No-one is an automaton and everyone has limits. At the end of the day, I'm not a social democrat.
Meanwhile I have only given them one of my last five votes..
This fried ravioli that the EU now recognises as a southern German speciality is a more substantial meal than its Italian counterpart. Especially with scrambled egg on top. After a healthy morning hiking high above the river, weissburgunder at lunchtime, pinot noir this afternoon and Riesling this evening has seen today go all SeanTs...
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.
One need only look at IHT policy, and the allowances given to certain categories. Likewise savings and dividends allowances in income tax. How many folk have savings interiest annually worth 1K, or dividends worth 2K? [edited]
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.
One need only look at IHT policy, and the allowances given to certain categories. Likewise savings and dividends allowances in income tax. How many folk have savings interiest annually worth 1K, or dividends worth 2K? [edited]
The problem with inheritance nowadays is what one might call Prince Charles syndrome.
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.
I can't see a way of funding the sort of welfare state we've become accustomed to - let alone improve it - without tapping more into private wealth than we do today.
It's a political challenge because wealth taxes are hated, including by people who wouldn't be hit by them that much.
"You work hard, pay your taxes, save and invest to build up some capital, then those bastards come along and pick your pocket."
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...
But nobody in the media will pull him up on it because they're all guilty of being dickheads on this. So they all get away with it.
No-one is an automaton and everyone has limits. At the end of the day, I'm not a social democrat.
I could do the same.
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?
Because it is shallow, is your answer.
It looks like you enjoy Boris Corbyn style spending pledges and levelling up, especially as it sweeps all before it at elections, but reject the Corbyn level bill for paying for it. That is shallow.
If you don’t like the tax increases to pay for it, you should first be critical of the spending pledges. It didn’t stop you applauding when fiscal conservatism was dumped in the bin, so you have no choice but to carry on applauding and supporting as the bills come in.
My impression from the JCVI advice is that while the decision is finely balanced, they don't have any doubts about their ultimate decision. Which happens quite often. We will see if anyone breaks ranks. They will in any case be under huge pressure to change their advice.
Let it not be forgotten that close to a fifth of pensioners live in poverty, and around a fifth live in luxury, those in the latter category having no need of a state pension. Discussions around the triple lock should not revolve simply around how (if at all) to tweak a bit of it.
My impression from the JCVI advice is that while the decision is finely balanced, they don't have any doubts about their ultimate decision. Which happens quite often. We will see if anyone breaks ranks. They will in any case be under huge pressure to change their advice.
As a general comment, regulators are always under pressure to permit; never to prevent. On the other hand their serious trouble comes if they allow something that turns out to be bad. Successfully managing that tension is key to their effectiveness.
No-one is an automaton and everyone has limits. At the end of the day, I'm not a social democrat.
Meanwhile I have only given them one of my last five votes..
This fried ravioli that the EU now recognises as a southern German speciality is a more substantial meal than its Italian counterpart. Especially with scrambled egg on top. After a healthy morning hiking high above the river, weissburgunder at lunchtime, pinot noir this afternoon and Riesling this evening has seen today go all SeanTs...
What's the name for the fried ravioli? Sounds like a relative of that fried pasta dish Cyclefree was recommending.
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,
No-one is an automaton and everyone has limits. At the end of the day, I'm not a social democrat.
Meanwhile I have only given them one of my last five votes..
This fried ravioli that the EU now recognises as a southern German speciality is a more substantial meal than its Italian counterpart. Especially with scrambled egg on top. After a healthy morning hiking high above the river, weissburgunder at lunchtime, pinot noir this afternoon and Riesling this evening has seen today go all SeanTs...
What's the name for the fried ravioli? Sounds like a relative of that fried pasta dish Cyclefree was recommending.
In english it is the charmingly sounding "mouth bags". In German something like maultaschen
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,
That is a thorough article. Well worth reading.
It is. The point about simultaneous appearance in the wet markets is particularly interesting.
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...
Didn't he get confused into picture doctoring conspiracy theories by the complicated science of mirrors?
No-one is an automaton and everyone has limits. At the end of the day, I'm not a social democrat.
I could do the same.
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?
Because it is shallow, is your answer.
It looks like you enjoy Boris Corbyn style spending pledges and levelling up, especially as it sweeps all before it at elections, but reject the Corbyn level bill for paying for it. That is shallow.
If you don’t like the tax increases to pay for it, you should first be critical of the spending pledges. It didn’t stop you applauding when fiscal conservatism was dumped in the bin, so you have no choice but to carry on applauding and supporting as the bills come in.
What did you expect, the cake and eat it?
Indeed. Government wins big majority strongly implying that it will spend loads of money. Cheers around the nation! An emergency arises so it ends up spending even more. Polite applause and sage nodding. Government puts up taxes. Much pearl clutching at this totally unexpected turn of events.
No-one is an automaton and everyone has limits. At the end of the day, I'm not a social democrat.
I could do the same.
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?
Because it is shallow, is your answer.
It looks like you enjoy Boris Corbyn style spending pledges and levelling up, especially as it sweeps all before it at elections, but reject the Corbyn level bill for paying for it. That is shallow.
If you don’t like the tax increases to pay for it, you should first be critical of the spending pledges. It didn’t stop you applauding when fiscal conservatism was dumped in the bin, so you have no choice but to carry on applauding and supporting as the bills come in.
What did you expect, the cake and eat it?
Its not shallow. I oppose Corbyn style spending pledges.
Don't spend the money, that's my solution. If people can afford to pay for their own care, let them do so.
Increasing taxes on workers, so that a small proportion of people who can pay for their own care don't have to, so that their kids can have bigger inheritances, is not a policy I support. Let them pay for their care.
On Topic TSE's fishing expedition netted a huge shoal of PB Tories
Bravo
Hook, line and sinker.
TBH if Johnson continues his Corbyn lite act I will probably vote for him at GE2024.
Free Broadband nailed on Nationalized of course
That’s the nub of it really. In the 1960’s the Daily Mail and the Conservative Party were conservative. First the Daily Mail went right wing populist, now the Conservative Party has gone right wing populist, there are many clear policy differences between that and conservatism.
No-one is an automaton and everyone has limits. At the end of the day, I'm not a social democrat.
Meanwhile I have only given them one of my last five votes..
This fried ravioli that the EU now recognises as a southern German speciality is a more substantial meal than its Italian counterpart. Especially with scrambled egg on top. After a healthy morning hiking high above the river, weissburgunder at lunchtime, pinot noir this afternoon and Riesling this evening has seen today go all SeanTs...
What's the name for the fried ravioli? Sounds like a relative of that fried pasta dish Cyclefree was recommending.
In english it is the charmingly sounding "mouth bags". In German something like maultaschen
On Topic TSE's fishing expedition netted a huge shoal of PB Tories
Bravo
Hook, line and sinker.
TBH if Johnson continues his Corbyn lite act I will probably vote for him at GE2024.
Free Broadband nailed on Nationalized of course
That’s the nub of it really. In the 1960’s the Daily Mail and the Conservative Party were conservative. First the Daily Mail went right wing populist, now the Conservative Party has gone right wing populist, there are many clear policy differences between that and conservatism.
One thing HYUFD has right is I'm not a Tory loyalist.
I believe in low tax, free market liberalism. I support the Tories because they've been the most free market liberal party.
If the Tories become a party of high tax conservativism then I have absolutely no interest in that whatsoever.
No-one is an automaton and everyone has limits. At the end of the day, I'm not a social democrat.
Meanwhile I have only given them one of my last five votes..
This fried ravioli that the EU now recognises as a southern German speciality is a more substantial meal than its Italian counterpart. Especially with scrambled egg on top. After a healthy morning hiking high above the river, weissburgunder at lunchtime, pinot noir this afternoon and Riesling this evening has seen today go all SeanTs...
What's the name for the fried ravioli? Sounds like a relative of that fried pasta dish Cyclefree was recommending.
In english it is the charmingly sounding "mouth bags". In German something like maultaschen
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.
One need only look at IHT policy, and the allowances given to certain categories. Likewise savings and dividends allowances in income tax. How many folk have savings interiest annually worth 1K, or dividends worth 2K? [edited]
The problem with inheritance nowadays is what one might call Prince Charles syndrome.
Judging by the age that my grandparents departed their respective mortal coils, I’m likely to be pushing 70 before I get an inheritance. I’d much rather pay less tax for the next 25 years and enjoy the money whilst I’m still young enough to actually enjoy it and care fees, if needed, can be paid for from their assets and me and my sis get what’s left once my parents meet their maker. They divorced and both remarried with a stepbrother thrown in so it’s going to be fun.
I’ve no kids either so my nieces and nephews will be keeping a keen eye on my longevity.
Maybe I’ll still be in good enough nick to blow everything, the whole lot, on really good coke, viagra and expensive hookers before I bow out to a massive coronary whilst approaching la petite mort. The Entwhistle Exit.
No-one is an automaton and everyone has limits. At the end of the day, I'm not a social democrat.
Meanwhile I have only given them one of my last five votes..
This fried ravioli that the EU now recognises as a southern German speciality is a more substantial meal than its Italian counterpart. Especially with scrambled egg on top. After a healthy morning hiking high above the river, weissburgunder at lunchtime, pinot noir this afternoon and Riesling this evening has seen today go all SeanTs...
