I'm off cycling France for a week this weekend so you will all be pleased to know I (probably) won't be challenging HYUFD's unique application of the use of statistics, numbers and logic for a bit.
Stop cheering at the back.
Cycling for Softies? I did one of those in the Loire - absolutely fantastic although I do remember at one stage tearing* along what must be the equivalent of their A1(M) in torrential rain to get to my next stop.
Whereas if you pootle along with your triple (and a few tripels) at 110W you do about 25km/h.
That's a lot of effort just to push wind...
drag force = 1/2ρv^2CdA
So you need 4x the power to double the speed. Ignoring rolling resistance and drivetrain losses (about 3% if you are using a non junk groupset like DURA ACE).
The time to introduce vaccine passports was three or four months ago, when they might have actually made a difference to case numbers & hospitalisations, and helped normalise the need for near 100% take-up as part of re-opening. Now we've had the re-opening, so introducing them is taking people's freedom away rather than adding to them, and in any case people quite rightly won't be able to understand why they are necessary now, and it's now necessary to get jabbed, when the government effectively indicated that this wasn't the case previously.
It's a major failure of policy and planning that this has been bodged so badly. TBH I think it's too late now. As a result of this faffing about, people have died, and been seriously ill, unnecessarily.
Couldn't agree more although in fairness I think there were expectations that the double vaxxed would have more immunity than has proven to be the case so it was anticipated that we would have a lot more herd immunity right now than seems to be the case.
But we are still, even now, not treating this wretched disease seriously enough. If you want to mix with the public in large events you should be vaccinated, otherwise piss off. Kids should have been vaccinated through the summer holidays before they returned to school. We should be getting on with boosters for those particularly vulnerable now, before the numbers rise again. If we want to live normally in the face of this disease we need to pull out all the stops to reduce the risks. I don't think the government are.
Very long, but good article (for those interested in the topic), illustrating for the nth time that ideologues of both left and right are usually wrong.
Not to rule things out without due consideration but this has an air of taking the piss.
If they’re escaping persecution, they will be happy to be given an opportunity of a new life in a safe country.
If they’re primarily economic migrants, desparate specifically to get to the UK, on the other hand…
Yes. This proposal is imo mainly about expressing the following 2 sentiments: Most asylum seekers are on the make rather than fleeing persecution. They should be grateful for anything they get, aka 'beggars can't be choosers'.
Being an economic migrant doesn't mean "on the make" though does it. It just means that you want to live where you choose without regard for the entry laws of the country that you want to move to.
If you are happy to accept, say, 1000 migrants now (I assume you are) then what about the next 1000 and what about the 1000 after that. Logically, there must be a limit to your position surely (small island and all that). And if logically you do have a limit then at that point you must be in favour of applying the laws and our boundary defences to ensure that "your" limit is not breached?
And if that is the case why not do that now?
It means seeking a better life and most come legally under our Immigration system (which we have to have since the nirvana of global open borders is a long way off). Then you have the people - also seeking a better life - who are in addition fleeing something, ie the push factor is bigger than the pull. Asylum seekers, refugees, ad hoc (rather than formalized) economic migrants, with these categories overlapping and muddy in reality as opposed to what the boxes on forms say. I think we should take more of these people than we do, and so should other rich countries, which needs a degree of co-operation that seems lacking for one reason or another.
When we can ask the following and get sensible answers, then we can have a proper national conversation on immigration...
- What is the intended population of the county 10, 20, 30, 50 years into the future? - What is the plan for matching the housing and other infrastructure to that population? - What is the difference between the intended population (and in what demographics/skills) and the population that will be present in the country already.
This makes sense but it's a Not Happening Event in a country like ours. We don't do plans beyond electoral timeframes. TBF, it's probably a necessary price of democracy.
As a general point I'm never quite sure what a "proper national conversation" looks and feels like, outside of elections and referendums.
The standard answer is we can't plan that. But apparently we have plans for the NHS for 20 years. Plans for house building. Plans for road building.....
As to "proper national conversation".... Something beyond -
"You smell!!" "You smell worse!"
etc etc...
DO we have serious robust plans like that going out 20 years? That's a revelation to me.
Concrete plans - no. Projections and plans, yes.
TfL, for example, has robust plans for the next few years and a series of plans, based on various projections of usage, going out to 20 years.
The NHS has plans for various bits of itself that look a decade ahead, similarly.
It's not all made up on the day.
This is the reason that the permanent portion of government (civil servants etc) has its own views and policies. Because this is a chunk of what they are doing.
It's a tricky one. Being purely rational it makes sense to take a lot of things outside party politics. Eg I bet China could teach us a thing or two about long term planning. But there's a downside with that.
Ministers are having second thoughts on plans to introduce mandatory Covid passports for nightclubs and other “high-risk” venues after Tory MPs tore into the proposals in the Commons.
Serious doubts have emerged over the policy, with officials now looking at whether case rates will require such measures.
A Whitehall source said “no decisions have been made yet” on the proposals, despite the Government insisting that the passes will be mandatory from the end of the month.
Perhaps the shambles north of the border - "vote for it today, details to follow, (like "what a nightclub is")"......will help them think again....
If the vaccinated can still spread COVID, what's the point of "vaccine passports"?
Bit in Bold: That's like saying "if driving at 20 can still cause fatal accidents, what's the point of "speed limits?"".
The risk is much lower post vaccination. I oppose vaccine passports on principle, but lets not pretend they're not practical or would not work in reducing risk.
The question that needs answering is if that risk is worth sacrificing for. To me, no.
I'm up for much more targeted and swingeing measures against those who are unvaccinated by choice, they're disproportionately the hospitalisations; and even more so the ICU occupancy. They're the ones blocking the beds at the start of the NHS backlog; which means that waiting list isn't being got through, which means the money can't head more quickly into social care and has cost us all a packet in NI to try and start sorting the problem.
Vaccine passports for entry everywhere should just be the start.
A 9% surcharge to tax rates for anyone unvaccinated, just like the surcharge in tax rates paid by graduates.
Smokers get treatment on the NHS but pay for it through taxes. Let antivaxxers be the same.
If they are going for Zero Covid forever then they are going for zero tourism industry forever. Completely cutting themselves off from the outside world. I'm sure it sounds good to people now, how about in 3 years time?
Quote from the article: “a careful approach that says, there won’t be zero cases, but when there is one in the community, we crush it”
She is saying that if they get a single case of Covid then they are going to impost lockdowns. How is that remotely sustainable. You might as well say lockdown the country if someone gets Flu. Bonkers. I think Jacinda has become so convinced of her own brilliance that she has lost touch with reality.
I'm off cycling France for a week this weekend so you will all be pleased to know I (probably) won't be challenging HYUFD's unique application of the use of statistics, numbers and logic for a bit.
Stop cheering at the back.
Cycling for Softies? I did one of those in the Loire - absolutely fantastic although I do remember at one stage tearing* along what must be the equivalent of their A1(M) in torrential rain to get to my next stop.
Whereas if you pootle along with your triple (and a few tripels) at 110W you do about 25km/h.
That's a lot of effort just to push wind...
drag force = 1/2ρv^2CdA
So you need 4x the power to double the speed. Ignoring rolling resistance and drivetrain losses (about 3% if you are using a non junk groupset like DURA ACE).
I started cycling to work this week, it's very nice. It takes me 45 minutes to go a bit over 6 miles so it's probably safe to assume that my FTP is not very impressive. Indeed up to now I thought FTP referred to something in computing or a hostile attitude towards the head of the Roman Catholic Church. You live and learn!
I don't know why we're bothering with the JCVI after that tripe they produced on 12-15.
Somebody needs to get off the crapper and make a decision one way or another. Otherwise we are going to end up in December going oh shit cases up, hospitalizations up, erhhhh.....then panic, 3rd jabs for all.
The time to introduce vaccine passports was three or four months ago, when they might have actually made a difference to case numbers & hospitalisations, and helped normalise the need for near 100% take-up as part of re-opening. Now we've had the re-opening, so introducing them is taking people's freedom away rather than adding to them, and in any case people quite rightly won't be able to understand why they are necessary now, and it's now necessary to get jabbed, when the government effectively indicated that this wasn't the case previously.
It's a major failure of policy and planning that this has been bodged so badly. TBH I think it's too late now. As a result of this faffing about, people have died, and been seriously ill, unnecessarily.
Yep - and see the Scottish Government's bodged plans - where their spokesman on being asked questions on WATO simply said said "I don't know". This is for a law that will be in place in three weeks:
Definition of nightclubs Nightclubs were not previously defined in the Covid regulations, so the dictionary definition applied. However, there is now a need to define nightclubs and other analogous venues, as behaviours that were previously prohibited are now allowed in wider parts of hospitality (for example, after midnight alcohol, loud music, dancing, and close contact for long periods). The Scottish Government is working with stakeholders to finalise a definition that will ensure the intended public health benefit, but not result in market distortion or displacement.
Ministers are having second thoughts on plans to introduce mandatory Covid passports for nightclubs and other “high-risk” venues after Tory MPs tore into the proposals in the Commons.
Serious doubts have emerged over the policy, with officials now looking at whether case rates will require such measures.
A Whitehall source said “no decisions have been made yet” on the proposals, despite the Government insisting that the passes will be mandatory from the end of the month.
Perhaps the shambles north of the border - "vote for it today, details to follow, (like "what a nightclub is")"......will help them think again....
If the vaccinated can still spread COVID, what's the point of "vaccine passports"?
If the vaccinated can still spread COVID, what's the point of "vaccine passports"?
Lower individual risk. Which translates to fewer cases.
Given over 80% of the population who can go to night clubs have been double jabbed - which has significantly reduced their chances of hospitalisation, serious illness or death - and the vast majority of the remaining 20% have had the option to (and 89% have had one jab), when would you stop requiring proof of vaccination?
I wouldn't introduce, but if they are introduced it should be reviewed next spring/summer once we've gotten through the winter flu season.
Ministers are having second thoughts on plans to introduce mandatory Covid passports for nightclubs and other “high-risk” venues after Tory MPs tore into the proposals in the Commons.
Serious doubts have emerged over the policy, with officials now looking at whether case rates will require such measures.
A Whitehall source said “no decisions have been made yet” on the proposals, despite the Government insisting that the passes will be mandatory from the end of the month.
Perhaps the shambles north of the border - "vote for it today, details to follow, (like "what a nightclub is")"......will help them think again....
If the vaccinated can still spread COVID, what's the point of "vaccine passports"?
If the vaccinated can still spread COVID, what's the point of "vaccine passports"?
Lower individual risk. Which translates to fewer cases.
Given over 80% of the population who can go to night clubs have been double jabbed - which has significantly reduced their chances of hospitalisation, serious illness or death - and the vast majority of the remaining 20% have had the option to (and 89% have had one jab), when would you stop requiring proof of vaccination?
When the vaccinated are of equal likelihood to be a new case compared to the unvaccinated.
Ministers are having second thoughts on plans to introduce mandatory Covid passports for nightclubs and other “high-risk” venues after Tory MPs tore into the proposals in the Commons.
Serious doubts have emerged over the policy, with officials now looking at whether case rates will require such measures.
A Whitehall source said “no decisions have been made yet” on the proposals, despite the Government insisting that the passes will be mandatory from the end of the month.
Perhaps the shambles north of the border - "vote for it today, details to follow, (like "what a nightclub is")"......will help them think again....
If the vaccinated can still spread COVID, what's the point of "vaccine passports"?
Bit in Bold: That's like saying "if driving at 20 can still cause fatal accidents, what's the point of "speed limits?"".
