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.
Even if it does not solve the problem, if we could recruit 20k lorry drivers from overseas, then we would have a shortage of 80k rather than 100k.
We could be subsidising lorry driver training, hell make it free and paid for by the govt if needed.
Just waiting for it to impact things like flu jabs and saying nothing can be done is crazy.
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.
Crazy Days and Nights is a bizarre site that deals in celeb tittle tattle.
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.
It's so obvious. That is how vaccination works. It doesn't just protect people at highest risk directly; it also protects them indirectly by vaccinating people who are at lower risk, but may transmit the disease to others.
How is it that the government's advisers have swallowed whole this anti-Vaccine nonsense about assessing every potential vaccinee on an inappropriately narrow criterion of individual risk, thereby leaving large swaths of the population unvaccinated, and thereby leaving unprotected many people at high risk, through an increased likelihood of transmission?
If there is a fourth wave with significant mortality this Autumn/Winter, this idiotic decision will have contributed to 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.
The guy that wrote that nonsensically bad Covid-19 Science article linked by NigelB also wrote this on the same subject in June 2020
It is just laughable. It could have been written by the Chinese Communist Party (co-author, Peter Daszak)
"Peter Daszak of the EcoHealth Alliance has worked with [Wuhan lab director] Shi for more than 15 years. He describes her as social, open, and something of a goodwill ambassador for China at international meetings, where she converses in both French and English. (She's also a renowned singer of Mandarin folk songs.) "What I really like about Zhengli is that she is frank and honest and that just makes it easier to solve problems," he says. [HAHAHAHAHAHAHA]"
"Shi mentioned several other factors that she says exonerate her lab. Their research meets strict biosafety rules, she said [HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA] and the lab is subject to periodic inspections "by a third-party institution authorized by the government[HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA]." Antibody tests have shown there is "zero infection" among institute staff or students with SARS-CoV-2 or SARS-related viruses [NEVER PROVEN, NO EVIDENCE GIVEN]. Shi said WIV has never been ordered to destroy any samples [A LIE] after the pandemic erupted and she was sure the virus didn't come from the Wuhan Center for Disease Control and Prevention—or another lab in the city—either: "Based on daily academic exchanges and discussion, I can rule out such a possibility. [OH THAT'S ALRIGHT THEN]""
"Daszak supports the push for an international research effort—which he cautions could take years—and says Shi's group should play a prominent role in it. "I hope and believe that she will be able to help WIV and China show the world that there is nothing to these lab escape theories [YEP, THANKS FOR THAT, PETER], and help us all to find the true origins of this viral strain," he says."
I mean, for fuck's sake. He's just a shill for Beijing. And they think we are morons who will lap up this crap as long as they keep pumping it out, in slightly different forms.
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.
Even if it does not solve the problem, if we could recruit 20k lorry drivers from overseas, then we would have a shortage of 80k rather than 100k.
We could be subsidising lorry driver training, hell make it free and paid for by the govt if needed.
Just waiting for it to impact things like flu jabs and saying nothing can be done is crazy.
But what makes you think they’d come here anyway ? Especially when there are shortages in continental Europe.
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.
Where on earth do you get that from?
The January peak was about 60k cases a day, which led to a peak in admissions of about 4250 cases a day. That's 1 in 14 cases requiring admission.
Currently cases have been almost stable for several weeks at a little over the 30k a day mark, and admissions have also been fairly stable running at around 900 a day. This is approximately 1 in 33 cases requiring admission - I.E. less than half the admission rate of January.
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.
Did you talk to any one the ones in your age group who died of it?
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.
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.
Even if it does not solve the problem, if we could recruit 20k lorry drivers from overseas, then we would have a shortage of 80k rather than 100k.
We could be subsidising lorry driver training, hell make it free and paid for by the govt if needed.
Just waiting for it to impact things like flu jabs and saying nothing can be done is crazy.
But what makes you think they’d come here anyway ? Especially when there are shortages in continental Europe.
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.
Crazy Days and Nights is a bizarre site that deals in celeb tittle tattle.
Indeed. Which is why his refusing to admit this when it was pointed out was so ...well HYUFD. Robert even gave him a range of ways he could put it differently. We can't have posters getting the site sued. Or else it might close. And then the void would scream back at us.
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.
Even if it does not solve the problem, if we could recruit 20k lorry drivers from overseas, then we would have a shortage of 80k rather than 100k.
We could be subsidising lorry driver training, hell make it free and paid for by the govt if needed.
Just waiting for it to impact things like flu jabs and saying nothing can be done is crazy.
But what makes you think they’d come here anyway ? Especially when there are shortages in continental Europe.
You think zero would come here? It is a view!
No, I asked you a question. Don’t be disingenuous. You’ve assumed 20,000 would come. I’ve asked you why.
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.
Even if it does not solve the problem, if we could recruit 20k lorry drivers from overseas, then we would have a shortage of 80k rather than 100k.
We could be subsidising lorry driver training, hell make it free and paid for by the govt if needed.
Just waiting for it to impact things like flu jabs and saying nothing can be done is crazy.
But what makes you think they’d come here anyway ? Especially when there are shortages in continental Europe.
You think zero would come here? It is a view!
No, I asked you a question. Don’t be disingenuous. Don’t assume because I’ve asked you a question I automatically hold a view.
Ok, well some will come for money. Others might have family or partners already here. Some might like Eastenders, others might support Liverpool and want to see their matches live. There are thousands of different reasons.
I am not pretending it is a magic solution to the whole issue, but it is clearly far better than inaction.
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.
Even if it does not solve the problem, if we could recruit 20k lorry drivers from overseas, then we would have a shortage of 80k rather than 100k.
We could be subsidising lorry driver training, hell make it free and paid for by the govt if needed.
Just waiting for it to impact things like flu jabs and saying nothing can be done is crazy.
It’d have a better 5 year return for the government than most creative arts degrees.
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.
Fear of the "lunar pull" of Europe, as the PM has put it.
Basically, if we agree any accommodation with Europe which makes our lives easier, we will go back to being comfortable and lazy and not going out into the world to seize the new opportunities (continued page 94)...
And once you do a sensible thing once, there will be more pressure to do another sensible thing, then another, and before you know it we'll be in some arrangement indistinguishable from EEA.
I am so glad I am leaving the country before HMRC can fleece me with an NI rise.
Workers are already too highly taxed, as far as I am concerned, and the Tory Party couldn’t give a toss. Alongside the corporation tax hike, the plan is to pay for the oldies’s comfortable retirement (and nostalgic fantasies) by crushing the real economy.
I suspect I am reaching my last months - ever - as a PAYE taxpayer in this country. It’s just not worth it.
As others have said, Labour could actually surprise us all by offering a tax CUT to workers.
Guardian: The UK government’s vast security operation to manage the immediate aftermath of the death of the Queen include official social media blackouts and a ban on retweets.
These plans, codenamed Operation London Bridge, which were first revealed in a Guardian Long Read in 2017 and have now been seen in full by Politico, detail the scale of the arrangements for the funeral and government anxieties about whether the UK has the resources to execute them.
The social media strategy plays a prominent role, including plans to change the royal family’s website to a black holding page with a short statement confirming the Queen’s death, while the gov.uk website and all governmental social media pages will display a black banner. Non-urgent content will not be published and retweets will be banned unless cleared by the government’s head of communications.
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.
I found Keef's book insufferably boring. Insufferable because it promised so much, the man was there for everything and he has a brilliantly salty sense of humour. And yet, meh. A big fat meh. Did not finish
Which means we will never get the great Stones memoir because Watts is now dead (RIP) and Mick Can't Remember
A much better memoir about the 60s is White Bicycles by Joe Boyd. He's a great producer - Fairport to Nick Drake to Floyd. He's able to give a much better perspective because he was there (and he had LOTS of fun) but he did not get entirely zonked because he had to twiddle the knobs in the studio, and he is very observant
And of course "ME" by Elton John, which I may have mentioned. Superb
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.
Fear of the "lunar pull" of Europe, as the PM has put it.
Basically, if we agree any accommodation with Europe which makes our lives easier, we will go back to being comfortable and lazy and not going out into the world to seize the new opportunities (continued page 94)...
And once you do a sensible thing once, there will be more pressure to do another sensible thing, then another, and before you know it we'll be in some arrangement indistinguishable from EEA.
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.
Fear of the "lunar pull" of Europe, as the PM has put it.
Basically, if we agree any accommodation with Europe which makes our lives easier, we will go back to being comfortable and lazy and not going out into the world to seize the new opportunities (continued page 94)...
And once you do a sensible thing once, there will be more pressure to do another sensible thing, then another, and before you know it we'll be in some arrangement indistinguishable from EEA.
The whole concept is protect the value of pensions?
Starting with double lock, 2.5% or inflation which ever is the higher. But becomes triple adding average earnings to the equation and whichever the higher?
Example 2% inflation 8% average earnings, pensions up 8%?
So the question, if it doesn’t rise as much as average earnings, how does that significantly erode the value of pensions?
Because it seems to me pensions paid by what national government can afford, and National government doesn’t have control over average earnings so is ceding control of delivering a promise. If you are giving the 8% because politically it’s sensible, but to pay for it axing the pensioners weekly outings to the community centre, it’s not really about caring about quality of life is it?
Starting with double lock, 2.5% or inflation which ever is the higher. But becomes triple adding average earnings to the equation and whichever the higher?
Example 2% inflation 8% average earnings, pensions up 8%?
So the question, if it doesn’t rise as much as average earnings, how will that significantly erode the value of pensions if still locked into greater than inflation increase 🤔
I am so glad I am leaving the country before HMRC can fleece me with an NI rise.
Workers Employees are already too highly taxed, as far as I am concerned, and the Tory Party couldn’t give a toss. Alongside the corporation tax hike, the plan is to pay for the oldies’s comfortable retirement (and nostalgic fantasies) by crushing the real economy.
I suspect I am reaching my last months - ever - as a PAYE taxpayer in this country. It’s just not worth it.
As others have said, Labour could actually surprise us all by offering a tax CUT to workers.
But they won’t.
Fixed that for you.
In all seriousness, it’s odd how things like this come about. I think the social care crisis is overstated. It may be a problem, but it’s not something that seems to be a pressing concern to people. I guess it might be that people are just ignorant of the facts, but accept it when the house is sold to fund the care.
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.
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.
Where on earth do you get that from?
The latest REACT-1 study.
Educate yourself before holding forth.
So are the numbers I've just quoted wrong? If so how?
I've just looked at the REACT-1 study, it shows a graph of hospitalisation against Covid swab positivity. (fig 5). Unfortunately there is no swab posivity data supplied for December 2020, and they are also using log scales which makes visually comparing two variables like this considerably more difficult.
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.
Where on earth do you get that from?
The latest REACT-1 study.
Educate yourself before holding forth.
Chris - I’ve not seen the react1 data you refer to, but the simple case data and hospitalisation data on the main U.K. government website suggests a lower ratio of hospitalisation to cases now than back then. If that’s not the case then why not? Are we finding a higher proportion of cases now?
Am surprised Labour was ahead amongst non-retirees. All is not lost then. Far from it.
Don't get too excited. Taking into account both pure demographics and propensity to turn out and vote, one third of the entire electorate is over 65 (i.e. are well-bribed stickbangers or about to become them) and an entire half is over 55 and therefore only has a short time left to wait. If you are talking about getting the old to pay more tax or to pay for their dementia care then it's all that lot you've got to contend with, plus a very large number of heirs to the wealthier ones to boot. There are an awful lot of middle-aged people staggering under the burden of millstone mortgages and demanding kids who expect, and very often need, their parents' inheritances passing on intact.
In fact, if I recall correctly, the crossover point at which more people voted Tory than Labour at the last election was somewhere in the late 30s. Between that and its (self-inflicted) Scottish calamity, Labour has enormous structural problems to overcome. There's little sign that it is in any position to do so.
Beyond that, as I said this morning, in terms of pure political expediency the Government should respond to the social care crisis by nationalising the entire cost and presenting the bill to working age taxpayers. It would be wretchedly unfair but we live in a gerontocracy now, and besides there's little point in courting the youth vote, who would mostly turn out for left-wing parties regardless. The old would be thrilled, the better-off middle-aged would grumble but look forward to receiving their fat legacies, and between them that support might be sufficient to usher in a Tory Supremacy that lasts for decades.
Labour’s Scottish calamity was hardly “self-inflicted”: the Tories totally screwed both SLab and SLD by luring them into the BetterTogether project. Miliband and Clegg in London weren’t exactly much help either. The poor buggers just didn’t realise what a momentous mistake they were making.
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.
I found Keef's book insufferably boring. Insufferable because it promised so much, the man was there for everything and he has a brilliantly salty sense of humour. And yet, meh. A big fat meh. Did not finish
Which means we will never get the great Stones memoir because Watts is now dead (RIP) and Mick Can't Remember
A much better memoir about the 60s is White Bicycles by Joe Boyd. He's a great producer - Fairport to Nick Drake to Floyd. He's able to give a much better perspective because he was there (and he had LOTS of fun) but he did not get entirely zonked because he had to twiddle the knobs in the studio, and he is very observant
And of course "ME" by Elton John, which I may have mentioned. Superb
Does Boyd have a portrait in his attic? Every time I see him on some rock documentary there is no way he looks old enough to have "been there".
