Canada. Average of last 13 polls over previous 3 days. 21k+ sampled by a variety of methods.
Lib 32.2 (-0.9) Con 30.8 (-3.5) NDP 19.3 (+3.3) BQ 6.7 (-0.9) PPC 6.5 (+4.9) GP 3.4 (-3.2) Changes with previous election.
Doesn't stop the Guardian, amongst others, leading with "The PM trails in the polls." He does in some, not on average (mean) any longer. Direction of travel becoming clear. Early voting already taking place in Alberta at least.
Incidentally. Tories unvaccinated candidates becoming a late issue.
Has there been a big Liberal bounceback?
Not particularly. But their vote has been shoring up. The Tories have been put on the backfoot re vaccines and got tangled up talking about assault weapons. They're bleeding votes to the PPC. So more a Conservative fall and a smaller Liberal rise.
The problem for O'Toole is he has focused so much on reassuring centrists in suburban Ontario he is a moderate on gay marriage and climate change etc and supportive of vaccines and masks he forgot about his right flank in the rural West which he is now leaking to Bernier and the populist Trumpite and UKIP like PPC
It is a recurring issue for the CPC. They can easily score 33%. Try to push on from there and their coalition begins to creak at the seams.
Indeed, Harper has been the only one to manage it since the merger of the PCs and Canadian Alliance (formerly Reform) in 2003 and even he only managed to get a Conservative majority in 2011, helped in part by a collapse from the Liberals in favour of the NDP who briefly became the main opposition
Yes. See my edit. That was primarily because the Liberals chose a leader less convincing as a potential PM than almost any other citizen of Canada.
Len McCluskey. @Keir_Starmer can't be trusted. Starmer chose to break an honest deal agreed between us for Corbyn’s readmission to the party. Starmer called to tell me he had suspended Corbyn. EHRC said such political interference could be unlawfull.
Here is somewhere that PB top gear fans should recognise:
Lairig Ghru?
I'm not sure the road through the Lairig Ghru is that good. It certainly wasn't that well surfaced when I last rode a bike on it.
It's not *good*, but when I walked it there were Landrovers near the top, and linesmen working on the powerlines.
Powerlines in the Lairig Ghru? Wot?
Ditto a road, of course.
Ah but there is a watershed, the only one I have ever seen. A modest sized lochan with burns running out of both ends, one to the north sea on the east coast and one to the Atlantic on the west. It's quite something.
I believe it's possible to walk from the west coast of Scotland to the east coast in a day - from possibly faulty memory (given my performance on this thread so far), from somewhere to Bonar Bridge.
Len McCluskey. @Keir_Starmer can't be trusted. Starmer chose to break an honest deal agreed between us for Corbyn’s readmission to the party. Starmer called to tell me he had suspended Corbyn. EHRC said such political interference could be unlawfull.
He's got brass neck, using the EHRC against an 'enemy' of Corbyn!
Interesting anecdata from today. A colleague who was by me in the vaccine queue, so got Pfizer right back in December, picked up the Delta from his grandson. Asian, overweight and over seventy so quite high risk. Picked up on LFT at work, confirmed on PCR, asymptomatic at the time. He had a mild temperature for a day, but nothing really in the way of symptoms and back at work.
That's what the vaccine does, turns a killer into a minor annoyance.
Canada. Average of last 13 polls over previous 3 days. 21k+ sampled by a variety of methods.
Lib 32.2 (-0.9) Con 30.8 (-3.5) NDP 19.3 (+3.3) BQ 6.7 (-0.9) PPC 6.5 (+4.9) GP 3.4 (-3.2) Changes with previous election.
Doesn't stop the Guardian, amongst others, leading with "The PM trails in the polls." He does in some, not on average (mean) any longer. Direction of travel becoming clear. Early voting already taking place in Alberta at least.
Incidentally. Tories unvaccinated candidates becoming a late issue.
Has there been a big Liberal bounceback?
Not particularly. But their vote has been shoring up. The Tories have been put on the backfoot re vaccines and got tangled up talking about assault weapons. They're bleeding votes to the PPC. So more a Conservative fall and a smaller Liberal rise.
The problem for O'Toole is he has focused so much on reassuring centrists in suburban Ontario he is a moderate on gay marriage and climate change etc and supportive of vaccines and masks he forgot about his right flank in the rural West which he is now leaking to Bernier and the populist Trumpite and UKIP like PPC
It is a recurring issue for the CPC. They can easily score 33%. Try to push on from there and their coalition begins to creak at the seams.
Indeed, Harper has been the only one to manage it since the merger of the PCs and Canadian Alliance (formerly Reform) in 2003 and even he only managed to get a Conservative majority in 2011, helped in part by a collapse from the Liberals in favour of the NDP who briefly became the main opposition
Yes. See my edit. That was primarily because the Liberals chose a leader less attractive as a PM than almost any other qualified citizen of Canada.
Partly but fear of the NDP who are less attractive to centrist voters than the Liberals as well was also a factor, indeed the Canadian Liberals unlike UK Labour have been in government for a majority of the postwar years for that reason. Had the more leftwing NDP generally been the Conservatives main opposition I expect the Canadian Tories would have been as successful as the UK Tories have been
Interesting anecdata from today. A colleague who was by me in the vaccine queue, so got Pfizer right back in December, picked up the Delta from his grandson. Asian, overweight and over seventy so quite high risk. Picked up on LFT at work, confirmed on PCR, asymptomatic at the time. He had a mild temperature for a day, but nothing really in the way of symptoms and back at work.
That's what the vaccine does, turns a killer into a minor annoyance.
Great to hear. And that is why we are vaccinating children?
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 51m Figures on deaths and hospitalisation in this press conference underling a simple message. If you’re still refusing to get vaccinated you’re off your head.
Its even simpler...no vaccine...your getting covid and then you are playing russian roulette....a 30 year old is as at as much risk as a fully vaxxed 70 year old.
I do wonder whether it is time for some really hard hitting advertising along those lines.
Don't die of ignorance.
Still the gold standard for hard-hitting public information messaging, nearly four decades later.
Here is somewhere that PB top gear fans should recognise:
Lairig Ghru?
I'm not sure the road through the Lairig Ghru is that good. It certainly wasn't that well surfaced when I last rode a bike on it.
It's not *good*, but when I walked it there were Landrovers near the top, and linesmen working on the powerlines.
Powerlines in the Lairig Ghru? Wot?
Ditto a road, of course.
Ah but there is a watershed, the only one I have ever seen. A modest sized lochan with burns running out of both ends, one to the north sea on the east coast and one to the Atlantic on the west. It's quite something.
I believe it's possible to walk from the west coast of Scotland to the east coast in a day - from possibly faulty memory (given my performance on this thread so far), from somewhere to Bonar Bridge.
Inverbroom to Dingwall is 38 miles. Can't find anywhere from Bonar Bridge less than 44 miles (Kylesku, Laxford, various other options).
I can genuinely not think of a reason to vaccinate children. They a) don't get (very) ill; and b) can still get and transmit the virus. Perhaps transmission is lower if they are vaccinated but it would be lower if they are asymptomatic, which most are.
The govt says to avoid people being off school but children can still get the virus having been vaxxed so if they do they will be off school anyway. Meanwhile, bubbles as I understand it have been abolished so whole classes won't be sent home.
What am I missing?
a) don't get (very) ill; Risk from naive Covid is higher than the vaccine, the CDC have covered that.
but children can still get the virus having been vaxxed True, but it's less likely for any child. And less likely for one child = less cases in the childhood population = lower transmission to adults = lower global R.
Also if a teenager catches Covid and is vaxxed they'll have subsequent strong hybrid immunity - that keeps everything lower for longer too.
The virus hasn't passed stage 3 trials, the vaccines have - making a choice not to vaccinate when it's available essentially means you're saying the virus is safer than the vaccine. It's only "safer" if the virus is at very low levels, and those levels are achieved through .... vaccination.
I'm sure the risk from Covid is higher than from the vaccine but so what. We are talking tiny risks for both.
Why is it less likely for someone, anyone, to get the virus if they have been vaccinated?
I think the point is that it should be available and both kids and parents can make a judgement based on the evidence. If I was a parent to a 12-15 year old I'd want them to get it but if they said they wanted to wait until they turned 16 or whatever I wouldn't have any objections. Not giving people the choice was my biggest problem with the JCVI approach, parents and kids have agency, they don't need to be told what to do and what not to do.
Interesting exchange on R4 this morning with Nadim Zahawi. If your 12-yr old child wanted to have it and you didn't, then based upon a consultation with a GP if the GP deemed the child competent to weigh up the risks and various factors, then the 12-yr old would have it. And vice versa presumably.
Yes, that is the law on consent. It has not changed for years, and relates to the Gillick case in the Eighties.
Yes, but I thought that this related to the 16-18 year olds? I'm surprised and somewhat troubled that 12 year olds are going to be able to get vaccinated for Covid without parental consent.
And there will be others who would be surprised and troubled if 12 year olds were vaccinated against their consent. The line has to be drawn somewhere and by someone. Letting a qualified third party decide based upon interviewing the child seems a reasonable enough solution, in the few cases that parents and kids don't resolve themselves.
Here is somewhere that PB top gear fans should recognise:
Lairig Ghru?
I'm not sure the road through the Lairig Ghru is that good. It certainly wasn't that well surfaced when I last rode a bike on it.
It's not *good*, but when I walked it there were Landrovers near the top, and linesmen working on the powerlines.
Powerlines in the Lairig Ghru? Wot?
Ditto a road, of course.
Ah but there is a watershed, the only one I have ever seen. A modest sized lochan with burns running out of both ends, one to the north sea on the east coast and one to the Atlantic on the west. It's quite something.
Don't they both end up in the North Sea? The Spey and the Dee?
The actual Scottish watershed has been walked a few times (not sure about the English one). Would quite fancy a go at that if I had the time. You could finish at Cape Wrath or Duncansby Head depending on how you view it.
Chris Whitty tells Downing St press conference: "We really must encourage everyone we know to get vaccinated." Points out most unjabbed are not anti-vaxxer, they just haven't got round to it.
Bullllllllshitttttttt.......nobody is that busy not to find 15 mins to get jabbed over many many months.
Yes, its not very plausible that so many have been willing but unable or found it continuously inconvenient.
My brother took a couple of months of being eligible to getting his jab, because he was waiting for it to be offered from his local GP because he is so strapped for cash he wouldn't spring for a taxi or train to other locations offered, but even the youngest people have had quite a lot of time to 'get round to it' now.
McCluskey claims Starmer then personally ordered the suspension of the former leader from the party – a move that would go against the equalities watchdog’s ruling that there should be no political interference in disciplinary matters.
Here is somewhere that PB top gear fans should recognise:
Lairig Ghru?
I'm not sure the road through the Lairig Ghru is that good. It certainly wasn't that well surfaced when I last rode a bike on it.
It's not *good*, but when I walked it there were Landrovers near the top, and linesmen working on the powerlines.
Powerlines in the Lairig Ghru? Wot?
Ditto a road, of course.
Ah but there is a watershed, the only one I have ever seen. A modest sized lochan with burns running out of both ends, one to the north sea on the east coast and one to the Atlantic on the west. It's quite something.
I believe it's possible to walk from the west coast of Scotland to the east coast in a day - from possibly faulty memory (given my performance on this thread so far), from somewhere to Bonar Bridge.
Kelpies to Glasgow Green is 25 miles.
My dad used to cycle from Ibrox to St Andrews and back in a day. Best fish suppers he ever ate. Nothing like working up a hunger.