The risk is much lower post vaccination. I oppose vaccine passports on principle, but lets not pretend they're not practical or would not work in reducing risk.
The question that needs answering is if that risk is worth sacrificing for. To me, no.
In the context of over 80% double jabbed and another 9% single jabbed, at what point do you conclude "it wouldn't be worth the effort"?
Sarwar a bit like Leonard who was a bit like Kezia who was a bit like etc etc
SNP are much like the Tories in the UK more generally though. Nobody's on their heels, but they're not winning new votes.
I can't see much risk in either case, but sitting on the top of a hill of your own making isn't ideal.
Yes, the recent high watermark for Slab was in late 2017 during the Corbyn bounce where they reached 25% of the list vote but there's not a huge mount of evidence that Scottish Labour leaders matter that much.
The Holyrood polling largely shows almost no change within the margin of error.
I would argue that the Westminster polling is more damning for Scottish Labour TBH (where you'd usually expect them to do a few % better) and is an indictment of Starmer and his advisors etc.
I would also argue at the moment that Starmer is more incompetent than Sarwar who is merely doing what's expected even if that's just keeping Scottish Labour in a holding position.
I wouldn't even completely rule out the possibility of Labour being the largest party on Glasgow council next year due to the waste crisis.
Ministers are having second thoughts on plans to introduce mandatory Covid passports for nightclubs and other “high-risk” venues after Tory MPs tore into the proposals in the Commons.
Serious doubts have emerged over the policy, with officials now looking at whether case rates will require such measures.
A Whitehall source said “no decisions have been made yet” on the proposals, despite the Government insisting that the passes will be mandatory from the end of the month.
Perhaps the shambles north of the border - "vote for it today, details to follow, (like "what a nightclub is")"......will help them think again....
If the vaccinated can still spread COVID, what's the point of "vaccine passports"?
Bit in Bold: That's like saying "if driving at 20 can still cause fatal accidents, what's the point of "speed limits?"".
The risk is much lower post vaccination. I oppose vaccine passports on principle, but lets not pretend they're not practical or would not work in reducing risk.
The question that needs answering is if that risk is worth sacrificing for. To me, no.
In the context of over 80% double jabbed and another 9% single jabbed, at what point do you conclude "it wouldn't be worth the effort"?
Nightclub attendance is primarily amongst younger groups, who are less vaccinated than the general population.
However, looking at the splits of voters, it looks like the survey has overweighted Bay voters (c 33pc of the poll vs c 20pc of CA pop) and underweighted Orange / San Diego (c 13pc of respondents vs c 17-18pc pop). So, chances are the recall vote difference may not be so great as this might suggest
I'm off cycling France for a week this weekend so you will all be pleased to know I (probably) won't be challenging HYUFD's unique application of the use of statistics, numbers and logic for a bit.
Stop cheering at the back.
Cycling for Softies? I did one of those in the Loire - absolutely fantastic although I do remember at one stage tearing* along what must be the equivalent of their A1(M) in torrential rain to get to my next stop.
Whereas if you pootle along with your triple (and a few tripels) at 110W you do about 25km/h.
That's a lot of effort just to push wind...
drag force = 1/2ρv^2CdA
So you need 4x the power to double the speed. Ignoring rolling resistance and drivetrain losses (about 3% if you are using a non junk groupset like DURA ACE).
Brings back happy memories of learning about fluid hydrodynamic. Although that was more about erosion of structures, such as bridge abutments and piers.
Ministers are having second thoughts on plans to introduce mandatory Covid passports for nightclubs and other “high-risk” venues after Tory MPs tore into the proposals in the Commons.
Serious doubts have emerged over the policy, with officials now looking at whether case rates will require such measures.
A Whitehall source said “no decisions have been made yet” on the proposals, despite the Government insisting that the passes will be mandatory from the end of the month.
Perhaps the shambles north of the border - "vote for it today, details to follow, (like "what a nightclub is")"......will help them think again....
If the vaccinated can still spread COVID, what's the point of "vaccine passports"?
Bit in Bold: That's like saying "if driving at 20 can still cause fatal accidents, what's the point of "speed limits?"".
The risk is much lower post vaccination. I oppose vaccine passports on principle, but lets not pretend they're not practical or would not work in reducing risk.
The question that needs answering is if that risk is worth sacrificing for. To me, no.
In the context of over 80% double jabbed and another 9% single jabbed, at what point do you conclude "it wouldn't be worth the effort"?
If they're introduced then once we reach 100% or get through the winter flu season without requiring another lockdown.
My order of preference is:
Full liberty for everyone > Full liberty for vaccinated, lockdown antivaxxers > lockdown everyone
NEW: From today, PHE will publish vaccination status of COVID-19 cases, deaths and hospitalisations over the past 4 weeks in the weekly Vaccination Surveillance Report
I'm off cycling France for a week this weekend so you will all be pleased to know I (probably) won't be challenging HYUFD's unique application of the use of statistics, numbers and logic for a bit.
Stop cheering at the back.
Cycling for Softies? I did one of those in the Loire - absolutely fantastic although I do remember at one stage tearing* along what must be the equivalent of their A1(M) in torrential rain to get to my next stop.
Whereas if you pootle along with your triple (and a few tripels) at 110W you do about 25km/h.
That's a lot of effort just to push wind...
drag force = 1/2ρv^2CdA
So you need 4x the power to double the speed. Ignoring rolling resistance and drivetrain losses (about 3% if you are using a non junk groupset like DURA ACE).
Not to rule things out without due consideration but this has an air of taking the piss.
If they’re escaping persecution, they will be happy to be given an opportunity of a new life in a safe country.
If they’re primarily economic migrants, desparate specifically to get to the UK, on the other hand…
Yes. This proposal is imo mainly about expressing the following 2 sentiments: Most asylum seekers are on the make rather than fleeing persecution. They should be grateful for anything they get, aka 'beggars can't be choosers'.
Being an economic migrant doesn't mean "on the make" though does it. It just means that you want to live where you choose without regard for the entry laws of the country that you want to move to.
If you are happy to accept, say, 1000 migrants now (I assume you are) then what about the next 1000 and what about the 1000 after that. Logically, there must be a limit to your position surely (small island and all that). And if logically you do have a limit then at that point you must be in favour of applying the laws and our boundary defences to ensure that "your" limit is not breached?
And if that is the case why not do that now?
It means seeking a better life and most come legally under our Immigration system (which we have to have since the nirvana of global open borders is a long way off). Then you have the people - also seeking a better life - who are in addition fleeing something, ie the push factor is bigger than the pull. Asylum seekers, refugees, ad hoc (rather than formalized) economic migrants, with these categories overlapping and muddy in reality as opposed to what the boxes on forms say. I think we should take more of these people than we do, and so should other rich countries, which needs a degree of co-operation that seems lacking for one reason or another.
When we can ask the following and get sensible answers, then we can have a proper national conversation on immigration...
- What is the intended population of the county 10, 20, 30, 50 years into the future? - What is the plan for matching the housing and other infrastructure to that population? - What is the difference between the intended population (and in what demographics/skills) and the population that will be present in the country already.
This makes sense but it's a Not Happening Event in a country like ours. We don't do plans beyond electoral timeframes. TBF, it's probably a necessary price of democracy.
As a general point I'm never quite sure what a "proper national conversation" looks and feels like, outside of elections and referendums.
The standard answer is we can't plan that. But apparently we have plans for the NHS for 20 years. Plans for house building. Plans for road building.....
As to "proper national conversation".... Something beyond -
"You smell!!" "You smell worse!"
etc etc...
DO we have serious robust plans like that going out 20 years? That's a revelation to me.
Politics in the UK is never planned further forward than six months out from the next General Election.
Hence no GREAT LEAP FORWARD for us. Just Johnson gurning around for votes so he can keep being PM. There must be a better way surely.
Ministers are having second thoughts on plans to introduce mandatory Covid passports for nightclubs and other “high-risk” venues after Tory MPs tore into the proposals in the Commons.
Serious doubts have emerged over the policy, with officials now looking at whether case rates will require such measures.
A Whitehall source said “no decisions have been made yet” on the proposals, despite the Government insisting that the passes will be mandatory from the end of the month.
Perhaps the shambles north of the border - "vote for it today, details to follow, (like "what a nightclub is")"......will help them think again....
If the vaccinated can still spread COVID, what's the point of "vaccine passports"?
Bit in Bold: That's like saying "if driving at 20 can still cause fatal accidents, what's the point of "speed limits?"".
The risk is much lower post vaccination. I oppose vaccine passports on principle, but lets not pretend they're not practical or would not work in reducing risk.
The question that needs answering is if that risk is worth sacrificing for. To me, no.
In the context of over 80% double jabbed and another 9% single jabbed, at what point do you conclude "it wouldn't be worth the effort"?
If they're introduced then once we reach 100% or get through the winter flu season without requiring another lockdown.
My order of preference is:
Full liberty for everyone > Full liberty for vaccinated, lockdown antivaxxers > lockdown everyone
So you will give the police the right to demand proof of vaccination. Interesting
Not to rule things out without due consideration but this has an air of taking the piss.
If they’re escaping persecution, they will be happy to be given an opportunity of a new life in a safe country.
If they’re primarily economic migrants, desparate specifically to get to the UK, on the other hand…
Yes. This proposal is imo mainly about expressing the following 2 sentiments: Most asylum seekers are on the make rather than fleeing persecution. They should be grateful for anything they get, aka 'beggars can't be choosers'.
Being an economic migrant doesn't mean "on the make" though does it. It just means that you want to live where you choose without regard for the entry laws of the country that you want to move to.
If you are happy to accept, say, 1000 migrants now (I assume you are) then what about the next 1000 and what about the 1000 after that. Logically, there must be a limit to your position surely (small island and all that). And if logically you do have a limit then at that point you must be in favour of applying the laws and our boundary defences to ensure that "your" limit is not breached?
And if that is the case why not do that now?
It means seeking a better life and most come legally under our Immigration system (which we have to have since the nirvana of global open borders is a long way off). Then you have the people - also seeking a better life - who are in addition fleeing something, ie the push factor is bigger than the pull. Asylum seekers, refugees, ad hoc (rather than formalized) economic migrants, with these categories overlapping and muddy in reality as opposed to what the boxes on forms say. I think we should take more of these people than we do, and so should other rich countries, which needs a degree of co-operation that seems lacking for one reason or another.
When we can ask the following and get sensible answers, then we can have a proper national conversation on immigration...
- What is the intended population of the county 10, 20, 30, 50 years into the future? - What is the plan for matching the housing and other infrastructure to that population? - What is the difference between the intended population (and in what demographics/skills) and the population that will be present in the country already.
This makes sense but it's a Not Happening Event in a country like ours. We don't do plans beyond electoral timeframes. TBF, it's probably a necessary price of democracy.
As a general point I'm never quite sure what a "proper national conversation" looks and feels like, outside of elections and referendums.
The standard answer is we can't plan that. But apparently we have plans for the NHS for 20 years. Plans for house building. Plans for road building.....
As to "proper national conversation".... Something beyond -
"You smell!!" "You smell worse!"
etc etc...
DO we have serious robust plans like that going out 20 years? That's a revelation to me.
Concrete plans - no. Projections and plans, yes.
TfL, for example, has robust plans for the next few years and a series of plans, based on various projections of usage, going out to 20 years.
The NHS has plans for various bits of itself that look a decade ahead, similarly.
It's not all made up on the day.
This is the reason that the permanent portion of government (civil servants etc) has its own views and policies. Because this is a chunk of what they are doing.