I am so glad I am leaving the country before HMRC can fleece me with an NI rise.
Workers are already too highly taxed, as far as I am concerned, and the Tory Party couldn’t give a toss. Alongside the corporation tax hike, the plan is to pay for the oldies’s comfortable retirement (and nostalgic fantasies) by crushing the real economy.
I suspect I am reaching my last months - ever - as a PAYE taxpayer in this country. It’s just not worth it.
As others have said, Labour could actually surprise us all by offering a tax CUT to workers.
Hah. I had a hotel in Vegas about 3 years ago which had condoms in the minibar.... plus lube, plus soft-play handcuffs. Possibly a butt plug by the hair dryer or maybe it was a shoe horn
Is the food in Lucerne any good? Swiss food can be hugely variable, in my experience. Tho their top class hotels are some of the best in the world
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.
Of course, positive tests ("cases" as they are described in the official figures) aren't the same as infections. What I'm referring to is the positivity rate in random testing.
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.
I found Keef's book insufferably boring. Insufferable because it promised so much, the man was there for everything and he has a brilliantly salty sense of humour. And yet, meh. A big fat meh. Did not finish
Which means we will never get the great Stones memoir because Watts is now dead (RIP) and Mick Can't Remember
A much better memoir about the 60s is White Bicycles by Joe Boyd. He's a great producer - Fairport to Nick Drake to Floyd. He's able to give a much better perspective because he was there (and he had LOTS of fun) but he did not get entirely zonked because he had to twiddle the knobs in the studio, and he is very observant
And of course "ME" by Elton John, which I may have mentioned. Superb
Does Boyd have a portrait in his attic? Every time I see him on some rock documentary there is no way he looks old enough to have "been there".
I actually met him last summer at a "Korean music party" in Westminster - sponsored by the Korean govt Yes, he does look rather young for his years. Extremely well-dyed hair helps. ie not the Paul McCartney absurdly-dyed-hair look, just a few hints of grey
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.
Where on earth do you get that from?
The latest REACT-1 study.
Educate yourself before holding forth.
Chris - I’ve not seen the react1 data you refer to, but the simple case data and hospitalisation data on the main U.K. government website suggests a lower ratio of hospitalisation to cases now than back then. If that’s not the case then why not? Are we finding a higher proportion of cases now?
I am so glad I am leaving the country before HMRC can fleece me with an NI rise.
Workers are already too highly taxed, as far as I am concerned, and the Tory Party couldn’t give a toss. Alongside the corporation tax hike, the plan is to pay for the oldies’s comfortable retirement (and nostalgic fantasies) by crushing the real economy.
I suspect I am reaching my last months - ever - as a PAYE taxpayer in this country. It’s just not worth it.
As others have said, Labour could actually surprise us all by offering a tax CUT to workers.
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.
A big issue is that the conspiracy theorists (I use that term factually rather than derogatively) conflate two hypotheses. One that a lab in Wuhan leaked an existing virus into the city; two that the lab synthetically created the virus and then leaked it. Those are two very different assertions with different probabilities of being true. Just because the virus supposedly leaked from a lab doesn't mean that it was created synthetically, but it is viewed that way.
Like you I struggle to be convinced that a lab was working in total secrecy over a long period developing this new disease and then at the point when they got there, they leaked it into the environment, presumably accidentally.
Accidental leaking of a natural virus of concern that was already under investigation IMO is plausible, but no more than plausible. While we don't know the origin of the virus (situation normal however), we do know the epidemic started in Wuhan. So the virus might have stayed contained if that supposed leak hadn't happened.
There is the coincidence of research into these kinds of viruses taking place in the same city as where the epidemic started. The coincidence may not be that compelling when you bear in mind that Wuhan is a bigger city than London. The other circumstantial evidence is the lack of co-operation from Chinese authorities and scientists. But maybe not surprising, Those authorities tend to lack of transparency and people like Trump who made the allegations weren't always doing so in good faith.
Hah. I had a hotel in Vegas about 3 years ago which had condoms in the minibar.... plus lube, plus soft-play handcuffs. Possibly a butt plug by the hair dryer or maybe it was a shoe horn
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.
Did you talk to any one the ones in your age group who died of it?
Unfortunately I didn't know any of the 268 in my age group who died during the whole pandemic. I didn't know any of the 46 under 20s who have died either. (all England and Wales numbers, current to mid August).
Vaccination is almost certainly benifical to my age group. I've had one Covid jab, I will probably have my second (although I hesitate a little there, as having just had Covid I'm not sure it will achieve much, and the side effects risks are going to be quite high).
I'm not particularly convinced that mass vaccination of school kids is beneficial, and I can certainly see why the JCVI might not think this. I think there is a danger that we get a bit "vaccine happy" - we see vaccination as a good itself, rather than merely a tool which in many circumstances reduces the effect of disease. It's similar to the "booster shots now" logic. It's possible that boosters might be necessary or valuable. It's also possible that they aren't, and again we need to acknowledge that they are not cost free in terms of side effects, even if we're mostly only talking about people feeling rough for a day or two. It would be better to have more data on what (if anything) a booster campaign might achieve than to jump into one right now and potentially discover its actually achieved nothing.
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.
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.
Where on earth do you get that from?
The latest REACT-1 study.
Educate yourself before holding forth.
So are the numbers I've just quoted wrong? If so how?
I've just looked at the REACT-1 study, it shows a graph of hospitalisation against Covid swab positivity. (fig 5). Unfortunately there is no swab posivity data supplied for December 2020, and they are also using log scales which makes visually comparing two variables like this considerably more difficult.
The numbers you quoted are for positive tests, which are only a fraction of infections.
I can't believe anyone could look at that plot and think it showed the hospitalisation rate per infection now was significantly less than it has been throughout the pandemic. It was so for March to June this year, before Delta with its higher hospitalisation rate became dominant.
Hah. I had a hotel in Vegas about 3 years ago which had condoms in the minibar.... plus lube, plus soft-play handcuffs. Possibly a butt plug by the hair dryer or maybe it was a shoe horn
Professional research, then?
It's dark and lonely work but someone has to do it
I just thought I'd show PB-ers where the Flint Knappers Gazette is sending me this Sunday to stay
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.
Did you talk to any one the ones in your age group who died of it?
Unfortunately I didn't know any of the 268 in my age group who died during the whole pandemic. I didn't know any of the 46 under 20s who have died either. (all England and Wales numbers, current to mid August).
Vaccination is almost certainly benifical to my age group. I've had one Covid jab, I will probably have my second (although I hesitate a little there, as having just had Covid I'm not sure it will achieve much, and the side effects risks are going to be quite high).
I'm not particularly convinced that mass vaccination of school kids is beneficial, and I can certainly see why the JCVI might not think this. I think there is a danger that we get a bit "vaccine happy" - we see vaccination as a good itself, rather than merely a tool which in many circumstances reduces the effect of disease. It's similar to the "booster shots now" logic. It's possible that boosters might be necessary or valuable. It's also possible that they aren't, and again we need to acknowledge that they are not cost free in terms of side effects, even if we're mostly only talking about people feeling rough for a day or two. It would be better to have more data on what (if anything) a booster campaign might achieve than to jump into one right now and potentially discover its actually achieved nothing.
Obviously the question is whether "beneficial" is judged on a very narrow individual basis, or whether the effects of transmission to other groups is taken into account.
You surely understand that's the issue, though no one would guess it from what you've just written!
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.
Did you talk to any one the ones in your age group who died of it?
Unfortunately I didn't know any of the 268 in my age group who died during the whole pandemic. I didn't know any of the 46 under 20s who have died either. (all England and Wales numbers, current to mid August).
Vaccination is almost certainly benifical to my age group. I've had one Covid jab, I will probably have my second (although I hesitate a little there, as having just had Covid I'm not sure it will achieve much, and the side effects risks are going to be quite high).
I'm not particularly convinced that mass vaccination of school kids is beneficial, and I can certainly see why the JCVI might not think this. I think there is a danger that we get a bit "vaccine happy" - we see vaccination as a good itself, rather than merely a tool which in many circumstances reduces the effect of disease. It's similar to the "booster shots now" logic. It's possible that boosters might be necessary or valuable. It's also possible that they aren't, and again we need to acknowledge that they are not cost free in terms of side effects, even if we're mostly only talking about people feeling rough for a day or two. It would be better to have more data on what (if anything) a booster campaign might achieve than to jump into one right now and potentially discover its actually achieved nothing.
If it actually achieved nothing we know for next time (since other countries won't be doing it) but we just made people feel rough for a few days. Oh well.
If it would have actually achieved something, but we don't bother, then the NHS collapses, schools get shut down, we get locked down again and tens of thousands die.
Its like saying "I don't think I'll get home insurance as I'm not sure my house is going to burn down. I think I'll wait to see if it burns down or not and then get home insurance."
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.
Did you talk to any one the ones in your age group who died of it?
Unfortunately I didn't know any of the 268 in my age group who died during the whole pandemic. I didn't know any of the 46 under 20s who have died either. (all England and Wales numbers, current to mid August).
Vaccination is almost certainly benifical to my age group. I've had one Covid jab, I will probably have my second (although I hesitate a little there, as having just had Covid I'm not sure it will achieve much, and the side effects risks are going to be quite high).
I'm not particularly convinced that mass vaccination of school kids is beneficial, and I can certainly see why the JCVI might not think this. I think there is a danger that we get a bit "vaccine happy" - we see vaccination as a good itself, rather than merely a tool which in many circumstances reduces the effect of disease. It's similar to the "booster shots now" logic. It's possible that boosters might be necessary or valuable. It's also possible that they aren't, and again we need to acknowledge that they are not cost free in terms of side effects, even if we're mostly only talking about people feeling rough for a day or two. It would be better to have more data on what (if anything) a booster campaign might achieve than to jump into one right now and potentially discover its actually achieved nothing.
Obviously the question is whether "beneficial" is judged on a very narrow individual basis, or whether the effects of transmission to other groups is taken into account.
You surely understand that's the issue, though no one would guess it from what you've just written!
Even on the narrow individual basis the JCVI still found the benefits outweighed the risks in their report. Just then they still said they weren't recommending it despite that. 🤦♂️
Vaguely on topic, it's the classic conundrum for any Party - screw your own supporters or screw everyone else. That should for some on here be a no-brainer but the truth is sometimes Governments have to do things which test the loyalty of their supporters.
The problem is building a voting coalition on whom you are so reliant it becomes impossible to govern effectively in the interests of the whole country is the very definition of a house built on sand.
If that coalition is so fragile it falls apart at the first sign of anything negative it's not worth having at all. Those who voted for Johnson, Brexit and the Conservatives in 2019 may have thought they were electing a Government who would never say or do anything to offend them morally or politically or adversely affect them financially but that's not how Government should work.
I know some will disagree but I have this curious old-fashioned notion Governments are elected to govern in the interests of all not just those who voted for 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.
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.
Philibet the Libertarian stipulates in great detail what other people's duties are, pt. 94.
Guardian: The UK government’s vast security operation to manage the immediate aftermath of the death of the Queen include official social media blackouts and a ban on retweets.
These plans, codenamed Operation London Bridge, which were first revealed in a Guardian Long Read in 2017 and have now been seen in full by Politico, detail the scale of the arrangements for the funeral and government anxieties about whether the UK has the resources to execute them.
The social media strategy plays a prominent role, including plans to change the royal family’s website to a black holding page with a short statement confirming the Queen’s death, while the gov.uk website and all governmental social media pages will display a black banner. Non-urgent content will not be published and retweets will be banned unless cleared by the government’s head of communications.
The Queen will keep going a while yet. She has a live prospect for next year's Derby, Reach for the Moon.
Talking of Germanic food, the Flint Knapper's Gazette have asked me to write about Switzerland and I am off to Lucerne (and then Ticino) next week
Has anyone been to Lucerne? Is it nice? What can I expect? Efficient trains but somewhat stodgy food? What fun things can I do?
I know Ticino and I already know it is very lovely but extremely pricey....
It has these two mediaeval covered bridges with paintings which you use to cross the river and I was thinking, surely they can't do that, it has to be blocked off and protected. And then about twenty years ago someone drove a boat into one of the bridges and set it on fire. Now rebuilt.
I quite like Moevenpick. It's a chain though.
Main thing about Luzern is that it's an excellent centre. You probably won't spend much time in town
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.
Philibet the Libertarian stipulates in great detail what other people's duties are, pt. 94.
There's nothing stopping Libertarians from having opinions. There is an issue with using the law to compel people to do things your way.
Your childishness with this "Philibet" nonsense and an objection to my daring to have an opinion on subjects just makes you look silly.
