say so?
The MHRA has approved it, the JCVI have countermanded that decision and banned its use. Explain that.
What is true is that despite accepting that the vaccine is safe and that despite accepting that the vaccine is useful, they've fed antivaxxers by not recommending its use. While at the same time Tweeting reasons not related to their remit as to their own agenda for not wanting it approved.
Pathetic.
I think you and Max have lost the plot. There's nothing whatsoever in the JVCI document to fuel anti-vaxxers. Quite the opposite.
Absolutely - on the day one, at times, extreme poster is suspended it's like a bunch of loons piling in to fill the gap!
The JCVI may be able to sell the argument for not vaccinating 12-15 year olds but I cannot see an argument for not boosting the adult population heading into the winter months with some level of waning immunity and a potential worrisome Flu season on top of it all.
I think if they recommend that it's clear what their intentions are and the government will see right through it.
The European Centre for Disease Control says:
Based on current evidence, there is no urgent need for the administration of booster doses of vaccines to fully vaccinated individuals in the general population, according to a technical report issued by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC). The report also notes that additional doses should already be considered for people with severely weakened immune systems as part of their primary vaccination.
Quite - which is why Spain is only planning to offer boosters to the clinically vulnerable at this stage. I also read but have not the link that boosters delivered too soon may be of no benefit at all. What is wrong with people on here today?
On topic, it's a disgrace and I will be suspending my membership, campaigning and donations if it happens.
Conservative policy is primarily about the needs and interests of retired people, and secondarily about the financial self-interest of the expectant heirs of wealthy aged homeowners. If you don't fall into one of those categories then may I suggest that the party doesn't really care about you, your support or your efforts?
EDIT: This is probably a crude over-simplification on my part. But not by very much.
As can the government if they raise taxes on workers ...
I am not sure why we need increases in taxation based on the economic model you were quoting the other day.
Listening to BBC More or Less, although debt stands at 100% of annual GDP, servicing the interest is now a mere 3% of GDP, the lowest since records began in 1900. More or Less also stated that QA means 35% of the debt is owed to the BoE, which means 35% isn't a debt at all.
Surely as QA "borrowing" has no downside, and as you also previously explained a little additional inflation is no bad thing, surely this is the way forward for Government. A political win for them and no downside for the punters.
Now I am understanding modern Conservative economics, I am loving it.
Enough frivolity , I must away and do some productive stuff. Have to say I had a super haircut and shave at Turkish barber's today, some pleasant chit chat here , with wife playing ABBA in background. Time for a refreshment.
The new album?
There are two new songs (the ones that were recorded in time to go into the new show when it opens next year) but the album doesn't drop 'til November.
Ah ok. I caught a snatch of one of them on the radio earlier. It sounded very like Abba. No 'late life' different sound a la Johnny Cash; no sombre meditations on mortality from Bjorn and Benny, full of soul and gravitas, delivered by the girls in voices coarsened with age, just some more smooth ballady pop. Thank god for that.
Completely wrong. ABBA songs are precisely sombre meditations on mortality. They spring from the Swedish sagas and deal exactly with failure, death and disappointment....
And Dancing Queen with ancient ritual rites ?
A sadistic piece of work by the group in that the intro, exuberant piano finger run plus opening melody bars, just compels you onto the dance floor, it's that good, but once you're up and going for it, and faced with actually dancing to the whole song, it becomes very hard to do, at least with any fluency or style, because it's not in truth much of a groove, it's quite lumpy and turgid, however by then it's too late, you're marooned out there, totally helpless, shuffling around and glancing longingly back at your seat for what is rather a long three and a half minutes.
Thanks, Nigel, because I'm picturing that now and it really works - the Windsors, young and old, 4 generations of them, giving it some to Abba's Dancing Queen.
Has anyone considered abandoning the upper limit on NI? Already pushed with the 1 then 2% element as a rouse to raise tax without admitting a raise in rates. Doesn't impact the poor. No idea what it would raise and expensive for the higher earners. If it raises more than needed the ni rate could be reduced or threshold raised so some positive impact for lower earners. Anyone any ideas on numbers?