It's a tricky one. Being purely rational it makes sense to take a lot of things outside party politics. Eg I bet China could teach us a thing or two about long term planning. But there's a downside with that.
Ah, the olde-but-golde "Take the politics out of X"
i.e. "Give us the money, and have no say on how we spend it"
Runs into the small problem that spending public money is politics. By definition. And the wretched Head Count think they should have a say in politics....
NEW: From today, PHE will publish vaccination status of COVID-19 cases, deaths and hospitalisations over the past 4 weeks in the weekly Vaccination Surveillance Report
If I'm reading that right, double vaxxed 80+ basically brings your risk vs hospitalisation to the de novo immunity of 18 - 29 yr olds. That's frankly amazing
NEW: From today, PHE will publish vaccination status of COVID-19 cases, deaths and hospitalisations over the past 4 weeks in the weekly Vaccination Surveillance Report
Very long, but good article (for those interested in the topic), illustrating for the nth time that ideologues of both left and right are usually wrong.
In a five way monologue between fundamentalist political converts (of right and left), pragmatists, religious bigots, scientists and philosophers what could possibly go wrong when discussing important questions for humanity that have no definitive solution?
Victims of police injustice are calling for the prime minister to replace Met Police Commissioner Dame Cressida Dick when her contract comes to an end in April.
NEW: From today, PHE will publish vaccination status of COVID-19 cases, deaths and hospitalisations over the past 4 weeks in the weekly Vaccination Surveillance Report
If I'm reading that right, double vaxxed 80+ basically brings your risk vs hospitalisation to the de novo immunity of 18 - 29 yr olds. That's frankly amazing
You are reading that correctly - vaccination reduces your risk by approximately 66% for an 80+ year old. Younger cohorts see greater reductions in hospitalisation rates, dropping to about 85% for for the 20-30 grouping.
Ministers are having second thoughts on plans to introduce mandatory Covid passports for nightclubs and other “high-risk” venues after Tory MPs tore into the proposals in the Commons.
Serious doubts have emerged over the policy, with officials now looking at whether case rates will require such measures.
A Whitehall source said “no decisions have been made yet” on the proposals, despite the Government insisting that the passes will be mandatory from the end of the month.
Perhaps the shambles north of the border - "vote for it today, details to follow, (like "what a nightclub is")"......will help them think again....
If the vaccinated can still spread COVID, what's the point of "vaccine passports"?
Bit in Bold: That's like saying "if driving at 20 can still cause fatal accidents, what's the point of "speed limits?"".
The risk is much lower post vaccination. I oppose vaccine passports on principle, but lets not pretend they're not practical or would not work in reducing risk.
The question that needs answering is if that risk is worth sacrificing for. To me, no.
In the context of over 80% double jabbed and another 9% single jabbed, at what point do you conclude "it wouldn't be worth the effort"?
If they're introduced then once we reach 100% or get through the winter flu season without requiring another lockdown.
My order of preference is:
Full liberty for everyone > Full liberty for vaccinated, lockdown antivaxxers > lockdown everyone
So you will give the police the right to demand proof of vaccination. Interesting
No I would not. As I said I would have full liberty for everyone.
However if there are to be lockdown restrictions they 100% should be applied to the unvaccinated first before applying to everyone. I'd prefer zero restrictions, but the unvaccinated can own the consequences of their decisions if restrictions are applied.
The Prole FPT 'At which point, they might suddenly discover that the problem is the planning system / greenbelt, and vote to abolish it.
If the South ever gets below 50% home ownership, it becomes in most voters interest to demolish the planning system, build like crazy and crash the price of housing.
One of the interesting things about the economics of housing is that being so essential, it's very price sensitive to supply and demand. Ten people fighting over nine houses will result in the richest nine all putting at least more the maximum amount that the tenth man can afford. Ten people fighting over ten houses - whoever is willing to take the crummiest one pays nearly nothing, then it just comes down to the margin people will pay for the nicer ones. You only have to build one extra house to get from one of these scenarios to the other. I wonder how many extra houses it would take to collapse house prices in the SE back to the value of the agricultural land plus the building costs. Maybe a million - possibly half that, especially if it was obvious that anyone who wanted to pay the minimum could just buy a lump of farmland and build on it.'
No, they do not want the entirety of the South East turned into a concrete jungle and urban sprawl either.
Plus unless you end all foreign investment in London property, severely restrict immigration and ensure new affordable homes are restricted to local first time buyers who have lived there for 7 years or more only new housing alone would not solve the problem
Who is "they" in this instance? Existing homeowners obviously don't want to concrete over the SE for any number of reasons. I think if you offered those who are paying £1k a month to rent a small flat the opportunity to pay ~£150k for a 3 bed semi, providing they don't mind concreting over some of the greenbelt, they will mostly bite your hands off. As I said in my original post, the magic tipping point where this leads to a change of policy will arrive when a little more than half of residents are renting.
And yes, enough new housing would solve the problem of it being too expensive. Imagine I could snap my fingers and create 10 million houses in the SE, then auction them off at the rate of 100,000 a day, no reserve. By the end of week two, I suspect they would be fetching less than the building cost. Especially if it was known that I could snap my fingers and do it again once I'd sold them all, so there was no incentive to buy them as rental investments.
Don't get me wrong, there might be practical issues with my just plonking millions more houses down overnight, and it would create a whole raft of other issues, but it would indisputably reduce house prices to a fraction of what they are today.
The existing residents of the SE, see the LD win in Chesham and Amersham for instance over too much building on the greenbelt. Nor do those moving there from London to buy, they don't want to live in a concrete jungle.
Oh, I don't doubt that existing/new homeowners won't want more houses built. My point is that as prices spiral further and further out of reach, the proportion of homeowners will drop, and as BTL landlords only get one vote each, regardless of how many houses they own (and foreign investors get no votes) at some point there is likely to be a majority of voters renting. They won't care about trashing house prices, and will only care a little bit about concreting over everything. They only need to have the upper hand in a 52:48 sort of way, and there could be massive changes to planning rules.
Unless every new home is limited to locals who are first time buyers who have lived in the area for 7 years or more, foreign property investment in London is banned reducing the numbers of Londoners forced into the Home Counties to buy and immigration is severely restricted reducing demand, new homes alone will not make much difference to affordability in the SE
You just don't get it do you. If you make the supply of houses infinite, they will cease to have much value. For all that there is a massive housing shortage in the SE, it isn't say 50% short of houses (maybe 10% short), but only about half of land is built on, so there is physically enough room to build enough housing to collapse prices. If you abolished planning permission, and could find enough builders, it wouldn't take very long for prices to revert to agricultural land value + building costs.
Anyway, time for my fun proposal of the day, which would annoy all the right people... Change the classification of land used as golf courses from agricultural to development land. All existing land used as golf courses gets automatic reclassification. To create a new course on a greenfield requires change of use from agricultural.
Potentially room for quite a lot of building made available at the stroke of a pen, without losing a single bit of actual farmland... What's not to like!
No as the South East will continue to have a majority of homeowners, just more of them will be coming from London with London salaries to buy as they cannot afford to buy in the capital which will remain majority rent.
We also do not want to see the destruction of the greenspace and countryside in the Home Counties, nor do those new ex London homeowners as once it is lost it will not come back.
I don't disagree on allowing a few golf courses to be developed however
Not mine, though, thank you very much. Golf keeps me in sound mental and physical order.
Spain has said only the severely immuno suppressed will be given 3rd jabs at this stage. Still too little evidence of the need for the general population to given boosters.
I'm off cycling France for a week this weekend so you will all be pleased to know I (probably) won't be challenging HYUFD's unique application of the use of statistics, numbers and logic for a bit.
Stop cheering at the back.
Cycling for Softies? I did one of those in the Loire - absolutely fantastic although I do remember at one stage tearing* along what must be the equivalent of their A1(M) in torrential rain to get to my next stop.
Whereas if you pootle along with your triple (and a few tripels) at 110W you do about 25km/h.
That's a lot of effort just to push wind...
drag force = 1/2ρv^2CdA
So you need 4x the power to double the speed. Ignoring rolling resistance and drivetrain losses (about 3% if you are using a non junk groupset like DURA ACE).
Yes, exactly. Of course, if you are in a race, make as much effort as you like.
Pootling about, it makes much more sense to trundle along on the flat and attack the hills, as that's where power makes the biggest time difference. OK, there's actually no hills here, but I'm sure that's not relevant...
My wife's DURA-ACE downtube shifter must be the reason she goes faster than me on the flat.
I'm off cycling France for a week this weekend so you will all be pleased to know I (probably) won't be challenging HYUFD's unique application of the use of statistics, numbers and logic for a bit.
Stop cheering at the back.
Cycling for Softies? I did one of those in the Loire - absolutely fantastic although I do remember at one stage tearing* along what must be the equivalent of their A1(M) in torrential rain to get to my next stop.
Whereas if you pootle along with your triple (and a few tripels) at 110W you do about 25km/h.
That's a lot of effort just to push wind...
drag force = 1/2ρv^2CdA
So you need 4x the power to double the speed. Ignoring rolling resistance and drivetrain losses (about 3% if you are using a non junk groupset like DURA ACE).
Where are the atmosphere things in that equation?
ρ = air density
I have a long neglected copy of Paterson's 'Fluid Dynamics' on the shelf. I might brush up.
PHE have had a crack at doing a "What if no vaccinations?" scenario properly (i.e., including effects on transmission.) Conclusion. It would already have peaked. In July. You do have to ignore the heap of 110,000 more bodies though.
However, looking at the splits of voters, it looks like the survey has overweighted Bay voters (c 33pc of the poll vs c 20pc of CA pop) and underweighted Orange / San Diego (c 13pc of respondents vs c 17-18pc pop). So, chances are the recall vote difference may not be so great as this might suggest
The Yes campaign is generally better organised, and has taken use of things like Churches to get the recall message across. I think these polls also depress the No vote - why bother with all the hassle of getting the ballot paper back if it's not in doubt?
That being said, I think Larry Elder is working hard to increase Democratic turnout: his statement that he'd appoint a Republican to replace Feinstein will probably have motivated a few folk, while his musings about slaveowners being owed compensation for the abolition of slavery might not have been the best way to boost the number of African Americans voting for him.
My gut remains that Newsom holds on, albeit with a smaller lead than that poll suggests. I'm going with 54-46.
I am torn between thinking about a cure worse than the disease and the prospects of improving the body politic in the US.
It make me think of the Stargate SG1 episode 2010: a seemingly utopian society is created on Earth, but by secretly having that level of sterility in people created.
Victims of police injustice are calling for the prime minister to replace Met Police Commissioner Dame Cressida Dick when her contract comes to an end in April.
I'm off cycling France for a week this weekend so you will all be pleased to know I (probably) won't be challenging HYUFD's unique application of the use of statistics, numbers and logic for a bit.
Stop cheering at the back.
Cycling for Softies? I did one of those in the Loire - absolutely fantastic although I do remember at one stage tearing* along what must be the equivalent of their A1(M) in torrential rain to get to my next stop.
Whereas if you pootle along with your triple (and a few tripels) at 110W you do about 25km/h.
That's a lot of effort just to push wind...
drag force = 1/2ρv^2CdA
So you need 4x the power to double the speed. Ignoring rolling resistance and drivetrain losses (about 3% if you are using a non junk groupset like DURA ACE).
Yes, exactly. Of course, if you are in a race, make as much effort as you like.
Pootling about, it makes much more sense to trundle along on the flat and attack the hills, as that's where power makes the biggest time difference. OK, there's actually no hills here, but I'm sure that's not relevant...