Interesting anecdata from today. A colleague who was by me in the vaccine queue, so got Pfizer right back in December, picked up the Delta from his grandson. Asian, overweight and over seventy so quite high risk. Picked up on LFT at work, confirmed on PCR, asymptomatic at the time. He had a mild temperature for a day, but nothing really in the way of symptoms and back at work.
That's what the vaccine does, turns a killer into a minor annoyance.
Yes, my Dads best mate, who is 76 and has long term lukemia, got Covid three weeks ago. Had a rough couple of weeks, couldn't shake it off, lost a fair bit of weight - was admitted to hospital last week to be given oxygen and was released yesterday. Would almost certainly have died last year I reckon.
Funny enough the hospital told him he would still test positive for three weeks, but was ok to mingle with other people and go on holiday that is booked (in UK). He had covid spikes in his lungs apparently
I can genuinely not think of a reason to vaccinate children. They a) don't get (very) ill; and b) can still get and transmit the virus. Perhaps transmission is lower if they are vaccinated but it would be lower if they are asymptomatic, which most are.
The govt says to avoid people being off school but children can still get the virus having been vaxxed so if they do they will be off school anyway. Meanwhile, bubbles as I understand it have been abolished so whole classes won't be sent home.
What am I missing?
a) don't get (very) ill; Risk from naive Covid is higher than the vaccine, the CDC have covered that.
but children can still get the virus having been vaxxed True, but it's less likely for any child. And less likely for one child = less cases in the childhood population = lower transmission to adults = lower global R.
Also if a teenager catches Covid and is vaxxed they'll have subsequent strong hybrid immunity - that keeps everything lower for longer too.
The virus hasn't passed stage 3 trials, the vaccines have - making a choice not to vaccinate when it's available essentially means you're saying the virus is safer than the vaccine. It's only "safer" if the virus is at very low levels, and those levels are achieved through .... vaccination.
I'm sure the risk from Covid is higher than from the vaccine but so what. We are talking tiny risks for both.
Why is it less likely for someone, anyone, to get the virus if they have been vaccinated?
I think the point is that it should be available and both kids and parents can make a judgement based on the evidence. If I was a parent to a 12-15 year old I'd want them to get it but if they said they wanted to wait until they turned 16 or whatever I wouldn't have any objections. Not giving people the choice was my biggest problem with the JCVI approach, parents and kids have agency, they don't need to be told what to do and what not to do.
Interesting exchange on R4 this morning with Nadim Zahawi. If your 12-yr old child wanted to have it and you didn't, then based upon a consultation with a GP if the GP deemed the child competent to weigh up the risks and various factors, then the 12-yr old would have it. And vice versa presumably.
Yes, that is the law on consent. It has not changed for years, and relates to the Gillick case in the Eighties.
Yes, but I thought that this related to the 16-18 year olds? I'm surprised and somewhat troubled that 12 year olds are going to be able to get vaccinated for Covid without parental consent.
Is there a particular reason? 12 year olds can already make certain decisions without parental consent (they can prevent their personal data being shared with a parent for example - used to see that one a lot with broken families), and its already the case about medical issues in some circumstance as others have noted.
I feel like objections on this point are in part because peopel are not aware of the rights young people already possess.
Interesting anecdata from today. A colleague who was by me in the vaccine queue, so got Pfizer right back in December, picked up the Delta from his grandson. Asian, overweight and over seventy so quite high risk. Picked up on LFT at work, confirmed on PCR, asymptomatic at the time. He had a mild temperature for a day, but nothing really in the way of symptoms and back at work.
That's what the vaccine does, turns a killer into a minor annoyance.
Here is somewhere that PB top gear fans should recognise:
Lairig Ghru?
I'm not sure the road through the Lairig Ghru is that good. It certainly wasn't that well surfaced when I last rode a bike on it.
It's not *good*, but when I walked it there were Landrovers near the top, and linesmen working on the powerlines.
Powerlines in the Lairig Ghru? Wot?
Ditto a road, of course.
Ah but there is a watershed, the only one I have ever seen. A modest sized lochan with burns running out of both ends, one to the north sea on the east coast and one to the Atlantic on the west. It's quite something.
I believe it's possible to walk from the west coast of Scotland to the east coast in a day - from possibly faulty memory (given my performance on this thread so far), from somewhere to Bonar Bridge.
Inverbroom to Dingwall is 38 miles. Can't find anywhere from Bonar Bridge less than 44 miles (Kylesku, Laxford, various other options).
Being in a business meeting with people you know is different to being in a crowded setting, for instance a train. In the latter case you are coming in to close contact with a lot of people who you don't know - there is a high risk that you will pick up or spread the virus unintentionally. This doesn't apply in work meetings, family meetings, parties etc, where track and trace will be able to inform you if anyone has developed covid.
It is a bad idea to have important business meetings wearing masks, as you cannot fully read facial expressions.
Here is somewhere that PB top gear fans should recognise:
Lairig Ghru?
I'm not sure the road through the Lairig Ghru is that good. It certainly wasn't that well surfaced when I last rode a bike on it.
It's not *good*, but when I walked it there were Landrovers near the top, and linesmen working on the powerlines.
Powerlines in the Lairig Ghru? Wot?
Ditto a road, of course.
Ah but there is a watershed, the only one I have ever seen. A modest sized lochan with burns running out of both ends, one to the north sea on the east coast and one to the Atlantic on the west. It's quite something.
I believe it's possible to walk from the west coast of Scotland to the east coast in a day - from possibly faulty memory (given my performance on this thread so far), from somewhere to Bonar Bridge.
Kelpies to Glasgow Green is 25 miles.
Is that a walking route, or as the Scotsman Flying?
I can genuinely not think of a reason to vaccinate children. They a) don't get (very) ill; and b) can still get and transmit the virus. Perhaps transmission is lower if they are vaccinated but it would be lower if they are asymptomatic, which most are.
The govt says to avoid people being off school but children can still get the virus having been vaxxed so if they do they will be off school anyway. Meanwhile, bubbles as I understand it have been abolished so whole classes won't be sent home.
What am I missing?
The (b) is deeply misleading.
Because:
- many vaccinated people won't get the disease at all, cutting their viral shedding to zero - of those that get it, most will be only mildly symptomatic, cutting their viral shedding dramatically. - and of those who are symptomatic, the amount of time time they are infectious will be far shorter.
One of my bugbears is that there's a headline that says "some vaccinated people can shed as much viral load as unvaccinated". Which is true, but deeply misleading. All the evidence (and there is ample evidence) shows that you dramatically (at least 85%) cut the amount of viral matter being thrown around.
Yes you have posted that stat before. But "many vaccinated people won't get the disease at all". Would appreciate details of that.
The key research is from August, when research was published that showedthere's about a five point gap between symptomatic and total infections. The CDC demonstrated that while effectiveness at preventing symptomatic infections was 95% in a pre-Delta world, vaccines were 90% effective at preventing any detectable infection.
Effectiveness of vaccines against Delta are lower. I posted CDC research yesterday that showed that the efficacy against symptomatic Covid has dipped from 94/95% for original Covid to 79% for Delta.
Even if we assume that the gap between symptomatic infections and all infections is now fifteen percentage points, then that would still have around two-thirds of people given the vaccine not getting any detectable levels of Covid. (And therefore being highly unlikely to spread the disease. Plus, of course, children tend to have stronger immune systems, and therefore the vaccines are likely to be more effective for them.)
It's also worth taking a step back for a second.
Do you know why you sneeze and cough? It's becuase of survival of the fittest. Viruses that cause their hosts to cough and sneeze get spread around more. It's evolutionary pressure to put viral material out there. Someone who is completely asymptomatic isn't going to be coughing or sneezing, and that severely limits the amount of viral material they can excrete. And the evidence is legion that sneezing and coughing are major transmission vectors for Covid.
But your line "effective...at preventing detectable infection". Does that mean you test negative for the virus or you are asymptomatic.
But we are talking about spreading between and amongst children, who are at an accepted tiny risk of either Covid or the vaccine.
If you are saying vaccine = low detectable levels of the virus = not much virus in the body once "infected" then that re-asks the question of who is this for? The double-vaccinated adults or other children who are overwhelmingly likely to suffer not much if anything beyond that cough and sneeze? Not I understand a rare occurrence for children regardless of vaccine and virus.
"But your line "effective...at preventing detectable infection". Does that mean you test negative for the virus or you are asymptomatic."
The 94-95% was about exhibiting symptoms. The 90% was about testing negative (with PCR) for the virus.
I can genuinely not think of a reason to vaccinate children. They a) don't get (very) ill; and b) can still get and transmit the virus. Perhaps transmission is lower if they are vaccinated but it would be lower if they are asymptomatic, which most are.
The govt says to avoid people being off school but children can still get the virus having been vaxxed so if they do they will be off school anyway. Meanwhile, bubbles as I understand it have been abolished so whole classes won't be sent home.
What am I missing?
a) don't get (very) ill; Risk from naive Covid is higher than the vaccine, the CDC have covered that.
but children can still get the virus having been vaxxed True, but it's less likely for any child. And less likely for one child = less cases in the childhood population = lower transmission to adults = lower global R.
Also if a teenager catches Covid and is vaxxed they'll have subsequent strong hybrid immunity - that keeps everything lower for longer too.
The virus hasn't passed stage 3 trials, the vaccines have - making a choice not to vaccinate when it's available essentially means you're saying the virus is safer than the vaccine. It's only "safer" if the virus is at very low levels, and those levels are achieved through .... vaccination.
I'm sure the risk from Covid is higher than from the vaccine but so what. We are talking tiny risks for both.
Why is it less likely for someone, anyone, to get the virus if they have been vaccinated?
I think the point is that it should be available and both kids and parents can make a judgement based on the evidence. If I was a parent to a 12-15 year old I'd want them to get it but if they said they wanted to wait until they turned 16 or whatever I wouldn't have any objections. Not giving people the choice was my biggest problem with the JCVI approach, parents and kids have agency, they don't need to be told what to do and what not to do.
Interesting exchange on R4 this morning with Nadim Zahawi. If your 12-yr old child wanted to have it and you didn't, then based upon a consultation with a GP if the GP deemed the child competent to weigh up the risks and various factors, then the 12-yr old would have it. And vice versa presumably.
I wasn't aware of the details of the case behind the term, but it seems named after the activist who wanted the opposite to be the case, which is amusing.
Len McCluskey. @Keir_Starmer can't be trusted. Starmer chose to break an honest deal agreed between us for Corbyn’s readmission to the party. Starmer called to tell me he had suspended Corbyn. EHRC said such political interference could be unlawfull.
A few days ago Labour officials who were at the meeting said McCluskey's interpretation is flawed (my interpretation of McCluskey's recollection - an absolute crock).
McCluskey claims Starmer then personally ordered the suspension of the former leader from the party – a move that would go against the equalities watchdog’s ruling that there should be no political interference in disciplinary matters.
I recall it being claimed at the time, and it seemed plausible.
I can genuinely not think of a reason to vaccinate children. They a) don't get (very) ill; and b) can still get and transmit the virus. Perhaps transmission is lower if they are vaccinated but it would be lower if they are asymptomatic, which most are.
The govt says to avoid people being off school but children can still get the virus having been vaxxed so if they do they will be off school anyway. Meanwhile, bubbles as I understand it have been abolished so whole classes won't be sent home.
What am I missing?
The (b) is deeply misleading.
Because:
- many vaccinated people won't get the disease at all, cutting their viral shedding to zero - of those that get it, most will be only mildly symptomatic, cutting their viral shedding dramatically. - and of those who are symptomatic, the amount of time time they are infectious will be far shorter.
One of my bugbears is that there's a headline that says "some vaccinated people can shed as much viral load as unvaccinated". Which is true, but deeply misleading. All the evidence (and there is ample evidence) shows that you dramatically (at least 85%) cut the amount of viral matter being thrown around.