His implied odds of winning the Presidency if he is the confirmed Republican nominee are now 53%.*
Way too high for me, even with shenanigans. * I guess some chance he runs and wins as independent/Patriot party so its a fraction lower but that scenario seems extraordinarily unlikely from here.
Which is not remotely the same as "banned its use' which is what you claimed. They have been asked to provide a recommendation on the basis of the available science. That is what they have done. They have also pointed out to the governments a path to get round their recommendation and how as more science emerges the recommendation may change.
I suspect the CMOs will bow to the political pressure the JCVI have not, and let's hope that turns out to have been the right decision.
Bullshit. The MHRA looked at the same science and approved it. What has led the JCVI to not do the same? You still haven't answered the question and after reading the report I'm not surprised because they haven't exactly said why either. The whole thing is "hey this vaccine is great, it's safe and beneficial for everyone" and then it makes an about turn and ends with "but we're not going to recommend it" without really going into it.
I have provided you with information. I cannot provide you with understanding.
Which is not remotely the same as "banned its use' which is what you claimed. They have been asked to provide a recommendation on the basis of the available science. That is what they have done. They have also pointed out to the governments a path to get round their recommendation and how as more science emerges the recommendation may change.
I suspect the CMOs will bow to the political pressure the JCVI have not, and let's hope that turns out to have been the right decision.
Bullshit. The MHRA looked at the same science and approved it. What has led the JCVI to not do the same? You still haven't answered the question and after reading the report I'm not surprised because they haven't exactly said why either. The whole thing is "hey this vaccine is great, it's safe and beneficial for everyone" and then it makes an about turn and ends with "but we're not going to recommend it" without really going into it.
I have provided you with information. I cannot provide you with understanding.
You haven't though because there isn't any information. I've read the report. They say the benefits of vaccination may not be worth the risk of side effects. But they also say that on balance the vaccines are beneficial vs getting COVID. It's a report full of contradictions which is why you're unable to actually say why the JCVI has contradicted the MHRA because in their own report they say it's beneficial for 12-15 year olds to be vaccinated.
In summary: 1. Expect cases to rise in kids in the coming weeks 2. Kids are unlikely to get very sick from COVID (tho a few will & nobody wants it to be their child) 3. We must be vigilant about the indirect effects of high case #s in kids (e.g. onward transmission & absences)
So by the time a vaccination campaign got underway....
What does "be vigilant about the indirect effects" mean? You could do something to prevent them, but you decide not to, so you should "be vigilant" about them? Maybe it just means making sure there are enough coffins?
Detailed and pretty evenhanded (IMO), though it won't change any opinions, I suspect. Jesse Bloom, quoted in the article, is an excellent scientist, and as close as you'll get to someone who is completely unbiased on the issue,
Yes, seems pretty balanced to me. I detect too much of the following on PB:
When the government accepts the advice of the scientists (and I agree with it), praise the government. When the government accepts the advice of the scientists (and I don't agree with it), blame the scientists.
Advisors advise, government decide, surely. The JVCI has left it in the hands of government. If you don't like what government does, blame them. Stop bullying (independent) scientists.
Rubbish, the JCVI are second guessing the MHRA. I trust the regulator. Do you?
Where do the JCVI "second guess" the MHRA?
Both say "it's safe". So no "contradictions".
They've got different jobs and they're both doing them.
And yet the MHRA have approved it for 12-15 year olds whole the JCVI have said no. They are undermining the regulator's decision to try and force the government to give vaccines away. This the is their ultimate goal. They have said it many times. You're falling for it. They're forcing the government to "go against the science" and vaccinate anyway hoping that the government will back down and accept that 12-15 vaccines and a wide booster programme is now off the table so start giving away vaccine doses to other countries.
I knew there was a run on toilet paper, but tin foil too?
This advice is not based on assessments of vaccine availability, future supply or costs associated with delivery of a programme.