Wine with lunch AND dinner. That's hardcore. Reminds me of a great line from a novel full of great lines:
JS: "Not drinking?"
MA: "No. I feel like shit all afternoon if I drink at lunchtime."
JS: "Right. Well I feel like shit all lunchtime if I don't."
No-one is an automaton and everyone has limits. At the end of the day, I'm not a social democrat.
Meanwhile I have only given them one of my last five votes..
This fried ravioli that the EU now recognises as a southern German speciality is a more substantial meal than its Italian counterpart. Especially with scrambled egg on top. After a healthy morning hiking high above the river, weissburgunder at lunchtime, pinot noir this afternoon and Riesling this evening has seen today go all SeanTs...
What's the name for the fried ravioli? Sounds like a relative of that fried pasta dish Cyclefree was recommending.
In english it is the charmingly sounding "mouth bags". In German something like maultaschen
In that pic they actually look like ravioli. Mine were rather more solid and multi-layered
Yes, some pics I found were of something that looked like slices of lasagne almost. I prersume that is the diet option (no doughy fringe, and more efficient in terms of spinach: dough ratio).
No-one is an automaton and everyone has limits. At the end of the day, I'm not a social democrat.
Meanwhile I have only given them one of my last five votes..
This fried ravioli that the EU now recognises as a southern German speciality is a more substantial meal than its Italian counterpart. Especially with scrambled egg on top. After a healthy morning hiking high above the river, weissburgunder at lunchtime, pinot noir this afternoon and Riesling this evening has seen today go all SeanTs...
Wine with lunch AND dinner. That's hardcore. Reminds me of a great line from a novel full of great lines:
JS: "Not drinking?"
MA: "No. I feel like shit all afternoon if I drink at lunchtime."
JS: "Right. Well I feel like shit all lunchtime if I don't."
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,
Utter bollocks from alpha to omega. Doesn’t even mention the fact that Peter Daszak and friends tried to cover everything up from the get-go with that lying letter in The Lancet
When there is a massive cover-up, you can usually be sure that something is, you know, being *covered up*
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...
But nobody in the media will pull him up on it because they're all guilty of being dickheads on this. So they all get away with it.
There are few people I hold in lower regard than Robert Peston.
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.
One need only look at IHT policy, and the allowances given to certain categories. Likewise savings and dividends allowances in income tax. How many folk have savings interiest annually worth 1K, or dividends worth 2K? [edited]
The problem with inheritance nowadays is what one might call Prince Charles syndrome.
Your parents hang around until they're 100 years old, so you don't get your hands on the wonga until you're about 80?
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.
One need only look at IHT policy, and the allowances given to certain categories. Likewise savings and dividends allowances in income tax. How many folk have savings interiest annually worth 1K, or dividends worth 2K? [edited]
The problem with inheritance nowadays is what one might call Prince Charles syndrome.
Indeed.
Its surely better that someone working has lower taxes so they can eg afford to buy their own home etc in their 20s, 30s or 40s ... than that some people inherit some more money by the time they're already retired themselves in their sixties or seventies?
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...
But nobody in the media will pull him up on it because they're all guilty of being dickheads on this. So they all get away with it.
There are few people I hold in lower regard than Robert Peston.
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,
That is a thorough article. Well worth reading.
It’s only worth reading if you enjoy a pack of mildly eloquent lies
Here’s just one from that article.
"Shi has reported that her lab tested blood from the miners and did not find evidence of coronaviruses or antibodies to them."
But wait:
“But a 2016 doctoral thesis from the Chinese CDC director's lab said the WIV found SARSrCoV IgG in all of the sick miners tested.”
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.
One need only look at IHT policy, and the allowances given to certain categories. Likewise savings and dividends allowances in income tax. How many folk have savings interiest annually worth 1K, or dividends worth 2K? [edited]
The problem with inheritance nowadays is what one might call Prince Charles syndrome.
Judging by the age that my grandparents departed their respective mortal coils, I’m likely to be pushing 70 before I get an inheritance. I’d much rather pay less tax for the next 25 years and enjoy the money whilst I’m still young enough to actually enjoy it and care fees, if needed, can be paid for from their assets and me and my sis get what’s left once my parents meet their maker. They divorced and both remarried with a stepbrother thrown in so it’s going to be fun.
I’ve no kids either so my nieces and nephews will be keeping a keen eye on my longevity.
Maybe I’ll still be in good enough nick to blow everything, the whole lot, on really good coke, viagra and expensive hookers before I bow out to a massive coronary whilst approaching la petite mort. The Entwhistle Exit.
Ideally? I'd like all of my teeth "done" once under general anesthesia so I never had to see a bloody dentist again.
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,
Utter bollocks from alpha to omega. Doesn’t even mention the fact that Peter Daszak and friends tried to cover everything up from the get-go with that lying letter in The Lancet
When there is a massive cover-up, you can usually be sure that something is, you know, being *covered up*
No-one is an automaton and everyone has limits. At the end of the day, I'm not a social democrat.
I could do the same.
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?
The problem with the LibDems is that while Davey, Cooper, Carmichael and a few others are pretty sane, they are also the party of Layla Moran and Wera Hobhouse. I mean, all political parties have a few cranks (stand up Chope and Treddinick), but proportionately, the LDs have loads.
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.
One need only look at IHT policy, and the allowances given to certain categories. Likewise savings and dividends allowances in income tax. How many folk have savings interiest annually worth 1K, or dividends worth 2K? [edited]
The problem with inheritance nowadays is what one might call Prince Charles syndrome.
Your parents hang around until they're 100 years old, so you don't get your hands on the wonga until you're about 80?
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...
But nobody in the media will pull him up on it because they're all guilty of being dickheads on this. So they all get away with it.
There are few people I hold in lower regard than Robert Peston.
It's interesting. David Herdson - who is the politest and mildest mannered person I can think of - actively hates him.
I've never worked out why, except for his exceptionally annoying voice.
On Topic TSE's fishing expedition netted a huge shoal of PB Tories
Bravo
Hook, line and sinker.
TBH if Johnson continues his Corbyn lite act I will probably vote for him at GE2024.
Free Broadband nailed on Nationalized of course
That’s the nub of it really. In the 1960’s the Daily Mail and the Conservative Party were conservative. First the Daily Mail went right wing populist, now the Conservative Party has gone right wing populist, there are many clear policy differences between that and conservatism.
I'm struggling to see how this Government is "right wing" other than opposing Wokeness and being pro-Brexit, which seems to be equivalent to fascism in some quarters.
In all other respects it's dead centre, and maybe even flirting social democrat in some areas like social care and climate change.
No-one is an automaton and everyone has limits. At the end of the day, I'm not a social democrat.
Meanwhile I have only given them one of my last five votes..
This fried ravioli that the EU now recognises as a southern German speciality is a more substantial meal than its Italian counterpart. Especially with scrambled egg on top. After a healthy morning hiking high above the river, weissburgunder at lunchtime, pinot noir this afternoon and Riesling this evening has seen today go all SeanTs...
Wine with lunch AND dinner. That's hardcore. Reminds me of a great line from a novel full of great lines:
JS: "Not drinking?"
MA: "No. I feel like shit all afternoon if I drink at lunchtime."
JS: "Right. Well I feel like shit all lunchtime if I don't."
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,
That is a thorough article. Well worth reading.
It’s only worth reading if you enjoy a pack of mildly eloquent lies
Here’s just one from that article.
"Shi has reported that her lab tested blood from the miners and did not find evidence of coronaviruses or antibodies to them."
But wait:
“But a 2016 doctoral thesis from the Chinese CDC director's lab said the WIV found SARSrCoV IgG in all of the sick miners tested.”
No-one is an automaton and everyone has limits. At the end of the day, I'm not a social democrat.
Meanwhile I have only given them one of my last five votes..
This fried ravioli that the EU now recognises as a southern German speciality is a more substantial meal than its Italian counterpart. Especially with scrambled egg on top. After a healthy morning hiking high above the river, weissburgunder at lunchtime, pinot noir this afternoon and Riesling this evening has seen today go all SeanTs...
Wine with lunch AND dinner. That's hardcore. Reminds me of a great line from a novel full of great lines:
JS: "Not drinking?"
MA: "No. I feel like shit all afternoon if I drink at lunchtime."
JS: "Right. Well I feel like shit all lunchtime if I don't."
What book is that?
From the pen of Little Keith, as I believe Hitchens called him.
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.
One need only look at IHT policy, and the allowances given to certain categories. Likewise savings and dividends allowances in income tax. How many folk have savings interiest annually worth 1K, or dividends worth 2K? [edited]
The problem with inheritance nowadays is what one might call Prince Charles syndrome.
Indeed.
Its surely better that someone working has lower taxes so they can eg afford to buy their own home etc in their 20s, 30s or 40s ... than that some people inherit some more money by the time they're already retired themselves in their sixties or seventies?
This is obviously true, yet all my parents instincts would be against it, and think that holds for most of their generation. They feel it is their duty to provide an inheritance, and I guess see it as a reflection of their hard work and character.
It is one of those where the argument might get won by the "logical" side, but it won't result in significant action because the emotions and instincts of that generation will take priority.
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,
That is a thorough article. Well worth reading.
It’s only worth reading if you enjoy a pack of mildly eloquent lies
Here’s just one from that article.
