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.
Indeed. I don't think in Northern Europe we have 4x 3 month seasons. Summer starts on 1 May and Winter on 1 November. Bonfire Night is that first night of the year when there is an appreciable nip in the air. Spring arguably starts in February when you get those bright winter days and they start to get longer. Autumn is probably no more than late Sept and Oct.
Ooh, pointless, but fun: I'll go for: The start of spring is the most varied and is entirely weather dependent - because there is no big event to hang it on. The 1st of March or the 21st of March can slip by without you noticing if you're not concentrating. But you do notice the first day on which you don't have to wear a coat. And the flowers arrive gradually; but in a good year the blossom all arrives at once in one big power chord. Sometime this also coincides with daughter #1's birthday. (It certainly did the year she was born. It was as if the world had been waiting for that moment. The country of Iceland also elected to celebrate the event with a massive volcanic erruption.) Summer starts with the Whit holidays. The last day of summer is the August bank holiday. On which day I listen to 'David's Last Summer' by Pulp, and am wistful. There are then five or six days which aren't any season, including daughter #2's birthday; Autumn starts when the kids go back to school. Autumn lasts until Christmas starts. Which for most sane people is when you open tour first window on the advent calendar on December 1st. (Pedantic religious types: I don't want to hear it.) This is also a quarter day for us: daughter #3's birthday. (Christmas decorations are not allowed up until her birthday is done).
'the first day on which you don't have to wear a coat'
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.
What difference does that make?
The question is whether the child can show "competence" or not. I don't see how the competence required varies based upon whether its a vaccine centre or a GP that measures it. If the vaccine centre can test for competence then job done.
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.
Indeed. I don't think in Northern Europe we have 4x 3 month seasons. Summer starts on 1 May and Winter on 1 November. Bonfire Night is that first night of the year when there is an appreciable nip in the air. Spring arguably starts in February when you get those bright winter days and they start to get longer. Autumn is probably no more than late Sept and Oct.
Ooh, pointless, but fun: I'll go for: The start of spring is the most varied and is entirely weather dependent - because there is no big event to hang it on. The 1st of March or the 21st of March can slip by without you noticing if you're not concentrating. But you do notice the first day on which you don't have to wear a coat. And the flowers arrive gradually; but in a good year the blossom all arrives at once in one big power chord. Sometime this also coincides with daughter #1's birthday. (It certainly did the year she was born. It was as if the world had been waiting for that moment. The country of Iceland also elected to celebrate the event with a massive volcanic erruption.) Summer starts with the Whit holidays. The last day of summer is the August bank holiday. On which day I listen to 'David's Last Summer' by Pulp, and am wistful. There are then five or six days which aren't any season, including daughter #2's birthday; Autumn starts when the kids go back to school. Autumn lasts until Christmas starts. Which for most sane people is when you open tour first window on the advent calendar on December 1st. (Pedantic religious types: I don't want to hear it.) This is also a quarter day for us: daughter #3's birthday. (Christmas decorations are not allowed up until her birthday is done).
I identify southern English seasons by travel, or at least I did pre-Covid
Winter is when you GO THE FUCK AWAY. That means a large chunk of November, but then ~December 31 to about March 25. Ideally you go to Thailand. Failing that, Australia or the Caribbean, or maybe Namibia. Fuck, anywhere with warm sun
Spring is when you COME BACK, Enjoy England in Spring (if it's a really late Spring like this year, grab the odd week in Egypt or India). Roughly, late March to end May
Summer is when you HOVER BETWEEN THE MEDITERANEAN AND LONDON. Summer can be great in London, but if you see a crummy fortnight ahead, bug out to Portugal or Greece. Or Sicily. Roughly early June to mid September
Autumn is the season for EXPERIMENTS, Guatemala! Two weeks in rustling London. Then.... Ethiopia! Then back to London for oysters. Rinse and repeat
That's how it should be.
Soon you may not need to travel to get interesting weather.
Two days after the January 6 attack on the US Capitol, President Donald Trump's top military adviser, Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Mark Milley, single-handedly took secret action to limit Trump from potentially ordering a dangerous military strike or launching nuclear weapons, according to "Peril," a new book by legendary journalist Bob Woodward and veteran Washington Post reporter Robert Costa.
Woodward and Costa write that Milley, deeply shaken by the assault, 'was certain that Trump had gone into a serious mental decline in the aftermath of the election, with Trump now all but manic, screaming at officials and constructing his own alternate reality about endless election conspiracies.'
Milley worried that Trump could 'go rogue,' the authors write.
"You never know what a president's trigger point is," Milley told his senior staff, according to the book.
In response, Milley took extraordinary action, and called a secret meeting in his Pentagon office on January 8 to review the process for military action, including launching nuclear weapons. Speaking to senior military officials in charge of the National Military Command Center, the Pentagon's war room, Milley instructed them not to take orders from anyone unless he was involved.
"No matter what you are told, you do the procedure. You do the process. And I'm part of that procedure," Milley told the officers, according to the book. He then went around the room, looked each officer in the eye, and asked them to verbally confirm they understood.