Tonight's look at the election polling begins as ever with Germany and the afternoon's YouGov poll:
Changes since 2017:
Social Democrats: 25% (+4) Union CDU/CSU: 20% (-13) Greens: 15% (+6) Free Democrats: 13% (+2) Alternative for Germany: 12% (-1) Linke: 8% (-1) Others 7% (+3)
Another devastating poll for Laschet and the Union but signs the Greens are starting to fall back as the SPD bandwagon starts to gather pace. This was confirmed by the earlier Forschunggruppe poll which had the SPD up three and the Greens down three.
YouGov is a better poll for Linke which seems to be edging away from the 5% threshold.
For @MaxPB and others, let me make my position clear:-
I think that the taxes that will have to be levied must be shared by all, including pensioners. So if you work you pay increased tax and NI. I also think there will have to be some form of wealth tax, possibly also capital gains tax on houses, including first homes.
I really despise the way @MaxPB attacks those who are older (as he did on me on the previous thread) without knowing what sacrifices they have made nor what they are doing for the young. I paid for my mother's care. I did not inherit any home. My parents rented. And I am working to support my children.
If he had bothered to read my posts carefully he would have realised that I do not approve of only raising tax by raising NI precisely because it only falls on one group. Everyone will have to pay more tax. Everyone. And while I will no doubt grumble I will pay. Not least because - as I have said repeatedly over the last year and a half - we owe it to the younger generation to do something for them because they have lost so much in the last few years.
For him to say - as he did on the previous thread (though perhaps I have misunderstood - and, if so, apologies - that there should be no more taxes on working people is absurd and unrealistic. We simply cannot afford to exempt any group from the obligation to contribute to our country and public services.
Oh - and by the way - I did not vote for the government which people like @MaxPB support and which has done a lot of damage to good governance in this country. So he and people like him - before ranting at selfish others (in his view) - might do well to look in the mirror first.
Hah. I had a hotel in Vegas about 3 years ago which had condoms in the minibar.... plus lube, plus soft-play handcuffs. Possibly a butt plug by the hair dryer or maybe it was a shoe horn
Presumably the budget from the Flint Knappers Gazette a bit lower than usual. Plenty of decent hotels in Vegas and of course superb dining though the latter not always located within the former.
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.
A big issue is that the conspiracy theorists (I use that term factually rather than derogatively) conflate two hypotheses. One that a lab in Wuhan leaked an existing virus into the city; two that the lab synthetically created the virus and then leaked it. Those are two very different assertions with different probabilities of being true. Just because the virus supposedly leaked from a lab doesn't mean that it was created synthetically, but it is viewed that way.
Like you I struggle to be convinced that a lab was working in total secrecy over a long period developing this new disease and then at the point when they got there, they leaked it into the environment, presumably accidentally.
Accidental leaking of a natural virus of concern that was already under investigation IMO is plausible, but no more than plausible. While we don't know the origin of the virus (situation normal however), we do know the epidemic started in Wuhan. So the virus might have stayed contained if that supposed leak hadn't happened.
There is the coincidence of research into these kinds of viruses taking place in the same city as where the epidemic started. The coincidence may not be that compelling when you bear in mind that Wuhan is a bigger city than London. The other circumstantial evidence is the lack of co-operation from Chinese authorities and scientists. But maybe not surprising, Those authorities tend to lack of transparency and people like Trump who made the allegations weren't always doing so in good faith.
You don't know much about this stuff, do you? "Synthetically created" is nonsense. Google "gain of function research" and ponder this: wtf would the point be of a lab which just sat there containing viruses and didn't do anything to alter them in any way? Would it even count as a lab rather than a sort of virus zoo?
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.
Exactly the same here with our parents.
Mrs P and I however are determined to spend all our savings and not leave a penny (a tricky goal to achieve while owning a house mind).
Ideally, we'll be doing that by spending it on nice experiences and comfortable living but if it proves necessary we will spend it on the best care we can afford in our dotage.
I apologise in advance to all our lovely nieces and nephews.
Admirable how the fear of potential ridicule is simply not going to deter them in this crusade.
Agree, this is getting silly. Non custodial stuff done when teenagers should be forgotten after a couple of years, let alone social media posts.
I just cannot see the point. It doesn't show you are tough on such things to go after someone for something from so long ago, it just looks absurd unless it can be linked to a more recent event or pattern of behaviour, and unless that is the case the person won't learn anything by being charged because they've already moved on.
So if it is not being tough in any effective way, and the person involved learns nothing by charge or punishment, who gains from it?
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.
A big issue is that the conspiracy theorists (I use that term factually rather than derogatively) conflate two hypotheses. One that a lab in Wuhan leaked an existing virus into the city; two that the lab synthetically created the virus and then leaked it. Those are two very different assertions with different probabilities of being true. Just because the virus supposedly leaked from a lab doesn't mean that it was created synthetically, but it is viewed that way.
Like you I struggle to be convinced that a lab was working in total secrecy over a long period developing this new disease and then at the point when they got there, they leaked it into the environment, presumably accidentally.
Accidental leaking of a natural virus of concern that was already under investigation IMO is plausible, but no more than plausible. While we don't know the origin of the virus (situation normal however), we do know the epidemic started in Wuhan. So the virus might have stayed contained if that supposed leak hadn't happened.
There is the coincidence of research into these kinds of viruses taking place in the same city as where the epidemic started. The coincidence may not be that compelling when you bear in mind that Wuhan is a bigger city than London. The other circumstantial evidence is the lack of co-operation from Chinese authorities and scientists. But maybe not surprising, Those authorities tend to lack of transparency and people like Trump who made the allegations weren't always doing so in good faith.
You don't know much about this stuff, do you? "Synthetically created" is nonsense. Google "gain of function research" and ponder this: wtf would the point be of a lab which just sat there containing viruses and didn't do anything to alter them in any way? Would it even count as a lab rather than a sort of virus zoo?
I suspect I know as much about this stuff as you do.
Tonight's look at the election polling begins as ever with Germany and the afternoon's YouGov poll:
Changes since 2017:
Social Democrats: 25% (+4) Union CDU/CSU: 20% (-13) Greens: 15% (+6) Free Democrats: 13% (+2) Alternative for Germany: 12% (-1) Linke: 8% (-1) Others 7% (+3)
Another devastating poll for Laschet and the Union but signs the Greens are starting to fall back as the SPD bandwagon starts to gather pace. This was confirmed by the earlier Forschunggruppe poll which had the SPD up three and the Greens down three.
YouGov is a better poll for Linke which seems to be edging away from the 5% threshold.
It shouldn't really be a surprise that a party in control for so long should find itself doing poorly once the totemic leader is gone, but the suddenness of it still shocks.
For @MaxPB and others, let me make my position clear:-
I think that the taxes that will have to be levied must be shared by all, including pensioners. So if you work you pay increased tax and NI. I also think there will have to be some form of wealth tax, possibly also capital gains tax on houses, including first homes.
I really despise the way @MaxPB attacks those who are older (as he did on me on the previous thread) without knowing what sacrifices they have made nor what they are doing for the young. I paid for my mother's care. I did not inherit any home. My parents rented. And I am working to support my children.
If he had bothered to read my posts carefully he would have realised that I do not approve of only raising tax by raising NI precisely because it only falls on one group. Everyone will have to pay more tax. Everyone. And while I will no doubt grumble I will pay. Not least because we owe it to the younger generation to do something for them because they have lost so much in the last few years.
For him to say - as he did on the previous thread (though perhaps I have misunderstood - and, if so, apologies - that there should be no more taxes on working people is absurd and unrealistic. We simply cannot afford to exempt any group from the obligation to contribute to our country and public services.
The government are proposing to exempt one group, pensioners, from their share of tax rises. A few posters on a website say another poorer group, workers, should be exempt from the tax rises.
You appear to be more concerned and critical about the views of a handful of posters rather than the stated intentions of the government. It should be the other way around.
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.
Exactly the same here with our parents.
Mrs P and I however are determined to spend all our savings and not leave a penny (a tricky goal to achieve while owning a house mind).
Ideally, we'll be doing that by spending it on nice experiences and comfortable living but if it proves necessary we will spend it on the best care we can afford in our dotage.
I apologise in advance to all our lovely nieces and nephews.
They'll get over it, I am sure.
My surviving parent owes me money, so on the one hand there's no awkwardness around expected inheritances and the like, but I know they fret about that, feels a failure over it which is sad.
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.
A big issue is that the conspiracy theorists (I use that term factually rather than derogatively) conflate two hypotheses. One that a lab in Wuhan leaked an existing virus into the city; two that the lab synthetically created the virus and then leaked it. Those are two very different assertions with different probabilities of being true. Just because the virus supposedly leaked from a lab doesn't mean that it was created synthetically, but it is viewed that way.
Like you I struggle to be convinced that a lab was working in total secrecy over a long period developing this new disease and then at the point when they got there, they leaked it into the environment, presumably accidentally.
Accidental leaking of a natural virus of concern that was already under investigation IMO is plausible, but no more than plausible. While we don't know the origin of the virus (situation normal however), we do know the epidemic started in Wuhan. So the virus might have stayed contained if that supposed leak hadn't happened.
There is the coincidence of research into these kinds of viruses taking place in the same city as where the epidemic started. The coincidence may not be that compelling when you bear in mind that Wuhan is a bigger city than London. The other circumstantial evidence is the lack of co-operation from Chinese authorities and scientists. But maybe not surprising, Those authorities tend to lack of transparency and people like Trump who made the allegations weren't always doing so in good faith.
You don't know much about this stuff, do you? "Synthetically created" is nonsense. Google "gain of function research" and ponder this: wtf would the point be of a lab which just sat there containing viruses and didn't do anything to alter them in any way? Would it even count as a lab rather than a sort of virus zoo?
Yes, the WHOLE POINT of the Wuhan lab was to do "gain of function research" on viruses - or something so close as to be semantically indistinguishable; unless of course you are Anthony Fauci, and you are worried that you have circumvented a ban on GoF research by the Obama admin by simply recategorizing the same research
Here is Peter Daszak explicitly saying all this in 2016. And in a video
"While describing how his organization sequences deadly viruses, Daszak describes the process of “insert[ing] spike proteins” into viruses to see if they can “bind to human cells” as being carried out by his “colleagues in China”:
"“Then when you get a sequence of a virus, and it looks like a relative of a known nasty pathogen, just like we did with SARS. We found other coronaviruses in bats, a whole host of them, some of them looked very similar to SARS. So we sequenced the spike protein: the protein that attaches to cells. Then we… Well I didn’t do this work, but my colleagues in China did the work. You create pseudo particles, you insert the spike proteins from those viruses, see if they bind to human cells. At each step of this you move closer and closer to this virus could really become pathogenic in people.
"“You end up with a small number of viruses that really do look like killers,” he adds."
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.
A big issue is that the conspiracy theorists (I use that term factually rather than derogatively) conflate two hypotheses. One that a lab in Wuhan leaked an existing virus into the city; two that the lab synthetically created the virus and then leaked it. Those are two very different assertions with different probabilities of being true. Just because the virus supposedly leaked from a lab doesn't mean that it was created synthetically, but it is viewed that way.
Like you I struggle to be convinced that a lab was working in total secrecy over a long period developing this new disease and then at the point when they got there, they leaked it into the environment, presumably accidentally.
Accidental leaking of a natural virus of concern that was already under investigation IMO is plausible, but no more than plausible. While we don't know the origin of the virus (situation normal however), we do know the epidemic started in Wuhan. So the virus might have stayed contained if that supposed leak hadn't happened.
There is the coincidence of research into these kinds of viruses taking place in the same city as where the epidemic started. The coincidence may not be that compelling when you bear in mind that Wuhan is a bigger city than London. The other circumstantial evidence is the lack of co-operation from Chinese authorities and scientists. But maybe not surprising, Those authorities tend to lack of transparency and people like Trump who made the allegations weren't always doing so in good faith.
You don't know much about this stuff, do you? "Synthetically created" is nonsense. Google "gain of function research" and ponder this: wtf would the point be of a lab which just sat there containing viruses and didn't do anything to alter them in any way? Would it even count as a lab rather than a sort of virus zoo?
I suspect I know as much about this stuff as you do.
That is because you are profoundly stupid (no offence). Synthetically created viruses, FFS.
Admirable how the fear of potential ridicule is simply not going to deter them in this crusade.
Agree, this is getting silly. Non custodial stuff done when teenagers should be forgotten after a couple of years, let alone social media posts.
I just cannot see the point. It doesn't show you are tough on such things to go after someone for something from so long ago, it just looks absurd unless it can be linked to a more recent event or pattern of behaviour, and unless that is the case the person won't learn anything by being charged because they've already moved on.
So if it is not being tough in any effective way, and the person involved learns nothing by charge or punishment, who gains from it?
This one really is a case of political correctness gone mad. That doesn't mean all political correctness is mad, or that this is a threat to the western way of life, neither are true. It is just unnecessary silliness that should be stopped.
For @MaxPB and others, let me make my position clear:-
I think that the taxes that will have to be levied must be shared by all, including pensioners. So if you work you pay increased tax and NI. I also think there will have to be some form of wealth tax, possibly also capital gains tax on houses, including first homes.