"Shi has reported that her lab tested blood from the miners and did not find evidence of coronaviruses or antibodies to them."
But wait:
“But a 2016 doctoral thesis from the Chinese CDC director's lab said the WIV found SARSrCoV IgG in all of the sick miners tested.”
Robert Cuffe @robertcuffe · 1h There are about twice as many unvaccinated adults as there are kids aged 12-15 who could be vaccinated.
There may well be. But what the f***ing f*** is the relevance, of it, given that the adults are unvaccinated through choice, and the teenagers are unvaccinated through not having been offered the vaccine?
It's the one simple obvious thing we could do - and could have started doing months ago - to prevent another large wave of infection, hospitalisation and death - bearing in mind that the hospitalisation rate per infection is just as large now as it ever has been, despite vaccination, thanks to Delta - and it's not going to be done.
Maybe to avoid breaking the perfect record of screwing up the handling of this pandemic at every f***ing opportunity.
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,
That is a thorough article. Well worth reading.
It’s only worth reading if you enjoy a pack of mildly eloquent lies
Here’s just one from that article.
"Shi has reported that her lab tested blood from the miners and did not find evidence of coronaviruses or antibodies to them."
But wait:
“But a 2016 doctoral thesis from the Chinese CDC director's lab said the WIV found SARSrCoV IgG in all of the sick miners tested.”
Basically, the only people worth reading are the people who agree with you, right?
No, I am happy to read unbiased articles. Indeed, keen.
Along with 7 billion other humans, I would like to know the real origin of Covid-19. I am not certain it came from/via a Wuhan lab, though I strongly suspect it did. I fear that thanks to Chinese lies and corruption and western scientific mendacity, we will never know for sure, now. If only the scientists in the lab, like Shi and Daszak, had not lied from the start, that might have helped?
But there are articles which just leap out at you as obviously biased. They often sound so REASONABLE at first, like that notorious Lancet letter
Yet, if you know anything about the subject, if you dig an inch deep, you spot the attempts to gaslight, the weird little half-truths, the outright distortions. This piece is littered with them.
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.
One need only look at IHT policy, and the allowances given to certain categories. Likewise savings and dividends allowances in income tax. How many folk have savings interiest annually worth 1K, or dividends worth 2K? [edited]
The problem with inheritance nowadays is what one might call Prince Charles syndrome.
Indeed.
Its surely better that someone working has lower taxes so they can eg afford to buy their own home etc in their 20s, 30s or 40s ... than that some people inherit some more money by the time they're already retired themselves in their sixties or seventies?
This is obviously true, yet all my parents instincts would be against it, and think that holds for most of their generation. They feel it is their duty to provide an inheritance, and I guess see it as a reflection of their hard work and character.
It is one of those where the argument might get won by the "logical" side, but it won't result in significant action because the emotions and instincts of that generation will take priority.
My father is 95. I tell him to spend his money. He is insistant on leaving it to his children. The bizarre thing is I am about 10 times more wealthy than him, so it is pointless, but arguing gets me nowhere.
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...
But nobody in the media will pull him up on it because they're all guilty of being dickheads on this. So they all get away with it.
There are few people I hold in lower regard than Robert Peston.
It's interesting. David Herdson - who is the politest and mildest mannered person I can think of - actively hates him.
I've never worked out why, except for his exceptionally annoying voice.
It's because of his utter certainty, and his willingness to say and do things that have consequences, without knowing the full picture.
His actions, for example, almost certainly sparked a bank run on a completely solvent building society. (Not Northern Rock.)
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,
That is a thorough article. Well worth reading.
It’s only worth reading if you enjoy a pack of mildly eloquent lies
Here’s just one from that article.
"Shi has reported that her lab tested blood from the miners and did not find evidence of coronaviruses or antibodies to them."
But wait:
“But a 2016 doctoral thesis from the Chinese CDC director's lab said the WIV found SARSrCoV IgG in all of the sick miners tested.”
Basically, the only people worth reading are the people who agree with you, right?
There's papers and evidence that contradict the claim though. As in it actually exists and those miners tested positive for antibodies to a SARS like virus.
Once again, there seems to be some real mind bending theories being put forwards to try and deny the lab leak, each one stupider than the next.
A friend from university is an actual expert in this area, he's currently working on the GSK/CureVac gen 2 and gen 3 vaccine. He's been very forthcoming with his own views on it and months ago correctly predicted that it was a bat coronavirus that was then allowed to adapt to humanised mice. We now know this is what happened.
His reason for having such high certainty is that the number of lineages to get from the closest known natural relative to COVID numbers in the many thousands, there is a very tiny chance of this happening in a single animal host to then jump to humans and then go through enough viral lineages without killing the host to then adapt to human/human transmission. He's said many time that original wild COVID had very high human/human transmissibility which is unlike any SARS virus we've had before where the R was always low enough to contain it easily. The only way that could happen was for the bat virus to have already seen human cells in humanised mice for a very long time.
We know the WIV was working with live bats and humanised mice.
The Chinese were doing dodgy gain of function research on a bat coronavirus and then because they have got terrible containment one or a few scientists contracted the disease then it was out in the wild. That it showed up at places where people congregate is hardly surprising, in fact it is to be expected and doesn't constitute evidence that it originated in those places.
No-one is an automaton and everyone has limits. At the end of the day, I'm not a social democrat.
Meanwhile I have only given them one of my last five votes..
This fried ravioli that the EU now recognises as a southern German speciality is a more substantial meal than its Italian counterpart. Especially with scrambled egg on top. After a healthy morning hiking high above the river, weissburgunder at lunchtime, pinot noir this afternoon and Riesling this evening has seen today go all SeanTs...
Wine with lunch AND dinner. That's hardcore. Reminds me of a great line from a novel full of great lines:
JS: "Not drinking?"
MA: "No. I feel like shit all afternoon if I drink at lunchtime."
JS: "Right. Well I feel like shit all lunchtime if I don't."
What book is that?
From the pen of Little Keith, as I believe Hitchens called him.
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.
One need only look at IHT policy, and the allowances given to certain categories. Likewise savings and dividends allowances in income tax. How many folk have savings interiest annually worth 1K, or dividends worth 2K? [edited]
The problem with inheritance nowadays is what one might call Prince Charles syndrome.
Indeed.
Its surely better that someone working has lower taxes so they can eg afford to buy their own home etc in their 20s, 30s or 40s ... than that some people inherit some more money by the time they're already retired themselves in their sixties or seventies?
This is obviously true, yet all my parents instincts would be against it, and think that holds for most of their generation. They feel it is their duty to provide an inheritance, and I guess see it as a reflection of their hard work and character.
It is one of those where the argument might get won by the "logical" side, but it won't result in significant action because the emotions and instincts of that generation will take priority.
Its not a parents duty to provide an inheritance. Especially if that inheritance is going to someone who's potentially in their seventies themselves.
Its a parents duty to raise their kids right so they can help look after themselves. Which they can do while they're living and ensure their kids are able to have a good life while they're living too and not wait until they're dead.
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.
One need only look at IHT policy, and the allowances given to certain categories. Likewise savings and dividends allowances in income tax. How many folk have savings interiest annually worth 1K, or dividends worth 2K? [edited]
The problem with inheritance nowadays is what one might call Prince Charles syndrome.
Indeed.
Its surely better that someone working has lower taxes so they can eg afford to buy their own home etc in their 20s, 30s or 40s ... than that some people inherit some more money by the time they're already retired themselves in their sixties or seventies?
This is obviously true, yet all my parents instincts would be against it, and think that holds for most of their generation. They feel it is their duty to provide an inheritance, and I guess see it as a reflection of their hard work and character.
It is one of those where the argument might get won by the "logical" side, but it won't result in significant action because the emotions and instincts of that generation will take priority.
My father is 95. I tell him to spend his money. He is insistant on leaving it to his children. The bizarre thing is I am about 10 times more wealthy than him, so it is pointless, but arguing gets me nowhere.
Yes, I have no idea how to overcome that politically. It is hard enough within families to convince people to spend their money and enjoy 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.
One need only look at IHT policy, and the allowances given to certain categories. Likewise savings and dividends allowances in income tax. How many folk have savings interiest annually worth 1K, or dividends worth 2K? [edited]
The problem with inheritance nowadays is what one might call Prince Charles syndrome.
Indeed.
Its surely better that someone working has lower taxes so they can eg afford to buy their own home etc in their 20s, 30s or 40s ... than that some people inherit some more money by the time they're already retired themselves in their sixties or seventies?
This is obviously true, yet all my parents instincts would be against it, and think that holds for most of their generation. They feel it is their duty to provide an inheritance, and I guess see it as a reflection of their hard work and character.
It is one of those where the argument might get won by the "logical" side, but it won't result in significant action because the emotions and instincts of that generation will take priority.
Its not a parents duty to provide an inheritance. Especially if that inheritance is going to someone who's potentially in their seventies themselves.
Its a parents duty to raise their kids right so they can help look after themselves. Which they can do while they're living and ensure their kids are able to have a good life while they're living too and not wait until they're dead.
I concur entirely but those closest to providing inheritances feel the opposite, very strongly.
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.
I am sure the JCVI like most other regulators in the developed world, even when they disagree in their conclusions, conscientiously came to an informed decision based on the facts in front of them.