"Got it?" Milley asked, according to the book.
"Yes, sir."
'Milley considered it an oath,' the authors write.
Can we have a moment of sincere respect for Boris Johnson?
His mother died in the last 24 hours. Yet he did that press conference this afternoon, and with some wit and panache (and also his usual bumbling shtick)
I don't care what you think of his politics. That showed Thatcherite levels of grit and professionalism. He got on with a more important job than private grief
I just hope he has someone in Number 10 to cheer him up, with amusing gifs or correspondence or drunken jokes. He surely needs it
You have no idea what his relationship was with his mother. A nauseating post.
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.
Indeed. I don't think in Northern Europe we have 4x 3 month seasons. Summer starts on 1 May and Winter on 1 November. Bonfire Night is that first night of the year when there is an appreciable nip in the air. Spring arguably starts in February when you get those bright winter days and they start to get longer. Autumn is probably no more than late Sept and Oct.
Ooh, pointless, but fun: I'll go for: The start of spring is the most varied and is entirely weather dependent - because there is no big event to hang it on. The 1st of March or the 21st of March can slip by without you noticing if you're not concentrating. But you do notice the first day on which you don't have to wear a coat. And the flowers arrive gradually; but in a good year the blossom all arrives at once in one big power chord. Sometime this also coincides with daughter #1's birthday. (It certainly did the year she was born. It was as if the world had been waiting for that moment. The country of Iceland also elected to celebrate the event with a massive volcanic erruption.) Summer starts with the Whit holidays. The last day of summer is the August bank holiday. On which day I listen to 'David's Last Summer' by Pulp, and am wistful. There are then five or six days which aren't any season, including daughter #2's birthday; Autumn starts when the kids go back to school. Autumn lasts until Christmas starts. Which for most sane people is when you open tour first window on the advent calendar on December 1st. (Pedantic religious types: I don't want to hear it.) This is also a quarter day for us: daughter #3's birthday. (Christmas decorations are not allowed up until her birthday is done).
I identify southern English seasons by travel, or at least I did pre-Covid
Winter is when you GO THE FUCK AWAY. That means a large chunk of November, but then ~December 31 to about March 25. Ideally you go to Thailand. Failing that, Australia or the Caribbean, or maybe Namibia. Fuck, anywhere with warm sun
Spring is when you COME BACK, Enjoy England in Spring (if it's a really late Spring like this year, grab the odd week in Egypt or India). Roughly, late March to end May
Summer is when you HOVER BETWEEN THE MEDITERANEAN AND LONDON. Summer can be great in London, but if you see a crummy fortnight ahead, bug out to Portugal or Greece. Or Sicily. Roughly early June to mid September
Autumn is the season for EXPERIMENTS, Guatemala! Two weeks in rustling London. Then.... Ethiopia! Then back to London for oysters. Rinse and repeat
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.
Indeed. I don't think in Northern Europe we have 4x 3 month seasons. Summer starts on 1 May and Winter on 1 November. Bonfire Night is that first night of the year when there is an appreciable nip in the air. Spring arguably starts in February when you get those bright winter days and they start to get longer. Autumn is probably no more than late Sept and Oct.
Ooh, pointless, but fun: I'll go for: The start of spring is the most varied and is entirely weather dependent - because there is no big event to hang it on. The 1st of March or the 21st of March can slip by without you noticing if you're not concentrating. But you do notice the first day on which you don't have to wear a coat. And the flowers arrive gradually; but in a good year the blossom all arrives at once in one big power chord. Sometime this also coincides with daughter #1's birthday. (It certainly did the year she was born. It was as if the world had been waiting for that moment. The country of Iceland also elected to celebrate the event with a massive volcanic erruption.) Summer starts with the Whit holidays. The last day of summer is the August bank holiday. On which day I listen to 'David's Last Summer' by Pulp, and am wistful. There are then five or six days which aren't any season, including daughter #2's birthday; Autumn starts when the kids go back to school. Autumn lasts until Christmas starts. Which for most sane people is when you open tour first window on the advent calendar on December 1st. (Pedantic religious types: I don't want to hear it.) This is also a quarter day for us: daughter #3's birthday. (Christmas decorations are not allowed up until her birthday is done).
'the first day on which you don't have to wear a coat'
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?
I can genuinely not think of a reason not to vaccinate children.
They (A) don't get (very) ill from the vaccine, and (B) the benefits of the vaccine outweigh the risks. Plus transmission is lower if they are vaccinated, plus their education etc is less disrupted if they're vaccinated. Plus their risk of passing on the virus to a loved one is lower if they are vaccinated.
There's no good reason not to vaccinate them. What am I missing?
That some of them will get seriously ill, and a few may die from vaccination. The vaccines are good, they are pretty safe and effective, but they do come with downsides.
It's therefore quite important that the downsides don't outweigh the upsides when deciding on whether to vaccinate a group against an illness which doesn't pose much of a risk to most of them, and which many of them have already had.