If you think the JCVI are "liars" why not just say so?
The MHRA has approved it, the JCVI have countermanded that decision and banned its use. Explain that.
What is true is that despite accepting that the vaccine is safe and that despite accepting that the vaccine is useful, they've fed antivaxxers by not recommending its use. While at the same time Tweeting reasons not related to their remit as to their own agenda for not wanting it approved.
Pathetic.
I think you and Max have lost the plot. There's nothing whatsoever in the JVCI document to fuel anti-vaxxers. Quite the opposite.
Then you're not thinking very clearly.
When JHB and assorted antivaxxers are all gleefully sharing this report as vindication for them, then you and I have different views on what opposite means.
The JCVI standing with antivaxxers on a vaccine they know full well is safe and efficacious, is as bonkers as Starmer etc going through the lobbies with Steve Baker and co.
The JCVI may be able to sell the argument for not vaccinating 12-15 year olds but I cannot see an argument for not boosting the adult population heading into the winter months with some level of waning immunity and a potential worrisome Flu season on top of it all.
I think if they recommend that it's clear what their intentions are and the government will see right through it.
The European Centre for Disease Control says:
Based on current evidence, there is no urgent need for the administration of booster doses of vaccines to fully vaccinated individuals in the general population, according to a technical report issued by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC). The report also notes that additional doses should already be considered for people with severely weakened immune systems as part of their primary vaccination.
Quite - which is why Spain is only planning to offer boosters to the clinically vulnerable at this stage. I also read but have not the link that boosters delivered too soon may be of no benefit at all. What is wrong with people on here today?
What is "too soon"? It's approaching six months already since the vulnerable had their second jab.
There is no evidence that boosters are harmful and plenty that they are efficacious and help.
If you wait for proof that they were needed, then by the time that arrives it will be too late.
We need to find a way to tax wealth rather than income. If social care, or indeed anything, is funded by raising income tax or national insurance, people like me are denied the opportunity to contribute. This is not fair.
Which is not remotely the same as "banned its use' which is what you claimed. They have been asked to provide a recommendation on the basis of the available science. That is what they have done. They have also pointed out to the governments a path to get round their recommendation and how as more science emerges the recommendation may change.
I suspect the CMOs will bow to the political pressure the JCVI have not, and let's hope that turns out to have been the right decision.
The available science shows the vaccine is efficacious. The available science shows the vaccine is safe. The available science shows giving the vaccine is beneficial. They say all of this.
Yet they summarise that by not recommending it. Which is now being gleefully shared by antivaxxers online.
The JCVI may be able to sell the argument for not vaccinating 12-15 year olds but I cannot see an argument for not boosting the adult population heading into the winter months with some level of waning immunity and a potential worrisome Flu season on top of it all.
I think if they recommend that it's clear what their intentions are and the government will see right through it.
The European Centre for Disease Control says:
Based on current evidence, there is no urgent need for the administration of booster doses of vaccines to fully vaccinated individuals in the general population, according to a technical report issued by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC). The report also notes that additional doses should already be considered for people with severely weakened immune systems as part of their primary vaccination.
Quite - which is why Spain is only planning to offer boosters to the clinically vulnerable at this stage. I also read but have not the link that boosters delivered too soon may be of no benefit at all. What is wrong with people on here today?
What is "too soon"? It's approaching six months already since the vulnerable had their second jab.
There is no evidence that boosters are harmful and plenty that they are efficacious and help.
If you wait for proof that they were needed, then by the time that arrives it will be too late.
But hardly optimal to be jabbing people every six months if it turns out the vaccine(s) last years?
On the subject of the JCVI, the issue with government scientists is they're not proper professionals. They aren't properly regulated, there's no-one to complain to if they screw up, and they have no concept of conflicts of interest or accountability. Their peer review process relates largely to academic publications, and that's a complete dogs dinner. They are responsible for providing advice to governments in an ever-increasing number of areas, and we are in dire need of a proper qualification and professional body to regulate that process.