I really despise the way @MaxPB attacks those who are older (as he did on me on the previous thread) without knowing what sacrifices they have made nor what they are doing for the young. I paid for my mother's care. I did not inherit any home. My parents rented. And I am working to support my children.
If he had bothered to read my posts carefully he would have realised that I do not approve of only raising tax by raising NI precisely because it only falls on one group. Everyone will have to pay more tax. Everyone. And while I will no doubt grumble I will pay. Not least because we owe it to the younger generation to do something for them because they have lost so much in the last few years.
For him to say - as he did on the previous thread (though perhaps I have misunderstood - and, if so, apologies - that there should be no more taxes on working people is absurd and unrealistic. We simply cannot afford to exempt any group from the obligation to contribute to our country and public services.
The government are proposing to exempt one group, pensioners, from their share of tax rises. A few posters on a website say another poorer group, workers, should be exempt from the tax rises.
You appear to be more concerned and critical about the views of a handful of posters rather than the stated intentions of the government. It should be the other way around.
Well said.
Max is quite rightly frustrated, I am too.
I can't speak for Max, but while I'd oppose generic increases in tax if they did apply to everyone (workers and pensioners alike) it'd at least be equitable.
But to have a tax that is exclusively on workers? Screw that. Its a terrible suggestion.
For @MaxPB and others, let me make my position clear:-
I think that the taxes that will have to be levied must be shared by all, including pensioners. So if you work you pay increased tax and NI. I also think there will have to be some form of wealth tax, possibly also capital gains tax on houses, including first homes.
I really despise the way @MaxPB attacks those who are older (as he did on me on the previous thread) without knowing what sacrifices they have made nor what they are doing for the young. I paid for my mother's care. I did not inherit any home. My parents rented. And I am working to support my children.
If he had bothered to read my posts carefully he would have realised that I do not approve of only raising tax by raising NI precisely because it only falls on one group. Everyone will have to pay more tax. Everyone. And while I will no doubt grumble I will pay. Not least because we owe it to the younger generation to do something for them because they have lost so much in the last few years.
For him to say - as he did on the previous thread (though perhaps I have misunderstood - and, if so, apologies - that there should be no more taxes on working people is absurd and unrealistic. We simply cannot afford to exempt any group from the obligation to contribute to our country and public services.
Max is a bit more, er, passionate about the matter than myself, and might be regarded as going too far on the exemption point, but I don't think that the crux of anger that led to the responses was itself unreasonable.
And it may be unfair to some degree, but as a younger person being told about the unknown sacrifices of many older people, well, it hardly ameliorates a sense of unfairness when government, for some while, often seems intent on prioritising those people. It just seems an extension of the 'worked hard all their lives so X is unfair' arguments, which are themselves unfair because it can justify anything and the young can have no counter.
It's sad things can devolve into what seems angry generational arguments. But it seems inevitable as the sides appear to be talking right past each other and taking solace in getting offended at their own interpretation of unfairness.
For my own part whilst I strive to be reasonable, it is a subject where I will confess my levels of empathy for the retiree vote as the header terms it, is not all it could be.
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.
Did you talk to any one the ones in your age group who died of it?
Unfortunately I didn't know any of the 268 in my age group who died during the whole pandemic. I didn't know any of the 46 under 20s who have died either. (all England and Wales numbers, current to mid August).
Vaccination is almost certainly benifical to my age group. I've had one Covid jab, I will probably have my second (although I hesitate a little there, as having just had Covid I'm not sure it will achieve much, and the side effects risks are going to be quite high).
I'm not particularly convinced that mass vaccination of school kids is beneficial, and I can certainly see why the JCVI might not think this. I think there is a danger that we get a bit "vaccine happy" - we see vaccination as a good itself, rather than merely a tool which in many circumstances reduces the effect of disease. It's similar to the "booster shots now" logic. It's possible that boosters might be necessary or valuable. It's also possible that they aren't, and again we need to acknowledge that they are not cost free in terms of side effects, even if we're mostly only talking about people feeling rough for a day or two. It would be better to have more data on what (if anything) a booster campaign might achieve than to jump into one right now and potentially discover its actually achieved nothing.
I fully support the vaccination of adults and happily got two doses myself, because the risks are small relative to the benefits. For teenagers the benefits to those getting vaccinated are so small that the risks start to weigh, and I think on balance it's not worth it for them. You can make the argument that they should take on those risks because of the benefits to older people from kids getting vaccinated. But then I ask myself, what have older people done for kids recently to deserve this kind of sacrifice on their part? Absolutely nothing. So no, leave the kids alone.
Admirable how the fear of potential ridicule is simply not going to deter them in this crusade.
Agree, this is getting silly. Non custodial stuff done when teenagers should be forgotten after a couple of years, let alone social media posts.
I just cannot see the point. It doesn't show you are tough on such things to go after someone for something from so long ago, it just looks absurd unless it can be linked to a more recent event or pattern of behaviour, and unless that is the case the person won't learn anything by being charged because they've already moved on.
So if it is not being tough in any effective way, and the person involved learns nothing by charge or punishment, who gains from it?
This one really is a case of political correctness gone mad. That doesn't mean all political correctness is mad, or that this is a threat to the western way of life, neither are true. It is just unnecessary silliness that should be stopped.
It's why those who get hysterical about such matters are a necessary ill, as is dear contrarian, because sometimes these matters really are dumb and destructive.
On the more substantive, a little research tells me Surrey County Council budgeted to spend £372.4 million on Adult Social Care in 2019-20 - that represents more than a third of total expenditure.
A lot of that goes on the provision of care for vulnerable adults including dementia care as well as caring for adults with other disabilities.
I believe local councils also carry out the assessment function - working out packages of care and finding places for elderly people. That's a significant additional cost to the process.
The experience with my late father was it was quite a bureaucratic and invasive process with a lot of financial information requested. I do wonder if half the pain of the process is the process and we need to think about caring for the elderly beyond the assets and the pecuniary aspect and concentrating more on the quality of life and the care provided.
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.
A big issue is that the conspiracy theorists (I use that term factually rather than derogatively) conflate two hypotheses. One that a lab in Wuhan leaked an existing virus into the city; two that the lab synthetically created the virus and then leaked it. Those are two very different assertions with different probabilities of being true. Just because the virus supposedly leaked from a lab doesn't mean that it was created synthetically, but it is viewed that way.
Like you I struggle to be convinced that a lab was working in total secrecy over a long period developing this new disease and then at the point when they got there, they leaked it into the environment, presumably accidentally.
Accidental leaking of a natural virus of concern that was already under investigation IMO is plausible, but no more than plausible. While we don't know the origin of the virus (situation normal however), we do know the epidemic started in Wuhan. So the virus might have stayed contained if that supposed leak hadn't happened.
There is the coincidence of research into these kinds of viruses taking place in the same city as where the epidemic started. The coincidence may not be that compelling when you bear in mind that Wuhan is a bigger city than London. The other circumstantial evidence is the lack of co-operation from Chinese authorities and scientists. But maybe not surprising, Those authorities tend to lack of transparency and people like Trump who made the allegations weren't always doing so in good faith.
You don't know much about this stuff, do you? "Synthetically created" is nonsense. Google "gain of function research" and ponder this: wtf would the point be of a lab which just sat there containing viruses and didn't do anything to alter them in any way? Would it even count as a lab rather than a sort of virus zoo?
I suspect I know as much about this stuff as you do.
Your comment indicates this might not be true.
You too are conflating multiple possibilities
There are many versions of lab leak
1. A bat bit a Wuhan lab worker in Yunnan, infecting him with a natural virus, he took it back to Wuhan 2. A bat bit a Wuhan lab worker in Wuhan, infecting him with a natural virus, he took it to Wuhan wet market 3. A bat virus was altered for Gain of Function, given to humanised mice, the mice accidentally bit the Wuhan lab worker, and so on 4. The altered GoF virus was a in a fridge which accidentally leaked 5. The altered GoF virus was ALSO secretly being developed as a potential bioweapon (we know the CCP is into this shit) and coincidentally it accidentally leaked 6. The altered GoF virus was ALSO secretly being developed as a potential bioweapon and some lunatic deliberately leaked it into Wuhan and the world 7. The Chinese spies did all of the GoF bioweapon stuff deliberately and there was no leak, it was willingly sent out to kill 10m humans and more
And within these various definitions there are sub-definitions, some mad, some highly plausible
I'm not sure what a "synthetically created virus" even means. Does it mean a virus entirely built from scratch?! Literally created?
I am so glad I am leaving the country before HMRC can fleece me with an NI rise.
Workers are already too highly taxed, as far as I am concerned, and the Tory Party couldn’t give a toss. Alongside the corporation tax hike, the plan is to pay for the oldies’s comfortable retirement (and nostalgic fantasies) by crushing the real economy.
I suspect I am reaching my last months - ever - as a PAYE taxpayer in this country. It’s just not worth it.
As others have said, Labour could actually surprise us all by offering a tax CUT to workers.
It shouldn't really be a surprise that a party in control for so long should find itself doing poorly once the totemic leader is gone, but the suddenness of it still shocks.
The irony is, as perhaps we saw here in the 1990s, the opposition party benefitting has a leader who could be regarded as a continuation of the totemic leader.
Scholz has gone strong on being continuity Merkel and it seems thus far to be paying off.
Talking of Germanic food, the Flint Knapper's Gazette have asked me to write about Switzerland and I am off to Lucerne (and then Ticino) next week
Has anyone been to Lucerne? Is it nice? What can I expect? Efficient trains but somewhat stodgy food? What fun things can I do?
I know Ticino and I already know it is very lovely but extremely pricey....
It has these two mediaeval covered bridges with paintings which you use to cross the river and I was thinking, surely they can't do that, it has to be blocked off and protected. And then about twenty years ago someone drove a boat into one of the bridges and set it on fire. Now rebuilt.
I quite like Moevenpick. It's a chain though.
Main thing about Luzern is that it's an excellent centre. You probably won't spend much time in town
Notes from ten years ago:
The train arrives at a new station on the lake. I think there is a modern concert hall there too.
You must see the Dying Lion statue.
The Grand Hotel National is probably not the best hotel in town, but you should stay there anyway. Book directly (by phone) to get the fanciest rooms - they’re not online. See website for their photos.
Take the ferry to the Park Hotel Vitznau (which is extremely expensive but a bit gauche). There is also a “torte-cruise” where old ladies eat coffee and cake on a round trip ferry. Amusing rather than good.
Go up mount pilatus, on the transport. Is it a mountain train or a ski lift? I forget…
Admirable how the fear of potential ridicule is simply not going to deter them in this crusade.
Agree, this is getting silly. Non custodial stuff done when teenagers should be forgotten after a couple of years, let alone social media posts.
I just cannot see the point. It doesn't show you are tough on such things to go after someone for something from so long ago, it just looks absurd unless it can be linked to a more recent event or pattern of behaviour, and unless that is the case the person won't learn anything by being charged because they've already moved on.
So if it is not being tough in any effective way, and the person involved learns nothing by charge or punishment, who gains from it?
It's the action of weak ineffectual people desperately wanting to cover their arses and ensure they personally don't get accused of being soft on anything.
Why does it not surprise me that the adminstrations of sports authorities are populated by such people?
For @MaxPB and others, let me make my position clear:-
I think that the taxes that will have to be levied must be shared by all, including pensioners. So if you work you pay increased tax and NI. I also think there will have to be some form of wealth tax, possibly also capital gains tax on houses, including first homes.
I really despise the way @MaxPB attacks those who are older (as he did on me on the previous thread) without knowing what sacrifices they have made nor what they are doing for the young. I paid for my mother's care. I did not inherit any home. My parents rented. And I am working to support my children.
If he had bothered to read my posts carefully he would have realised that I do not approve of only raising tax by raising NI precisely because it only falls on one group. Everyone will have to pay more tax. Everyone. And while I will no doubt grumble I will pay. Not least because we owe it to the younger generation to do something for them because they have lost so much in the last few years.
For him to say - as he did on the previous thread (though perhaps I have misunderstood - and, if so, apologies - that there should be no more taxes on working people is absurd and unrealistic. We simply cannot afford to exempt any group from the obligation to contribute to our country and public services.
Max is a bit more, er, passionate about the matter than myself, and might be regarded as going too far on the exemption point, but I don't think that the crux of anger that led to the responses was itself unreasonable.
And it may be unfair to some degree, but as a younger person being told about the unknown sacrifices of many older people, well, it hardly ameliorates a sense of unfairness when government, for some while, often seems intent on prioritising those people. It just seems an extension of the 'worked hard all their lives so X is unfair' arguments, which are themselves unfair because it can justify anything and the young can have no counter.
It's sad things can devolve into what seems angry generational arguments. But it seems inevitable as the sides appear to be talking right past each other and taking solace in getting offended at their own interpretation of unfairness.
For my own part whilst I strive to be reasonable, it is a subject where I will confess my levels of empathy for the retiree vote as the header terms it, is not all it could be.
It is curious how they worked hard all their lives as when I started work I distinctly remember the whole office going to the pub at lunchtimes, and as a result doing very little work in the afternoons, especially Fridays.......perhaps it should be worked hard in the mornings.