In any case the rationale is clear. Once you vaccinate children with underlying health conditions that are more likely to end up in hospital, vaccines don't do a lot for the remaining healthy children. You apply a higher level of precaution for children than for adults and the balance of small but uncertain risks and small and uncertain benefits favours not vaccinating. JCVI leaves it there having done its job.
It isn't about the children benefiting, which is why people are angry, It's about children infecting adults, where the case for vaccinating children is strong on utilitarian grounds. In my view that's a reasonable argument for optional vaccination as long as the risks to the children can be shown to be very low indeed. It behoves to be honest and transparent about what the ethical issue is, when you stray from what is normally acceptable.
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...
But nobody in the media will pull him up on it because they're all guilty of being dickheads on this. So they all get away with it.
There are few people I hold in lower regard than Robert Peston.
It's interesting. David Herdson - who is the politest and mildest mannered person I can think of - actively hates him.
I've never worked out why, except for his exceptionally annoying voice.
I dislike Peston mostly for his smugness.
He's not all bad though and sometimes makes good points. The BBC have given his novel their backing...
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...
But nobody in the media will pull him up on it because they're all guilty of being dickheads on this. So they all get away with it.
There are few people I hold in lower regard than Robert Peston.
It's interesting. David Herdson - who is the politest and mildest mannered person I can think of - actively hates him.
I've never worked out why, except for his exceptionally annoying voice.
It's because of his utter certainty, and his willingness to say and do things that have consequences, without knowing the full picture.
His actions, for example, almost certainly sparked a bank run on a completely solvent building society. (Not Northern Rock.)
What Julia should have asked is why did you asked so many times 'looking at the cases, When will no longer needed lockdown end/when will the urgently needed lockdown start' when you should have asked 'have you any real evidence that lockdowns work' and 'have you done a cost-benefit analysis'?
No-one is an automaton and everyone has limits. At the end of the day, I'm not a social democrat.
Meanwhile I have only given them one of my last five votes..
This fried ravioli that the EU now recognises as a southern German speciality is a more substantial meal than its Italian counterpart. Especially with scrambled egg on top. After a healthy morning hiking high above the river, weissburgunder at lunchtime, pinot noir this afternoon and Riesling this evening has seen today go all SeanTs...
Wine with lunch AND dinner. That's hardcore. Reminds me of a great line from a novel full of great lines:
JS: "Not drinking?"
MA: "No. I feel like shit all afternoon if I drink at lunchtime."
JS: "Right. Well I feel like shit all lunchtime if I don't."
What book is that?
From the pen of Little Keith, as I believe Hitchens called him.
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,
That is a thorough article. Well worth reading.
It’s only worth reading if you enjoy a pack of mildly eloquent lies
Here’s just one from that article.
"Shi has reported that her lab tested blood from the miners and did not find evidence of coronaviruses or antibodies to them."
But wait:
“But a 2016 doctoral thesis from the Chinese CDC director's lab said the WIV found SARSrCoV IgG in all of the sick miners tested.”
Basically, the only people worth reading are the people who agree with you, right?
There's papers and evidence that contradict the claim though. As in it actually exists and those miners tested positive for antibodies to a SARS like virus.
Once again, there seems to be some real mind bending theories being put forwards to try and deny the lab leak, each one stupider than the next.
A friend from university is an actual expert in this area, he's currently working on the GSK/CureVac gen 2 and gen 3 vaccine. He's been very forthcoming with his own views on it and months ago correctly predicted that it was a bat coronavirus that was then allowed to adapt to humanised mice. We now know this is what happened.
His reason for having such high certainty is that the number of lineages to get from the closest known natural relative to COVID numbers in the many thousands, there is a very tiny chance of this happening in a single animal host to then jump to humans and then go through enough viral lineages without killing the host to then adapt to human/human transmission. He's said many time that original wild COVID had very high human/human transmissibility which is unlike any SARS virus we've had before where the R was always low enough to contain it easily. The only way that could happen was for the bat virus to have already seen human cells in humanised mice for a very long time.
We know the WIV was working with live bats and humanised mice.
The Chinese were doing dodgy gain of function research on a bat coronavirus and then because they have got terrible containment one or a few scientists contracted the disease then it was out in the wild. That it showed up at places where people congregate is hardly surprising, in fact it is to be expected and doesn't constitute evidence that it originated in those places.
And, of course, one of the infamous BSL-2 labs where Shi and Daszak did their dodgy science (yet another fact they at first denied) is about 500 metres from the Huanan seafood market. Consonant with the virus "leaking" in the lab, and then quickly hitting the market, which would then act as a perfect superspreader (anyone who has been in a big Chinese wet market in a humid autumn/winter month will know what I mean)
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.
I am sure the JCVI like most other regulators in the developed world, even when they disagree in their conclusions, conscientiously came to an informed decision based on the facts in front of them.
In any case the rationale is clear. Once you vaccinate children with underlying health conditions that are more likely to end up in hospital, vaccines don't do a lot for the remaining healthy children. You apply a higher level of precaution for children than for adults and the balance of small but uncertain risks and small and uncertain benefits favours not vaccinating. JCVI leaves it there having done its job.
It isn't about the children benefiting, which is why people are angry, It's about children infecting adults, where the case for vaccinating children is strong on utilitarian grounds. In my view that's a reasonable argument for optional vaccination as long as the risks to the children can be shown to be very low indeed. It behoves to be honest and transparent about what the ethical issue is, when you stray from what is normally acceptable.
Cracking post. I think it is important to realise that the utilitarian grounds are important. Suppressing the virus, much harder now with delta, is still a desirable thing to do/try. Vaccinating as many people as possible helps that. For an individual healthy child Covid may pose minimal risk, but that should not be the only factor to consider.
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.
Isn't it possible that under some circumstances all the following statements can be true?
1) The Covid vaccine is safe and effective. 2) It is better for teenagers to be vaxed and suffer the side effects (if any) than for them to catch Covid. 3) At this point in time, there is not a net benefit to vaxing all teenagers.
One of the key variables will be the extent of prior infection in this age group. Imagine for example, 90% of teenagers have had covid. The additional benefits of vaccination after an infection are very limited. So in this (imaginary) cohort, we get 100% of the side effects, but only 10% of the benefits. If the average benefit of vaccination for a individual teenager without prior infection is a net reduction in symptoms by 50% (disease vs side effects), then the group as a whole actually experiences vastly more symptoms with the vaccine program it would have experienced without.
In July, before any significant number of 16 years old had been vaxed, the ONS had 53% of UK 16 year olds as having antibodies (rather irritatingly, there is no published data for younger ages).
If that 53% is anything like accurate for 12-15 year olds, then over half the jabs given to them would provide no benefits, only side effects. If the benefits of vaccination of teenagers without prior infection are fairly marginal, the fact that half of them have already acquired immunity could well be enough to swing the argument from in favour to against.
I don't know if any of this was part of the JCVI's logic, but I would hope that the question was at least considered.
I think we forget just how bad Covid vaccine side effects can be - one of my best mates (mid 30s like me) had his second Moderna vaccine recently. He was about as ill for about as long afterwards (several days of roaring fever) as I was when I caught Covid last week. Talking to others I know in my age group who've had it, it seems I've had it about as badly as anyone.
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.
One need only look at IHT policy, and the allowances given to certain categories. Likewise savings and dividends allowances in income tax. How many folk have savings interiest annually worth 1K, or dividends worth 2K? [edited]
The problem with inheritance nowadays is what one might call Prince Charles syndrome.
Indeed.
Its surely better that someone working has lower taxes so they can eg afford to buy their own home etc in their 20s, 30s or 40s ... than that some people inherit some more money by the time they're already retired themselves in their sixties or seventies?
Good job @HYUFD is in the sin bin. I have damage from banging my head against his wall on this.
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,
That is a thorough article. Well worth reading.
It’s only worth reading if you enjoy a pack of mildly eloquent lies
Here’s just one from that article.
"Shi has reported that her lab tested blood from the miners and did not find evidence of coronaviruses or antibodies to them."
But wait:
“But a 2016 doctoral thesis from the Chinese CDC director's lab said the WIV found SARSrCoV IgG in all of the sick miners tested.”
Basically, the only people worth reading are the people who agree with you, right?
There's papers and evidence that contradict the claim though. As in it actually exists and those miners tested positive for antibodies to a SARS like virus.
Once again, there seems to be some real mind bending theories being put forwards to try and deny the lab leak, each one stupider than the next.
A friend from university is an actual expert in this area, he's currently working on the GSK/CureVac gen 2 and gen 3 vaccine. He's been very forthcoming with his own views on it and months ago correctly predicted that it was a bat coronavirus that was then allowed to adapt to humanised mice. We now know this is what happened.
His reason for having such high certainty is that the number of lineages to get from the closest known natural relative to COVID numbers in the many thousands, there is a very tiny chance of this happening in a single animal host to then jump to humans and then go through enough viral lineages without killing the host to then adapt to human/human transmission. He's said many time that original wild COVID had very high human/human transmissibility which is unlike any SARS virus we've had before where the R was always low enough to contain it easily. The only way that could happen was for the bat virus to have already seen human cells in humanised mice for a very long time.
We know the WIV was working with live bats and humanised mice.