In this case, the issue is quite clear: the members of the JCVI want the UK government to send vaccines abroad to developing countries - they have publicly stated this numerous times - and don't see anything wrong with making decisions to try and bring this outcome about, regardless of their actual brief. A qualified lawyer (for example) would have to work much harder to make the facts fits their pre-determined conclusion. Talking about whether they've actually banned the use of vaccines for teenagers or booster shots is displacement activity - they know exactly what the headlines will be, and what will happen if the Government overrules them, and even one kid dies after getting the vaccine.
The JCVI may be able to sell the argument for not vaccinating 12-15 year olds but I cannot see an argument for not boosting the adult population heading into the winter months with some level of waning immunity and a potential worrisome Flu season on top of it all.
I think if they recommend that it's clear what their intentions are and the government will see right through it.
The European Centre for Disease Control says:
Based on current evidence, there is no urgent need for the administration of booster doses of vaccines to fully vaccinated individuals in the general population, according to a technical report issued by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC). The report also notes that additional doses should already be considered for people with severely weakened immune systems as part of their primary vaccination.
Quite - which is why Spain is only planning to offer boosters to the clinically vulnerable at this stage. I also read but have not the link that boosters delivered too soon may be of no benefit at all. What is wrong with people on here today?
What is "too soon"? It's approaching six months already since the vulnerable had their second jab.
There is no evidence that boosters are harmful and plenty that they are efficacious and help.
If you wait for proof that they were needed, then by the time that arrives it will be too late.
But hardly optimal to be jabbing people every six months if it turns out the vaccine(s) last years?
Why is it suboptimal?
If the vaccines last years and jab anyway then we get through winter without any issues and know we may not need to jab next winter.
If the vaccines don't last years but we don't jab then we have an awful winter and tens of thousands die unnecessarily and the NHS faces collapse.
On the evidence there is only one responsible thing to recommend. And the JCVI have flunked it.
On topic, it's a disgrace and I will be suspending my membership, campaigning and donations if it happens.
Conservative policy is primarily about the needs and interests of retired people, and secondarily about the financial self-interest of the expectant heirs of wealthy aged homeowners. If you don't fall into one of those categories then may I suggest that the party doesn't really care about you, your support or your efforts?
EDIT: This is probably a crude over-simplification on my part. But not by very much.
On topic, it's a disgrace and I will be suspending my membership, campaigning and donations if it happens.
Conservative policy is primarily about the needs and interests of retired people, and secondarily about the financial self-interest of the expectant heirs of wealthy aged homeowners. If you don't fall into one of those categories then may I suggest that the party doesn't really care about you, your support or your efforts?
EDIT: This is probably a crude over-simplification on my part. But not by very much.
I am starting to wonder.
Building the dam higher makes the flood bigger when it comes
Has anyone considered abandoning the upper limit on NI? Already pushed with the 1 then 2% element as a rouse to raise tax without admitting a raise in rates. Doesn't impact the poor. No idea what it would raise and expensive for the higher earners. If it raises more than needed the ni rate could be reduced or threshold raised so some positive impact for lower earners. Anyone any ideas on numbers?
Just to make clear my suggestions was made to help Boris. I don't actually approve of increasing NI, but if you want to sell it to the Red Wall it is the way to go.
Personally I don't get this notion of keeping a house you no longer live in so you can leave it to your offspring when you die and making the working population pay for your care. I don't understand why I shouldn't pay for my own care if I can afford it. In fact I am planning a holiday currently; any workers willing to contribute to the cost of that as well?
The whole concept is protect the value of pensions?
Starting with double lock, 2.5% or inflation which ever is the higher. But becomes triple adding average earnings to the equation and whichever the higher?
Example 2% inflation 8% average earnings, pensions up 8%?
So the question, if it doesn’t rise as much as average earnings, how does that significantly erode the value of pensions?
Because it seems to me pensions paid by what national government can afford, and National government doesn’t have control over average earnings so is ceding control of delivering a promise. If you are giving the 8% because politically it’s sensible, but to pay for it axing the pensioners weekly outings to the community centre, it’s not really about caring about quality of life is it?