Yes you have posted that stat before. But "many vaccinated people won't get the disease at all". Would appreciate details of that.
The key research is from August, when research was published that showedthere's about a five point gap between symptomatic and total infections. The CDC demonstrated that while effectiveness at preventing symptomatic infections was 95% in a pre-Delta world, vaccines were 90% effective at preventing any detectable infection.
Effectiveness of vaccines against Delta are lower. I posted CDC research yesterday that showed that the efficacy against symptomatic Covid has dipped from 94/95% for original Covid to 79% for Delta.
Even if we assume that the gap between symptomatic infections and all infections is now fifteen percentage points, then that would still have around two-thirds of people given the vaccine not getting any detectable levels of Covid. (And therefore being highly unlikely to spread the disease. Plus, of course, children tend to have stronger immune systems, and therefore the vaccines are likely to be more effective for them.)
It's also worth taking a step back for a second.
Do you know why you sneeze and cough? It's becuase of survival of the fittest. Viruses that cause their hosts to cough and sneeze get spread around more. It's evolutionary pressure to put viral material out there. Someone who is completely asymptomatic isn't going to be coughing or sneezing, and that severely limits the amount of viral material they can excrete. And the evidence is legion that sneezing and coughing are major transmission vectors for Covid.
But your line "effective...at preventing detectable infection". Does that mean you test negative for the virus or you are asymptomatic.
But we are talking about spreading between and amongst children, who are at an accepted tiny risk of either Covid or the vaccine.
If you are saying vaccine = low detectable levels of the virus = not much virus in the body once "infected" then that re-asks the question of who is this for? The double-vaccinated adults or other children who are overwhelmingly likely to suffer not much if anything beyond that cough and sneeze? Not I understand a rare occurrence for children regardless of vaccine and virus.
That Imperial piece is intersting, and took place during a time when Delta was on the rise in the UK (but not completely dominant). It suggests 66% efficicacy against any detectable disease.
(It is also worth noting there is probably a vaccine brand effect here too.)
Canada. Average of last 13 polls over previous 3 days. 21k+ sampled by a variety of methods.
Lib 32.2 (-0.9) Con 30.8 (-3.5) NDP 19.3 (+3.3) BQ 6.7 (-0.9) PPC 6.5 (+4.9) GP 3.4 (-3.2) Changes with previous election.
Doesn't stop the Guardian, amongst others, leading with "The PM trails in the polls." He does in some, not on average (mean) any longer. Direction of travel becoming clear. Early voting already taking place in Alberta at least.
Incidentally. Tories unvaccinated candidates becoming a late issue.
Has there been a big Liberal bounceback?
Not particularly. But their vote has been shoring up. The Tories have been put on the backfoot re vaccines and got tangled up talking about assault weapons. They're bleeding votes to the PPC. So more a Conservative fall and a smaller Liberal rise.
The problem for O'Toole is he has focused so much on reassuring centrists in suburban Ontario he is a moderate on gay marriage and climate change etc and supportive of vaccines and masks he forgot about his right flank in the rural West which he is now leaking to Bernier and the populist Trumpite and UKIP like PPC
It is a recurring issue for the CPC. They can easily score 33%. Try to push on from there and their coalition begins to creak at the seams.
Indeed, Harper has been the only one to manage it since the merger of the PCs and Canadian Alliance (formerly Reform) in 2003 and even he only managed to get a Conservative majority in 2011, helped in part by a collapse from the Liberals in favour of the NDP who briefly became the main opposition
Yes. See my edit. That was primarily because the Liberals chose a leader less attractive as a PM than almost any other qualified citizen of Canada.
Partly but fear of the NDP who are less attractive to centrist voters than the Liberals as well was also a factor, indeed the Canadian Liberals unlike UK Labour have been in government for a majority of the postwar years for that reason. Had the more leftwing NDP generally been the Conservatives main opposition I expect the Canadian Tories would have been as successful as the UK Tories have been
The Liberals have the sweet spot under FPTP that is for sure. Their "true" level of support is always much smaller than their actual vote. They win most of the estimated 30% of Canadians who vote tactically. They would possibly come third under PR. Which is why they won't.
Interesting anecdata from today. A colleague who was by me in the vaccine queue, so got Pfizer right back in December, picked up the Delta from his grandson. Asian, overweight and over seventy so quite high risk. Picked up on LFT at work, confirmed on PCR, asymptomatic at the time. He had a mild temperature for a day, but nothing really in the way of symptoms and back at work.
That's what the vaccine does, turns a killer into a minor annoyance.
Yes, but is that worth infinetissimal risks and fretting about being controlled by microchips?
McCluskey claims Starmer then personally ordered the suspension of the former leader from the party – a move that would go against the equalities watchdog’s ruling that there should be no political interference in disciplinary matters.
Here is somewhere that PB top gear fans should recognise:
Lairig Ghru?
I'm not sure the road through the Lairig Ghru is that good. It certainly wasn't that well surfaced when I last rode a bike on it.
It's not *good*, but when I walked it there were Landrovers near the top, and linesmen working on the powerlines.
Powerlines in the Lairig Ghru? Wot?
Ditto a road, of course.
Ah but there is a watershed, the only one I have ever seen. A modest sized lochan with burns running out of both ends, one to the north sea on the east coast and one to the Atlantic on the west. It's quite something.
I believe it's possible to walk from the west coast of Scotland to the east coast in a day - from possibly faulty memory (given my performance on this thread so far), from somewhere to Bonar Bridge.
Inverbroom to Dingwall is 38 miles. Can't find anywhere from Bonar Bridge less than 44 miles (Kylesku, Laxford, various other options).
Canada. Average of last 13 polls over previous 3 days. 21k+ sampled by a variety of methods.
Lib 32.2 (-0.9) Con 30.8 (-3.5) NDP 19.3 (+3.3) BQ 6.7 (-0.9) PPC 6.5 (+4.9) GP 3.4 (-3.2) Changes with previous election.
Doesn't stop the Guardian, amongst others, leading with "The PM trails in the polls." He does in some, not on average (mean) any longer. Direction of travel becoming clear. Early voting already taking place in Alberta at least.
Incidentally. Tories unvaccinated candidates becoming a late issue.
Has there been a big Liberal bounceback?
Not particularly. But their vote has been shoring up. The Tories have been put on the backfoot re vaccines and got tangled up talking about assault weapons. They're bleeding votes to the PPC. So more a Conservative fall and a smaller Liberal rise.
The problem for O'Toole is he has focused so much on reassuring centrists in suburban Ontario he is a moderate on gay marriage and climate change etc and supportive of vaccines and masks he forgot about his right flank in the rural West which he is now leaking to Bernier and the populist Trumpite and UKIP like PPC
It is a recurring issue for the CPC. They can easily score 33%. Try to push on from there and their coalition begins to creak at the seams.
Indeed, Harper has been the only one to manage it since the merger of the PCs and Canadian Alliance (formerly Reform) in 2003 and even he only managed to get a Conservative majority in 2011, helped in part by a collapse from the Liberals in favour of the NDP who briefly became the main opposition
Yes. See my edit. That was primarily because the Liberals chose a leader less attractive as a PM than almost any other qualified citizen of Canada.
Partly but fear of the NDP who are less attractive to centrist voters than the Liberals as well was also a factor, indeed the Canadian Liberals unlike UK Labour have been in government for a majority of the postwar years for that reason. Had the more leftwing NDP generally been the Conservatives main opposition I expect the Canadian Tories would have been as successful as the UK Tories have been
The Liberals have the sweet spot under FPTP that is for sure. Their "true" level of support is always much smaller than their actual vote. They win most of the estimated 30% of Canadians who vote tactically. They would possibly come third under PR. Which is why they won't.
You dare suggest that their deciding that it was just too complicated and difficult to introduce PR after all may have had another motivation? Surely not.
I've not been following it closely but it seems like even on a bad night Trudeau is expected to be largest party - what a lucky leader he may be.
Only 60+ km cycled today. Normandy's greenways aren't as good as the SW of France. Some bone shakers. Having some fantastic food and drink but frankly cardboard and paraffin would taste good at present.
Just to let HYUFD know (re earlier comments) that not all us old foggies rely on free bus passes and afternoon matinees to have fun. Most us who are fit still have a life and most of us in our 60s and 70s are in fact lucky enough to be fit. My days of squash, skiing black runs and pitchpoleing catamarans are behind me, but I can still match many younger than me at other activities and I'm not to be written off yet.
The net benefit to the child is questionable, clearly, but one benefit for some is that vaccination makes travel easier. Approving one jab only (I think) removes this benefit as two jabs plus 14 days are specified by most countries. Is this right?
Does the one jab recommendation mean that the 12-15 year old is not allowed to have the 2nd jab or is it just a recommendation?
“Rayner began by requesting our discussion be confidential. Given what happened subsequently, I no longer feel bound by that,” McCluskey said. “Trickett and I asked if there was a way to negotiate a settlement to avoid an internal war. Starmer replied that he didn’t want a war and was happy to talk about ways to reach a solution.
“He indicated that a clarification statement by Corbyn could be a way of resolving the issue. ‘Are you saying that if we could reach an agreed form of words that both Jeremy and you, Keir, are happy with, then the suspension could be lifted?’ I asked. ‘Yes,’ Starmer said. The others also agreed.”
McCluskey claimed that Trickett and Starmer’s senior adviser, Simon Fletcher, had worked up a draft statement that was discussed in a conference call with McSweeney. “I said: ‘As far as we are concerned, it is our expectation that if Jeremy agrees to the statement, then that is the end of the matter and the suspension will be lifted, after due process, and Jeremy will be back to normal.’
“McSweeney’s response was: ‘Yes, that is our expectation, also.’ ‘And you speak on behalf of Keir?’ I asked. ‘Yes,’ came his reply.”
McCluskey said he was “so confident that I have submitted it for use in Jeremy Corbyn’s legal challenge to the withdrawal of the whip and will stand by it in court”.
Yes, that is the law on consent. It has not changed for years, and relates to the Gillick case in the Eighties.
Yes, but I thought that this related to the 16-18 year olds? I'm surprised and somewhat troubled that 12 year olds are going to be able to get vaccinated for Covid without parental consent.
The wikipedia page says that "Gillick competence" has always been about the under-16s. For 16-18 the assumption is that the young person has the choice to give consent or not. https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/consent-to-treatment/children/ says that can only be overruled in exceptional circumatances.
So 11 year olds can't give consent, 16 year olds can, and Gillick is about doctors making a judgement call for the grey area in the middle. It doesn't mean "all 12 year olds can give consent themselves".
I can genuinely not think of a reason to vaccinate children. They a) don't get (very) ill; and b) can still get and transmit the virus. Perhaps transmission is lower if they are vaccinated but it would be lower if they are asymptomatic, which most are.
The govt says to avoid people being off school but children can still get the virus having been vaxxed so if they do they will be off school anyway. Meanwhile, bubbles as I understand it have been abolished so whole classes won't be sent home.
What am I missing?
a) don't get (very) ill; Risk from naive Covid is higher than the vaccine, the CDC have covered that.
but children can still get the virus having been vaxxed True, but it's less likely for any child. And less likely for one child = less cases in the childhood population = lower transmission to adults = lower global R.
Also if a teenager catches Covid and is vaxxed they'll have subsequent strong hybrid immunity - that keeps everything lower for longer too.
The virus hasn't passed stage 3 trials, the vaccines have - making a choice not to vaccinate when it's available essentially means you're saying the virus is safer than the vaccine. It's only "safer" if the virus is at very low levels, and those levels are achieved through .... vaccination.