Tonight's look at the election polling begins as ever with Germany and the afternoon's YouGov poll:
Changes since 2017:
Social Democrats: 25% (+4) Union CDU/CSU: 20% (-13) Greens: 15% (+6) Free Democrats: 13% (+2) Alternative for Germany: 12% (-1) Linke: 8% (-1) Others 7% (+3)
Another devastating poll for Laschet and the Union but signs the Greens are starting to fall back as the SPD bandwagon starts to gather pace. This was confirmed by the earlier Forschunggruppe poll which had the SPD up three and the Greens down three.
YouGov is a better poll for Linke which seems to be edging away from the 5% threshold.
It shouldn't really be a surprise that a party in control for so long should find itself doing poorly once the totemic leader is gone, but the suddenness of it still shocks.
Well indeed. However, it could be viewed that the Germans are preparing to (nearly) re-elect the government. They are just choosing the best continuity leader from among the 2 choices offered.
Vaguely on topic, it's the classic conundrum for any Party - screw your own supporters or screw everyone else. That should for some on here be a no-brainer but the truth is sometimes Governments have to do things which test the loyalty of their supporters.
The problem is building a voting coalition on whom you are so reliant it becomes impossible to govern effectively in the interests of the whole country is the very definition of a house built on sand.
If that coalition is so fragile it falls apart at the first sign of anything negative it's not worth having at all. Those who voted for Johnson, Brexit and the Conservatives in 2019 may have thought they were electing a Government who would never say or do anything to offend them morally or politically or adversely affect them financially but that's not how Government should work.
I know some will disagree but I have this curious old-fashioned notion Governments are elected to govern in the interests of all not just those who voted for them.
And that's the heart of the matter. At some point, the national culture changed for the worse.
OK, it was never a disinterested "do what's in the best interests of the whole nation". There was always an element of "vote for us and we'll see you all right". But historically substantial Prime Ministers (Blair, say) really acted as if doing things his way would make everyone benefit. Even Thatcher, divisive (and in some ways wrong) as she was, believed that what she was doing was the right thing for all. And when presented with think tank reports suggesting (for example) that Liverpool should be left to die, she binned them, even though there were precisely zero votes in it for her.
For some reason, that's not the case right now. It all feels very American; vote for me so I can bring home the pork barrel. (Hi Ben! Hello Rishi!) Or there are 55 of me and 45 of you, so I can trample on your previous rights in any way I can imagine (see Texas and those who defend what's happened there). The will of just over half the people becomes the will of all the people.
And some of it is the fault of politicians exploiting this to gain power. But some of it is down to us as voters. We've become as consumerist about our politics as we have about our shopping. And I'm not sure that running a country works like that.
For @MaxPB and others, let me make my position clear:-
I think that the taxes that will have to be levied must be shared by all, including pensioners. So if you work you pay increased tax and NI. I also think there will have to be some form of wealth tax, possibly also capital gains tax on houses, including first homes.
I really despise the way @MaxPB attacks those who are older (as he did on me on the previous thread) without knowing what sacrifices they have made nor what they are doing for the young. I paid for my mother's care. I did not inherit any home. My parents rented. And I am working to support my children.
If he had bothered to read my posts carefully he would have realised that I do not approve of only raising tax by raising NI precisely because it only falls on one group. Everyone will have to pay more tax. Everyone. And while I will no doubt grumble I will pay. Not least because we owe it to the younger generation to do something for them because they have lost so much in the last few years.
For him to say - as he did on the previous thread (though perhaps I have misunderstood - and, if so, apologies - that there should be no more taxes on working people is absurd and unrealistic. We simply cannot afford to exempt any group from the obligation to contribute to our country and public services.
Max is a bit more, er, passionate about the matter than myself, and might be regarded as going too far on the exemption point, but I don't think that the crux of anger that led to the responses was itself unreasonable.
And it may be unfair to some degree, but as a younger person being told about the unknown sacrifices of many older people, well, it hardly ameliorates a sense of unfairness when government, for some while, often seems intent on prioritising those people. It just seems an extension of the 'worked hard all their lives so X is unfair' arguments, which are themselves unfair because it can justify anything and the young can have no counter.
It's sad things can devolve into what seems angry generational arguments. But it seems inevitable as the sides appear to be talking right past each other and taking solace in getting offended at their own interpretation of unfairness.
For my own part whilst I strive to be reasonable, it is a subject where I will confess my levels of empathy for the retiree vote as the header terms it, is not all it could be.
It is curious how they worked hard all their lives as when I started work I distinctly remember the whole office going to the pub at lunchtimes, and as a result doing very little work in the afternoons, especially Fridays.......perhaps it should be worked hard in the mornings.
I'm sure many did work hard, and sacrificed much. But the blunt fact as I see it is that needs to be weighted against the current needs of society and careful consideration of what is proportionate. And whilst cyclefree is certainly someone who gives careful thought to these matters, as in all matters, I do think there is too much kneejerk reaction from many quarters, with an influence on political policy, to any attempt to suggest that the balance could afford and should shift more one way than another, and that one can reasonably believe that that appeals to previous work and sacrifice will not, should not, always be determiniative.
Vaguely on topic, it's the classic conundrum for any Party - screw your own supporters or screw everyone else. That should for some on here be a no-brainer but the truth is sometimes Governments have to do things which test the loyalty of their supporters.
The problem is building a voting coalition on whom you are so reliant it becomes impossible to govern effectively in the interests of the whole country is the very definition of a house built on sand.
If that coalition is so fragile it falls apart at the first sign of anything negative it's not worth having at all. Those who voted for Johnson, Brexit and the Conservatives in 2019 may have thought they were electing a Government who would never say or do anything to offend them morally or politically or adversely affect them financially but that's not how Government should work.
I know some will disagree but I have this curious old-fashioned notion Governments are elected to govern in the interests of all not just those who voted for them.
And that's the heart of the matter. At some point, the national culture changed for the worse.
OK, it was never a disinterested "do what's in the best interests of the whole nation". There was always an element of "vote for us and we'll see you all right". But historically substantial Prime Ministers (Blair, say) really acted as if doing things his way would make everyone benefit. Even Thatcher, divisive (and in some ways wrong) as she was, believed that what she was doing was the right thing for all. And when presented with think tank reports suggesting (for example) that Liverpool should be left to die, she binned them, even though there were precisely zero votes in it for her.
For some reason, that's not the case right now. It all feels very American; vote for me so I can bring home the pork barrel. (Hi Ben! Hello Rishi!) Or there are 55 of me and 45 of you, so I can trample on your previous rights in any way I can imagine (see Texas and those who defend what's happened there). The will of just over half the people becomes the will of all the people.
And some of it is the fault of politicians exploiting this to gain power. But some of it is down to us as voters. We've become as consumerist about our politics as we have about our shopping. And I'm not sure that running a country works like that.
Worst part is we're not immune to it, and I don't really see how the political culture which we reward can be altered.
Talking of Germanic food, the Flint Knapper's Gazette have asked me to write about Switzerland and I am off to Lucerne (and then Ticino) next week
Has anyone been to Lucerne? Is it nice? What can I expect? Efficient trains but somewhat stodgy food? What fun things can I do?
I know Ticino and I already know it is very lovely but extremely pricey....
It has these two mediaeval covered bridges with paintings which you use to cross the river and I was thinking, surely they can't do that, it has to be blocked off and protected. And then about twenty years ago someone drove a boat into one of the bridges and set it on fire. Now rebuilt.
I quite like Moevenpick. It's a chain though.
Main thing about Luzern is that it's an excellent centre. You probably won't spend much time in town
Notes from ten years ago:
The train arrives at a new station on the lake. I think there is a modern concert hall there too.
You must see the Dying Lion statue.
The Grand Hotel National is probably not the best hotel in town, but you should stay there anyway. Book directly (by phone) to get the fanciest rooms - they’re not online. See website for their photos.
Take the ferry to the Park Hotel Vitznau (which is extremely expensive but a bit gauche). There is also a “torte-cruise” where old ladies eat coffee and cake on a round trip ferry. Amusing rather than good.
Go up mount pilatus, on the transport. Is it a mountain train or a ski lift? I forget…
Oh, and as regards food. The knoefle (dough bits boiled in water with cheese and bacon on top) is gross. The first taste is ok, then it is very very cloying.
For @MaxPB and others, let me make my position clear:-
I think that the taxes that will have to be levied must be shared by all, including pensioners. So if you work you pay increased tax and NI. I also think there will have to be some form of wealth tax, possibly also capital gains tax on houses, including first homes.
I really despise the way @MaxPB attacks those who are older (as he did on me on the previous thread) without knowing what sacrifices they have made nor what they are doing for the young. I paid for my mother's care. I did not inherit any home. My parents rented. And I am working to support my children.
If he had bothered to read my posts carefully he would have realised that I do not approve of only raising tax by raising NI precisely because it only falls on one group. Everyone will have to pay more tax. Everyone. And while I will no doubt grumble I will pay. Not least because we owe it to the younger generation to do something for them because they have lost so much in the last few years.
For him to say - as he did on the previous thread (though perhaps I have misunderstood - and, if so, apologies - that there should be no more taxes on working people is absurd and unrealistic. We simply cannot afford to exempt any group from the obligation to contribute to our country and public services.
Max is a bit more, er, passionate about the matter than myself, and might be regarded as going too far on the exemption point, but I don't think that the crux of anger that led to the responses was itself unreasonable.
And it may be unfair to some degree, but as a younger person being told about the unknown sacrifices of many older people, well, it hardly ameliorates a sense of unfairness when government, for some while, often seems intent on prioritising those people. It just seems an extension of the 'worked hard all their lives so X is unfair' arguments, which are themselves unfair because it can justify anything and the young can have no counter.
It's sad things can devolve into what seems angry generational arguments. But it seems inevitable as the sides appear to be talking right past each other and taking solace in getting offended at their own interpretation of unfairness.
For my own part whilst I strive to be reasonable, it is a subject where I will confess my levels of empathy for the retiree vote as the header terms it, is not all it could be.
It is curious how they worked hard all their lives as when I started work I distinctly remember the whole office going to the pub at lunchtimes, and as a result doing very little work in the afternoons, especially Fridays.......perhaps it should be worked hard in the mornings.
I'm sure many did work hard, and sacrificed much. But the blunt fact as I see it is that needs to be weighted against the current needs of society and careful consideration of what is proportionate. And whilst cyclefree is certainly someone who gives careful thought to these matters, as in all matters, I do think there is too much kneejerk reaction from many quarters, with an influence on political policy, to any attempt to suggest that the balance could afford and should shift more one way than another, and that one can reasonably believe that that appeals to previous work and sacrifice will not, should not, always be determiniative.
Of course lots of people in that generation worked hard and sacrificed much, as did lots of people in every generation before and since. There is nothing special or unique in it that justifies why they should be richer than their grandparents and grandchildren, and on top of that then gain further tax and spend advantages over their grandkids.
For @MaxPB and others, let me make my position clear:-
I think that the taxes that will have to be levied must be shared by all, including pensioners. So if you work you pay increased tax and NI. I also think there will have to be some form of wealth tax, possibly also capital gains tax on houses, including first homes.
I really despise the way @MaxPB attacks those who are older (as he did on me on the previous thread) without knowing what sacrifices they have made nor what they are doing for the young. I paid for my mother's care. I did not inherit any home. My parents rented. And I am working to support my children.
If he had bothered to read my posts carefully he would have realised that I do not approve of only raising tax by raising NI precisely because it only falls on one group. Everyone will have to pay more tax. Everyone. And while I will no doubt grumble I will pay. Not least because we owe it to the younger generation to do something for them because they have lost so much in the last few years.
For him to say - as he did on the previous thread (though perhaps I have misunderstood - and, if so, apologies - that there should be no more taxes on working people is absurd and unrealistic. We simply cannot afford to exempt any group from the obligation to contribute to our country and public services.
The government are proposing to exempt one group, pensioners, from their share of tax rises. A few posters on a website say another poorer group, workers, should be exempt from the tax rises.
You appear to be more concerned and critical about the views of a handful of posters rather than the stated intentions of the government. It should be the other way around.
Well said.
Max is quite rightly frustrated, I am too.
I can't speak for Max, but while I'd oppose generic increases in tax if they did apply to everyone (workers and pensioners alike) it'd at least be equitable.
But to have a tax that is exclusively on workers? Screw that. Its a terrible suggestion.
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.
FOUR? - You were obviously known as a fan!
So you and Leon not enamoured with it. I recall gobbling it up. Maybe my fascination with the subject matter was enough but I do remember enjoying the writing as well. It felt authentic rather than something just generated for the sake of it.
Talking of Germanic food, the Flint Knapper's Gazette have asked me to write about Switzerland and I am off to Lucerne (and then Ticino) next week
Has anyone been to Lucerne? Is it nice? What can I expect? Efficient trains but somewhat stodgy food? What fun things can I do?
I know Ticino and I already know it is very lovely but extremely pricey....