The Chinese were doing dodgy gain of function research on a bat coronavirus and then because they have got terrible containment one or a few scientists contracted the disease then it was out in the wild. That it showed up at places where people congregate is hardly surprising, in fact it is to be expected and doesn't constitute evidence that it originated in those places.
And, of course, one of the infamous BSL-2 labs where Shi and Daszak did their dodgy science (yet another fact they at first denied) is about 500 metres from the Huanan seafood market. Consonant with the virus "leaking" in the lab, and then quickly hitting the market, which would then act as a perfect superspreader (anyone who has been in a big Chinese wet market in a humid autumn/winter month will know what I mean)
Indeed, what makes me even more certain is the concerted effort by those involved to discredit the lab leak theory as something believed only by conspiracy types. They fucked up and then tried to cover their tracks, poorly.
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.
Isn't it possible that under some circumstances all the following statements can be true?
1) The Covid vaccine is safe and effective. 2) It is better for teenagers to be vaxed and suffer the side effects (if any) than for them to catch Covid. 3) At this point in time, there is not a net benefit to vaxing all teenagers.
One of the key variables will be the extent of prior infection in this age group. Imagine for example, 90% of teenagers have had covid. The additional benefits of vaccination after an infection are very limited. So in this (imaginary) cohort, we get 100% of the side effects, but only 10% of the benefits. If the average benefit of vaccination for a individual teenager without prior infection is a net reduction in symptoms by 50% (disease vs side effects), then the group as a whole actually experiences vastly more symptoms with the vaccine program it would have experienced without.
In July, before any significant number of 16 years old had been vaxed, the ONS had 53% of UK 16 year olds as having antibodies (rather irritatingly, there is no published data for younger ages).
If that 53% is anything like accurate for 12-15 year olds, then over half the jabs given to them would provide no benefits, only side effects. If the benefits of vaccination of teenagers without prior infection are fairly marginal, the fact that half of them have already acquired immunity could well be enough to swing the argument from in favour to against.
I don't know if any of this was part of the JCVI's logic, but I would hope that the question was at least considered.
I think we forget just how bad Covid vaccine side effects can be - one of my best mates (mid 30s like me) had his second Moderna vaccine recently. He was about as ill for about as long afterwards (several days of roaring fever) as I was when I caught Covid last week. Talking to others I know in my age group who've had it, it seems I've had it about as badly as anyone.
That's an excellent piece of analysis.
It is worth noting that your side effects will likely be much greater, if you previously had Covid.
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,
That is a thorough article. Well worth reading.
It’s only worth reading if you enjoy a pack of mildly eloquent lies
Here’s just one from that article.
"Shi has reported that her lab tested blood from the miners and did not find evidence of coronaviruses or antibodies to them."
But wait:
“But a 2016 doctoral thesis from the Chinese CDC director's lab said the WIV found SARSrCoV IgG in all of the sick miners tested.”
Basically, the only people worth reading are the people who agree with you, right?
There's papers and evidence that contradict the claim though. As in it actually exists and those miners tested positive for antibodies to a SARS like virus.
Once again, there seems to be some real mind bending theories being put forwards to try and deny the lab leak, each one stupider than the next.
A friend from university is an actual expert in this area, he's currently working on the GSK/CureVac gen 2 and gen 3 vaccine. He's been very forthcoming with his own views on it and months ago correctly predicted that it was a bat coronavirus that was then allowed to adapt to humanised mice. We now know this is what happened.
His reason for having such high certainty is that the number of lineages to get from the closest known natural relative to COVID numbers in the many thousands, there is a very tiny chance of this happening in a single animal host to then jump to humans and then go through enough viral lineages without killing the host to then adapt to human/human transmission. He's said many time that original wild COVID had very high human/human transmissibility which is unlike any SARS virus we've had before where the R was always low enough to contain it easily. The only way that could happen was for the bat virus to have already seen human cells in humanised mice for a very long time.
We know the WIV was working with live bats and humanised mice.
The Chinese were doing dodgy gain of function research on a bat coronavirus and then because they have got terrible containment one or a few scientists contracted the disease then it was out in the wild. That it showed up at places where people congregate is hardly surprising, in fact it is to be expected and doesn't constitute evidence that it originated in those places.
And, of course, one of the infamous BSL-2 labs where Shi and Daszak did their dodgy science (yet another fact they at first denied) is about 500 metres from the Huanan seafood market. Consonant with the virus "leaking" in the lab, and then quickly hitting the market, which would then act as a perfect superspreader (anyone who has been in a big Chinese wet market in a humid autumn/winter month will know what I mean)
Indeed, what makes me even more certain is the concerted effort by those involved to discredit the lab leak theory as something believed only by conspiracy types. They fucked up and then tried to cover their tracks, poorly.
With all due respect, this is the weakest part of the analysis. Whether it came from the lab or not, the Chinese and their friends would do all they could to downplay it. That isn't evidence of guilt, it's evidence of not wanting to look guilty.
No-one is an automaton and everyone has limits. At the end of the day, I'm not a social democrat.
Meanwhile I have only given them one of my last five votes..
This fried ravioli that the EU now recognises as a southern German speciality is a more substantial meal than its Italian counterpart. Especially with scrambled egg on top. After a healthy morning hiking high above the river, weissburgunder at lunchtime, pinot noir this afternoon and Riesling this evening has seen today go all SeanTs...
Wine with lunch AND dinner. That's hardcore. Reminds me of a great line from a novel full of great lines:
JS: "Not drinking?"
MA: "No. I feel like shit all afternoon if I drink at lunchtime."
JS: "Right. Well I feel like shit all lunchtime if I don't."
What book is that?
From the pen of Little Keith, as I believe Hitchens called him.
Keith Richards???
Money by Martin Amis. Very 80s, very sharp, very funny. Guy's gone off since but there was a wordsmith on a roll.
But still not as good as the real Keef's autobio obviously. Read that in one go. Could not close that book.
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.
One need only look at IHT policy, and the allowances given to certain categories. Likewise savings and dividends allowances in income tax. How many folk have savings interiest annually worth 1K, or dividends worth 2K? [edited]
The problem with inheritance nowadays is what one might call Prince Charles syndrome.
Indeed.
Its surely better that someone working has lower taxes so they can eg afford to buy their own home etc in their 20s, 30s or 40s ... than that some people inherit some more money by the time they're already retired themselves in their sixties or seventies?
Good job @HYUFD is in the sin bin. I have damage from banging my head against his wall on this.
HYUFD sin binned? Why? I always found him mostly harmless if sometimes a little niche.
No-one is an automaton and everyone has limits. At the end of the day, I'm not a social democrat.
Meanwhile I have only given them one of my last five votes..
This fried ravioli that the EU now recognises as a southern German speciality is a more substantial meal than its Italian counterpart. Especially with scrambled egg on top. After a healthy morning hiking high above the river, weissburgunder at lunchtime, pinot noir this afternoon and Riesling this evening has seen today go all SeanTs...
Wine with lunch AND dinner. That's hardcore. Reminds me of a great line from a novel full of great lines:
JS: "Not drinking?"
MA: "No. I feel like shit all afternoon if I drink at lunchtime."
JS: "Right. Well I feel like shit all lunchtime if I don't."
What book is that?
From the pen of Little Keith, as I believe Hitchens called him.
Keith Richards???
Money by Martin Amis. Very 80s, very sharp, very funny. Guy's gone off since but there was a wordsmith on a roll.
But still not as good as the real Keef's autobio obviously. Ready that in one go. Could not close that book.
Ah. I read that back at University, but that was (checks watch) more than a quarter century ago now...
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.
One need only look at IHT policy, and the allowances given to certain categories. Likewise savings and dividends allowances in income tax. How many folk have savings interiest annually worth 1K, or dividends worth 2K? [edited]
The problem with inheritance nowadays is what one might call Prince Charles syndrome.
Indeed.
Its surely better that someone working has lower taxes so they can eg afford to buy their own home etc in their 20s, 30s or 40s ... than that some people inherit some more money by the time they're already retired themselves in their sixties or seventies?
This is obviously true, yet all my parents instincts would be against it, and think that holds for most of their generation. They feel it is their duty to provide an inheritance, and I guess see it as a reflection of their hard work and character.
It is one of those where the argument might get won by the "logical" side, but it won't result in significant action because the emotions and instincts of that generation will take priority.
Its not a parents duty to provide an inheritance. Especially if that inheritance is going to someone who's potentially in their seventies themselves.
Its a parents duty to raise their kids right so they can help look after themselves. Which they can do while they're living and ensure their kids are able to have a good life while they're living too and not wait until they're dead.
I concur entirely but those closest to providing inheritances feel the opposite, very strongly.
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.
One need only look at IHT policy, and the allowances given to certain categories. Likewise savings and dividends allowances in income tax. How many folk have savings interiest annually worth 1K, or dividends worth 2K? [edited]
The problem with inheritance nowadays is what one might call Prince Charles syndrome.
Indeed.
Its surely better that someone working has lower taxes so they can eg afford to buy their own home etc in their 20s, 30s or 40s ... than that some people inherit some more money by the time they're already retired themselves in their sixties or seventies?
Good job @HYUFD is in the sin bin. I have damage from banging my head against his wall on this.
HYUFD sin binned? Why? I always found him mostly harmless if sometimes a little niche.