I'm sure the risk from Covid is higher than from the vaccine but so what. We are talking tiny risks for both.
Why is it less likely for someone, anyone, to get the virus if they have been vaccinated?
I think the point is that it should be available and both kids and parents can make a judgement based on the evidence. If I was a parent to a 12-15 year old I'd want them to get it but if they said they wanted to wait until they turned 16 or whatever I wouldn't have any objections. Not giving people the choice was my biggest problem with the JCVI approach, parents and kids have agency, they don't need to be told what to do and what not to do.
Interesting exchange on R4 this morning with Nadim Zahawi. If your 12-yr old child wanted to have it and you didn't, then based upon a consultation with a GP if the GP deemed the child competent to weigh up the risks and various factors, then the 12-yr old would have it. And vice versa presumably.
I wasn't aware of the details of the case behind the term, but it seems named after the activist who wanted the opposite to be the case, which is amusing.
IRC it was about a Roman Catholic mum not being happy with her under-16 daughters being prescribed contraceptives without her knowledge.
Here is somewhere that PB top gear fans should recognise:
Lairig Ghru?
I'm not sure the road through the Lairig Ghru is that good. It certainly wasn't that well surfaced when I last rode a bike on it.
It's not *good*, but when I walked it there were Landrovers near the top, and linesmen working on the powerlines.
Powerlines in the Lairig Ghru? Wot?
Ditto a road, of course.
Ah but there is a watershed, the only one I have ever seen. A modest sized lochan with burns running out of both ends, one to the north sea on the east coast and one to the Atlantic on the west. It's quite something.
Don't they both end up in the North Sea? The Spey and the Dee?
The actual Scottish watershed has been walked a few times (not sure about the English one). Would quite fancy a go at that if I had the time. You could finish at Cape Wrath or Duncansby Head depending on how you view it.
You're right. I was told that the burns ended up on the east and west coast by the people I was walking the Lairig ghru with and just took it as gospel until now. Live and learn!
I can genuinely not think of a reason to vaccinate children. They a) don't get (very) ill; and b) can still get and transmit the virus. Perhaps transmission is lower if they are vaccinated but it would be lower if they are asymptomatic, which most are.
The govt says to avoid people being off school but children can still get the virus having been vaxxed so if they do they will be off school anyway. Meanwhile, bubbles as I understand it have been abolished so whole classes won't be sent home.
What am I missing?
a) don't get (very) ill; Risk from naive Covid is higher than the vaccine, the CDC have covered that.
but children can still get the virus having been vaxxed True, but it's less likely for any child. And less likely for one child = less cases in the childhood population = lower transmission to adults = lower global R.
Also if a teenager catches Covid and is vaxxed they'll have subsequent strong hybrid immunity - that keeps everything lower for longer too.
The virus hasn't passed stage 3 trials, the vaccines have - making a choice not to vaccinate when it's available essentially means you're saying the virus is safer than the vaccine. It's only "safer" if the virus is at very low levels, and those levels are achieved through .... vaccination.
I'm sure the risk from Covid is higher than from the vaccine but so what. We are talking tiny risks for both.
Why is it less likely for someone, anyone, to get the virus if they have been vaccinated?
I think the point is that it should be available and both kids and parents can make a judgement based on the evidence. If I was a parent to a 12-15 year old I'd want them to get it but if they said they wanted to wait until they turned 16 or whatever I wouldn't have any objections. Not giving people the choice was my biggest problem with the JCVI approach, parents and kids have agency, they don't need to be told what to do and what not to do.
Interesting exchange on R4 this morning with Nadim Zahawi. If your 12-yr old child wanted to have it and you didn't, then based upon a consultation with a GP if the GP deemed the child competent to weigh up the risks and various factors, then the 12-yr old would have it. And vice versa presumably.
Yes, that is the law on consent. It has not changed for years, and relates to the Gillick case in the Eighties.
Yes, but I thought that this related to the 16-18 year olds? I'm surprised and somewhat troubled that 12 year olds are going to be able to get vaccinated for Covid without parental consent.
Is there a particular reason? 12 year olds can already make certain decisions without parental consent (they can prevent their personal data being shared with a parent for example - used to see that one a lot with broken families), and its already the case about medical issues in some circumstance as others have noted.
I feel like objections on this point are in part because peopel are not aware of the rights young people already possess.
When my daughters recently turned 16 they received letters giving them the option whether or not to share medical info with parents. That's why I thought 16 was the age for this.
I guess many will think that parents are the better judge of what is best for their child than their 12 year old is.
Here is somewhere that PB top gear fans should recognise:
Lairig Ghru?
I'm not sure the road through the Lairig Ghru is that good. It certainly wasn't that well surfaced when I last rode a bike on it.
It's not *good*, but when I walked it there were Landrovers near the top, and linesmen working on the powerlines.
Powerlines in the Lairig Ghru? Wot?
Ditto a road, of course.
Ah but there is a watershed, the only one I have ever seen. A modest sized lochan with burns running out of both ends, one to the north sea on the east coast and one to the Atlantic on the west. It's quite something.
I believe it's possible to walk from the west coast of Scotland to the east coast in a day - from possibly faulty memory (given my performance on this thread so far), from somewhere to Bonar Bridge.
Kelpies to Glasgow Green is 25 miles.
My dad used to cycle from Ibrox to St Andrews and back in a day. Best fish suppers he ever ate. Nothing like working up a hunger.
Here is somewhere that PB top gear fans should recognise:
Lairig Ghru?
I'm not sure the road through the Lairig Ghru is that good. It certainly wasn't that well surfaced when I last rode a bike on it.
It's not *good*, but when I walked it there were Landrovers near the top, and linesmen working on the powerlines.
Powerlines in the Lairig Ghru? Wot?
Ditto a road, of course.
Ah but there is a watershed, the only one I have ever seen. A modest sized lochan with burns running out of both ends, one to the north sea on the east coast and one to the Atlantic on the west. It's quite something.
I believe it's possible to walk from the west coast of Scotland to the east coast in a day - from possibly faulty memory (given my performance on this thread so far), from somewhere to Bonar Bridge.
Ome thing I wanted to do but I think is now only a dream is to walk from the source of the Snake River to the source of the Missouri. Doable in a day I reckoned.
Len McCluskey. @Keir_Starmer can't be trusted. Starmer chose to break an honest deal agreed between us for Corbyn’s readmission to the party. Starmer called to tell me he had suspended Corbyn. EHRC said such political interference could be unlawfull.
A few days ago Labour officials who were at the meeting said McCluskey's interpretation is flawed (my interpretation of McCluskey's recollection - an absolute crock).
Kinda obvious, but ... are there no minutes of the meeting?
Here is somewhere that PB top gear fans should recognise:
Lairig Ghru?
I'm not sure the road through the Lairig Ghru is that good. It certainly wasn't that well surfaced when I last rode a bike on it.
It's not *good*, but when I walked it there were Landrovers near the top, and linesmen working on the powerlines.
Powerlines in the Lairig Ghru? Wot?
Ditto a road, of course.
Ah but there is a watershed, the only one I have ever seen. A modest sized lochan with burns running out of both ends, one to the north sea on the east coast and one to the Atlantic on the west. It's quite something.
I believe it's possible to walk from the west coast of Scotland to the east coast in a day - from possibly faulty memory (given my performance on this thread so far), from somewhere to Bonar Bridge.
Kelpies to Glasgow Green is 25 miles.
Is that a walking route, or as the Scotsman Flying?
Walking according to Google, so DYOR: but much of it would be accounted for by the paths along the Antonine Wall and the canal.
Edit: also check tidal range at the Kelpies. Might need to add a mile or two there.
Yes, that is the law on consent. It has not changed for years, and relates to the Gillick case in the Eighties.
Yes, but I thought that this related to the 16-18 year olds? I'm surprised and somewhat troubled that 12 year olds are going to be able to get vaccinated for Covid without parental consent.
The wikipedia page says that "Gillick competence" has always been about the under-16s. For 16-18 the assumption is that the young person has the choice to give consent or not. https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/consent-to-treatment/children/ says that can only be overruled in exceptional circumatances.
So 11 year olds can't give consent, 16 year olds can, and Gillick is about doctors making a judgement call for the grey area in the middle. It doesn't mean "all 12 year olds can give consent themselves".
So are we saying that a 12 year old can prove competence to their GP and get the vaccine without parents being informed? If that is so, then that is one thing, however if a 12 year old can enter a walk-in vaccination centre and get jabbed that is another.
Here is somewhere that PB top gear fans should recognise:
Lairig Ghru?
I'm not sure the road through the Lairig Ghru is that good. It certainly wasn't that well surfaced when I last rode a bike on it.
It's not *good*, but when I walked it there were Landrovers near the top, and linesmen working on the powerlines.
Powerlines in the Lairig Ghru? Wot?
Ditto a road, of course.
Ah but there is a watershed, the only one I have ever seen. A modest sized lochan with burns running out of both ends, one to the north sea on the east coast and one to the Atlantic on the west. It's quite something.
I believe it's possible to walk from the west coast of Scotland to the east coast in a day - from possibly faulty memory (given my performance on this thread so far), from somewhere to Bonar Bridge.
Kelpies to Glasgow Green is 25 miles.
My dad used to cycle from Ibrox to St Andrews and back in a day. Best fish suppers he ever ate. Nothing like working up a hunger.
That's 76 miles each way. That's incredible.
Not if there was an Old Firm match at home. A very good reason to clear out of the neighbourhood for the day.
Len McCluskey. @Keir_Starmer can't be trusted. Starmer chose to break an honest deal agreed between us for Corbyn’s readmission to the party. Starmer called to tell me he had suspended Corbyn. EHRC said such political interference could be unlawfull.
A few days ago Labour officials who were at the meeting said McCluskey's interpretation is flawed (my interpretation of McCluskey's recollection - an absolute crock).
Kinda obvious, but ... are there no minutes of the meeting?
Len McCluskey. @Keir_Starmer can't be trusted. Starmer chose to break an honest deal agreed between us for Corbyn’s readmission to the party. Starmer called to tell me he had suspended Corbyn. EHRC said such political interference could be unlawfull.
A few days ago Labour officials who were at the meeting said McCluskey's interpretation is flawed (my interpretation of McCluskey's recollection - an absolute crock).
Kinda obvious, but ... are there no minutes of the meeting?
Is this the way SKS runs the Labour Party? Jeez.
Don't voters hate parties at war?
A bigger question is why does Len McCluskey have (or even believe he has) a say in the internal actions of the Labour party.
I can genuinely not think of a reason to vaccinate children. They a) don't get (very) ill; and b) can still get and transmit the virus. Perhaps transmission is lower if they are vaccinated but it would be lower if they are asymptomatic, which most are.
The govt says to avoid people being off school but children can still get the virus having been vaxxed so if they do they will be off school anyway. Meanwhile, bubbles as I understand it have been abolished so whole classes won't be sent home.
What am I missing?
a) don't get (very) ill; Risk from naive Covid is higher than the vaccine, the CDC have covered that.
but children can still get the virus having been vaxxed True, but it's less likely for any child. And less likely for one child = less cases in the childhood population = lower transmission to adults = lower global R.
Also if a teenager catches Covid and is vaxxed they'll have subsequent strong hybrid immunity - that keeps everything lower for longer too.
The virus hasn't passed stage 3 trials, the vaccines have - making a choice not to vaccinate when it's available essentially means you're saying the virus is safer than the vaccine. It's only "safer" if the virus is at very low levels, and those levels are achieved through .... vaccination.
I'm sure the risk from Covid is higher than from the vaccine but so what. We are talking tiny risks for both.
Why is it less likely for someone, anyone, to get the virus if they have been vaccinated?