It has these two mediaeval covered bridges with paintings which you use to cross the river and I was thinking, surely they can't do that, it has to be blocked off and protected. And then about twenty years ago someone drove a boat into one of the bridges and set it on fire. Now rebuilt.
I quite like Moevenpick. It's a chain though.
Main thing about Luzern is that it's an excellent centre. You probably won't spend much time in town
Notes from ten years ago:
The train arrives at a new station on the lake. I think there is a modern concert hall there too.
You must see the Dying Lion statue.
The Grand Hotel National is probably not the best hotel in town, but you should stay there anyway. Book directly (by phone) to get the fanciest rooms - they’re not online. See website for their photos.
Take the ferry to the Park Hotel Vitznau (which is extremely expensive but a bit gauche). There is also a “torte-cruise” where old ladies eat coffee and cake on a round trip ferry. Amusing rather than good.
Go up mount pilatus, on the transport. Is it a mountain train or a ski lift? I forget…
Oh, and as regards food. The knoefle (dough bits boiled in water with cheese and bacon on top) is gross. The first taste is ok, then it is very very cloying.
Danke!
Switzerland is weird with food, tending to its international national stereotypes. German Swiss food is pretty stodgy and grim, French Swiss food is varied and sometimes great, but often overwrought, Italian Swiss food is generally fine, but - this being Switzerland - about 10 times more expensive than Italian food over the border
And that's the heart of the matter. At some point, the national culture changed for the worse.
OK, it was never a disinterested "do what's in the best interests of the whole nation". There was always an element of "vote for us and we'll see you all right". But historically substantial Prime Ministers (Blair, say) really acted as if doing things his way would make everyone benefit. Even Thatcher, divisive (and in some ways wrong) as she was, believed that what she was doing was the right thing for all. And when presented with think tank reports suggesting (for example) that Liverpool should be left to die, she binned them, even though there were precisely zero votes in it for her.
For some reason, that's not the case right now. It all feels very American; vote for me so I can bring home the pork barrel. (Hi Ben! Hello Rishi!) Or there are 55 of me and 45 of you, so I can trample on your previous rights in any way I can imagine (see Texas and those who defend what's happened there). The will of just over half the people becomes the will of all the people.
And some of it is the fault of politicians exploiting this to gain power. But some of it is down to us as voters. We've become as consumerist about our politics as we have about our shopping. And I'm not sure that running a country works like that.
I think 2008 and the global financial crash was a fundamentally traumatic event for many. Years of economic and financial comfort and security were wiped in a very short time and since then there's been this profound financial insecurity at large.
Those who, in 2001 for example, were happy to vote for increased spending so the children or grandchildren could have a nice school or library are now much more reticent - the value of their own savings has been obliterated by a decade of near-zero interest rates.
The culture is increasingly "this has to be paid for but I'm not paying for it". It's almost impossible to have a meaningful conversation about tax because the very notion of raising taxes provokes a reaction.
Arguing for increasing taxes to pay for better services is much harder than arguing for cutting taxes because people see things in simple personal terms. Cutting taxes equals more money for me. Increasing taxes means less money for me.
There's also the stigmatisation factor - it's always someone's else fault, there's always someone at whom you can point the finger. Much easier to do that than address the real issues.
For @MaxPB and others, let me make my position clear:-
I think that the taxes that will have to be levied must be shared by all, including pensioners. So if you work you pay increased tax and NI. I also think there will have to be some form of wealth tax, possibly also capital gains tax on houses, including first homes.
I really despise the way @MaxPB attacks those who are older (as he did on me on the previous thread) without knowing what sacrifices they have made nor what they are doing for the young. I paid for my mother's care. I did not inherit any home. My parents rented. And I am working to support my children.
If he had bothered to read my posts carefully he would have realised that I do not approve of only raising tax by raising NI precisely because it only falls on one group. Everyone will have to pay more tax. Everyone. And while I will no doubt grumble I will pay. Not least because we owe it to the younger generation to do something for them because they have lost so much in the last few years.
For him to say - as he did on the previous thread (though perhaps I have misunderstood - and, if so, apologies - that there should be no more taxes on working people is absurd and unrealistic. We simply cannot afford to exempt any group from the obligation to contribute to our country and public services.
Max is a bit more, er, passionate about the matter than myself, and might be regarded as going too far on the exemption point, but I don't think that the crux of anger that led to the responses was itself unreasonable.
And it may be unfair to some degree, but as a younger person being told about the unknown sacrifices of many older people, well, it hardly ameliorates a sense of unfairness when government, for some while, often seems intent on prioritising those people. It just seems an extension of the 'worked hard all their lives so X is unfair' arguments, which are themselves unfair because it can justify anything and the young can have no counter.
It's sad things can devolve into what seems angry generational arguments. But it seems inevitable as the sides appear to be talking right past each other and taking solace in getting offended at their own interpretation of unfairness.
For my own part whilst I strive to be reasonable, it is a subject where I will confess my levels of empathy for the retiree vote as the header terms it, is not all it could be.
It is curious how they worked hard all their lives as when I started work I distinctly remember the whole office going to the pub at lunchtimes, and as a result doing very little work in the afternoons, especially Fridays.......perhaps it should be worked hard in the mornings.
I'm sure many did work hard, and sacrificed much. But the blunt fact as I see it is that needs to be weighted against the current needs of society and careful consideration of what is proportionate. And whilst cyclefree is certainly someone who gives careful thought to these matters, as in all matters, I do think there is too much kneejerk reaction from many quarters, with an influence on political policy, to any attempt to suggest that the balance could afford and should shift more one way than another, and that one can reasonably believe that that appeals to previous work and sacrifice will not, should not, always be determiniative.
Of course lots of people in that generation worked hard and sacrificed much, as did lots of people in every generation before and since. There is nothing special or unique in it that justifies why they should be richer than their grandparents and grandchildren, and on top of that then gain further tax and spend advantages over their grandkids.
Someone more succinct and clear than my own attempt to make the final point.
Without people pushing the boundaries we would not have vaccines or most of the drugs that allow a more comfortable life. Like most things in life it is a balancing act.
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.
FOUR? - You were obviously known as a fan!
So you and Leon not enamoured with it. I recall gobbling it up. Maybe my fascination with the subject matter was enough but I do remember enjoying the writing as well. It felt authentic rather than something just generated for the sake of it.
My friends who loved it were real musos AND/OR huge Stones fans. I am neither
I love music but I don't write vast books about it, and I obviously admire the Stones but I can't name their best B-sides from 1965
If you are fascinated by the rise of Blues in England and how Keef REALLY learned guitar (over 200 pages) it's probably a great book. but for a more neutral punter, no. Elton John is much better
I wanna hear about the sex, drugs, and rock and roll: IN THAT ORDER
For @MaxPB and others, let me make my position clear:-
I think that the taxes that will have to be levied must be shared by all, including pensioners. So if you work you pay increased tax and NI. I also think there will have to be some form of wealth tax, possibly also capital gains tax on houses, including first homes.
I really despise the way @MaxPB attacks those who are older (as he did on me on the previous thread) without knowing what sacrifices they have made nor what they are doing for the young. I paid for my mother's care. I did not inherit any home. My parents rented. And I am working to support my children.
If he had bothered to read my posts carefully he would have realised that I do not approve of only raising tax by raising NI precisely because it only falls on one group. Everyone will have to pay more tax. Everyone. And while I will no doubt grumble I will pay. Not least because we owe it to the younger generation to do something for them because they have lost so much in the last few years.
For him to say - as he did on the previous thread (though perhaps I have misunderstood - and, if so, apologies - that there should be no more taxes on working people is absurd and unrealistic. We simply cannot afford to exempt any group from the obligation to contribute to our country and public services.
Max is a bit more, er, passionate about the matter than myself, and might be regarded as going too far on the exemption point, but I don't think that the crux of anger that led to the responses was itself unreasonable.
And it may be unfair to some degree, but as a younger person being told about the unknown sacrifices of many older people, well, it hardly ameliorates a sense of unfairness when government, for some while, often seems intent on prioritising those people. It just seems an extension of the 'worked hard all their lives so X is unfair' arguments, which are themselves unfair because it can justify anything and the young can have no counter.
It's sad things can devolve into what seems angry generational arguments. But it seems inevitable as the sides appear to be talking right past each other and taking solace in getting offended at their own interpretation of unfairness.
For my own part whilst I strive to be reasonable, it is a subject where I will confess my levels of empathy for the retiree vote as the header terms it, is not all it could be.
It is curious how they worked hard all their lives as when I started work I distinctly remember the whole office going to the pub at lunchtimes, and as a result doing very little work in the afternoons, especially Fridays.......perhaps it should be worked hard in the mornings.
I'm sure many did work hard, and sacrificed much. But the blunt fact as I see it is that needs to be weighted against the current needs of society and careful consideration of what is proportionate. And whilst cyclefree is certainly someone who gives careful thought to these matters, as in all matters, I do think there is too much kneejerk reaction from many quarters, with an influence on political policy, to any attempt to suggest that the balance could afford and should shift more one way than another, and that one can reasonably believe that that appeals to previous work and sacrifice will not, should not, always be determiniative.
Of course lots of people in that generation worked hard and sacrificed much, as did lots of people in every generation before and since. There is nothing special or unique in it that justifies why they should be richer than their grandparents and grandchildren, and on top of that then gain further tax and spend advantages over their grandkids.
Someone more succinct and clear than my own attempt to make the final point.
Not at all, I think your reply to cyclefree is the post of the day on the subject.
Vaguely on topic, it's the classic conundrum for any Party - screw your own supporters or screw everyone else. That should for some on here be a no-brainer but the truth is sometimes Governments have to do things which test the loyalty of their supporters.
The problem is building a voting coalition on whom you are so reliant it becomes impossible to govern effectively in the interests of the whole country is the very definition of a house built on sand.
If that coalition is so fragile it falls apart at the first sign of anything negative it's not worth having at all. Those who voted for Johnson, Brexit and the Conservatives in 2019 may have thought they were electing a Government who would never say or do anything to offend them morally or politically or adversely affect them financially but that's not how Government should work.
I know some will disagree but I have this curious old-fashioned notion Governments are elected to govern in the interests of all not just those who voted for them.
And that's the heart of the matter. At some point, the national culture changed for the worse.
OK, it was never a disinterested "do what's in the best interests of the whole nation". There was always an element of "vote for us and we'll see you all right". But historically substantial Prime Ministers (Blair, say) really acted as if doing things his way would make everyone benefit. Even Thatcher, divisive (and in some ways wrong) as she was, believed that what she was doing was the right thing for all. And when presented with think tank reports suggesting (for example) that Liverpool should be left to die, she binned them, even though there were precisely zero votes in it for her.
For some reason, that's not the case right now. It all feels very American; vote for me so I can bring home the pork barrel. (Hi Ben! Hello Rishi!) Or there are 55 of me and 45 of you, so I can trample on your previous rights in any way I can imagine (see Texas and those who defend what's happened there). The will of just over half the people becomes the will of all the people.
And some of it is the fault of politicians exploiting this to gain power. But some of it is down to us as voters. We've become as consumerist about our politics as we have about our shopping. And I'm not sure that running a country works like that.
Worst part is we're not immune to it, and I don't really see how the political culture which we reward can be altered.
Me neither. And, as the USA shows, it's possible to go much further into the quicksand than the UK has so far.
And if a genuine shared crisis like the last 18 months can't shake us out of it...
Enough frivolity , I must away and do some productive stuff. Have to say I had a super haircut and shave at Turkish barber's today, some pleasant chit chat here , with wife playing ABBA in background. Time for a refreshment.
The new album?
There are two new songs (the ones that were recorded in time to go into the new show when it opens next year) but the album doesn't drop 'til November.
Ah ok. I caught a snatch of one of them on the radio earlier. It sounded very like Abba. No 'late life' different sound a la Johnny Cash; no sombre meditations on mortality from Bjorn and Benny, full of soul and gravitas, delivered by the girls in voices coarsened with age, just some more smooth ballady pop. Thank god for that.
Completely wrong. ABBA songs are precisely sombre meditations on mortality. They spring from the Swedish sagas and deal exactly with failure, death and disappointment....
And Dancing Queen with ancient ritual rites ?
A sadistic piece of work by the group in that the intro, exuberant piano finger run plus opening melody bars, just compels you onto the dance floor, it's that good, but once you're up and going for it, and faced with actually dancing to the whole song, it becomes very hard to do, at least with any fluency or style, because it's not in truth much of a groove, it's quite lumpy and turgid, however by then it's too late, you're marooned out there, totally helpless, shuffling around and glancing longingly back at your seat for what is rather a long three and a half minutes.
For @MaxPB and others, let me make my position clear:-
I think that the taxes that will have to be levied must be shared by all, including pensioners. So if you work you pay increased tax and NI. I also think there will have to be some form of wealth tax, possibly also capital gains tax on houses, including first homes.
I really despise the way @MaxPB attacks those who are older (as he did on me on the previous thread) without knowing what sacrifices they have made nor what they are doing for the young. I paid for my mother's care. I did not inherit any home. My parents rented. And I am working to support my children.