Being libellous and not removing it. He'll be back.
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.
One need only look at IHT policy, and the allowances given to certain categories. Likewise savings and dividends allowances in income tax. How many folk have savings interiest annually worth 1K, or dividends worth 2K? [edited]
The problem with inheritance nowadays is what one might call Prince Charles syndrome.
Judging by the age that my grandparents departed their respective mortal coils, I’m likely to be pushing 70 before I get an inheritance. I’d much rather pay less tax for the next 25 years and enjoy the money whilst I’m still young enough to actually enjoy it and care fees, if needed, can be paid for from their assets and me and my sis get what’s left once my parents meet their maker. They divorced and both remarried with a stepbrother thrown in so it’s going to be fun.
I’ve no kids either so my nieces and nephews will be keeping a keen eye on my longevity.
Maybe I’ll still be in good enough nick to blow everything, the whole lot, on really good coke, viagra and expensive hookers before I bow out to a massive coronary whilst approaching la petite mort. The Entwhistle Exit.
Ideally? I'd like all of my teeth "done" once under general anesthesia so I never had to see a bloody dentist again.
I'd pay good money for that.
That used to be a thing, especially for women – having all your teeth extracted as a wedding present to prevent future pain and expense. These days, we have NHS dentistry (if you are lucky). I have heard of tooth-whitening as a gift.
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.
One need only look at IHT policy, and the allowances given to certain categories. Likewise savings and dividends allowances in income tax. How many folk have savings interiest annually worth 1K, or dividends worth 2K? [edited]
The problem with inheritance nowadays is what one might call Prince Charles syndrome.
Indeed.
Its surely better that someone working has lower taxes so they can eg afford to buy their own home etc in their 20s, 30s or 40s ... than that some people inherit some more money by the time they're already retired themselves in their sixties or seventies?
This is obviously true, yet all my parents instincts would be against it, and think that holds for most of their generation. They feel it is their duty to provide an inheritance, and I guess see it as a reflection of their hard work and character.
It is one of those where the argument might get won by the "logical" side, but it won't result in significant action because the emotions and instincts of that generation will take priority.
Its not a parents duty to provide an inheritance. Especially if that inheritance is going to someone who's potentially in their seventies themselves.
Its a parents duty to raise their kids right so they can help look after themselves. Which they can do while they're living and ensure their kids are able to have a good life while they're living too and not wait until they're dead.
I concur entirely but those closest to providing inheritances feel the opposite, very strongly.
Most of them received little or nothing. So, they have grown up with the idea it is a mark of a successful life. And could set up their offspring. That mere ownership of a house has become a fortune to those much younger is not entirely their fault. Nor that their offspring are in their dotage themselves these days. Not sure much can be done to remove the attitude. My mother feels the need to justify almost every penny she spends. I'm likely to be long retired and past caring before I see any of it.
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,
That is a thorough article. Well worth reading.
It’s only worth reading if you enjoy a pack of mildly eloquent lies
Here’s just one from that article.
"Shi has reported that her lab tested blood from the miners and did not find evidence of coronaviruses or antibodies to them."
But wait:
“But a 2016 doctoral thesis from the Chinese CDC director's lab said the WIV found SARSrCoV IgG in all of the sick miners tested.”
Basically, the only people worth reading are the people who agree with you, right?
There's papers and evidence that contradict the claim though. As in it actually exists and those miners tested positive for antibodies to a SARS like virus.
Once again, there seems to be some real mind bending theories being put forwards to try and deny the lab leak, each one stupider than the next.
A friend from university is an actual expert in this area, he's currently working on the GSK/CureVac gen 2 and gen 3 vaccine. He's been very forthcoming with his own views on it and months ago correctly predicted that it was a bat coronavirus that was then allowed to adapt to humanised mice. We now know this is what happened.
His reason for having such high certainty is that the number of lineages to get from the closest known natural relative to COVID numbers in the many thousands, there is a very tiny chance of this happening in a single animal host to then jump to humans and then go through enough viral lineages without killing the host to then adapt to human/human transmission. He's said many time that original wild COVID had very high human/human transmissibility which is unlike any SARS virus we've had before where the R was always low enough to contain it easily. The only way that could happen was for the bat virus to have already seen human cells in humanised mice for a very long time.
We know the WIV was working with live bats and humanised mice.
The Chinese were doing dodgy gain of function research on a bat coronavirus and then because they have got terrible containment one or a few scientists contracted the disease then it was out in the wild. That it showed up at places where people congregate is hardly surprising, in fact it is to be expected and doesn't constitute evidence that it originated in those places.
And, of course, one of the infamous BSL-2 labs where Shi and Daszak did their dodgy science (yet another fact they at first denied) is about 500 metres from the Huanan seafood market. Consonant with the virus "leaking" in the lab, and then quickly hitting the market, which would then act as a perfect superspreader (anyone who has been in a big Chinese wet market in a humid autumn/winter month will know what I mean)
Indeed, what makes me even more certain is the concerted effort by those involved to discredit the lab leak theory as something believed only by conspiracy types. They fucked up and then tried to cover their tracks, poorly.
With all due respect, this is the weakest part of the analysis. Whether it came from the lab or not, the Chinese and their friends would do all they could to downplay it. That isn't evidence of guilt, it's evidence of not wanting to look guilty.
Not quite - not wanting to lose face. Not the same thing.
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.
One need only look at IHT policy, and the allowances given to certain categories. Likewise savings and dividends allowances in income tax. How many folk have savings interiest annually worth 1K, or dividends worth 2K? [edited]
The problem with inheritance nowadays is what one might call Prince Charles syndrome.
Indeed.
Its surely better that someone working has lower taxes so they can eg afford to buy their own home etc in their 20s, 30s or 40s ... than that some people inherit some more money by the time they're already retired themselves in their sixties or seventies?
Good job @HYUFD is in the sin bin. I have damage from banging my head against his wall on this.
No-one is an automaton and everyone has limits. At the end of the day, I'm not a social democrat.
Meanwhile I have only given them one of my last five votes..
This fried ravioli that the EU now recognises as a southern German speciality is a more substantial meal than its Italian counterpart. Especially with scrambled egg on top. After a healthy morning hiking high above the river, weissburgunder at lunchtime, pinot noir this afternoon and Riesling this evening has seen today go all SeanTs...
Wine with lunch AND dinner. That's hardcore. Reminds me of a great line from a novel full of great lines:
JS: "Not drinking?"
MA: "No. I feel like shit all afternoon if I drink at lunchtime."
JS: "Right. Well I feel like shit all lunchtime if I don't."
What book is that?
From the pen of Little Keith, as I believe Hitchens called him.
Keith Richards???
Money by Martin Amis. Very 80s, very sharp, very funny. Guy's gone off since but there was a wordsmith on a roll.
But still not as good as the real Keef's autobio obviously. Read that in one go. Could not close that book.
The Xmas that it came out I received 4 copies of Keef's book, grateful smile was somewhat rictus by New Year. I fear I may have recycled at least one of them as a gift to someone else.
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,
That is a thorough article. Well worth reading.
It’s only worth reading if you enjoy a pack of mildly eloquent lies
Here’s just one from that article.
"Shi has reported that her lab tested blood from the miners and did not find evidence of coronaviruses or antibodies to them."
But wait:
“But a 2016 doctoral thesis from the Chinese CDC director's lab said the WIV found SARSrCoV IgG in all of the sick miners tested.”
Basically, the only people worth reading are the people who agree with you, right?
There's papers and evidence that contradict the claim though. As in it actually exists and those miners tested positive for antibodies to a SARS like virus.
Once again, there seems to be some real mind bending theories being put forwards to try and deny the lab leak, each one stupider than the next.
A friend from university is an actual expert in this area, he's currently working on the GSK/CureVac gen 2 and gen 3 vaccine. He's been very forthcoming with his own views on it and months ago correctly predicted that it was a bat coronavirus that was then allowed to adapt to humanised mice. We now know this is what happened.
His reason for having such high certainty is that the number of lineages to get from the closest known natural relative to COVID numbers in the many thousands, there is a very tiny chance of this happening in a single animal host to then jump to humans and then go through enough viral lineages without killing the host to then adapt to human/human transmission. He's said many time that original wild COVID had very high human/human transmissibility which is unlike any SARS virus we've had before where the R was always low enough to contain it easily. The only way that could happen was for the bat virus to have already seen human cells in humanised mice for a very long time.
We know the WIV was working with live bats and humanised mice.
The Chinese were doing dodgy gain of function research on a bat coronavirus and then because they have got terrible containment one or a few scientists contracted the disease then it was out in the wild. That it showed up at places where people congregate is hardly surprising, in fact it is to be expected and doesn't constitute evidence that it originated in those places.
And, of course, one of the infamous BSL-2 labs where Shi and Daszak did their dodgy science (yet another fact they at first denied) is about 500 metres from the Huanan seafood market. Consonant with the virus "leaking" in the lab, and then quickly hitting the market, which would then act as a perfect superspreader (anyone who has been in a big Chinese wet market in a humid autumn/winter month will know what I mean)
I'm your man on this one. I don't overdo the detail but I have a terrific radar for what's likely cf unlikely. So if I were to flip and announce that lab leak is convicing me of its credentials, such that it's become favourite, this will be a key moment in the debate. But I'm not there yet.