Comments
Labour train, invest in and support the workers and their businesses.
Labour will reduce the taxes on jobs to help grow your wealth.
The Tories protect the rich and elite from paying their fair share, costing you more.
Did you get much whining about human rights in the old days?
What kind of stupid contradictory position are they going for here?
They are pushing an agenda of giving away vaccines. They want to force the government to "ignore the science" so they can sound off on twitter and media outlets about how the government are "going against the science". We've only seen SAGE scientists do it about a thousand times this year and last over lockdown.
We did have one billy sitch in a Sixth Form College who went round twice and accused us of assault!
https://www.theregister.com/2021/09/03/big_data_tender_two_billion/
Pathetic.
I think if they recommend that it's clear what their intentions are and the government will see right through it.
There is no dragging people around work and family commitments to a centre, worrying about who they are, what is their age, id, yadda yadda yadda.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/
https://www.theregister.com/2021/09/03/how_to_be_a_ransomware/
https://twitter.com/talkRADIO/status/1433726243627745283
https://twitter.com/Olivia_Beavers/status/1433601743674241024
https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/1433815019884589059
"When formulating advice in relation to childhood immunisations, JCVI has consistently held that the main focus of its decision should be the benefit to children and young people themselves, weighed against any potential harms from vaccination to children and young people"
A decision based on the narrowest criterion of individual self-interest, with no thought given to how many thousands of old people will die because of increased transmission by teenagers.
On that basis every parent of every child should refuse every vaccination, because it could be of risk to the child. And rely on the vaccination of other children to keep their unvaccinated child safe.
Moronic.
Your the f##king dickhead who constantly spouted utter shit and had to be put in your place multiple times by JVT, because of the dangerous horseshit you were pushing.
The utter arrogance of these people is just amazing, totally unaccountable....smartest person in the room about everything from social science to natural sciences....that me Prof Peston.
Mr i don't even understand the case data, the government are hiding reinfection information...
I suspect the CMOs will bow to the political pressure the JCVI have not, and let's hope that turns out to have been the right decision.
Now, the Government could try, for example, levying a charge of 0.25% of the value of every home in the land each year (which would presently rake in something in the order of £19bn) to help pay the bills - but my God can you imagine the deafening screams of agony that would follow? First and foremost from the largest cohort of homeowners (yes, their elderly core vote) but ultimately from everyone. Because any such tax visited upon rental properties would immediately be passed on to the tenants.
At the end of the day we always come back to spiralling costs being imposed upon the incomes of working age people, because (a) the retired are the most powerful constituency in the electorate and (b) people who are still working can always, if they are very lucky, earn more to compensate. As distinct from the stickbangers, who are basically on fixed incomes and mostly unwilling to, or simply incapable of, going back to work.
Based on current evidence, there is no urgent need for the administration of booster doses of vaccines to fully vaccinated individuals in the general population, according to a technical report issued by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC). The report also notes that additional doses should already be considered for people with severely weakened immune systems as part of their primary vaccination.
https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/news-events/ecdc-and-ema-considerations-additional-and-booster-doses-covid-19-vaccines
Which is the same as the JCVI
If i was a government minister I would have his greatest hits to hand and as soon as he does his Prof Peston I am the smartest man in the room act, just repeat back to him all the times he has demonstrated how little he actually understands.
He's only not running if he is dead or in jail.
1. Expect cases to rise in kids in the coming weeks
2. Kids are unlikely to get very sick from COVID (tho a few will & nobody wants it to be their child)
3. We must be vigilant about the indirect effects of high case #s in kids (e.g. onward transmission & absences)
https://twitter.com/kallmemeg/status/1433834107390382086?s=20
So by the time a vaccination campaign got underway....
EDIT: This is probably a crude over-simplification on my part. But not by very much.
Listening to BBC More or Less, although debt stands at 100% of annual GDP, servicing the interest is now a mere 3% of GDP, the lowest since records began in 1900. More or Less also stated that QA means 35% of the debt is owed to the BoE, which means 35% isn't a debt at all.