If he had bothered to read my posts carefully he would have realised that I do not approve of only raising tax by raising NI precisely because it only falls on one group. Everyone will have to pay more tax. Everyone. And while I will no doubt grumble I will pay. Not least because we owe it to the younger generation to do something for them because they have lost so much in the last few years.
For him to say - as he did on the previous thread (though perhaps I have misunderstood - and, if so, apologies - that there should be no more taxes on working people is absurd and unrealistic. We simply cannot afford to exempt any group from the obligation to contribute to our country and public services.
The government are proposing to exempt one group, pensioners, from their share of tax rises. A few posters on a website say another poorer group, workers, should be exempt from the tax rises.
You appear to be more concerned and critical about the views of a handful of posters rather than the stated intentions of the government. It should be the other way around.
Well said.
Max is quite rightly frustrated, I am too.
I can't speak for Max, but while I'd oppose generic increases in tax if they did apply to everyone (workers and pensioners alike) it'd at least be equitable.
But to have a tax that is exclusively on workers? Screw that. Its a terrible suggestion.
You voted for those doing it.
Lab under SKS will not oppose it
Your stuffed
I am a strong believer in democracy and democracy doesn't stop.
Yes I voted for them last time, but there'll be another election in a few years time.
If this nonsense and stuff like it goes ahead, and if a sane alternative appears, they won't get my vote next time and they certainly won't get me campaigning for them next time.
Theresa May lost before the crossover age backing her was 55. Boris Johnson won because the crossover age backing him was 39.
If he screws the workers, then the party deserves a May style barracking next time.
Other than sheer morbid Dr Strangelove curiosity what possible benefit of "gain of function research" could possibly justify the risk?
I'm serious, why do it at all?
It is extremely hard to justify when you factor in the enormous risks, which is why Obama banned it. Yet Fauci got round the ban by off-shoring the research to China, and tweaking the science so he could claim, on narrow semantic grounds, that it wasn't "quite" classic GoF. Total bollocks, really
The aim is noble: to create new vaccines that will be ready to roll for the next pandemic, saving millions. The risk is bloody obvious, you create a hideous new virus before the vaccine is ready and it leaks. Bingo. You kill millions. As we maybe see
This is why so many virologists (and associated scientists and science journalists etc etc) are blatantly desperate to avoid the obvious conclusion, "FFS it came from the lab"
It means the end of much research, much funding, many careers, entire university departments. They will lie, outright, before they accept this.
It also means trouble for Fauci, the NIH, the Wellcome, the Lancet, and many science institutions across the West, who are likewise implicated, if only obliquely
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."
This sentiment is pretty ubiquitous.
This, I suspect, is why wealth taxes may need to be paired with reducing income taxes.
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.
FOUR? - You were obviously known as a fan!
So you and Leon not enamoured with it. I recall gobbling it up. Maybe my fascination with the subject matter was enough but I do remember enjoying the writing as well. It felt authentic rather than something just generated for the sake of it.
My friends who loved it were real musos AND/OR huge Stones fans. I am neither
I love music but I don't write vast books about it, and I obviously admire the Stones but I can't name their best B-sides from 1965
If you are fascinated by the rise of Blues in England and how Keef REALLY learned guitar (over 200 pages) it's probably a great book. but for a more neutral punter, no. Elton John is much better
I wanna hear about the sex, drugs, and rock and roll: IN THAT ORDER
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.
FOUR? - You were obviously known as a fan!
So you and Leon not enamoured with it. I recall gobbling it up. Maybe my fascination with the subject matter was enough but I do remember enjoying the writing as well. It felt authentic rather than something just generated for the sake of it.
Oh, I liked it, though maybe not the definitive Stones book I was hoping for. I seem to remember it being quite interesting on the musical side though I'm not in any sense a muso.
Talking of Germanic food, the Flint Knapper's Gazette have asked me to write about Switzerland and I am off to Lucerne (and then Ticino) next week
Has anyone been to Lucerne? Is it nice? What can I expect? Efficient trains but somewhat stodgy food? What fun things can I do?
I know Ticino and I already know it is very lovely but extremely pricey....
It has these two mediaeval covered bridges with paintings which you use to cross the river and I was thinking, surely they can't do that, it has to be blocked off and protected. And then about twenty years ago someone drove a boat into one of the bridges and set it on fire. Now rebuilt.
I quite like Moevenpick. It's a chain though.
Main thing about Luzern is that it's an excellent centre. You probably won't spend much time in town
Notes from ten years ago:
The train arrives at a new station on the lake. I think there is a modern concert hall there too.
You must see the Dying Lion statue.
The Grand Hotel National is probably not the best hotel in town, but you should stay there anyway. Book directly (by phone) to get the fanciest rooms - they’re not online. See website for their photos.
Take the ferry to the Park Hotel Vitznau (which is extremely expensive but a bit gauche). There is also a “torte-cruise” where old ladies eat coffee and cake on a round trip ferry. Amusing rather than good.
Go up mount pilatus, on the transport. Is it a mountain train or a ski lift? I forget…
Oh, and as regards food. The knoefle (dough bits boiled in water with cheese and bacon on top) is gross. The first taste is ok, then it is very very cloying.
Danke!
Switzerland is weird with food, tending to its international national stereotypes. German Swiss food is pretty stodgy and grim, French Swiss food is varied and sometimes great, but often overwrought, Italian Swiss food is generally fine, but - this being Switzerland - about 10 times more expensive than Italian food over the border
We had a lovely holiday in a self-catered Swiss ski chalet for a Summer holiday 4 years ago. One of my main recollections of food was wanting to buy a packet of cereal and baulking at it costing about £5 for cornflakes. We drove and if I were to do it again I would try and pre-pack a whole load of basics for the family. Meals out were very expensive for even basic fare but it was all good quality. Although I doubt we were dining at the same sorts of establishments you will be given we had kids with us!
My other main memory was a small lake which was the most beautiful location that I can remember swimming in. As you were swimming you would get a reflection of the mountains in the still water ahead of you. Stunning.
Comments
We could be subsidising lorry driver training, hell make it free and paid for by the govt if needed.
Just waiting for it to impact things like flu jabs and saying nothing can be done is crazy.
How is it that the government's advisers have swallowed whole this anti-Vaccine nonsense about assessing every potential vaccinee on an inappropriately narrow criterion of individual risk, thereby leaving large swaths of the population unvaccinated, and thereby leaving unprotected many people at high risk, through an increased likelihood of transmission?
If there is a fourth wave with significant mortality this Autumn/Winter, this idiotic decision will have contributed to it.
It is just laughable. It could have been written by the Chinese Communist Party (co-author, Peter Daszak)
"Peter Daszak of the EcoHealth Alliance has worked with [Wuhan lab director] Shi for more than 15 years. He describes her as social, open, and something of a goodwill ambassador for China at international meetings, where she converses in both French and English. (She's also a renowned singer of Mandarin folk songs.) "What I really like about Zhengli is that she is frank and honest and that just makes it easier to solve problems," he says. [HAHAHAHAHAHAHA]"
"Shi mentioned several other factors that she says exonerate her lab. Their research meets strict biosafety rules, she said [HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA] and the lab is subject to periodic inspections "by a third-party institution authorized by the government[HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA]." Antibody tests have shown there is "zero infection" among institute staff or students with SARS-CoV-2 or SARS-related viruses [NEVER PROVEN, NO EVIDENCE GIVEN]. Shi said WIV has never been ordered to destroy any samples [A LIE] after the pandemic erupted and she was sure the virus didn't come from the Wuhan Center for Disease Control and Prevention—or another lab in the city—either: "Based on daily academic exchanges and discussion, I can rule out such a possibility. [OH THAT'S ALRIGHT THEN]""
"Daszak supports the push for an international research effort—which he cautions could take years—and says Shi's group should play a prominent role in it. "I hope and believe that she will be able to help WIV and China show the world that there is nothing to these lab escape theories [YEP, THANKS FOR THAT, PETER], and help us all to find the true origins of this viral strain," he says."
https://www.science.org/news/2020/07/trump-owes-us-apology-chinese-scientist-center-covid-19-origin-theories-speaks-out
I mean, for fuck's sake. He's just a shill for Beijing. And they think we are morons who will lap up this crap as long as they keep pumping it out, in slightly different forms.
The January peak was about 60k cases a day, which led to a peak in admissions of about 4250 cases a day. That's 1 in 14 cases requiring admission.
Currently cases have been almost stable for several weeks at a little over the 30k a day mark, and admissions have also been fairly stable running at around 900 a day. This is approximately 1 in 33 cases requiring admission - I.E. less than half the admission rate of January.
Educate yourself before holding forth.
We can't have posters getting the site sued. Or else it might close. And then the void would scream back at us.
I am not pretending it is a magic solution to the whole issue, but it is clearly far better than inaction.
Basically, if we agree any accommodation with Europe which makes our lives easier, we will go back to being comfortable and lazy and not going out into the world to seize the new opportunities (continued page 94)...
And once you do a sensible thing once, there will be more pressure to do another sensible thing, then another, and before you know it we'll be in some arrangement indistinguishable from EEA.
Workers are already too highly taxed, as far as I am concerned, and the Tory Party couldn’t give a toss. Alongside the corporation tax hike, the plan is to pay for the oldies’s comfortable retirement (and nostalgic fantasies) by crushing the real economy.
I suspect I am reaching my last months - ever - as a PAYE taxpayer in this country. It’s just not worth it.
As others have said, Labour could actually surprise us all by offering a tax CUT to workers.
But they won’t.
These plans, codenamed Operation London Bridge, which were first revealed in a Guardian Long Read in 2017 and have now been seen in full by Politico, detail the scale of the arrangements for the funeral and government anxieties about whether the UK has the resources to execute them.
The social media strategy plays a prominent role, including plans to change the royal family’s website to a black holding page with a short statement confirming the Queen’s death, while the gov.uk website and all governmental social media pages will display a black banner. Non-urgent content will not be published and retweets will be banned unless cleared by the government’s head of communications.
Which means we will never get the great Stones memoir because Watts is now dead (RIP) and Mick Can't Remember
A much better memoir about the 60s is White Bicycles by Joe Boyd. He's a great producer - Fairport to Nick Drake to Floyd. He's able to give a much better perspective because he was there (and he had LOTS of fun) but he did not get entirely zonked because he had to twiddle the knobs in the studio, and he is very observant
And of course "ME" by Elton John, which I may have mentioned. Superb
Example 2% inflation 8% average earnings, pensions up 8%?
So the question, if it doesn’t rise as much as average earnings, how will that significantly erode the value of pensions if still locked into greater than inflation increase 🤔
In all seriousness, it’s odd how things like this come about. I think the social care crisis is overstated. It may be a problem, but it’s not something that seems to be a pressing concern to people. I guess it might be that people are just ignorant of the facts, but accept it when the house is sold to fund the care.
I've just looked at the REACT-1 study, it shows a graph of hospitalisation against Covid swab positivity. (fig 5).
Unfortunately there is no swab posivity data supplied for December 2020, and they are also using log scales which makes visually comparing two variables like this considerably more difficult.
Has anyone been to Lucerne? Is it nice? What can I expect? Efficient trains but somewhat stodgy food? What fun things can I do?
I know Ticino and I already know it is very lovely but extremely pricey....
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/58435485
Admirable how the fear of potential ridicule is simply not going to deter them in this crusade.
The poor buggers just didn’t realise what a momentous mistake they were making.
First hotel I recall with condoms in the mini-bar
Is the food in Lucerne any good? Swiss food can be hugely variable, in my experience. Tho their top class hotels are some of the best in the world
https://spiral.imperial.ac.uk/bitstream/10044/1/90800/2/react1_r13_final_preprint_final.pdf
Of course, positive tests ("cases" as they are described in the official figures) aren't the same as infections. What I'm referring to is the positivity rate in random testing.
Yes, he does look rather young for his years. Extremely well-dyed hair helps. ie not the Paul McCartney absurdly-dyed-hair look, just a few hints of grey
Like you I struggle to be convinced that a lab was working in total secrecy over a long period developing this new disease and then at the point when they got there, they leaked it into the environment, presumably accidentally.
Accidental leaking of a natural virus of concern that was already under investigation IMO is plausible, but no more than plausible. While we don't know the origin of the virus (situation normal however), we do know the epidemic started in Wuhan. So the virus might have stayed contained if that supposed leak hadn't happened.
There is the coincidence of research into these kinds of viruses taking place in the same city as where the epidemic started. The coincidence may not be that compelling when you bear in mind that Wuhan is a bigger city than London. The other circumstantial evidence is the lack of co-operation from Chinese authorities and scientists. But maybe not surprising, Those authorities tend to lack of transparency and people like Trump who made the allegations weren't always doing so in good faith.
Vaccination is almost certainly benifical to my age group. I've had one Covid jab, I will probably have my second (although I hesitate a little there, as having just had Covid I'm not sure it will achieve much, and the side effects risks are going to be quite high).