My wife's DURA-ACE downtube shifter must be the reason she goes faster than me on the flat.
Get her a new bike. DA hasn't had downtube shifters since 7900 in 2008.
However, looking at the splits of voters, it looks like the survey has overweighted Bay voters (c 33pc of the poll vs c 20pc of CA pop) and underweighted Orange / San Diego (c 13pc of respondents vs c 17-18pc pop). So, chances are the recall vote difference may not be so great as this might suggest
The Yes campaign is generally better organised, and has taken use of things like Churches to get the recall message across. I think these polls also depress the No vote - why bother with all the hassle of getting the ballot paper back if it's not in doubt?
That being said, I think Larry Elder is working hard to increase Democratic turnout: his statement that he'd appoint a Republican to replace Feinstein will probably have motivated a few folk, while his musings about slaveowners being owed compensation for the abolition of slavery might not have been the best way to boost the number of African Americans voting for him.
My gut remains that Newsom holds on, albeit with a smaller lead than that poll suggests. I'm going with 54-46.
An idea that is literally unconstitutional under the 14th amendment.
If they are going for Zero Covid forever then they are going for zero tourism industry forever. Completely cutting themselves off from the outside world. I'm sure it sounds good to people now, how about in 3 years time?
Indefinitely can mean forever or it can mean for an unknown amount of time. I think they mean the second. As she says, their aim is to get to point where vaccinated can all come without isolation.
Without wishing to jinx it... looks like their latest lockdown may even be containing delta. Which is very impressive.
Spain has said only the severely immuno suppressed will be given 3rd jabs at this stage. Still too little evidence of the need for the general population to given boosters.
PHE have had a crack at doing a "What if no vaccinations?" scenario properly (i.e., including effects on transmission.) Conclusion. It would already have peaked. In July. You do have to ignore the heap of 110,000 more bodies though.
Ye - if vaccines aren't effective enough at a population level to push transmission sub 1 in a vaccinated population, your pandemic IS better but it will take longer to reach a true peak. The medium/long term hybrid immunity is better though so it helps with subsequent waves compared to natural immunity.
Spain has said only the severely immuno suppressed will be given 3rd jabs at this stage. Still too little evidence of the need for the general population to given boosters.
As a politician, who would take the risk?
Precautionary Principle surely says offer the booster and re-evaluate next year after the winter.
If you draw a table of possible options, prisoners dilemma style, then the worst case scenario is clearly that boosters are needed but not offered. So avoid that scenario.
6,836 Scotland cases. I'm not exactly feeling the decline everyone has been saying that is happening.
Scotland is current plateauing or possibly at the very start of a decline. Will be far more clear as to the situation next week.
Yes, it is too early to tell where we are at. Once again we've had a few days of "better than terrible" numbers and people have rushed to declare Victory Over Covid Day for the 37th time this pandemic.
NEW: From today, PHE will publish vaccination status of COVID-19 cases, deaths and hospitalisations over the past 4 weeks in the weekly Vaccination Surveillance Report
If I'm reading that right, double vaxxed 80+ basically brings your risk vs hospitalisation to the de novo immunity of 18 - 29 yr olds. That's frankly amazing
You are reading that correctly - vaccination reduces your risk by approximately 66% for an 80+ year old. Younger cohorts see greater reductions in hospitalisation rates, dropping to about 85% for for the 20-30 grouping.
Data shows that vaccinations reduce everyone's chance of serious illness and death. However the data also shows that old people die more than young people which will, if it hasn't already, be spun by some to try and show that vaccines don't work.
Not to rule things out without due consideration but this has an air of taking the piss.
If they’re escaping persecution, they will be happy to be given an opportunity of a new life in a safe country.
If they’re primarily economic migrants, desparate specifically to get to the UK, on the other hand…
Yes. This proposal is imo mainly about expressing the following 2 sentiments: Most asylum seekers are on the make rather than fleeing persecution. They should be grateful for anything they get, aka 'beggars can't be choosers'.
Being an economic migrant doesn't mean "on the make" though does it. It just means that you want to live where you choose without regard for the entry laws of the country that you want to move to.
If you are happy to accept, say, 1000 migrants now (I assume you are) then what about the next 1000 and what about the 1000 after that. Logically, there must be a limit to your position surely (small island and all that). And if logically you do have a limit then at that point you must be in favour of applying the laws and our boundary defences to ensure that "your" limit is not breached?
And if that is the case why not do that now?
It means seeking a better life and most come legally under our Immigration system (which we have to have since the nirvana of global open borders is a long way off). Then you have the people - also seeking a better life - who are in addition fleeing something, ie the push factor is bigger than the pull. Asylum seekers, refugees, ad hoc (rather than formalized) economic migrants, with these categories overlapping and muddy in reality as opposed to what the boxes on forms say. I think we should take more of these people than we do, and so should other rich countries, which needs a degree of co-operation that seems lacking for one reason or another.
When we can ask the following and get sensible answers, then we can have a proper national conversation on immigration...
- What is the intended population of the county 10, 20, 30, 50 years into the future? - What is the plan for matching the housing and other infrastructure to that population? - What is the difference between the intended population (and in what demographics/skills) and the population that will be present in the country already.
This makes sense but it's a Not Happening Event in a country like ours. We don't do plans beyond electoral timeframes. TBF, it's probably a necessary price of democracy.
As a general point I'm never quite sure what a "proper national conversation" looks and feels like, outside of elections and referendums.
The standard answer is we can't plan that. But apparently we have plans for the NHS for 20 years. Plans for house building. Plans for road building.....
As to "proper national conversation".... Something beyond -
"You smell!!" "You smell worse!"
etc etc...
DO we have serious robust plans like that going out 20 years? That's a revelation to me.
Concrete plans - no. Projections and plans, yes.
TfL, for example, has robust plans for the next few years and a series of plans, based on various projections of usage, going out to 20 years.
The NHS has plans for various bits of itself that look a decade ahead, similarly.
It's not all made up on the day.
This is the reason that the permanent portion of government (civil servants etc) has its own views and policies. Because this is a chunk of what they are doing.
It's a tricky one. Being purely rational it makes sense to take a lot of things outside party politics. Eg I bet China could teach us a thing or two about long term planning. But there's a downside with that.
Ah, the olde-but-golde "Take the politics out of X"
i.e. "Give us the money, and have no say on how we spend it"
Runs into the small problem that spending public money is politics. By definition. And the wretched Head Count think they should have a say in politics....
Yes that's the downside I was thinking of. Fact is, you have to involve the public in order to guard against tyranny. But involving the public ensures inefficiency, mendacity, and short-termism. So here we are.
6,836 Scotland cases. I'm not exactly feeling the decline everyone has been saying that is happening.
Its not good. I can understand why the chaotic and largely non existent proposals from the Scottish government have generated opposition but the opposition should be focused on delivery rather than the principle.
Victims of police injustice are calling for the prime minister to replace Met Police Commissioner Dame Cressida Dick when her contract comes to an end in April.
6,836 Scotland cases. I'm not exactly feeling the decline everyone has been saying that is happening.
Scotland is current plateauing or possibly at the very start of a decline. Will be far more clear as to the situation next week.
Yes, it is too early to tell where we are at. Once again we've had a few days of "better than terrible" numbers and people have rushed to declare Victory Over Covid Day for the 37th time this pandemic.
Spain has said only the severely immuno suppressed will be given 3rd jabs at this stage. Still too little evidence of the need for the general population to given boosters.
As a politician, who would take the risk?
Risk of not boosting up your oldies over winter for Covid ?!
PHE have had a crack at doing a "What if no vaccinations?" scenario properly (i.e., including effects on transmission.) Conclusion. It would already have peaked. In July. You do have to ignore the heap of 110,000 more bodies though.
Really interesting. Actually lower than I would have expected.
So basically even with vaccines, we have had over half the deaths we would have had anyway. Really brings home the tragedy of how unnecessary the second wave was.
Not to rule things out without due consideration but this has an air of taking the piss.
If they’re escaping persecution, they will be happy to be given an opportunity of a new life in a safe country.
If they’re primarily economic migrants, desparate specifically to get to the UK, on the other hand…
Yes. This proposal is imo mainly about expressing the following 2 sentiments: Most asylum seekers are on the make rather than fleeing persecution. They should be grateful for anything they get, aka 'beggars can't be choosers'.
Being an economic migrant doesn't mean "on the make" though does it. It just means that you want to live where you choose without regard for the entry laws of the country that you want to move to.
If you are happy to accept, say, 1000 migrants now (I assume you are) then what about the next 1000 and what about the 1000 after that. Logically, there must be a limit to your position surely (small island and all that). And if logically you do have a limit then at that point you must be in favour of applying the laws and our boundary defences to ensure that "your" limit is not breached?
And if that is the case why not do that now?
It means seeking a better life and most come legally under our Immigration system (which we have to have since the nirvana of global open borders is a long way off). Then you have the people - also seeking a better life - who are in addition fleeing something, ie the push factor is bigger than the pull. Asylum seekers, refugees, ad hoc (rather than formalized) economic migrants, with these categories overlapping and muddy in reality as opposed to what the boxes on forms say. I think we should take more of these people than we do, and so should other rich countries, which needs a degree of co-operation that seems lacking for one reason or another.
When we can ask the following and get sensible answers, then we can have a proper national conversation on immigration...
- What is the intended population of the county 10, 20, 30, 50 years into the future? - What is the plan for matching the housing and other infrastructure to that population? - What is the difference between the intended population (and in what demographics/skills) and the population that will be present in the country already.
This makes sense but it's a Not Happening Event in a country like ours. We don't do plans beyond electoral timeframes. TBF, it's probably a necessary price of democracy.
As a general point I'm never quite sure what a "proper national conversation" looks and feels like, outside of elections and referendums.
The standard answer is we can't plan that. But apparently we have plans for the NHS for 20 years. Plans for house building. Plans for road building.....
As to "proper national conversation".... Something beyond -
"You smell!!" "You smell worse!"
etc etc...
DO we have serious robust plans like that going out 20 years? That's a revelation to me.
Concrete plans - no. Projections and plans, yes.
TfL, for example, has robust plans for the next few years and a series of plans, based on various projections of usage, going out to 20 years.
The NHS has plans for various bits of itself that look a decade ahead, similarly.
It's not all made up on the day.
This is the reason that the permanent portion of government (civil servants etc) has its own views and policies. Because this is a chunk of what they are doing.
It's a tricky one. Being purely rational it makes sense to take a lot of things outside party politics. Eg I bet China could teach us a thing or two about long term planning. But there's a downside with that.
Ah, the olde-but-golde "Take the politics out of X"
i.e. "Give us the money, and have no say on how we spend it"
Runs into the small problem that spending public money is politics. By definition. And the wretched Head Count think they should have a say in politics....
Yes that's the downside I was thinking of. Fact is, you have to involve the public in order to guard against tyranny. But involving the public ensures inefficiency, mendacity, and short-termism. So here we are.
Not to rule things out without due consideration but this has an air of taking the piss.
If they’re escaping persecution, they will be happy to be given an opportunity of a new life in a safe country.
If they’re primarily economic migrants, desparate specifically to get to the UK, on the other hand…
Yes. This proposal is imo mainly about expressing the following 2 sentiments: Most asylum seekers are on the make rather than fleeing persecution. They should be grateful for anything they get, aka 'beggars can't be choosers'.
Being an economic migrant doesn't mean "on the make" though does it. It just means that you want to live where you choose without regard for the entry laws of the country that you want to move to.