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,
That is a thorough article. Well worth reading.
It’s only worth reading if you enjoy a pack of mildly eloquent lies
Here’s just one from that article.
"Shi has reported that her lab tested blood from the miners and did not find evidence of coronaviruses or antibodies to them."
But wait:
“But a 2016 doctoral thesis from the Chinese CDC director's lab said the WIV found SARSrCoV IgG in all of the sick miners tested.”
Basically, the only people worth reading are the people who agree with you, right?
There's papers and evidence that contradict the claim though. As in it actually exists and those miners tested positive for antibodies to a SARS like virus.
Once again, there seems to be some real mind bending theories being put forwards to try and deny the lab leak, each one stupider than the next.
A friend from university is an actual expert in this area, he's currently working on the GSK/CureVac gen 2 and gen 3 vaccine. He's been very forthcoming with his own views on it and months ago correctly predicted that it was a bat coronavirus that was then allowed to adapt to humanised mice. We now know this is what happened.
His reason for having such high certainty is that the number of lineages to get from the closest known natural relative to COVID numbers in the many thousands, there is a very tiny chance of this happening in a single animal host to then jump to humans and then go through enough viral lineages without killing the host to then adapt to human/human transmission. He's said many time that original wild COVID had very high human/human transmissibility which is unlike any SARS virus we've had before where the R was always low enough to contain it easily. The only way that could happen was for the bat virus to have already seen human cells in humanised mice for a very long time.
We know the WIV was working with live bats and humanised mice.
The Chinese were doing dodgy gain of function research on a bat coronavirus and then because they have got terrible containment one or a few scientists contracted the disease then it was out in the wild. That it showed up at places where people congregate is hardly surprising, in fact it is to be expected and doesn't constitute evidence that it originated in those places.
And, of course, one of the infamous BSL-2 labs where Shi and Daszak did their dodgy science (yet another fact they at first denied) is about 500 metres from the Huanan seafood market. Consonant with the virus "leaking" in the lab, and then quickly hitting the market, which would then act as a perfect superspreader (anyone who has been in a big Chinese wet market in a humid autumn/winter month will know what I mean)
Indeed, what makes me even more certain is the concerted effort by those involved to discredit the lab leak theory as something believed only by conspiracy types. They fucked up and then tried to cover their tracks, poorly.
With all due respect, this is the weakest part of the analysis. Whether it came from the lab or not, the Chinese and their friends would do all they could to downplay it. That isn't evidence of guilt, it's evidence of not wanting to look guilty.
No, if it came from an animal market they would definitely not be trying to cover it up. They'd be absolutely upfront with all of their evidence because it would just be random bad luck and no one can really blame them for being the victim of random bad luck. They're already on the hook for everything that happened post human/human spread anyway. Keeping international flights open etc... is already priced in, they're desperately trying to avoid responsibility for the highly likely lab leak by any means necessary.
One of the reasons my friend hasn't gone public is because he doesn't want to draw unnecessary attention to himself or his employer. He has said most scientists have accepted it was a lab leak and that lab leaks happen. He is much more scathing about the actual gain of function research and virus hunting that the WIV was doing. He quoted Jurassic Park to me "they were so excited about the fact that they could, they didn't stop and think about whether they should" or something along those lines. He called the kind of research we now know they were doing as the most dangerous and risky. Paraphrasing his words - the most unethical and dangerous research carried out in a generation. He says there is no need for virus hunting or gain of function research, vaccines can be developed these days without actually having the virus in hand, their gen 3 vaccine is based on a predicted evolutionary pathway (which is why he was talking to me about it, given my own expertise in data analysis and predictive modeling with machine learning).
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.
One need only look at IHT policy, and the allowances given to certain categories. Likewise savings and dividends allowances in income tax. How many folk have savings interiest annually worth 1K, or dividends worth 2K? [edited]
The problem with inheritance nowadays is what one might call Prince Charles syndrome.
Indeed.
Its surely better that someone working has lower taxes so they can eg afford to buy their own home etc in their 20s, 30s or 40s ... than that some people inherit some more money by the time they're already retired themselves in their sixties or seventies?
Good job @HYUFD is in the sin bin. I have damage from banging my head against his wall on this.
HYUFD sin binned? Why? I always found him mostly harmless if sometimes a little niche.
Linked to something potential libellous which could have had OGH sued. And, in his inimitable style, for which we all love him, utterly refused to recant.
Not a good look, flu jabs will be delayed because of labour shortages - the govt need to get on top of this. What on earth is wrong with a 1 year visa extension for lorry drivers until enough nationals can train and take their tests.
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.
One need only look at IHT policy, and the allowances given to certain categories. Likewise savings and dividends allowances in income tax. How many folk have savings interiest annually worth 1K, or dividends worth 2K? [edited]
The problem with inheritance nowadays is what one might call Prince Charles syndrome.
Judging by the age that my grandparents departed their respective mortal coils, I’m likely to be pushing 70 before I get an inheritance. I’d much rather pay less tax for the next 25 years and enjoy the money whilst I’m still young enough to actually enjoy it and care fees, if needed, can be paid for from their assets and me and my sis get what’s left once my parents meet their maker. They divorced and both remarried with a stepbrother thrown in so it’s going to be fun.
I’ve no kids either so my nieces and nephews will be keeping a keen eye on my longevity.
Maybe I’ll still be in good enough nick to blow everything, the whole lot, on really good coke, viagra and expensive hookers before I bow out to a massive coronary whilst approaching la petite mort. The Entwhistle Exit.
Ideally? I'd like all of my teeth "done" once under general anesthesia so I never had to see a bloody dentist again.
I'd pay good money for that.
That used to be a thing, especially for women – having all your teeth extracted as a wedding present to prevent future pain and expense. These days, we have NHS dentistry (if you are lucky). I have heard of tooth-whitening as a gift.
Some years ago I was told about a young married couple who were to go as missionaries to Borneo had all their teeth extracted before setting off. Just in case..
Not a good look, flu jabs will be delayed because of labour shortages - the govt need to get on top of this. What on earth is wrong with a 1 year visa extension for lorry drivers until enough nationals can train and take their tests.
Not a good look, flu jabs will be delayed because of labour shortages - the govt need to get on top of this. What on earth is wrong with a 1 year visa extension for lorry drivers until enough nationals can train and take their tests.
We have a shortage of 100,000 lorry drivers. The world has a massive shortage of lorry drivers. People have not been going into the industry. This is not new, has been known about for a while and what makes people think the govt changing the rules would solve the problem overnight.
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.
One need only look at IHT policy, and the allowances given to certain categories. Likewise savings and dividends allowances in income tax. How many folk have savings interiest annually worth 1K, or dividends worth 2K? [edited]
The problem with inheritance nowadays is what one might call Prince Charles syndrome.
Judging by the age that my grandparents departed their respective mortal coils, I’m likely to be pushing 70 before I get an inheritance. I’d much rather pay less tax for the next 25 years and enjoy the money whilst I’m still young enough to actually enjoy it and care fees, if needed, can be paid for from their assets and me and my sis get what’s left once my parents meet their maker. They divorced and both remarried with a stepbrother thrown in so it’s going to be fun.
I’ve no kids either so my nieces and nephews will be keeping a keen eye on my longevity.
Maybe I’ll still be in good enough nick to blow everything, the whole lot, on really good coke, viagra and expensive hookers before I bow out to a massive coronary whilst approaching la petite mort. The Entwhistle Exit.
Ideally? I'd like all of my teeth "done" once under general anesthesia so I never had to see a bloody dentist again.
I'd pay good money for that.
Thank you lucky stars you were not a kid in the 60s. The damage dentists did to teeth then drilling stuff that didn't need drilling means we are all having crowns in our 60s. It is sodding annoying that the kids who weren't sent for their 6 month drilling session have much better teeth than the rest of us.
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.
One need only look at IHT policy, and the allowances given to certain categories. Likewise savings and dividends allowances in income tax. How many folk have savings interiest annually worth 1K, or dividends worth 2K? [edited]
The problem with inheritance nowadays is what one might call Prince Charles syndrome.
Indeed.
Its surely better that someone working has lower taxes so they can eg afford to buy their own home etc in their 20s, 30s or 40s ... than that some people inherit some more money by the time they're already retired themselves in their sixties or seventies?
Good job @HYUFD is in the sin bin. I have damage from banging my head against his wall on this.
HYUFD sin binned? Why? I always found him mostly harmless if sometimes a little niche.
Comments
This fried ravioli that the EU now recognises as a southern German speciality is a more substantial meal than its Italian counterpart. Especially with scrambled egg on top. After a healthy morning hiking high above the river, weissburgunder at lunchtime, pinot noir this afternoon and Riesling this evening has seen today go all SeanTs...
"The threat from the illiberal left
Don’t underestimate the danger of left-leaning identity politics"
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2021/09/04/the-threat-from-the-illiberal-left
It's a political challenge because wealth taxes are hated, including by people who wouldn't be hit by them that much.
"You work hard, pay your taxes, save and invest to build up some capital, then those bastards come along and pick your pocket."
This sentiment is pretty ubiquitous.
It looks like you enjoy Boris Corbyn style spending pledges and levelling up, especially as it sweeps all before it at elections, but reject the Corbyn level bill for paying for it. That is shallow.