Surely as QA "borrowing" has no downside, and as you also previously explained a little additional inflation is no bad thing, surely this is the way forward for Government. A political win for them and no downside for the punters.
Now I am understanding modern Conservative economics, I am loving it.
Way too high for me, even with shenanigans. * I guess some chance he runs and wins as independent/Patriot party so its a fraction lower but that scenario seems extraordinarily unlikely from here.
This could go to five days.
https://www.science.org/content/article/why-many-scientists-say-unlikely-sars-cov-2-originated-lab-leak
Detailed and pretty evenhanded (IMO), though it won't change any opinions, I suspect.
Jesse Bloom, quoted in the article, is an excellent scientist, and as close as you'll get to someone who is completely unbiased on the issue,
When JHB and assorted antivaxxers are all gleefully sharing this report as vindication for them, then you and I have different views on what opposite means.
The JCVI standing with antivaxxers on a vaccine they know full well is safe and efficacious, is as bonkers as Starmer etc going through the lobbies with Steve Baker and co.
O'Toole: 31% (+2)
Trudeau: 27% (-2)
Singh: 20% (+1)
Bernier: 4% (-)
Blanchet: 3% (-)
Paul: 2% (-)
Nanos Research / September 2, 2021 / n=1200 / MOE 2.8% / Telephone
(% Change With September 1)
https://twitter.com/canadianpolling/status/1433815245097668637
There is no evidence that boosters are harmful and plenty that they are efficacious and help.
If you wait for proof that they were needed, then by the time that arrives it will be too late.
And 50-64s are going to be a key swing vote in a lot of places as you map to constituencies.
Bravo
The available science shows the vaccine is safe.
The available science shows giving the vaccine is beneficial.
They say all of this.
Yet they summarise that by not recommending it. Which is now being gleefully shared by antivaxxers online.
In this case, the issue is quite clear: the members of the JCVI want the UK government to send vaccines abroad to developing countries - they have publicly stated this numerous times - and don't see anything wrong with making decisions to try and bring this outcome about, regardless of their actual brief. A qualified lawyer (for example) would have to work much harder to make the facts fits their pre-determined conclusion. Talking about whether they've actually banned the use of vaccines for teenagers or booster shots is displacement activity - they know exactly what the headlines will be, and what will happen if the Government overrules them, and even one kid dies after getting the vaccine.
If the vaccines last years and jab anyway then we get through winter without any issues and know we may not need to jab next winter.
If the vaccines don't last years but we don't jab then we have an awful winter and tens of thousands die unnecessarily and the NHS faces collapse.
On the evidence there is only one responsible thing to recommend. And the JCVI have flunked it.
Free Broadband nailed on Nationalized of course
Is that a rat inside my stomach, nibbling at something just below my belly button?
No-one is an automaton and everyone has limits. At the end of the day, I'm not a social democrat.
If Boris and Rishi are going to be raising taxes to pay for unpaid for welfare for others then why shouldn't I vote for Davey?
Personally I don't get this notion of keeping a house you no longer live in so you can leave it to your offspring when you die and making the working population pay for your care. I don't understand why I shouldn't pay for my own care if I can afford it. In fact I am planning a holiday currently; any workers willing to contribute to the cost of that as well?
The whole concept is protect the value of pensions?
Starting with double lock, 2.5% or inflation which ever is the higher. But becomes triple adding average earnings to the equation and whichever the higher?
Example 2% inflation 8% average earnings, pensions up 8%?
So the question, if it doesn’t rise as much as average earnings, how does that significantly erode the value of pensions?
Because it seems to me pensions paid by what national government can afford, and National government doesn’t have control over average earnings so is ceding control of delivering a promise. If you are giving the 8% because politically it’s sensible, but to pay for it axing the pensioners weekly outings to the community centre, it’s not really about caring about quality of life is it?
Comrade Boris will be doing red wall free sea cruises on the nationalized yacht ahead of 2024