If you are happy to accept, say, 1000 migrants now (I assume you are) then what about the next 1000 and what about the 1000 after that. Logically, there must be a limit to your position surely (small island and all that). And if logically you do have a limit then at that point you must be in favour of applying the laws and our boundary defences to ensure that "your" limit is not breached?
And if that is the case why not do that now?
It means seeking a better life and most come legally under our Immigration system (which we have to have since the nirvana of global open borders is a long way off). Then you have the people - also seeking a better life - who are in addition fleeing something, ie the push factor is bigger than the pull. Asylum seekers, refugees, ad hoc (rather than formalized) economic migrants, with these categories overlapping and muddy in reality as opposed to what the boxes on forms say. I think we should take more of these people than we do, and so should other rich countries, which needs a degree of co-operation that seems lacking for one reason or another.
When we can ask the following and get sensible answers, then we can have a proper national conversation on immigration...
- What is the intended population of the county 10, 20, 30, 50 years into the future? - What is the plan for matching the housing and other infrastructure to that population? - What is the difference between the intended population (and in what demographics/skills) and the population that will be present in the country already.
This makes sense but it's a Not Happening Event in a country like ours. We don't do plans beyond electoral timeframes. TBF, it's probably a necessary price of democracy.
As a general point I'm never quite sure what a "proper national conversation" looks and feels like, outside of elections and referendums.
The standard answer is we can't plan that. But apparently we have plans for the NHS for 20 years. Plans for house building. Plans for road building.....
As to "proper national conversation".... Something beyond -
"You smell!!" "You smell worse!"
etc etc...
DO we have serious robust plans like that going out 20 years? That's a revelation to me.
Concrete plans - no. Projections and plans, yes.
TfL, for example, has robust plans for the next few years and a series of plans, based on various projections of usage, going out to 20 years.
The NHS has plans for various bits of itself that look a decade ahead, similarly.
It's not all made up on the day.
This is the reason that the permanent portion of government (civil servants etc) has its own views and policies. Because this is a chunk of what they are doing.
It's a tricky one. Being purely rational it makes sense to take a lot of things outside party politics. Eg I bet China could teach us a thing or two about long term planning. But there's a downside with that.
Ah, the olde-but-golde "Take the politics out of X"
i.e. "Give us the money, and have no say on how we spend it"
Runs into the small problem that spending public money is politics. By definition. And the wretched Head Count think they should have a say in politics....
Yes that's the downside I was thinking of. Fact is, you have to involve the public in order to guard against tyranny. But involving the public ensures inefficiency, mendacity, and short-termism. So here we are.
And believing that autocracies do better is a perennial mistake.
The trains didn't run on time.... It was just lied about....
Did you know that the famous spike in rare earth prices*, caused by Chinese export cuts, was actually down to the fact that in the monkeys-in-a-salad-bar style carve up of the Chinese state... a complete buffoon got the rare earth production?
*Alleged by some to be a master stroke of the Chinese taking control of Ze! Whole! Vurld! Ha! ha!
However, looking at the splits of voters, it looks like the survey has overweighted Bay voters (c 33pc of the poll vs c 20pc of CA pop) and underweighted Orange / San Diego (c 13pc of respondents vs c 17-18pc pop). So, chances are the recall vote difference may not be so great as this might suggest
The Yes campaign is generally better organised, and has taken use of things like Churches to get the recall message across. I think these polls also depress the No vote - why bother with all the hassle of getting the ballot paper back if it's not in doubt?
That being said, I think Larry Elder is working hard to increase Democratic turnout: his statement that he'd appoint a Republican to replace Feinstein will probably have motivated a few folk, while his musings about slaveowners being owed compensation for the abolition of slavery might not have been the best way to boost the number of African Americans voting for him.
My gut remains that Newsom holds on, albeit with a smaller lead than that poll suggests. I'm going with 54-46.
That has been my working assumption although I think there is still a risk for Newsom. I think Elder is assuming he won’t win, hence his musings which you’d expect he would tone down if he was being more political.
However, looking at the splits of voters, it looks like the survey has overweighted Bay voters (c 33pc of the poll vs c 20pc of CA pop) and underweighted Orange / San Diego (c 13pc of respondents vs c 17-18pc pop). So, chances are the recall vote difference may not be so great as this might suggest
The Yes campaign is generally better organised, and has taken use of things like Churches to get the recall message across. I think these polls also depress the No vote - why bother with all the hassle of getting the ballot paper back if it's not in doubt?
That being said, I think Larry Elder is working hard to increase Democratic turnout: his statement that he'd appoint a Republican to replace Feinstein will probably have motivated a few folk, while his musings about slaveowners being owed compensation for the abolition of slavery might not have been the best way to boost the number of African Americans voting for him.
My gut remains that Newsom holds on, albeit with a smaller lead than that poll suggests. I'm going with 54-46.
An idea that is literally unconstitutional under the 14th amendment.
Yes, but back in the day the SC interpreted a large part of that out of existence. The current court could take another look at it...
I'm off cycling France for a week this weekend so you will all be pleased to know I (probably) won't be challenging HYUFD's unique application of the use of statistics, numbers and logic for a bit.
Stop cheering at the back.
Cycling for Softies? I did one of those in the Loire - absolutely fantastic although I do remember at one stage tearing* along what must be the equivalent of their A1(M) in torrential rain to get to my next stop.
Whereas if you pootle along with your triple (and a few tripels) at 110W you do about 25km/h.
That's a lot of effort just to push wind...
drag force = 1/2ρv^2CdA
So you need 4x the power to double the speed. Ignoring rolling resistance and drivetrain losses (about 3% if you are using a non junk groupset like DURA ACE).
Yes, exactly. Of course, if you are in a race, make as much effort as you like.
Pootling about, it makes much more sense to trundle along on the flat and attack the hills, as that's where power makes the biggest time difference. OK, there's actually no hills here, but I'm sure that's not relevant...
My wife's DURA-ACE downtube shifter must be the reason she goes faster than me on the flat.
Get her a new bike. DA hasn't had downtube shifters since 7900 in 2008.
Are you a di2 or Axs person? Or are you sticking with mechanical?
Spain has said only the severely immuno suppressed will be given 3rd jabs at this stage. Still too little evidence of the need for the general population to given boosters.
As a politician, who would take the risk?
Precautionary Principle surely says offer the booster and re-evaluate next year after the winter.
If you draw a table of possible options, prisoners dilemma style, then the worst case scenario is clearly that boosters are needed but not offered. So avoid that scenario.
Its a bit like having unprotected sex on a one night stand....probably be ok....but if it isn't, the downsides could be enormous and life changing.
I am trying to remember a really good term somebody used on a podcast for a situation where the upside might only be small / non-existent of not taking a course of action, the downside is potentially enormous.
PHE have had a crack at doing a "What if no vaccinations?" scenario properly (i.e., including effects on transmission.) Conclusion. It would already have peaked. In July. You do have to ignore the heap of 110,000 more bodies though.
Really interesting. Actually lower than I would have expected.
So basically even with vaccines, we have had over half the deaths we would have had anyway. Really brings home the tragedy of how unnecessary the second wave was.
Whilst Christmas was a complete shitshow, I think it's hard to work out what a good winter would have been. Lockdown in September with schools shut until further notice. How sustainable would it have been to stay like that until April?
Spain has said only the severely immuno suppressed will be given 3rd jabs at this stage. Still too little evidence of the need for the general population to given boosters.
As a politician, who would take the risk?
Precautionary Principle surely says offer the booster and re-evaluate next year after the winter.
If you draw a table of possible options, prisoners dilemma style, then the worst case scenario is clearly that boosters are needed but not offered. So avoid that scenario.
This also offers an excellent chance to "mix and match", to maximize immune system response.
I'm off cycling France for a week this weekend so you will all be pleased to know I (probably) won't be challenging HYUFD's unique application of the use of statistics, numbers and logic for a bit.
Stop cheering at the back.
Cycling for Softies? I did one of those in the Loire - absolutely fantastic although I do remember at one stage tearing* along what must be the equivalent of their A1(M) in torrential rain to get to my next stop.
Whereas if you pootle along with your triple (and a few tripels) at 110W you do about 25km/h.
That's a lot of effort just to push wind...
drag force = 1/2ρv^2CdA
So you need 4x the power to double the speed. Ignoring rolling resistance and drivetrain losses (about 3% if you are using a non junk groupset like DURA ACE).
Yes, exactly. Of course, if you are in a race, make as much effort as you like.
Pootling about, it makes much more sense to trundle along on the flat and attack the hills, as that's where power makes the biggest time difference. OK, there's actually no hills here, but I'm sure that's not relevant...
My wife's DURA-ACE downtube shifter must be the reason she goes faster than me on the flat.
Get her a new bike. DA hasn't had downtube shifters since 7900 in 2008.
I'm always amused by the way any hobby - however simple - soon generates its own insider language. I ride a bike. I usually pootle around the village on it, but sometimes go for 20-30 miles if I get a chance.
It is a bike. It has two wheels. And urrm, 18 gears, I think. And a front suspension thingymajig. One disc brake, one calliper. And a pannier.
Ministers are having second thoughts on plans to introduce mandatory Covid passports for nightclubs and other “high-risk” venues after Tory MPs tore into the proposals in the Commons.
Serious doubts have emerged over the policy, with officials now looking at whether case rates will require such measures.
A Whitehall source said “no decisions have been made yet” on the proposals, despite the Government insisting that the passes will be mandatory from the end of the month.
Victims of police injustice are calling for the prime minister to replace Met Police Commissioner Dame Cressida Dick when her contract comes to an end in April.
All of these Baronesses and Dames are really very poor. I cannot think of a woman in high office with a title that is doing well, and ennoblement seems a strong disincentive as to performance.
I can think of a woman in high office without a title though that is doing well. Priti Patel. In prior years Maggie of course.
Not to rule things out without due consideration but this has an air of taking the piss.
If they’re escaping persecution, they will be happy to be given an opportunity of a new life in a safe country.
If they’re primarily economic migrants, desparate specifically to get to the UK, on the other hand…
Yes. This proposal is imo mainly about expressing the following 2 sentiments: Most asylum seekers are on the make rather than fleeing persecution. They should be grateful for anything they get, aka 'beggars can't be choosers'.
Being an economic migrant doesn't mean "on the make" though does it. It just means that you want to live where you choose without regard for the entry laws of the country that you want to move to.
If you are happy to accept, say, 1000 migrants now (I assume you are) then what about the next 1000 and what about the 1000 after that. Logically, there must be a limit to your position surely (small island and all that). And if logically you do have a limit then at that point you must be in favour of applying the laws and our boundary defences to ensure that "your" limit is not breached?
And if that is the case why not do that now?
It means seeking a better life and most come legally under our Immigration system (which we have to have since the nirvana of global open borders is a long way off). Then you have the people - also seeking a better life - who are in addition fleeing something, ie the push factor is bigger than the pull. Asylum seekers, refugees, ad hoc (rather than formalized) economic migrants, with these categories overlapping and muddy in reality as opposed to what the boxes on forms say. I think we should take more of these people than we do, and so should other rich countries, which needs a degree of co-operation that seems lacking for one reason or another.
When we can ask the following and get sensible answers, then we can have a proper national conversation on immigration...
- What is the intended population of the county 10, 20, 30, 50 years into the future? - What is the plan for matching the housing and other infrastructure to that population? - What is the difference between the intended population (and in what demographics/skills) and the population that will be present in the country already.
This makes sense but it's a Not Happening Event in a country like ours. We don't do plans beyond electoral timeframes. TBF, it's probably a necessary price of democracy.