I think the point is that it should be available and both kids and parents can make a judgement based on the evidence. If I was a parent to a 12-15 year old I'd want them to get it but if they said they wanted to wait until they turned 16 or whatever I wouldn't have any objections. Not giving people the choice was my biggest problem with the JCVI approach, parents and kids have agency, they don't need to be told what to do and what not to do.
Interesting exchange on R4 this morning with Nadim Zahawi. If your 12-yr old child wanted to have it and you didn't, then based upon a consultation with a GP if the GP deemed the child competent to weigh up the risks and various factors, then the 12-yr old would have it. And vice versa presumably.
Yes, that is the law on consent. It has not changed for years, and relates to the Gillick case in the Eighties.
Yes, but I thought that this related to the 16-18 year olds? I'm surprised and somewhat troubled that 12 year olds are going to be able to get vaccinated for Covid without parental consent.
Is there a particular reason? 12 year olds can already make certain decisions without parental consent (they can prevent their personal data being shared with a parent for example - used to see that one a lot with broken families), and its already the case about medical issues in some circumstance as others have noted.
I feel like objections on this point are in part because peopel are not aware of the rights young people already possess.
When my daughters recently turned 16 they received letters giving them the option whether or not to share medical info with parents. That's why I thought 16 was the age for this.
I guess many will think that parents are the better judge of what is best for their child than their 12 year old is.
I'm sure most people will, and there are areas I'd certainly agree, but there's less wiggle room on it than people think.
Interesting anecdata from today. A colleague who was by me in the vaccine queue, so got Pfizer right back in December, picked up the Delta from his grandson. Asian, overweight and over seventy so quite high risk. Picked up on LFT at work, confirmed on PCR, asymptomatic at the time. He had a mild temperature for a day, but nothing really in the way of symptoms and back at work.
That's what the vaccine does, turns a killer into a minor annoyance.
Without doubting the efficacy of the vaccines in reducing risk - even though the chap was in a higher risk cohort, surely the odds were on that outcome anyway weren't they?
Being in a business meeting with people you know is different to being in a crowded setting, for instance a train. In the latter case you are coming in to close contact with a lot of people who you don't know - there is a high risk that you will pick up or spread the virus unintentionally. This doesn't apply in work meetings, family meetings, parties etc, where track and trace will be able to inform you if anyone has developed covid.
It is a bad idea to have important business meetings wearing masks, as you cannot fully read facial expressions.
But does the inability to read facial expressions actually result in worse business decisions? It may be that the transparency enforced by such obstacles as masks and remote meetings could lead to better outcomes than deals based on a nod and a wink, even if the meetings are less fun for those involved.
Here is somewhere that PB top gear fans should recognise:
Lairig Ghru?
I'm not sure the road through the Lairig Ghru is that good. It certainly wasn't that well surfaced when I last rode a bike on it.
It's not *good*, but when I walked it there were Landrovers near the top, and linesmen working on the powerlines.
Powerlines in the Lairig Ghru? Wot?
Ditto a road, of course.
Ah but there is a watershed, the only one I have ever seen. A modest sized lochan with burns running out of both ends, one to the north sea on the east coast and one to the Atlantic on the west. It's quite something.
I believe it's possible to walk from the west coast of Scotland to the east coast in a day - from possibly faulty memory (given my performance on this thread so far), from somewhere to Bonar Bridge.
Kelpies to Glasgow Green is 25 miles.
My dad used to cycle from Ibrox to St Andrews and back in a day. Best fish suppers he ever ate. Nothing like working up a hunger.
That's 76 miles each way. That's incredible.
At university in the 80's, one of my flatmates would cycle home from Leicester to Manchester for lunch and then come back for dinner. He was simultaneously the fittest and maddest bloke I knew.
Here is somewhere that PB top gear fans should recognise:
Lairig Ghru?
I'm not sure the road through the Lairig Ghru is that good. It certainly wasn't that well surfaced when I last rode a bike on it.
It's not *good*, but when I walked it there were Landrovers near the top, and linesmen working on the powerlines.
Powerlines in the Lairig Ghru? Wot?
Ditto a road, of course.
Ah but there is a watershed, the only one I have ever seen. A modest sized lochan with burns running out of both ends, one to the north sea on the east coast and one to the Atlantic on the west. It's quite something.
I believe it's possible to walk from the west coast of Scotland to the east coast in a day - from possibly faulty memory (given my performance on this thread so far), from somewhere to Bonar Bridge.
Kelpies to Glasgow Green is 25 miles.
Even discounting canals, Glasgow Green to Kincardine is only 28 miles by road.
Len McCluskey is a fraudster, nothing he says can be trusted
Although I disagree with McCluskey probably on almost everything, I must say that I make a point of downloading any podcasts he guests on as he is always great value. And I love his voice.
Here is somewhere that PB top gear fans should recognise:
Lairig Ghru?
I'm not sure the road through the Lairig Ghru is that good. It certainly wasn't that well surfaced when I last rode a bike on it.
It's not *good*, but when I walked it there were Landrovers near the top, and linesmen working on the powerlines.
Powerlines in the Lairig Ghru? Wot?
Ditto a road, of course.
Ah but there is a watershed, the only one I have ever seen. A modest sized lochan with burns running out of both ends, one to the north sea on the east coast and one to the Atlantic on the west. It's quite something.
I believe it's possible to walk from the west coast of Scotland to the east coast in a day - from possibly faulty memory (given my performance on this thread so far), from somewhere to Bonar Bridge.
Kelpies to Glasgow Green is 25 miles.
Is that a walking route, or as the Scotsman Flying?
Walking according to Google, so DYOR: but much of it would be accounted for by the paths along the Antonine Wall and the canal.
Edit: also check tidal range at the Kelpies. Might need to add a mile or two there.
I think I probably should have said the Highlands, rather than Scotland. Still an amazing feat, though.
Here is somewhere that PB top gear fans should recognise:
Lairig Ghru?
I'm not sure the road through the Lairig Ghru is that good. It certainly wasn't that well surfaced when I last rode a bike on it.
It's not *good*, but when I walked it there were Landrovers near the top, and linesmen working on the powerlines.
Powerlines in the Lairig Ghru? Wot?
Ditto a road, of course.
Ah but there is a watershed, the only one I have ever seen. A modest sized lochan with burns running out of both ends, one to the north sea on the east coast and one to the Atlantic on the west. It's quite something.
I believe it's possible to walk from the west coast of Scotland to the east coast in a day - from possibly faulty memory (given my performance on this thread so far), from somewhere to Bonar Bridge.
Kelpies to Glasgow Green is 25 miles.
My dad used to cycle from Ibrox to St Andrews and back in a day. Best fish suppers he ever ate. Nothing like working up a hunger.
That's 76 miles each way. That's incredible.
He was wee and wiry. Road racing was his sport. And I think the task was a hell of a lot simpler in the 1940s and 50s. He could still beat me in a sprint along the sands when I was a young teenager, and I was a nippy bugger myself.
Ibrox - St Andrews - Ibrox is shorter than Milan - Sanremo, which typically took about 7 to 9 hours in the 1940s. If you took it steady you could manage that in a whole day.
Len McCluskey. @Keir_Starmer can't be trusted. Starmer chose to break an honest deal agreed between us for Corbyn’s readmission to the party. Starmer called to tell me he had suspended Corbyn. EHRC said such political interference could be unlawfull.
A few days ago Labour officials who were at the meeting said McCluskey's interpretation is flawed (my interpretation of McCluskey's recollection - an absolute crock).
Kinda obvious, but ... are there no minutes of the meeting?
Is this the way SKS runs the Labour Party? Jeez.
Don't voters hate parties at war?
A bigger question is why does Len McCluskey have (or even believe he has) a say in the internal actions of the Labour party.
because, he is (or was) the biggest paymaster of the labour party.
Len McCluskey. @Keir_Starmer can't be trusted. Starmer chose to break an honest deal agreed between us for Corbyn’s readmission to the party. Starmer called to tell me he had suspended Corbyn. EHRC said such political interference could be unlawfull.
A few days ago Labour officials who were at the meeting said McCluskey's interpretation is flawed (my interpretation of McCluskey's recollection - an absolute crock).
Kinda obvious, but ... are there no minutes of the meeting?
Is this the way SKS runs the Labour Party? Jeez.
My post wasn't so much a defence of Starmer as a critique of McCluskey.
So instead of getting the school kids jabbed over the summer when they could barely find an arm to stick a needle in, they have faffed about for a couple of months so now they need to get them jabbed at the same time as the boosters get done.
If anyone thinks I'm being illiberal by questioning the decision to allow vaccinations to children without parental consent, I'm actually being the opposite. Basic Millian liberalism:
“It is, perhaps, hardly necessary to say that this doctrine is meant to apply only to human beings in the maturity of their faculties. We are not speaking of children, or of young persons below the age which the law may fix as that of manhood or womanhood. Those who are still in a state to require being taken care of by others, must be protected against their own actions as well as against external injury.” J S Mill
I can genuinely not think of a reason to vaccinate children. They a) don't get (very) ill; and b) can still get and transmit the virus. Perhaps transmission is lower if they are vaccinated but it would be lower if they are asymptomatic, which most are.
The govt says to avoid people being off school but children can still get the virus having been vaxxed so if they do they will be off school anyway. Meanwhile, bubbles as I understand it have been abolished so whole classes won't be sent home.
What am I missing?
a) don't get (very) ill; Risk from naive Covid is higher than the vaccine, the CDC have covered that.
but children can still get the virus having been vaxxed True, but it's less likely for any child. And less likely for one child = less cases in the childhood population = lower transmission to adults = lower global R.
Also if a teenager catches Covid and is vaxxed they'll have subsequent strong hybrid immunity - that keeps everything lower for longer too.
The virus hasn't passed stage 3 trials, the vaccines have - making a choice not to vaccinate when it's available essentially means you're saying the virus is safer than the vaccine. It's only "safer" if the virus is at very low levels, and those levels are achieved through .... vaccination.
I'm sure the risk from Covid is higher than from the vaccine but so what. We are talking tiny risks for both.
Why is it less likely for someone, anyone, to get the virus if they have been vaccinated?
I think the point is that it should be available and both kids and parents can make a judgement based on the evidence. If I was a parent to a 12-15 year old I'd want them to get it but if they said they wanted to wait until they turned 16 or whatever I wouldn't have any objections. Not giving people the choice was my biggest problem with the JCVI approach, parents and kids have agency, they don't need to be told what to do and what not to do.
Interesting exchange on R4 this morning with Nadim Zahawi. If your 12-yr old child wanted to have it and you didn't, then based upon a consultation with a GP if the GP deemed the child competent to weigh up the risks and various factors, then the 12-yr old would have it. And vice versa presumably.
Yes, that is the law on consent. It has not changed for years, and relates to the Gillick case in the Eighties.
Yes, but I thought that this related to the 16-18 year olds? I'm surprised and somewhat troubled that 12 year olds are going to be able to get vaccinated for Covid without parental consent.
And there will be others who would be surprised and troubled if 12 year olds were vaccinated against their consent. The line has to be drawn somewhere and by someone. Letting a qualified third party decide based upon interviewing the child seems a reasonable enough solution, in the few cases that parents and kids don't resolve themselves.
Covid is still raging in many places around the globe whilst we have got it largely under control; and whilst huge numbers of people in these places haven't had a first jab here we are in the UK debating the merits of third jabs, precisely when they should be and who should get one, and should each person get a different vaccine to their first two, given that might be marginally better, and about vaccinating kids and the finer points of underage capacity to make decisions. Not saying these end phase details are not interesting and important, they are, but there is (to me) a definite smack of 'first world problem' around a lot of this now.