I'm not particularly convinced that mass vaccination of school kids is beneficial, and I can certainly see why the JCVI might not think this. I think there is a danger that we get a bit "vaccine happy" - we see vaccination as a good itself, rather than merely a tool which in many circumstances reduces the effect of disease.
It's similar to the "booster shots now" logic. It's possible that boosters might be necessary or valuable. It's also possible that they aren't, and again we need to acknowledge that they are not cost free in terms of side effects, even if we're mostly only talking about people feeling rough for a day or two.
It would be better to have more data on what (if anything) a booster campaign might achieve than to jump into one right now and potentially discover its actually achieved nothing.
I can't believe anyone could look at that plot and think it showed the hospitalisation rate per infection now was significantly less than it has been throughout the pandemic. It was so for March to June this year, before Delta with its higher hospitalisation rate became dominant.
I just thought I'd show PB-ers where the Flint Knappers Gazette is sending me this Sunday to stay
https://www.booking.com/hotel/ch/castello-del-sole.en-gb.html
You surely understand that's the issue, though no one would guess it from what you've just written!
If it would have actually achieved something, but we don't bother, then the NHS collapses, schools get shut down, we get locked down again and tens of thousands die.
Its like saying "I don't think I'll get home insurance as I'm not sure my house is going to burn down. I think I'll wait to see if it burns down or not and then get home insurance."
Vaguely on topic, it's the classic conundrum for any Party - screw your own supporters or screw everyone else. That should for some on here be a no-brainer but the truth is sometimes Governments have to do things which test the loyalty of their supporters.
The problem is building a voting coalition on whom you are so reliant it becomes impossible to govern effectively in the interests of the whole country is the very definition of a house built on sand.
If that coalition is so fragile it falls apart at the first sign of anything negative it's not worth having at all. Those who voted for Johnson, Brexit and the Conservatives in 2019 may have thought they were electing a Government who would never say or do anything to offend them morally or politically or adversely affect them financially but that's not how Government should work.
I know some will disagree but I have this curious old-fashioned notion Governments are elected to govern in the interests of all not just those who voted for them.
I quite like Moevenpick. It's a chain though.
Main thing about Luzern is that it's an excellent centre. You probably won't spend much time in town
Your childishness with this "Philibet" nonsense and an objection to my daring to have an opinion on subjects just makes you look silly.
In my opinion.
Which I dare to have.
Changes since 2017:
Social Democrats: 25% (+4)
Union CDU/CSU: 20% (-13)
Greens: 15% (+6)
Free Democrats: 13% (+2)
Alternative for Germany: 12% (-1)
Linke: 8% (-1)
Others 7% (+3)
Another devastating poll for Laschet and the Union but signs the Greens are starting to fall back as the SPD bandwagon starts to gather pace. This was confirmed by the earlier Forschunggruppe poll which had the SPD up three and the Greens down three.
YouGov is a better poll for Linke which seems to be edging away from the 5% threshold.
I think that the taxes that will have to be levied must be shared by all, including pensioners. So if you work you pay increased tax and NI. I also think there will have to be some form of wealth tax, possibly also capital gains tax on houses, including first homes.
I really despise the way @MaxPB attacks those who are older (as he did on me on the previous thread) without knowing what sacrifices they have made nor what they are doing for the young. I paid for my mother's care. I did not inherit any home. My parents rented. And I am working to support my children.
If he had bothered to read my posts carefully he would have realised that I do not approve of only raising tax by raising NI precisely because it only falls on one group. Everyone will have to pay more tax. Everyone. And while I will no doubt grumble I will pay. Not least because - as I have said repeatedly over the last year and a half - we owe it to the younger generation to do something for them because they have lost so much in the last few years.
See also https://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2020/05/01/thinking-the-unthinkable-hows-this-going-to-be-paid-for/
For him to say - as he did on the previous thread (though perhaps I have misunderstood - and, if so, apologies - that there should be no more taxes on working people is absurd and unrealistic. We simply cannot afford to exempt any group from the obligation to contribute to our country and public services.
Oh - and by the way - I did not vote for the government which people like @MaxPB support and which has done a lot of damage to good governance in this country. So he and people like him - before ranting at selfish others (in his view) - might do well to look in the mirror first.
Mrs P and I however are determined to spend all our savings and not leave a penny (a tricky goal to achieve while owning a house mind).
Ideally, we'll be doing that by spending it on nice experiences and comfortable living but if it proves necessary we will spend it on the best care we can afford in our dotage.
I apologise in advance to all our lovely nieces and nephews.
So if it is not being tough in any effective way, and the person involved learns nothing by charge or punishment, who gains from it?
A few posters on a website say another poorer group, workers, should be exempt from the tax rises.
You appear to be more concerned and critical about the views of a handful of posters rather than the stated intentions of the government. It should be the other way around.
My surviving parent owes me money, so on the one hand there's no awkwardness around expected inheritances and the like, but I know they fret about that, feels a failure over it which is sad.
Here is Peter Daszak explicitly saying all this in 2016. And in a video
"While describing how his organization sequences deadly viruses, Daszak describes the process of “insert[ing] spike proteins” into viruses to see if they can “bind to human cells” as being carried out by his “colleagues in China”:
"“Then when you get a sequence of a virus, and it looks like a relative of a known nasty pathogen, just like we did with SARS. We found other coronaviruses in bats, a whole host of them, some of them looked very similar to SARS. So we sequenced the spike protein: the protein that attaches to cells. Then we… Well I didn’t do this work, but my colleagues in China did the work. You create pseudo particles, you insert the spike proteins from those viruses, see if they bind to human cells. At each step of this you move closer and closer to this virus could really become pathogenic in people.
"“You end up with a small number of viruses that really do look like killers,” he adds."
https://thenationalpulse.com/exclusive/daszak-reveals-chinese-colleagues-manipulating-coronaviruses/
https://twitter.com/bmarcois/status/1402814773679460353?s=20
They made "killer coronaviruses". And one leaked
Max is quite rightly frustrated, I am too.
I can't speak for Max, but while I'd oppose generic increases in tax if they did apply to everyone (workers and pensioners alike) it'd at least be equitable.
But to have a tax that is exclusively on workers? Screw that. Its a terrible suggestion.
And it may be unfair to some degree, but as a younger person being told about the unknown sacrifices of many older people, well, it hardly ameliorates a sense of unfairness when government, for some while, often seems intent on prioritising those people. It just seems an extension of the 'worked hard all their lives so X is unfair' arguments, which are themselves unfair because it can justify anything and the young can have no counter.
It's sad things can devolve into what seems angry generational arguments. But it seems inevitable as the sides appear to be talking right past each other and taking solace in getting offended at their own interpretation of unfairness.
For my own part whilst I strive to be reasonable, it is a subject where I will confess my levels of empathy for the retiree vote as the header terms it, is not all it could be.
You can make the argument that they should take on those risks because of the benefits to older people from kids getting vaccinated. But then I ask myself, what have older people done for kids recently to deserve this kind of sacrifice on their part? Absolutely nothing.
So no, leave the kids alone.
A lot of that goes on the provision of care for vulnerable adults including dementia care as well as caring for adults with other disabilities.
I believe local councils also carry out the assessment function - working out packages of care and finding places for elderly people. That's a significant additional cost to the process.
The experience with my late father was it was quite a bureaucratic and invasive process with a lot of financial information requested. I do wonder if half the pain of the process is the process and we need to think about caring for the elderly beyond the assets and the pecuniary aspect and concentrating more on the quality of life and the care provided.
You too are conflating multiple possibilities
There are many versions of lab leak
1. A bat bit a Wuhan lab worker in Yunnan, infecting him with a natural virus, he took it back to Wuhan
2. A bat bit a Wuhan lab worker in Wuhan, infecting him with a natural virus, he took it to Wuhan wet market
3. A bat virus was altered for Gain of Function, given to humanised mice, the mice accidentally bit the Wuhan lab worker, and so on
4. The altered GoF virus was a in a fridge which accidentally leaked
5. The altered GoF virus was ALSO secretly being developed as a potential bioweapon (we know the CCP is into this shit) and coincidentally it accidentally leaked
6. The altered GoF virus was ALSO secretly being developed as a potential bioweapon and some lunatic deliberately leaked it into Wuhan and the world
7. The Chinese spies did all of the GoF bioweapon stuff deliberately and there was no leak, it was willingly sent out to kill 10m humans and more
And within these various definitions there are sub-definitions, some mad, some highly plausible
I'm not sure what a "synthetically created virus" even means. Does it mean a virus entirely built from scratch?! Literally created?
Scholz has gone strong on being continuity Merkel and it seems thus far to be paying off.
The train arrives at a new station on the lake. I think there is a modern concert hall there too.
You must see the Dying Lion statue.
The Grand Hotel National is probably not the best hotel in town, but you should stay there anyway. Book directly (by phone) to get the fanciest rooms - they’re not online. See website for their photos.
Take the ferry to the Park Hotel Vitznau (which is extremely expensive but a bit gauche). There is also a “torte-cruise” where old ladies eat coffee and cake on a round trip ferry. Amusing rather than good.
Go up mount pilatus, on the transport. Is it a mountain train or a ski lift? I forget…
Why does it not surprise me that the adminstrations of sports authorities are populated by such people?
OK, it was never a disinterested "do what's in the best interests of the whole nation". There was always an element of "vote for us and we'll see you all right". But historically substantial Prime Ministers (Blair, say) really acted as if doing things his way would make everyone benefit. Even Thatcher, divisive (and in some ways wrong) as she was, believed that what she was doing was the right thing for all. And when presented with think tank reports suggesting (for example) that Liverpool should be left to die, she binned them, even though there were precisely zero votes in it for her.
For some reason, that's not the case right now. It all feels very American; vote for me so I can bring home the pork barrel. (Hi Ben! Hello Rishi!) Or there are 55 of me and 45 of you, so I can trample on your previous rights in any way I can imagine (see Texas and those who defend what's happened there). The will of just over half the people becomes the will of all the people.
And some of it is the fault of politicians exploiting this to gain power. But some of it is down to us as voters. We've become as consumerist about our politics as we have about our shopping. And I'm not sure that running a country works like that.
Lab under SKS will not oppose it
Your stuffed
So you and Leon not enamoured with it. I recall gobbling it up. Maybe my fascination with the subject matter was enough but I do remember enjoying the writing as well. It felt authentic rather than something just generated for the sake of it.
I'm serious, why do it at all?
Switzerland is weird with food, tending to its international national stereotypes. German Swiss food is pretty stodgy and grim, French Swiss food is varied and sometimes great, but often overwrought, Italian Swiss food is generally fine, but - this being Switzerland - about 10 times more expensive than Italian food over the border
Those who, in 2001 for example, were happy to vote for increased spending so the children or grandchildren could have a nice school or library are now much more reticent - the value of their own savings has been obliterated by a decade of near-zero interest rates.
The culture is increasingly "this has to be paid for but I'm not paying for it". It's almost impossible to have a meaningful conversation about tax because the very notion of raising taxes provokes a reaction.
Arguing for increasing taxes to pay for better services is much harder than arguing for cutting taxes because people see things in simple personal terms. Cutting taxes equals more money for me. Increasing taxes means less money for me.
There's also the stigmatisation factor - it's always someone's else fault, there's always someone at whom you can point the finger. Much easier to do that than address the real issues.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/jenner_edward.shtml#:~:text=Jenner was widely ridiculed.,been vaccinated sprouting cow's heads.
Without people pushing the boundaries we would not have vaccines or most of the drugs that allow a more comfortable life. Like most things in life it is a balancing act.
I love music but I don't write vast books about it, and I obviously admire the Stones but I can't name their best B-sides from 1965
If you are fascinated by the rise of Blues in England and how Keef REALLY learned guitar (over 200 pages) it's probably a great book. but for a more neutral punter, no. Elton John is much better
I wanna hear about the sex, drugs, and rock and roll: IN THAT ORDER
And if a genuine shared crisis like the last 18 months can't shake us out of it...
Yes I voted for them last time, but there'll be another election in a few years time.
If this nonsense and stuff like it goes ahead, and if a sane alternative appears, they won't get my vote next time and they certainly won't get me campaigning for them next time.
Theresa May lost before the crossover age backing her was 55.
Boris Johnson won because the crossover age backing him was 39.
If he screws the workers, then the party deserves a May style barracking next time.
- Jeff Goldblum in "Jurastic Park".
The aim is noble: to create new vaccines that will be ready to roll for the next pandemic, saving millions. The risk is bloody obvious, you create a hideous new virus before the vaccine is ready and it leaks. Bingo. You kill millions. As we maybe see
This is why so many virologists (and associated scientists and science journalists etc etc) are blatantly desperate to avoid the obvious conclusion, "FFS it came from the lab"
It means the end of much research, much funding, many careers, entire university departments. They will lie, outright, before they accept this.
It also means trouble for Fauci, the NIH, the Wellcome, the Lancet, and many science institutions across the West, who are likewise implicated, if only obliquely
My other main memory was a small lake which was the most beautiful location that I can remember swimming in. As you were swimming you would get a reflection of the mountains in the still water ahead of you. Stunning.