If you don’t like the tax increases to pay for it, you should first be critical of the spending pledges. It didn’t stop you applauding when fiscal conservatism was dumped in the bin, so you have no choice but to carry on applauding and supporting as the bills come in.
What did you expect, the cake and eat it?
I keep being told on here that the growing problem of Wokeness is all in my mind.
An emergency arises so it ends up spending even more. Polite applause and sage nodding.
Government puts up taxes. Much pearl clutching at this totally unexpected turn of events.
Don't spend the money, that's my solution. If people can afford to pay for their own care, let them do so.
Increasing taxes on workers, so that a small proportion of people who can pay for their own care don't have to, so that their kids can have bigger inheritances, is not a policy I support. Let them pay for their care.
https://www.daringgourmet.com/maultaschen/
I believe in low tax, free market liberalism. I support the Tories because they've been the most free market liberal party.
If the Tories become a party of high tax conservativism then I have absolutely no interest in that whatsoever.
I’ve no kids either so my nieces and nephews will be keeping a keen eye on my longevity.
Maybe I’ll still be in good enough nick to blow everything, the whole lot, on really good coke, viagra and expensive hookers before I bow out to a massive coronary whilst approaching la petite mort. The Entwhistle Exit.
https://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=https://i2-prod.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article312245.ece/ALTERNATES/s1200b/671FF28B-E5CF-58E6-D4A685DD8B9C07FF.jpg&imgrefurl=https://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/review-the-incredible-hulk-313027&tbnid=AV_6mMpGNlEG0M&vet=10CAEQMyhkahcKEwiQp_SPs-PyAhUAAAAAHQAAAAAQCA..i&docid=zKGkM-j_8pNz_M&w=1200&h=900&q=the hulk angry&hl=en-gb&client=safari&ved=0CAEQMyhkahcKEwiQp_SPs-PyAhUAAAAAHQAAAAAQCA
JS: "Not drinking?"
MA: "No. I feel like shit all afternoon if I drink at lunchtime."
JS: "Right. Well I feel like shit all lunchtime if I don't."
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Money/nQK2cT7VgfoC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=No.+I+feel+like+shit+all+afternoon+if+I+drink+at+lunchtime&pg=PA176&printsec=frontcover
When there is a massive cover-up, you can usually be sure that something is, you know, being *covered up*
Robert Cuffe
@robertcuffe
·
1h
There are about twice as many unvaccinated adults as there are kids aged 12-15 who could be vaccinated.
Its surely better that someone working has lower taxes so they can eg afford to buy their own home etc in their 20s, 30s or 40s ... than that some people inherit some more money by the time they're already retired themselves in their sixties or seventies?
Gavin Williamson? Jon Lansman? Me?
Here’s just one from that article.
"Shi has reported that her lab tested blood from the miners and did not find evidence of coronaviruses or antibodies to them."
But wait:
“But a 2016 doctoral thesis from the Chinese CDC director's lab said the WIV found SARSrCoV IgG in all of the sick miners tested.”
https://twitter.com/ayjchan/status/1433533735597715459?s=21
Lol
Read Chan’s whole thread
I'd pay good money for that.
I've never worked out why, except for his exceptionally annoying voice.
In all other respects it's dead centre, and maybe even flirting social democrat in some areas like social care and climate change.
It is one of those where the argument might get won by the "logical" side, but it won't result in significant action because the emotions and instincts of that generation will take priority.
It's the one simple obvious thing we could do - and could have started doing months ago - to prevent another large wave of infection, hospitalisation and death - bearing in mind that the hospitalisation rate per infection is just as large now as it ever has been, despite vaccination, thanks to Delta - and it's not going to be done.
Maybe to avoid breaking the perfect record of screwing up the handling of this pandemic at every f***ing opportunity.
Along with 7 billion other humans, I would like to know the real origin of Covid-19. I am not certain it came from/via a Wuhan lab, though I strongly suspect it did. I fear that thanks to Chinese lies and corruption and western scientific mendacity, we will never know for sure, now. If only the scientists in the lab, like Shi and Daszak, had not lied from the start, that might have helped?
But there are articles which just leap out at you as obviously biased. They often sound so REASONABLE at first, like that notorious Lancet letter
Yet, if you know anything about the subject, if you dig an inch deep, you spot the attempts to gaslight, the weird little half-truths, the outright distortions. This piece is littered with them.
Ignore it
His actions, for example, almost certainly sparked a bank run on a completely solvent building society. (Not Northern Rock.)
Once again, there seems to be some real mind bending theories being put forwards to try and deny the lab leak, each one stupider than the next.
A friend from university is an actual expert in this area, he's currently working on the GSK/CureVac gen 2 and gen 3 vaccine. He's been very forthcoming with his own views on it and months ago correctly predicted that it was a bat coronavirus that was then allowed to adapt to humanised mice. We now know this is what happened.
His reason for having such high certainty is that the number of lineages to get from the closest known natural relative to COVID numbers in the many thousands, there is a very tiny chance of this happening in a single animal host to then jump to humans and then go through enough viral lineages without killing the host to then adapt to human/human transmission. He's said many time that original wild COVID had very high human/human transmissibility which is unlike any SARS virus we've had before where the R was always low enough to contain it easily. The only way that could happen was for the bat virus to have already seen human cells in humanised mice for a very long time.
We know the WIV was working with live bats and humanised mice.
The Chinese were doing dodgy gain of function research on a bat coronavirus and then because they have got terrible containment one or a few scientists contracted the disease then it was out in the wild. That it showed up at places where people congregate is hardly surprising, in fact it is to be expected and doesn't constitute evidence that it originated in those places.
Its a parents duty to raise their kids right so they can help look after themselves. Which they can do while they're living and ensure their kids are able to have a good life while they're living too and not wait until they're dead.
In any case the rationale is clear. Once you vaccinate children with underlying health conditions that are more likely to end up in hospital, vaccines don't do a lot for the remaining healthy children. You apply a higher level of precaution for children than for adults and the balance of small but uncertain risks and small and uncertain benefits favours not vaccinating. JCVI leaves it there having done its job.
It isn't about the children benefiting, which is why people are angry, It's about children infecting adults, where the case for vaccinating children is strong on utilitarian grounds. In my view that's a reasonable argument for optional vaccination as long as the risks to the children can be shown to be very low indeed. It behoves to be honest and transparent about what the ethical issue is, when you stray from what is normally acceptable.
He's not all bad though and sometimes makes good points. The BBC have given his novel their backing...
It's like Bay City Rollers do 'R' numbers.
1) The Covid vaccine is safe and effective.
2) It is better for teenagers to be vaxed and suffer the side effects (if any) than for them to catch Covid.
3) At this point in time, there is not a net benefit to vaxing all teenagers.
One of the key variables will be the extent of prior infection in this age group. Imagine for example, 90% of teenagers have had covid. The additional benefits of vaccination after an infection are very limited. So in this (imaginary) cohort, we get 100% of the side effects, but only 10% of the benefits. If the average benefit of vaccination for a individual teenager without prior infection is a net reduction in symptoms by 50% (disease vs side effects), then the group as a whole actually experiences vastly more symptoms with the vaccine program it would have experienced without.
In July, before any significant number of 16 years old had been vaxed, the ONS had 53% of UK 16 year olds as having antibodies (rather irritatingly, there is no published data for younger ages).
If that 53% is anything like accurate for 12-15 year olds, then over half the jabs given to them would provide no benefits, only side effects. If the benefits of vaccination of teenagers without prior infection are fairly marginal, the fact that half of them have already acquired immunity could well be enough to swing the argument from in favour to against.
I don't know if any of this was part of the JCVI's logic, but I would hope that the question was at least considered.
I think we forget just how bad Covid vaccine side effects can be - one of my best mates (mid 30s like me) had his second Moderna vaccine recently. He was about as ill for about as long afterwards (several days of roaring fever) as I was when I caught Covid last week. Talking to others I know in my age group who've had it, it seems I've had it about as badly as anyone.
It is worth noting that your side effects will likely be much greater, if you previously had Covid.
But still not as good as the real Keef's autobio obviously. Read that in one go. Could not close that book.
That mere ownership of a house has become a fortune to those much younger is not entirely their fault. Nor that their offspring are in their dotage themselves these days.
Not sure much can be done to remove the attitude. My mother feels the need to justify almost every penny she spends. I'm likely to be long retired and past caring before I see any of it.
One of the reasons my friend hasn't gone public is because he doesn't want to draw unnecessary attention to himself or his employer. He has said most scientists have accepted it was a lab leak and that lab leaks happen. He is much more scathing about the actual gain of function research and virus hunting that the WIV was doing. He quoted Jurassic Park to me "they were so excited about the fact that they could, they didn't stop and think about whether they should" or something along those lines. He called the kind of research we now know they were doing as the most dangerous and risky. Paraphrasing his words - the most unethical and dangerous research carried out in a generation. He says there is no need for virus hunting or gain of function research, vaccines can be developed these days without actually having the virus in hand, their gen 3 vaccine is based on a predicted evolutionary pathway (which is why he was talking to me about it, given my own expertise in data analysis and predictive modeling with machine learning).
Anyway, I'm being beckoned for an evening out!
And, in his inimitable style, for which we all love him, utterly refused to recant.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-58442611