As a general point I'm never quite sure what a "proper national conversation" looks and feels like, outside of elections and referendums.
The standard answer is we can't plan that. But apparently we have plans for the NHS for 20 years. Plans for house building. Plans for road building.....
As to "proper national conversation".... Something beyond -
"You smell!!" "You smell worse!"
etc etc...
DO we have serious robust plans like that going out 20 years? That's a revelation to me.
Concrete plans - no. Projections and plans, yes.
TfL, for example, has robust plans for the next few years and a series of plans, based on various projections of usage, going out to 20 years.
The NHS has plans for various bits of itself that look a decade ahead, similarly.
It's not all made up on the day.
This is the reason that the permanent portion of government (civil servants etc) has its own views and policies. Because this is a chunk of what they are doing.
It's a tricky one. Being purely rational it makes sense to take a lot of things outside party politics. Eg I bet China could teach us a thing or two about long term planning. But there's a downside with that.
Ah, the olde-but-golde "Take the politics out of X"
i.e. "Give us the money, and have no say on how we spend it"
Runs into the small problem that spending public money is politics. By definition. And the wretched Head Count think they should have a say in politics....
Yes that's the downside I was thinking of. Fact is, you have to involve the public in order to guard against tyranny. But involving the public ensures inefficiency, mendacity, and short-termism. So here we are.
Not to rule things out without due consideration but this has an air of taking the piss.
If they’re escaping persecution, they will be happy to be given an opportunity of a new life in a safe country.
If they’re primarily economic migrants, desparate specifically to get to the UK, on the other hand…
Yes. This proposal is imo mainly about expressing the following 2 sentiments: Most asylum seekers are on the make rather than fleeing persecution. They should be grateful for anything they get, aka 'beggars can't be choosers'.
Being an economic migrant doesn't mean "on the make" though does it. It just means that you want to live where you choose without regard for the entry laws of the country that you want to move to.
If you are happy to accept, say, 1000 migrants now (I assume you are) then what about the next 1000 and what about the 1000 after that. Logically, there must be a limit to your position surely (small island and all that). And if logically you do have a limit then at that point you must be in favour of applying the laws and our boundary defences to ensure that "your" limit is not breached?
And if that is the case why not do that now?
It means seeking a better life and most come legally under our Immigration system (which we have to have since the nirvana of global open borders is a long way off). Then you have the people - also seeking a better life - who are in addition fleeing something, ie the push factor is bigger than the pull. Asylum seekers, refugees, ad hoc (rather than formalized) economic migrants, with these categories overlapping and muddy in reality as opposed to what the boxes on forms say. I think we should take more of these people than we do, and so should other rich countries, which needs a degree of co-operation that seems lacking for one reason or another.
When we can ask the following and get sensible answers, then we can have a proper national conversation on immigration...
- What is the intended population of the county 10, 20, 30, 50 years into the future? - What is the plan for matching the housing and other infrastructure to that population? - What is the difference between the intended population (and in what demographics/skills) and the population that will be present in the country already.
This makes sense but it's a Not Happening Event in a country like ours. We don't do plans beyond electoral timeframes. TBF, it's probably a necessary price of democracy.
As a general point I'm never quite sure what a "proper national conversation" looks and feels like, outside of elections and referendums.
The standard answer is we can't plan that. But apparently we have plans for the NHS for 20 years. Plans for house building. Plans for road building.....
As to "proper national conversation".... Something beyond -
"You smell!!" "You smell worse!"
etc etc...
DO we have serious robust plans like that going out 20 years? That's a revelation to me.
Concrete plans - no. Projections and plans, yes.
TfL, for example, has robust plans for the next few years and a series of plans, based on various projections of usage, going out to 20 years.
The NHS has plans for various bits of itself that look a decade ahead, similarly.
It's not all made up on the day.
This is the reason that the permanent portion of government (civil servants etc) has its own views and policies. Because this is a chunk of what they are doing.
It's a tricky one. Being purely rational it makes sense to take a lot of things outside party politics. Eg I bet China could teach us a thing or two about long term planning. But there's a downside with that.
Ah, the olde-but-golde "Take the politics out of X"
i.e. "Give us the money, and have no say on how we spend it"
Runs into the small problem that spending public money is politics. By definition. And the wretched Head Count think they should have a say in politics....
Yes that's the downside I was thinking of. Fact is, you have to involve the public in order to guard against tyranny. But involving the public ensures inefficiency, mendacity, and short-termism. So here we are.
And believing that autocracies do better is a perennial mistake.
The trains didn't run on time.... It was just lied about....
Did you know that the famous spike in rare earth prices*, caused by Chinese export cuts, was actually down to the fact that in the monkeys-in-a-salad-bar style carve up of the Chinese state... a complete buffoon got the rare earth production?
*Alleged by some to be a master stroke of the Chinese taking control of Ze! Whole! Vurld! Ha! ha!
And in the last couple of months they almost destroyed one sector (private tuition), and cut another (games) in half. Long term planning for entrepreneurs is becoming ... challenging. And if they're too successful, they get taken away for a spot of re-education.
I'm off cycling France for a week this weekend so you will all be pleased to know I (probably) won't be challenging HYUFD's unique application of the use of statistics, numbers and logic for a bit.
Stop cheering at the back.
Cycling for Softies? I did one of those in the Loire - absolutely fantastic although I do remember at one stage tearing* along what must be the equivalent of their A1(M) in torrential rain to get to my next stop.
Whereas if you pootle along with your triple (and a few tripels) at 110W you do about 25km/h.
That's a lot of effort just to push wind...
drag force = 1/2ρv^2CdA
So you need 4x the power to double the speed. Ignoring rolling resistance and drivetrain losses (about 3% if you are using a non junk groupset like DURA ACE).
Yes, exactly. Of course, if you are in a race, make as much effort as you like.
Pootling about, it makes much more sense to trundle along on the flat and attack the hills, as that's where power makes the biggest time difference. OK, there's actually no hills here, but I'm sure that's not relevant...
My wife's DURA-ACE downtube shifter must be the reason she goes faster than me on the flat.
Get her a new bike. DA hasn't had downtube shifters since 7900 in 2008.
I'm always amused by the way any hobby - however simple - soon generates its own insider language. I ride a bike. I usually pootle around the village on it, but sometimes go for 20-30 miles if I get a chance.
It is a bike. It has two wheels. And urrm, 18 gears, I think. And a front suspension thingymajig. One disc brake, one calliper. And a pannier.
That's about all I know about it.
I went round Richmond Park the other day. Apparently taking a mountain bike there is complete Not Done, according to the lycra clad types.....
Mind you, I cycled home, past the car park where they were dismantling their bikes to put in the back of 4x4s....
Spain has said only the severely immuno suppressed will be given 3rd jabs at this stage. Still too little evidence of the need for the general population to given boosters.
As a politician, who would take the risk?
Precautionary Principle surely says offer the booster and re-evaluate next year after the winter.
If you draw a table of possible options, prisoners dilemma style, then the worst case scenario is clearly that boosters are needed but not offered. So avoid that scenario.
Its a bit like having unprotected sex on a one night stand....probably be ok....but if it isn't, the downsides could be enormous and life changing.
I am trying to remember a really good term somebody used on a podcast for a situation where the upside might only be small / non-existent of not taking a course of action, the downside is potentially enormous.
Not to rule things out without due consideration but this has an air of taking the piss.
If they’re escaping persecution, they will be happy to be given an opportunity of a new life in a safe country.
If they’re primarily economic migrants, desparate specifically to get to the UK, on the other hand…
Yes. This proposal is imo mainly about expressing the following 2 sentiments: Most asylum seekers are on the make rather than fleeing persecution. They should be grateful for anything they get, aka 'beggars can't be choosers'.
Being an economic migrant doesn't mean "on the make" though does it. It just means that you want to live where you choose without regard for the entry laws of the country that you want to move to.
If you are happy to accept, say, 1000 migrants now (I assume you are) then what about the next 1000 and what about the 1000 after that. Logically, there must be a limit to your position surely (small island and all that). And if logically you do have a limit then at that point you must be in favour of applying the laws and our boundary defences to ensure that "your" limit is not breached?
And if that is the case why not do that now?
It means seeking a better life and most come legally under our Immigration system (which we have to have since the nirvana of global open borders is a long way off). Then you have the people - also seeking a better life - who are in addition fleeing something, ie the push factor is bigger than the pull. Asylum seekers, refugees, ad hoc (rather than formalized) economic migrants, with these categories overlapping and muddy in reality as opposed to what the boxes on forms say. I think we should take more of these people than we do, and so should other rich countries, which needs a degree of co-operation that seems lacking for one reason or another.
When we can ask the following and get sensible answers, then we can have a proper national conversation on immigration...
- What is the intended population of the county 10, 20, 30, 50 years into the future? - What is the plan for matching the housing and other infrastructure to that population? - What is the difference between the intended population (and in what demographics/skills) and the population that will be present in the country already.
This makes sense but it's a Not Happening Event in a country like ours. We don't do plans beyond electoral timeframes. TBF, it's probably a necessary price of democracy.
As a general point I'm never quite sure what a "proper national conversation" looks and feels like, outside of elections and referendums.
The standard answer is we can't plan that. But apparently we have plans for the NHS for 20 years. Plans for house building. Plans for road building.....
As to "proper national conversation".... Something beyond -
"You smell!!" "You smell worse!"
etc etc...
DO we have serious robust plans like that going out 20 years? That's a revelation to me.
Concrete plans - no. Projections and plans, yes.
TfL, for example, has robust plans for the next few years and a series of plans, based on various projections of usage, going out to 20 years.
The NHS has plans for various bits of itself that look a decade ahead, similarly.
It's not all made up on the day.
This is the reason that the permanent portion of government (civil servants etc) has its own views and policies. Because this is a chunk of what they are doing.
It's a tricky one. Being purely rational it makes sense to take a lot of things outside party politics. Eg I bet China could teach us a thing or two about long term planning. But there's a downside with that.
Ah, the olde-but-golde "Take the politics out of X"
i.e. "Give us the money, and have no say on how we spend it"
Runs into the small problem that spending public money is politics. By definition. And the wretched Head Count think they should have a say in politics....
Yes that's the downside I was thinking of. Fact is, you have to involve the public in order to guard against tyranny. But involving the public ensures inefficiency, mendacity, and short-termism. So here we are.
Not to rule things out without due consideration but this has an air of taking the piss.
If they’re escaping persecution, they will be happy to be given an opportunity of a new life in a safe country.
If they’re primarily economic migrants, desparate specifically to get to the UK, on the other hand…
Yes. This proposal is imo mainly about expressing the following 2 sentiments: Most asylum seekers are on the make rather than fleeing persecution. They should be grateful for anything they get, aka 'beggars can't be choosers'.
Being an economic migrant doesn't mean "on the make" though does it. It just means that you want to live where you choose without regard for the entry laws of the country that you want to move to.
If you are happy to accept, say, 1000 migrants now (I assume you are) then what about the next 1000 and what about the 1000 after that. Logically, there must be a limit to your position surely (small island and all that). And if logically you do have a limit then at that point you must be in favour of applying the laws and our boundary defences to ensure that "your" limit is not breached?
And if that is the case why not do that now?
It means seeking a better life and most come legally under our Immigration system (which we have to have since the nirvana of global open borders is a long way off). Then you have the people - also seeking a better life - who are in addition fleeing something, ie the push factor is bigger than the pull. Asylum seekers, refugees, ad hoc (rather than formalized) economic migrants, with these categories overlapping and muddy in reality as opposed to what the boxes on forms say. I think we should take more of these people than we do, and so should other rich countries, which needs a degree of co-operation that seems lacking for one reason or another.