Here is somewhere that PB top gear fans should recognise:
Lairig Ghru?
I'm not sure the road through the Lairig Ghru is that good. It certainly wasn't that well surfaced when I last rode a bike on it.
It's not *good*, but when I walked it there were Landrovers near the top, and linesmen working on the powerlines.
Powerlines in the Lairig Ghru? Wot?
Ditto a road, of course.
Ah but there is a watershed, the only one I have ever seen. A modest sized lochan with burns running out of both ends, one to the north sea on the east coast and one to the Atlantic on the west. It's quite something.
I believe it's possible to walk from the west coast of Scotland to the east coast in a day - from possibly faulty memory (given my performance on this thread so far), from somewhere to Bonar Bridge.
Kelpies to Glasgow Green is 25 miles.
My dad used to cycle from Ibrox to St Andrews and back in a day. Best fish suppers he ever ate. Nothing like working up a hunger.
Back in the 1930s, my granddad cycled with a friend from Derby to Blackpool on a Saturday. They stayed in a B&B overnight, then cycled back ready for work on a Monday morning. On 1930s roads, through the Peak District. I reckon that's 200-odd miles there, and the same back. He said it wasn't worth it, as they were both too knackered to do much when they got there!
Incidentally, my mother and her sisters cycled both Paisley - London and Paisley - Paris in their youth. I think such exploits were surprisingly common in the days before cheap air travel and universal car ownership.
Len McCluskey. @Keir_Starmer can't be trusted. Starmer chose to break an honest deal agreed between us for Corbyn’s readmission to the party. Starmer called to tell me he had suspended Corbyn. EHRC said such political interference could be unlawfull.
A few days ago Labour officials who were at the meeting said McCluskey's interpretation is flawed (my interpretation of McCluskey's recollection - an absolute crock).
Kinda obvious, but ... are there no minutes of the meeting?
Is this the way SKS runs the Labour Party? Jeez.
My post wasn't so much a defence of Starmer as a critique of McCluskey.
I am just surprised nothing was written down about the agreement.
Small wonder we end up with "He said yadda, yadda ...", "No, he said wadda, wadda ..." kinda arguments.
Canada. Average of last 13 polls over previous 3 days. 21k+ sampled by a variety of methods.
Lib 32.2 (-0.9) Con 30.8 (-3.5) NDP 19.3 (+3.3) BQ 6.7 (-0.9) PPC 6.5 (+4.9) GP 3.4 (-3.2) Changes with previous election.
Doesn't stop the Guardian, amongst others, leading with "The PM trails in the polls." He does in some, not on average (mean) any longer. Direction of travel becoming clear. Early voting already taking place in Alberta at least.
Incidentally. Tories unvaccinated candidates becoming a late issue.
Has there been a big Liberal bounceback?
Not particularly. But their vote has been shoring up. The Tories have been put on the backfoot re vaccines and got tangled up talking about assault weapons. They're bleeding votes to the PPC. So more a Conservative fall and a smaller Liberal rise.
The problem for O'Toole is he has focused so much on reassuring centrists in suburban Ontario he is a moderate on gay marriage and climate change etc and supportive of vaccines and masks he forgot about his right flank in the rural West which he is now leaking to Bernier and the populist Trumpite and UKIP like PPC
It is a recurring issue for the CPC. They can easily score 33%. Try to push on from there and their coalition begins to creak at the seams.
Indeed, Harper has been the only one to manage it since the merger of the PCs and Canadian Alliance (formerly Reform) in 2003 and even he only managed to get a Conservative majority in 2011, helped in part by a collapse from the Liberals in favour of the NDP who briefly became the main opposition
Yes. See my edit. That was primarily because the Liberals chose a leader less attractive as a PM than almost any other qualified citizen of Canada.
Partly but fear of the NDP who are less attractive to centrist voters than the Liberals as well was also a factor, indeed the Canadian Liberals unlike UK Labour have been in government for a majority of the postwar years for that reason. Had the more leftwing NDP generally been the Conservatives main opposition I expect the Canadian Tories would have been as successful as the UK Tories have been
The Liberals have the sweet spot under FPTP that is for sure. Their "true" level of support is always much smaller than their actual vote. They win most of the estimated 30% of Canadians who vote tactically. They would possibly come third under PR. Which is why they won't.
You dare suggest that their deciding that it was just too complicated and difficult to introduce PR after all may have had another motivation? Surely not.
I've not been following it closely but it seems like even on a bad night Trudeau is expected to be largest party - what a lucky leader he may be.
Not quite. On a bad night he'll lose. He might lose anyway. But he's favourite now, yes. And it isn't luck. He's a very canny political operator. He waits. Takes the blows. Sees how the campaign is going. Then ruthlessly deploys wedge issues to peel off soft votes from both sides.
Here is somewhere that PB top gear fans should recognise:
Lairig Ghru?
I'm not sure the road through the Lairig Ghru is that good. It certainly wasn't that well surfaced when I last rode a bike on it.
It's not *good*, but when I walked it there were Landrovers near the top, and linesmen working on the powerlines.
Powerlines in the Lairig Ghru? Wot?
Ditto a road, of course.
Ah but there is a watershed, the only one I have ever seen. A modest sized lochan with burns running out of both ends, one to the north sea on the east coast and one to the Atlantic on the west. It's quite something.
I believe it's possible to walk from the west coast of Scotland to the east coast in a day - from possibly faulty memory (given my performance on this thread so far), from somewhere to Bonar Bridge.
Kelpies to Glasgow Green is 25 miles.
My dad used to cycle from Ibrox to St Andrews and back in a day. Best fish suppers he ever ate. Nothing like working up a hunger.
Back in the 1930s, my granddad cycled with a friend from Derby to Blackpool on a Saturday. They stayed in a B&B overnight, then cycled back ready for work on a Monday morning. On 1930s roads, through the Peak District. I reckon that's 200-odd miles there, and the same back. He said it wasn't worth it, as they were both too knackered to do much when they got there!
Yes, my dad said he was completely finished when he used to near the outskirts of Glasgow. Could barely make it home.
You’d have thought it would be more pleasant to just nip down to Largs!
Here is somewhere that PB top gear fans should recognise:
Lairig Ghru?
I'm not sure the road through the Lairig Ghru is that good. It certainly wasn't that well surfaced when I last rode a bike on it.
It's not *good*, but when I walked it there were Landrovers near the top, and linesmen working on the powerlines.
Powerlines in the Lairig Ghru? Wot?
Ditto a road, of course.
Ah but there is a watershed, the only one I have ever seen. A modest sized lochan with burns running out of both ends, one to the north sea on the east coast and one to the Atlantic on the west. It's quite something.
I believe it's possible to walk from the west coast of Scotland to the east coast in a day - from possibly faulty memory (given my performance on this thread so far), from somewhere to Bonar Bridge.
Kelpies to Glasgow Green is 25 miles.
My dad used to cycle from Ibrox to St Andrews and back in a day. Best fish suppers he ever ate. Nothing like working up a hunger.
That's 76 miles each way. That's incredible.
He was wee and wiry. Road racing was his sport. And I think the task was a hell of a lot simpler in the 1940s and 50s. He could still beat me in a sprint along the sands when I was a young teenager, and I was a nippy bugger myself.
Ibrox - St Andrews - Ibrox is shorter than Milan - Sanremo, which typically took about 7 to 9 hours in the 1940s. If you took it steady you could manage that in a whole day.
Our local bicyclists have an Audax event called "Everybody rides to Skeggie", which is a 300km ride starting at 6am, and required to be at Skegness by 02:08am the next morning. https://audax.uk/event-details?eventId=7850
I seem to recall a programme a few years ago about one in Scotland that was 1300km in 100 hours.
Such events are increasing popular I think amongst a (very)subset of people.
I can genuinely not think of a reason to vaccinate children. They a) don't get (very) ill; and b) can still get and transmit the virus. Perhaps transmission is lower if they are vaccinated but it would be lower if they are asymptomatic, which most are.
The govt says to avoid people being off school but children can still get the virus having been vaxxed so if they do they will be off school anyway. Meanwhile, bubbles as I understand it have been abolished so whole classes won't be sent home.
What am I missing?
a) don't get (very) ill; Risk from naive Covid is higher than the vaccine, the CDC have covered that.
but children can still get the virus having been vaxxed True, but it's less likely for any child. And less likely for one child = less cases in the childhood population = lower transmission to adults = lower global R.
Also if a teenager catches Covid and is vaxxed they'll have subsequent strong hybrid immunity - that keeps everything lower for longer too.
The virus hasn't passed stage 3 trials, the vaccines have - making a choice not to vaccinate when it's available essentially means you're saying the virus is safer than the vaccine. It's only "safer" if the virus is at very low levels, and those levels are achieved through .... vaccination.
I'm sure the risk from Covid is higher than from the vaccine but so what. We are talking tiny risks for both.
Why is it less likely for someone, anyone, to get the virus if they have been vaccinated?
I think the point is that it should be available and both kids and parents can make a judgement based on the evidence. If I was a parent to a 12-15 year old I'd want them to get it but if they said they wanted to wait until they turned 16 or whatever I wouldn't have any objections. Not giving people the choice was my biggest problem with the JCVI approach, parents and kids have agency, they don't need to be told what to do and what not to do.
Interesting exchange on R4 this morning with Nadim Zahawi. If your 12-yr old child wanted to have it and you didn't, then based upon a consultation with a GP if the GP deemed the child competent to weigh up the risks and various factors, then the 12-yr old would have it. And vice versa presumably.
Yes, that is the law on consent. It has not changed for years, and relates to the Gillick case in the Eighties.
Yes, but I thought that this related to the 16-18 year olds? I'm surprised and somewhat troubled that 12 year olds are going to be able to get vaccinated for Covid without parental consent.
And there will be others who would be surprised and troubled if 12 year olds were vaccinated against their consent. The line has to be drawn somewhere and by someone. Letting a qualified third party decide based upon interviewing the child seems a reasonable enough solution, in the few cases that parents and kids don't resolve themselves.
Covid is still raging in many places around the globe whilst we have got it largely under control; and whilst huge numbers of people in these places haven't had a first jab here we are in the UK debating the merits of third jabs, precisely when they should be and who should get one, and should each person get a different vaccine to their first two, given that might be marginally better, and about vaccinating kids and the finer points of underage capacity to make decisions. Not saying these end phase details are not interesting and important, they are, but there is (to me) a definite smack of 'first world problem' around a lot of this now.
Clearly living in the UK is a big privilege and we have massive advantages over many poorer countries. Not sure this is particularly new or covid related though, it was ever thus. Gradually less decade by decade, but still a lot more to be done.
If anyone thinks I'm being illiberal by questioning the decision to allow vaccinations to children without parental consent, I'm actually being the opposite. Basic Millian liberalism:
“It is, perhaps, hardly necessary to say that this doctrine is meant to apply only to human beings in the maturity of their faculties. We are not speaking of children, or of young persons below the age which the law may fix as that of manhood or womanhood. Those who are still in a state to require being taken care of by others, must be protected against their own actions as well as against external injury.” J S Mill
Question-begging. Who are "those who are still in a state to require being taken care of by others"?
On the subject of vaccination and kids, remember VIRAL LOADS MATTER.
If you get a big dose of Covid, then vaccinated or unvaccinated, you are much more likely to end up with an infection, and any infection you get is likely to be more serious.
And that's the other reason to get as many people vaccinated as possible. If there are three infected unvaccinated people on a bus (not simultaneously, but over the course of a day), then the driver will have gotten a pretty large dose that may very well be enough to break through that vaccine protection.
If everyone is vaccinated on the bus, then even those with breakthrough infections will be secreting less viral matter.