When we can ask the following and get sensible answers, then we can have a proper national conversation on immigration...
- What is the intended population of the county 10, 20, 30, 50 years into the future? - What is the plan for matching the housing and other infrastructure to that population? - What is the difference between the intended population (and in what demographics/skills) and the population that will be present in the country already.
This makes sense but it's a Not Happening Event in a country like ours. We don't do plans beyond electoral timeframes. TBF, it's probably a necessary price of democracy.
As a general point I'm never quite sure what a "proper national conversation" looks and feels like, outside of elections and referendums.
The standard answer is we can't plan that. But apparently we have plans for the NHS for 20 years. Plans for house building. Plans for road building.....
As to "proper national conversation".... Something beyond -
"You smell!!" "You smell worse!"
etc etc...
DO we have serious robust plans like that going out 20 years? That's a revelation to me.
Concrete plans - no. Projections and plans, yes.
TfL, for example, has robust plans for the next few years and a series of plans, based on various projections of usage, going out to 20 years.
The NHS has plans for various bits of itself that look a decade ahead, similarly.
It's not all made up on the day.
This is the reason that the permanent portion of government (civil servants etc) has its own views and policies. Because this is a chunk of what they are doing.
It's a tricky one. Being purely rational it makes sense to take a lot of things outside party politics. Eg I bet China could teach us a thing or two about long term planning. But there's a downside with that.
Ah, the olde-but-golde "Take the politics out of X"
i.e. "Give us the money, and have no say on how we spend it"
Runs into the small problem that spending public money is politics. By definition. And the wretched Head Count think they should have a say in politics....
Yes that's the downside I was thinking of. Fact is, you have to involve the public in order to guard against tyranny. But involving the public ensures inefficiency, mendacity, and short-termism. So here we are.
And believing that autocracies do better is a perennial mistake.
The trains didn't run on time.... It was just lied about....
Did you know that the famous spike in rare earth prices*, caused by Chinese export cuts, was actually down to the fact that in the monkeys-in-a-salad-bar style carve up of the Chinese state... a complete buffoon got the rare earth production?
*Alleged by some to be a master stroke of the Chinese taking control of Ze! Whole! Vurld! Ha! ha!
And in the last couple of months they almost destroyed one sector (private tuition), and cut another (games) in half. Long term planning for entrepreneurs is becoming ... challenging. And if they're too successful, they get taken away for a spot of re-education.
Imagine Gavin Williamson. Except he is in post for life. And has the power to end yours...
I'm off cycling France for a week this weekend so you will all be pleased to know I (probably) won't be challenging HYUFD's unique application of the use of statistics, numbers and logic for a bit.
Stop cheering at the back.
Cycling for Softies? I did one of those in the Loire - absolutely fantastic although I do remember at one stage tearing* along what must be the equivalent of their A1(M) in torrential rain to get to my next stop.
Whereas if you pootle along with your triple (and a few tripels) at 110W you do about 25km/h.
That's a lot of effort just to push wind...
drag force = 1/2ρv^2CdA
So you need 4x the power to double the speed. Ignoring rolling resistance and drivetrain losses (about 3% if you are using a non junk groupset like DURA ACE).
Yes, exactly. Of course, if you are in a race, make as much effort as you like.
Pootling about, it makes much more sense to trundle along on the flat and attack the hills, as that's where power makes the biggest time difference. OK, there's actually no hills here, but I'm sure that's not relevant...
My wife's DURA-ACE downtube shifter must be the reason she goes faster than me on the flat.
Get her a new bike. DA hasn't had downtube shifters since 7900 in 2008.
I'm always amused by the way any hobby - however simple - soon generates its own insider language. I ride a bike. I usually pootle around the village on it, but sometimes go for 20-30 miles if I get a chance.
It is a bike. It has two wheels. And urrm, 18 gears, I think. And a front suspension thingymajig. One disc brake, one calliper. And a pannier.
I'm off cycling France for a week this weekend so you will all be pleased to know I (probably) won't be challenging HYUFD's unique application of the use of statistics, numbers and logic for a bit.
Stop cheering at the back.
Cycling for Softies? I did one of those in the Loire - absolutely fantastic although I do remember at one stage tearing* along what must be the equivalent of their A1(M) in torrential rain to get to my next stop.
Whereas if you pootle along with your triple (and a few tripels) at 110W you do about 25km/h.
That's a lot of effort just to push wind...
drag force = 1/2ρv^2CdA
So you need 4x the power to double the speed. Ignoring rolling resistance and drivetrain losses (about 3% if you are using a non junk groupset like DURA ACE).
Yes, exactly. Of course, if you are in a race, make as much effort as you like.
Pootling about, it makes much more sense to trundle along on the flat and attack the hills, as that's where power makes the biggest time difference. OK, there's actually no hills here, but I'm sure that's not relevant...
My wife's DURA-ACE downtube shifter must be the reason she goes faster than me on the flat.
Get her a new bike. DA hasn't had downtube shifters since 7900 in 2008.
I'm always amused by the way any hobby - however simple - soon generates its own insider language. I ride a bike. I usually pootle around the village on it, but sometimes go for 20-30 miles if I get a chance.
It is a bike. It has two wheels. And urrm, 18 gears, I think. And a front suspension thingymajig. One disc brake, one calliper. And a pannier.
Barnier’s Brexitifcation continues. This time he wants to take back control of France’s ‘legal sovereignty’ from the European Court of Justice and European Court of Human Rights - two things he was so keen to keep Britain tied to.
Spain has said only the severely immuno suppressed will be given 3rd jabs at this stage. Still too little evidence of the need for the general population to given boosters.
As a politician, who would take the risk?
Precautionary Principle surely says offer the booster and re-evaluate next year after the winter.
If you draw a table of possible options, prisoners dilemma style, then the worst case scenario is clearly that boosters are needed but not offered. So avoid that scenario.
Its a bit like having unprotected sex on a one night stand....probably be ok....but if it isn't, the downsides could be enormous and life changing.
I am trying to remember a really good term somebody used on a podcast for a situation where the upside might only be small / non-existent of not taking a course of action, the downside is potentially enormous.
Picking up pennies from in front of a steamroller?
Spain has said only the severely immuno suppressed will be given 3rd jabs at this stage. Still too little evidence of the need for the general population to given boosters.
As a politician, who would take the risk?
They are following the science as they have done throughout. Personally I think they are right. The evidence on boosters at this stage is really not there. Cases in Spain are falling rapidly now - not ome case in our health area today. There is much greater mask usage in closed spaces here - be interesting to see if it helps prevent a bounce back.
Ministers are having second thoughts on plans to introduce mandatory Covid passports for nightclubs and other “high-risk” venues after Tory MPs tore into the proposals in the Commons.
Serious doubts have emerged over the policy, with officials now looking at whether case rates will require such measures.
A Whitehall source said “no decisions have been made yet” on the proposals, despite the Government insisting that the passes will be mandatory from the end of the month.
I'm off cycling France for a week this weekend so you will all be pleased to know I (probably) won't be challenging HYUFD's unique application of the use of statistics, numbers and logic for a bit.
Stop cheering at the back.
Cycling for Softies? I did one of those in the Loire - absolutely fantastic although I do remember at one stage tearing* along what must be the equivalent of their A1(M) in torrential rain to get to my next stop.
Whereas if you pootle along with your triple (and a few tripels) at 110W you do about 25km/h.
That's a lot of effort just to push wind...
drag force = 1/2ρv^2CdA
So you need 4x the power to double the speed. Ignoring rolling resistance and drivetrain losses (about 3% if you are using a non junk groupset like DURA ACE).
Yes, exactly. Of course, if you are in a race, make as much effort as you like.
Pootling about, it makes much more sense to trundle along on the flat and attack the hills, as that's where power makes the biggest time difference. OK, there's actually no hills here, but I'm sure that's not relevant...
My wife's DURA-ACE downtube shifter must be the reason she goes faster than me on the flat.
Get her a new bike. DA hasn't had downtube shifters since 7900 in 2008.
I'm always amused by the way any hobby - however simple - soon generates its own insider language. I ride a bike. I usually pootle around the village on it, but sometimes go for 20-30 miles if I get a chance.
It is a bike. It has two wheels. And urrm, 18 gears, I think. And a front suspension thingymajig. One disc brake, one calliper. And a pannier.
I'm off cycling France for a week this weekend so you will all be pleased to know I (probably) won't be challenging HYUFD's unique application of the use of statistics, numbers and logic for a bit.
Stop cheering at the back.
Cycling for Softies? I did one of those in the Loire - absolutely fantastic although I do remember at one stage tearing* along what must be the equivalent of their A1(M) in torrential rain to get to my next stop.
Whereas if you pootle along with your triple (and a few tripels) at 110W you do about 25km/h.
That's a lot of effort just to push wind...
drag force = 1/2ρv^2CdA
So you need 4x the power to double the speed. Ignoring rolling resistance and drivetrain losses (about 3% if you are using a non junk groupset like DURA ACE).
Yes, exactly. Of course, if you are in a race, make as much effort as you like.
Pootling about, it makes much more sense to trundle along on the flat and attack the hills, as that's where power makes the biggest time difference. OK, there's actually no hills here, but I'm sure that's not relevant...
My wife's DURA-ACE downtube shifter must be the reason she goes faster than me on the flat.
Get her a new bike. DA hasn't had downtube shifters since 7900 in 2008.
Lol. The bike is newer than that. I suspect they were spares the bike shop had lying around when they built it. Seems you can still find a few:
She refused flappy paddles as she is a stick-in-the-mud (appropriate, since I think it was cyclocross types that were the last to give them up). Easier to repair in the middle of nowhere though.
Ministers are having second thoughts on plans to introduce mandatory Covid passports for nightclubs and other “high-risk” venues after Tory MPs tore into the proposals in the Commons.
Serious doubts have emerged over the policy, with officials now looking at whether case rates will require such measures.
A Whitehall source said “no decisions have been made yet” on the proposals, despite the Government insisting that the passes will be mandatory from the end of the month.
New @NatureMedicine A randomized trial of convalescent plasma shows it not only didn't help, but actually harmed "Patients in the convalescent plasma arm had more serious adverse events (33.4% versus 26.4%; RR = 1.27, 95% CI 1.02–1.57, P = 0.034)." https://nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01488-2....
Recall the @US_FDA gave an emergency authorization for this treatment in August 2020 with no randomized clinical trial data, which promoted its use in hundreds of thousands of patients
I'm off cycling France for a week this weekend so you will all be pleased to know I (probably) won't be challenging HYUFD's unique application of the use of statistics, numbers and logic for a bit.
Stop cheering at the back.
Cycling for Softies? I did one of those in the Loire - absolutely fantastic although I do remember at one stage tearing* along what must be the equivalent of their A1(M) in torrential rain to get to my next stop.
Depends what you mean by softies. All self organised (I spend more time planning it than doing it), Mainly along greenways. Stay in B&B or small hotels. Consume huge quantities of booze and food. Cycle about 50 miles a day.
But I always pick flat routes. Can't do the hills with my Boris look alike physique.
Did Bordeaux to Biarritz just before the pandemic. It was excellent.
I'm off cycling France for a week this weekend so you will all be pleased to know I (probably) won't be challenging HYUFD's unique application of the use of statistics, numbers and logic for a bit.
Stop cheering at the back.
Cycling for Softies? I did one of those in the Loire - absolutely fantastic although I do remember at one stage tearing* along what must be the equivalent of their A1(M) in torrential rain to get to my next stop.
Whereas if you pootle along with your triple (and a few tripels) at 110W you do about 25km/h.
That's a lot of effort just to push wind...
drag force = 1/2ρv^2CdA
So you need 4x the power to double the speed. Ignoring rolling resistance and drivetrain losses (about 3% if you are using a non junk groupset like DURA ACE).
Yes, exactly. Of course, if you are in a race, make as much effort as you like.
Pootling about, it makes much more sense to trundle along on the flat and attack the hills, as that's where power makes the biggest time difference. OK, there's actually no hills here, but I'm sure that's not relevant...
My wife's DURA-ACE downtube shifter must be the reason she goes faster than me on the flat.
Get her a new bike. DA hasn't had downtube shifters since 7900 in 2008.
I'm always amused by the way any hobby - however simple - soon generates its own insider language. I ride a bike. I usually pootle around the village on it, but sometimes go for 20-30 miles if I get a chance.
It is a bike. It has two wheels. And urrm, 18 gears, I think. And a front suspension thingymajig. One disc brake, one calliper. And a pannier.
That's about all I know about it.
Get a saddle, that should help things a bit.
I used to work with a chap who did an extreme form of mountain biking - where they had no saddles and stood on the pedals all the way. Apparently, the saddle would just err... be painful....
I'm off cycling France for a week this weekend so you will all be pleased to know I (probably) won't be challenging HYUFD's unique application of the use of statistics, numbers and logic for a bit.
Stop cheering at the back.
Cycling for Softies? I did one of those in the Loire - absolutely fantastic although I do remember at one stage tearing* along what must be the equivalent of their A1(M) in torrential rain to get to my next stop.
Whereas if you pootle along with your triple (and a few tripels) at 110W you do about 25km/h.
That's a lot of effort just to push wind...
drag force = 1/2ρv^2CdA
So you need 4x the power to double the speed. Ignoring rolling resistance and drivetrain losses (about 3% if you are using a non junk groupset like DURA ACE).
Yes, exactly. Of course, if you are in a race, make as much effort as you like.
Pootling about, it makes much more sense to trundle along on the flat and attack the hills, as that's where power makes the biggest time difference. OK, there's actually no hills here, but I'm sure that's not relevant...
My wife's DURA-ACE downtube shifter must be the reason she goes faster than me on the flat.
Get her a new bike. DA hasn't had downtube shifters since 7900 in 2008.
I'm always amused by the way any hobby - however simple - soon generates its own insider language. I ride a bike. I usually pootle around the village on it, but sometimes go for 20-30 miles if I get a chance.
It is a bike. It has two wheels. And urrm, 18 gears, I think. And a front suspension thingymajig. One disc brake, one calliper. And a pannier.
NEW: From today, PHE will publish vaccination status of COVID-19 cases, deaths and hospitalisations over the past 4 weeks in the weekly Vaccination Surveillance Report
If I'm reading that right, double vaxxed 80+ basically brings your risk vs hospitalisation to the de novo immunity of 18 - 29 yr olds. That's frankly amazing
You are reading that correctly - vaccination reduces your risk by approximately 66% for an 80+ year old. Younger cohorts see greater reductions in hospitalisation rates, dropping to about 85% for for the 20-30 grouping.
Data shows that vaccinations reduce everyone's chance of serious illness and death. However the data also shows that old people die more than young people which will, if it hasn't already, be spun by some to try and show that vaccines don't work.
Spot on. I have a suspicion that the UK Covid deaths are inflated partly because of the way they are defined. I'm not sure that in Spain for example the counting is done in the same way. Either way - once you reach a certain age [ I'm 67!] the clock begins to tick faster vaccine or no vaccine.
Comments
The MHRA said AstraZeneca and Pfizer were 'safe and effective' as third doses
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9973503/Britains-watchdog-approves-AstraZeneca-Pfizers-jabs-used-doses.html
But we are still, even now, not treating this wretched disease seriously enough. If you want to mix with the public in large events you should be vaccinated, otherwise piss off. Kids should have been vaccinated through the summer holidays before they returned to school. We should be getting on with boosters for those particularly vulnerable now, before the numbers rise again. If we want to live normally in the face of this disease we need to pull out all the stops to reduce the risks. I don't think the government are.
Can Progressives Be Convinced That Genetics Matters?
The behavior geneticist Kathryn Paige Harden is waging a two-front campaign: on her left are those who assume that genes are irrelevant, on her right those who insist that they’re everything
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/09/13/can-progressives-be-convinced-that-genetics-matters/amp
Smokers get treatment on the NHS but pay for it through taxes.
Let antivaxxers be the same.
She is saying that if they get a single case of Covid then they are going to impost lockdowns. How is that remotely sustainable. You might as well say lockdown the country if someone gets Flu. Bonkers. I think Jacinda has become so convinced of her own brilliance that she has lost touch with reality.
Definition of nightclubs
Nightclubs were not previously defined in the Covid regulations, so the dictionary definition applied. However, there is now a need to define nightclubs and other analogous venues, as behaviours that were previously prohibited are now allowed in wider parts of hospitality (for example, after midnight alcohol, loud music, dancing, and close contact for long periods). The Scottish Government is working with stakeholders to finalise a definition that will ensure the intended public health benefit, but not result in market distortion or displacement.
https://www.gov.scot/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-mandatory-vaccine-certification/
I wonder if this is "all their own work" or if they are borrowing from the UK's presumably equally muddled thinking?
https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1435769775410618369
The Holyrood polling largely shows almost no change within the margin of error.
I would argue that the Westminster polling is more damning for Scottish Labour TBH (where you'd usually expect them to do a few % better) and is an indictment of Starmer and his advisors etc.
I would also argue at the moment that Starmer is more incompetent than Sarwar who is merely doing what's expected even if that's just keeping Scottish Labour in a holding position.
I wouldn't even completely rule out the possibility of Labour being the largest party on Glasgow council next year due to the waste crisis.
https://www.suffolk.edu/-/media/suffolk/documents/academics/research-at-suffolk/suprc/polls/other-states/2021/9_8_2021_ca_statewide_marginals_a_pdftxt.pdf?la=en&hash=FAD968A7CE614ADFC4B9BC60A372619F03C01745
However, looking at the splits of voters, it looks like the survey has overweighted Bay voters (c 33pc of the poll vs c 20pc of CA pop) and underweighted Orange / San Diego (c 13pc of respondents vs c 17-18pc pop). So, chances are the recall vote difference may not be so great as this might suggest
Brings back happy memories of learning about fluid hydrodynamic. Although that was more about erosion of structures, such as bridge abutments and piers.
My order of preference is:
Full liberty for everyone > Full liberty for vaccinated, lockdown antivaxxers > lockdown everyone
Today's report covers week 32 to week 35 (9 August to 5 September 2021)
https://twitter.com/kallmemeg/status/1435954475567566852?s=20
i.e. "Give us the money, and have no say on how we spend it"
Runs into the small problem that spending public money is politics. By definition. And the wretched Head Count think they should have a say in politics....
In a five way monologue between fundamentalist political converts (of right and left), pragmatists, religious bigots, scientists and philosophers what could possibly go wrong when discussing important questions for humanity that have no definitive solution?
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-58490698
Where can she fail upwards to next?
However if there are to be lockdown restrictions they 100% should be applied to the unvaccinated first before applying to everyone. I'd prefer zero restrictions, but the unvaccinated can own the consequences of their decisions if restrictions are applied.
We also do not want to see the destruction of the greenspace and countryside in the Home Counties, nor do those new ex London homeowners as once it is lost it will not come back.
I don't disagree on allowing a few golf courses to be developed however
Not mine, though, thank you very much. Golf keeps me in sound mental and physical order.
Pootling about, it makes much more sense to trundle along on the flat and attack the hills, as that's where power makes the biggest time difference. OK, there's actually no hills here, but I'm sure that's not relevant...
My wife's DURA-ACE downtube shifter must be the reason she goes faster than me on the flat.
https://twitter.com/PaulMainwood/status/1435959119404363779?s=20
That being said, I think Larry Elder is working hard to increase Democratic turnout: his statement that he'd appoint a Republican to replace Feinstein will probably have motivated a few folk, while his musings about slaveowners being owed compensation for the abolition of slavery might not have been the best way to boost the number of African Americans voting for him.
My gut remains that Newsom holds on, albeit with a smaller lead than that poll suggests. I'm going with 54-46.
As she says, their aim is to get to point where vaccinated can all come without isolation.
Without wishing to jinx it... looks like their latest lockdown may even be containing delta. Which is very impressive.
The medium/long term hybrid immunity is better though so it helps with subsequent waves compared to natural immunity.
If you draw a table of possible options, prisoners dilemma style, then the worst case scenario is clearly that boosters are needed but not offered. So avoid that scenario.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-58499863
Now we wait to hear from the JCVI...
So basically even with vaccines, we have had over half the deaths we would have had anyway.
Really brings home the tragedy of how unnecessary the second wave was.
The trains didn't run on time.... It was just lied about....
Did you know that the famous spike in rare earth prices*, caused by Chinese export cuts, was actually down to the fact that in the monkeys-in-a-salad-bar style carve up of the Chinese state... a complete buffoon got the rare earth production?
*Alleged by some to be a master stroke of the Chinese taking control of Ze! Whole! Vurld! Ha! ha!
The current court could take another look at it...
I am trying to remember a really good term somebody used on a podcast for a situation where the upside might only be small / non-existent of not taking a course of action, the downside is potentially enormous.
It is a bike. It has two wheels. And urrm, 18 gears, I think. And a front suspension thingymajig. One disc brake, one calliper. And a pannier.
That's about all I know about it.
https://twitter.com/republicains_an/status/1435901218283470853
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-58485825
Is there actually an answer to that one?
I can think of a woman in high office without a title though that is doing well. Priti Patel. In prior years Maggie of course.
Long term planning for entrepreneurs is becoming ... challenging. And if they're too successful, they get taken away for a spot of re-education.
Mind you, I cycled home, past the car park where they were dismantling their bikes to put in the back of 4x4s....
Barnier’s Brexitifcation continues. This time he wants to take back control of France’s ‘legal sovereignty’ from the European Court of Justice and European Court of Human Rights - two things he was so keen to keep Britain tied to.
https://twitter.com/Barnes_Joe/status/1435965708794466307?s=20
In the case of disease treatment and prevention, it is nearly always - A gets you x%, B gets you y% etc etc
Vaccination reduces the transmission of COVID. Plenty of real world data on that.
Allegedly.
https://www.spacycles.co.uk/m8b0s108p2146/SHIMANO-Shimano-Durace-10-Speed-Down-Tube-Shifters-SL-7900
She refused flappy paddles as she is a stick-in-the-mud (appropriate, since I think it was cyclocross types that were the last to give them up). Easier to repair in the middle of nowhere though.
New @NatureMedicine
A randomized trial of convalescent plasma shows it not only didn't help, but actually harmed
"Patients in the convalescent plasma arm had more serious adverse events (33.4% versus 26.4%; RR = 1.27, 95% CI 1.02–1.57, P = 0.034)."
https://nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01488-2....
Recall the @US_FDA gave an emergency authorization for this treatment in August 2020 with no randomized clinical trial data, which promoted its use in hundreds of thousands of patients
https://twitter.com/EricTopol/status/1435967208270692362?s=20
The quality and quantity of the food and wine undid most of the exercise benefits though.
With both the Little and Great Hungarian Plains to explore, hills were very much an optional extra....