I can genuinely not think of a reason to vaccinate children. They a) don't get (very) ill; and b) can still get and transmit the virus. Perhaps transmission is lower if they are vaccinated but it would be lower if they are asymptomatic, which most are.
The govt says to avoid people being off school but children can still get the virus having been vaxxed so if they do they will be off school anyway. Meanwhile, bubbles as I understand it have been abolished so whole classes won't be sent home.
What am I missing?
a) don't get (very) ill; Risk from naive Covid is higher than the vaccine, the CDC have covered that.
but children can still get the virus having been vaxxed True, but it's less likely for any child. And less likely for one child = less cases in the childhood population = lower transmission to adults = lower global R.
Also if a teenager catches Covid and is vaxxed they'll have subsequent strong hybrid immunity - that keeps everything lower for longer too.
The virus hasn't passed stage 3 trials, the vaccines have - making a choice not to vaccinate when it's available essentially means you're saying the virus is safer than the vaccine. It's only "safer" if the virus is at very low levels, and those levels are achieved through .... vaccination.
I'm sure the risk from Covid is higher than from the vaccine but so what. We are talking tiny risks for both.
Why is it less likely for someone, anyone, to get the virus if they have been vaccinated?
I think the point is that it should be available and both kids and parents can make a judgement based on the evidence. If I was a parent to a 12-15 year old I'd want them to get it but if they said they wanted to wait until they turned 16 or whatever I wouldn't have any objections. Not giving people the choice was my biggest problem with the JCVI approach, parents and kids have agency, they don't need to be told what to do and what not to do.
Interesting exchange on R4 this morning with Nadim Zahawi. If your 12-yr old child wanted to have it and you didn't, then based upon a consultation with a GP if the GP deemed the child competent to weigh up the risks and various factors, then the 12-yr old would have it. And vice versa presumably.
Yes, that is the law on consent. It has not changed for years, and relates to the Gillick case in the Eighties.
Yes, but I thought that this related to the 16-18 year olds? I'm surprised and somewhat troubled that 12 year olds are going to be able to get vaccinated for Covid without parental consent.
And there will be others who would be surprised and troubled if 12 year olds were vaccinated against their consent. The line has to be drawn somewhere and by someone. Letting a qualified third party decide based upon interviewing the child seems a reasonable enough solution, in the few cases that parents and kids don't resolve themselves.
Covid is still raging in many places around the globe whilst we have got it largely under control; and whilst huge numbers of people in these places haven't had a first jab here we are in the UK debating the merits of third jabs, precisely when they should be and who should get one, and should each person get a different vaccine to their first two, given that might be marginally better, and about vaccinating kids and the finer points of underage capacity to make decisions. Not saying these end phase details are not interesting and important, they are, but there is (to me) a definite smack of 'first world problem' around a lot of this now.
I'm not sure that there is automatically a problem in a first world country discussing its first world problems.
Yes there are global iniquities and, bluntly, some of them are never going to be addressed as they would probably mean a detraction in our quality of life to share the wealth as it were, and the greater good for getting others first jabbed ahead of us getting thirds is a debate worth having to a point, but I've never liked the 'first world problem' expression as while the problems here may not be as severe as many other places it doesn't always mean its illegitimate to regard it as a problem, especially since we don't live in a selfless utopia and whilst we can judge ourselves for inactions, it shouldn't be judged against a hypothetical utopic situation.
I can genuinely not think of a reason to vaccinate children. They a) don't get (very) ill; and b) can still get and transmit the virus. Perhaps transmission is lower if they are vaccinated but it would be lower if they are asymptomatic, which most are.
The govt says to avoid people being off school but children can still get the virus having been vaxxed so if they do they will be off school anyway. Meanwhile, bubbles as I understand it have been abolished so whole classes won't be sent home.
What am I missing?
a) don't get (very) ill; Risk from naive Covid is higher than the vaccine, the CDC have covered that.
but children can still get the virus having been vaxxed True, but it's less likely for any child. And less likely for one child = less cases in the childhood population = lower transmission to adults = lower global R.
Also if a teenager catches Covid and is vaxxed they'll have subsequent strong hybrid immunity - that keeps everything lower for longer too.
The virus hasn't passed stage 3 trials, the vaccines have - making a choice not to vaccinate when it's available essentially means you're saying the virus is safer than the vaccine. It's only "safer" if the virus is at very low levels, and those levels are achieved through .... vaccination.
I'm sure the risk from Covid is higher than from the vaccine but so what. We are talking tiny risks for both.
Why is it less likely for someone, anyone, to get the virus if they have been vaccinated?
I think the point is that it should be available and both kids and parents can make a judgement based on the evidence. If I was a parent to a 12-15 year old I'd want them to get it but if they said they wanted to wait until they turned 16 or whatever I wouldn't have any objections. Not giving people the choice was my biggest problem with the JCVI approach, parents and kids have agency, they don't need to be told what to do and what not to do.
Interesting exchange on R4 this morning with Nadim Zahawi. If your 12-yr old child wanted to have it and you didn't, then based upon a consultation with a GP if the GP deemed the child competent to weigh up the risks and various factors, then the 12-yr old would have it. And vice versa presumably.
Yes, that is the law on consent. It has not changed for years, and relates to the Gillick case in the Eighties.
Yes, but I thought that this related to the 16-18 year olds? I'm surprised and somewhat troubled that 12 year olds are going to be able to get vaccinated for Covid without parental consent.
And there will be others who would be surprised and troubled if 12 year olds were vaccinated against their consent. The line has to be drawn somewhere and by someone. Letting a qualified third party decide based upon interviewing the child seems a reasonable enough solution, in the few cases that parents and kids don't resolve themselves.
Covid is still raging in many places around the globe whilst we have got it largely under control; and whilst huge numbers of people in these places haven't had a first jab here we are in the UK debating the merits of third jabs, precisely when they should be and who should get one, and should each person get a different vaccine to their first two, given that might be marginally better, and about vaccinating kids and the finer points of underage capacity to make decisions. Not saying these end phase details are not interesting and important, they are, but there is (to me) a definite smack of 'first world problem' around a lot of this now.
Clearly living in the UK is a big privilege and we have massive advantages over many poorer countries. Not sure this is particularly new or covid related though, it was ever thus. Gradually less decade by decade, but still a lot more to be done.
Yes, not offered as any blazing insight or to imply we shouldn't do boosters or kids, or spend time crossing the eyes and dotting the tees. It was just something that struck me about this particular debate. It's really brought it into focus. Again.
EDIT: Oh god, just seen Johnson at the presser saying it'll soon be time "to turn jabs jabs jabs into jobs jobs jobs." I can't bear it much longer. I'm going to have to cancel him from my media diet.
Len McCluskey. @Keir_Starmer can't be trusted. Starmer chose to break an honest deal agreed between us for Corbyn’s readmission to the party. Starmer called to tell me he had suspended Corbyn. EHRC said such political interference could be unlawfull.
A few days ago Labour officials who were at the meeting said McCluskey's interpretation is flawed (my interpretation of McCluskey's recollection - an absolute crock).
Kinda obvious, but ... are there no minutes of the meeting?
Is this the way SKS runs the Labour Party? Jeez.
My post wasn't so much a defence of Starmer as a critique of McCluskey.
I am just surprised nothing was written down about the agreement.
Small wonder we end up with "He said yadda, yadda ...", "No, he said wadda, wadda ..." kinda arguments.
I accept the Labour Party post Blair is infinate amateur hour, but McCluskey embodies everything I utterly despise about left-wing politics.
Surely the guidance was for winter if there is a big rise in cases, we are still barely in autumn let alone winter
I'm sure that we can all agree that winter starts on December 1st.
(Disappears into the kitchen just in case I have started WW3)
Astronomical winter only begins on December 21st
I just knew it!
@HYUFD: How can we be "barely in autumn" if "Astronomical winter only begins on December 21st"? Is autumn longer than the other seasons?
It's shorter. Don't believe the hype. All the autumnal stuff (fruit, leaf colour changes etc) starts about mid August and has happened by the end of October. It's then winter all the way to May 1.
Only 60+ km cycled today. Normandy's greenways aren't as good as the SW of France. Some bone shakers. Having some fantastic food and drink but frankly cardboard and paraffin would taste good at present.
Just to let HYUFD know (re earlier comments) that not all us old foggies rely on free bus passes and afternoon matinees to have fun. Most us who are fit still have a life and most of us in our 60s and 70s are in fact lucky enough to be fit. My days of squash, skiing black runs and pitchpoleing catamarans are behind me, but I can still match many younger than me at other activities and I'm not to be written off yet.
Where are you cycling in Normandy? I know almost every road for cycling North of a line between Caen and Bayeux from Summers spent there. I miss it terribly as the scenery combined with quiet roads through the wheat fields was a beautiful experience.
Surely the guidance was for winter if there is a big rise in cases, we are still barely in autumn let alone winter
I'm sure that we can all agree that winter starts on December 1st.
(Disappears into the kitchen just in case I have started WW3)
Astronomical winter only begins on December 21st
I just knew it!
@HYUFD: How can we be "barely in autumn" if "Astronomical winter only begins on December 21st"? Is autumn longer than the other seasons?
It's shorter. Don't believe the hype. All the autumnal stuff (fruit, leaf colour changes etc) starts about mid August and has happened by the end of October. It's then winter all the way to May 1.
Always fun to see if one can remember what one was doing on a random day in history. I wondered what I was doing the day Emma Raducanu was born (13 November 2002). And I can. I was annoyed that we only had terrestrial television and I couldn't watch Feyenoord 2-3 Newcastle United on ITV2 (ITV were showing Man Utd on ITV1, even though they already through).
Canada. Average of last 13 polls over previous 3 days. 21k+ sampled by a variety of methods.
Lib 32.2 (-0.9) Con 30.8 (-3.5) NDP 19.3 (+3.3) BQ 6.7 (-0.9) PPC 6.5 (+4.9) GP 3.4 (-3.2) Changes with previous election.
Doesn't stop the Guardian, amongst others, leading with "The PM trails in the polls." He does in some, not on average (mean) any longer. Direction of travel becoming clear. Early voting already taking place in Alberta at least.
Incidentally. Tories unvaccinated candidates becoming a late issue.
Has there been a big Liberal bounceback?
A tad, but it looks like the PPC are taking votes from the Conservatives (who are presumably too wet for some).
Bicycling should be understood as not just a toy but as an efficient and low polluting transport. If one happens also to engage in cycle racing long commutes are a natural fit with one's training. Cycling keeps you young. I sold my one car in 1973 and went just about everywhere by bike(s). Commuting from Bedford to Milton Keynes was part of it.
The downside, of course, is the bleeding car; I had couple of near disasters with them over the last 300,000 miles.
The decisions to give booster shots is of more importance than whether we roll-out vaccines to 12-15 year olds. Even a small reduction in vaccine efficacy in the most vulnerable will many times the effect on hospitalisation levels and deaths than the second order effects of vaccinating a four-year age bracket (maybe 3m total, a significant proportion of which will have natural immunity).
The boosters mean the vaccine efficacy is likely to be boosted from current levels before the height of winter - especially as most of groups 1-9 had AZ and the booster will be Pfizer.
With children back in school and cases falling - or at worst range-bound depending how the data plays out - I'm increasingly optimistic we'll avoid any measures (including encouraging working from home) being re-introduced.
If anyone thinks I'm being illiberal by questioning the decision to allow vaccinations to children without parental consent, I'm actually being the opposite. Basic Millian liberalism:
“It is, perhaps, hardly necessary to say that this doctrine is meant to apply only to human beings in the maturity of their faculties. We are not speaking of children, or of young persons below the age which the law may fix as that of manhood or womanhood. Those who are still in a state to require being taken care of by others, must be protected against their own actions as well as against external injury.” J S Mill
Question-begging. Who are "those who are still in a state to require being taken care of by others"?
Yes, that's the question isn't it? For me, the under 16s (and the under18s to some extent) are still in this state.
Always fun to see if one can remember what one was doing on a random day in history. I wondered what I was doing the day Emma Raducanu was born (13 November 2002). And I can. I was annoyed that we only had terrestrial television and I couldn't watch Feyenoord 2-3 Newcastle United on ITV2 (ITV were showing Man Utd on ITV1, even though they already through).
Always fun to see if one can remember what one was doing on a random day in history. I wondered what I was doing the day Emma Raducanu was born (13 November 2002). And I can. I was annoyed that we only had terrestrial television and I couldn't watch Feyenoord 2-3 Newcastle United on ITV2 (ITV were showing Man Utd on ITV1, even though they already through).
I can genuinely not think of a reason to vaccinate children. They a) don't get (very) ill; and b) can still get and transmit the virus. Perhaps transmission is lower if they are vaccinated but it would be lower if they are asymptomatic, which most are.
The govt says to avoid people being off school but children can still get the virus having been vaxxed so if they do they will be off school anyway. Meanwhile, bubbles as I understand it have been abolished so whole classes won't be sent home.
What am I missing?
a) don't get (very) ill; Risk from naive Covid is higher than the vaccine, the CDC have covered that.
but children can still get the virus having been vaxxed True, but it's less likely for any child. And less likely for one child = less cases in the childhood population = lower transmission to adults = lower global R.
Also if a teenager catches Covid and is vaxxed they'll have subsequent strong hybrid immunity - that keeps everything lower for longer too.
The virus hasn't passed stage 3 trials, the vaccines have - making a choice not to vaccinate when it's available essentially means you're saying the virus is safer than the vaccine. It's only "safer" if the virus is at very low levels, and those levels are achieved through .... vaccination.
I'm sure the risk from Covid is higher than from the vaccine but so what. We are talking tiny risks for both.
Why is it less likely for someone, anyone, to get the virus if they have been vaccinated?
I think the point is that it should be available and both kids and parents can make a judgement based on the evidence. If I was a parent to a 12-15 year old I'd want them to get it but if they said they wanted to wait until they turned 16 or whatever I wouldn't have any objections. Not giving people the choice was my biggest problem with the JCVI approach, parents and kids have agency, they don't need to be told what to do and what not to do.
Interesting exchange on R4 this morning with Nadim Zahawi. If your 12-yr old child wanted to have it and you didn't, then based upon a consultation with a GP if the GP deemed the child competent to weigh up the risks and various factors, then the 12-yr old would have it. And vice versa presumably.
Yes, that is the law on consent. It has not changed for years, and relates to the Gillick case in the Eighties.
Yes, but I thought that this related to the 16-18 year olds? I'm surprised and somewhat troubled that 12 year olds are going to be able to get vaccinated for Covid without parental consent.
And there will be others who would be surprised and troubled if 12 year olds were vaccinated against their consent. The line has to be drawn somewhere and by someone. Letting a qualified third party decide based upon interviewing the child seems a reasonable enough solution, in the few cases that parents and kids don't resolve themselves.
Covid is still raging in many places around the globe whilst we have got it largely under control; and whilst huge numbers of people in these places haven't had a first jab here we are in the UK debating the merits of third jabs, precisely when they should be and who should get one, and should each person get a different vaccine to their first two, given that might be marginally better, and about vaccinating kids and the finer points of underage capacity to make decisions. Not saying these end phase details are not interesting and important, they are, but there is (to me) a definite smack of 'first world problem' around a lot of this now.
I'm not sure that there is automatically a problem in a first world country discussing its first world problems.
Yes there are global iniquities and, bluntly, some of them are never going to be addressed as they would probably mean a detraction in our quality of life to share the wealth as it were, and the greater good for getting others first jabbed ahead of us getting thirds is a debate worth having to a point, but I've never liked the 'first world problem' expression as while the problems here may not be as severe as many other places it doesn't always mean its illegitimate to regard it as a problem, especially since we don't live in a selfless utopia and whilst we can judge ourselves for inactions, it shouldn't be judged against a hypothetical utopic situation.
I agree with all of that. Your own problems are always front and centre to you. When I have one, I'm never impressed or helped by, "but just think of all those worse off than you are". Nevertheless, the feeling that we in the UK get hyped up over what is (relatively) nothing strikes me from time to time, and it did here.
The Conservative Party MPs are, with very few exceptions, muppets.
If you don't like me stating it then re-read Mike's thread above.
There is a character in "Birds Without Wings" by Louis de Bernieres who imitates the bleats of goats, his party piece being "the bleat of a goat who has nothing to say." I can't think why he has just popped into my head.
Comments
@Keir_Starmer
can't be trusted. Starmer chose to break an honest deal agreed between us for Corbyn’s readmission to the party.
Starmer called to tell me he had suspended Corbyn.
EHRC said such political interference could be unlawfull.
That's what the vaccine does, turns a killer into a minor annoyance.
The actual Scottish watershed has been walked a few times (not sure about the English one). Would quite fancy a go at that if I had the time. You could finish at Cape Wrath or Duncansby Head depending on how you view it.
Can out German experts comment on whether this is correct, or a brainstorm?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/09/14/germanys-leftward-lurch-stunning-economic-upset/
My brother took a couple of months of being eligible to getting his jab, because he was waiting for it to be offered from his local GP because he is so strapped for cash he wouldn't spring for a taxi or train to other locations offered, but even the youngest people have had quite a lot of time to 'get round to it' now.
Funny enough the hospital told him he would still test positive for three weeks, but was ok to mingle with other people and go on holiday that is booked (in UK). He had covid spikes in his lungs apparently
I feel like objections on this point are in part because peopel are not aware of the rights young people already possess.
http://www.walkscotland.com/inverlael.htm
https://www.venture-north.co.uk/guides/dornoch-east/bonar-bridge
It is a bad idea to have important business meetings wearing masks, as you cannot fully read facial expressions.
The 94-95% was about exhibiting symptoms.
The 90% was about testing negative (with PCR) for the virus.
(It is also worth noting there is probably a vaccine brand effect here too.)
They would possibly come third under PR. Which is why they won't.
An interesting summary of the EHRC report.
I've not been following it closely but it seems like even on a bad night Trudeau is expected to be largest party - what a lucky leader he may be.
https://twitter.com/nickiminaj/status/1437815776484884483
Just to let HYUFD know (re earlier comments) that not all us old foggies rely on free bus passes and afternoon matinees to have fun. Most us who are fit still have a life and most of us in our 60s and 70s are in fact lucky enough to be fit. My days of squash, skiing black runs and pitchpoleing catamarans are behind me, but I can still match many younger than me at other activities and I'm not to be written off yet.
The net benefit to the child is questionable, clearly, but one benefit for some is that vaccination makes travel easier. Approving one jab only (I think) removes this benefit as two jabs plus 14 days are specified by most countries. Is this right?
Does the one jab recommendation mean that the 12-15 year old is not allowed to have the 2nd jab or is it just a recommendation?
“He indicated that a clarification statement by Corbyn could be a way of resolving the issue. ‘Are you saying that if we could reach an agreed form of words that both Jeremy and you, Keir, are happy with, then the suspension could be lifted?’ I asked. ‘Yes,’ Starmer said. The others also agreed.”
McCluskey claimed that Trickett and Starmer’s senior adviser, Simon Fletcher, had worked up a draft statement that was discussed in a conference call with McSweeney. “I said: ‘As far as we are concerned, it is our expectation that if Jeremy agrees to the statement, then that is the end of the matter and the suspension will be lifted, after due process, and Jeremy will be back to normal.’
“McSweeney’s response was: ‘Yes, that is our expectation, also.’ ‘And you speak on behalf of Keir?’ I asked. ‘Yes,’ came his reply.”
McCluskey said he was “so confident that I have submitted it for use in Jeremy Corbyn’s legal challenge to the withdrawal of the whip and will stand by it in court”.
So 11 year olds can't give consent, 16 year olds can, and Gillick is about doctors making a judgement call for the grey area in the middle. It doesn't mean "all 12 year olds can give consent themselves".
I guess many will think that parents are the better judge of what is best for their child than their 12 year old is.
Is this the way SKS runs the Labour Party? Jeez.
Edit: also check tidal range at the Kelpies. Might need to add a mile or two there.
With one bound we are free
Ibrox - St Andrews - Ibrox is shorter than Milan - Sanremo, which typically took about 7 to 9 hours in the 1940s. If you took it steady you could manage that in a whole day.
Logistically sub-optimal.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/review-of-politics/article/abs/john-stuart-mill-childrens-liberty-and-the-unraveling-of-autonomy/84961263571E8AD6D61AFC4499310D04
and
https://www.philosophytalk.org/blog/children-philosophical-problem
“It is, perhaps, hardly necessary to say that this doctrine is meant to apply only to human beings in the maturity of their faculties. We are not speaking of children, or of young persons below the age which the law may fix as that of manhood or womanhood. Those who are still in a state to require being taken care of by others, must be protected against their own actions as well as against external injury.” J S Mill
Incidentally, my mother and her sisters cycled both Paisley - London and Paisley - Paris in their youth. I think such exploits were surprisingly common in the days before cheap air travel and universal car ownership.
Small wonder we end up with "He said yadda, yadda ...", "No, he said wadda, wadda ..." kinda arguments.
And it isn't luck. He's a very canny political operator.
He waits. Takes the blows. Sees how the campaign is going.
Then ruthlessly deploys wedge issues to peel off soft votes from both sides.
You’d have thought it would be more pleasant to just nip down to Largs!
https://audax.uk/event-details?eventId=7850
I seem to recall a programme a few years ago about one in Scotland that was 1300km in 100 hours.
Such events are increasing popular I think amongst a (very)subset of people.
Definitely the Stelvio.
If you get a big dose of Covid, then vaccinated or unvaccinated, you are much more likely to end up with an infection, and any infection you get is likely to be more serious.
And that's the other reason to get as many people vaccinated as possible. If there are three infected unvaccinated people on a bus (not simultaneously, but over the course of a day), then the driver will have gotten a pretty large dose that may very well be enough to break through that vaccine protection.
If everyone is vaccinated on the bus, then even those with breakthrough infections will be secreting less viral matter.
Yes there are global iniquities and, bluntly, some of them are never going to be addressed as they would probably mean a detraction in our quality of life to share the wealth as it were, and the greater good for getting others first jabbed ahead of us getting thirds is a debate worth having to a point, but I've never liked the 'first world problem' expression as while the problems here may not be as severe as many other places it doesn't always mean its illegitimate to regard it as a problem, especially since we don't live in a selfless utopia and whilst we can judge ourselves for inactions, it shouldn't be judged against a hypothetical utopic situation.
EDIT: Oh god, just seen Johnson at the presser saying it'll soon be time "to turn jabs jabs jabs into jobs jobs jobs." I can't bear it much longer. I'm going to have to cancel him from my media diet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0wf-DR_A6U
The downside, of course, is the bleeding car; I had couple of near disasters with them over the last 300,000 miles.
If you don't like me stating it then re-read Mike's thread above.
The boosters mean the vaccine efficacy is likely to be boosted from current levels before the height of winter - especially as most of groups 1-9 had AZ and the booster will be Pfizer.
With children back in school and cases falling - or at worst range-bound depending how the data plays out - I'm increasingly optimistic we'll avoid any measures (including encouraging working from home) being re-introduced.
http://www.britishwalks.org/walks/2002/265.php