This is also particularly relevant to kids, as they are often not in a position where they can assess the risks and benefits before consenting themselves.
I think you are overstating the risks of vaccination by a couple of orders of magnitude.
With the mRNA vaccines, there are essentially two risks:
(1) Analphalxysis - which can kill, but is easily treatable and happens in the immediate aftermath of vaccination
(2) Myocarditis and pericarditis - that is, inflammation of the heart muscle. The issue here is that this is a very common response of your body to exercise when your immune system is working. If you have a cold and go to the gym, that's when you're likely to end up with myocarditis.
The CDC tracks the number of people who've died in the seven days following a Covid vaccine, and the number is 7,439. Which sounds scary. Except that that is actually below the expected death rate you'd expect given that's 350 million person doses were given and were tracked for seven days to see who dies. (Albeit with the proviso that the first number obviously excludes death by trauma.)
Simply, it's far from clear the death rate for the mRNA vaccines is above the one-per-million level.
While it is pretty obvious that Covid kills more than one-in-a-million young people who are infected.
I haven't changed my iphone in at least 2 years. The changes now are tiny and incremental. The hassle of upgrading isn't worth the cost of upgrade
This must eventually be a problem for Apple (and Samsung etc). They have perfected the tech and it doesn't get much better
There are a number of avenues for step change, but the tech isn't there yet, so we are in a holding pattern, and this stupud detour into folding phones.
I added 512 gb of storage þo my android phone today via sd. Hows the storage on an iphone
Two days after the January 6 attack on the US Capitol, President Donald Trump's top military adviser, Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Mark Milley, single-handedly took secret action to limit Trump from potentially ordering a dangerous military strike or launching nuclear weapons, according to "Peril," a new book by legendary journalist Bob Woodward and veteran Washington Post reporter Robert Costa.
Woodward and Costa write that Milley, deeply shaken by the assault, 'was certain that Trump had gone into a serious mental decline in the aftermath of the election, with Trump now all but manic, screaming at officials and constructing his own alternate reality about endless election conspiracies.'
Milley worried that Trump could 'go rogue,' the authors write.
"You never know what a president's trigger point is," Milley told his senior staff, according to the book.
In response, Milley took extraordinary action, and called a secret meeting in his Pentagon office on January 8 to review the process for military action, including launching nuclear weapons. Speaking to senior military officials in charge of the National Military Command Center, the Pentagon's war room, Milley instructed them not to take orders from anyone unless he was involved.
"No matter what you are told, you do the procedure. You do the process. And I'm part of that procedure," Milley told the officers, according to the book. He then went around the room, looked each officer in the eye, and asked them to verbally confirm they understood.
"Got it?" Milley asked, according to the book.
"Yes, sir."
'Milley considered it an oath,' the authors write.
Reminds me of the famous time Schlesinger ordered the military to check with him or Kissinger before launching nuclear weapons, as Nixon was so drunken and depressed.
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.
What difference does that make?
The question is whether the child can show "competence" or not. I don't see how the competence required varies based upon whether its a vaccine centre or a GP that measures it. If the vaccine centre can test for competence then job done.
One might think a vaccine centre might be better placed to judge competence to take a vaccine than a GP. Plus. You can't get to see a GP already. Do we want them using their time judging Gillicks?
Checks diary to see when OGH has his next holiday.
Iran is one month away from having enough highly enriched uranium for "a single nuclear weapon," the New York Times reported Tuesday, adding that this development may increase pressure on the United States to return to the 2015 nuclear deal with Tehran and world powers.
So as SAGE release another set of graphs allegedly predicting high numbers of people ending up in hospital over the next few weeks, we continue to hear the line that "80% are vaxxed, therefore there remain 6 million vulnerable". Does anyone ever ask them to explain the figures from ONS suggesting that high 90s% of people have antibodies - the difference presumably being made up by prior infection - and why the believed immunity to serious illness caused by this isn't reflected in the models?
Also the need to continue to ask the question about whether, in a world where vaccines and other developed "immunity" appears to give high protection against serious illness, but less so again infection, whether the current approach to categorising Covid deaths is particularly helpful or increasingly misleading?
So as SAGE release another set of graphs allegedly predicting high numbers of people ending up in hospital over the next few weeks, we continue to hear the line that "80% are vaxxed, therefore there remain 6 million vulnerable". Does anyone ever ask them to explain the figures from ONS suggesting that high 90s% of people have antibodies - the difference presumably being made up by prior infection - and why the believed immunity to serious illness caused by this isn't reflected in the models?
Also the need to continue to ask the question about whether, in a world where vaccines and other developed "immunity" appears to give high protection against serious illness, but less so again infection, whether the current approach to categorising Covid deaths is particularly helpful or increasingly misleading?
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 3h In which "7,000 hospitalisations/day" becomes the new "300k cases/day. I see there's a timescale on it: next month. Well, GLWT.
===
It's another load of tosh from SAGE. Why are they still allowed to push these useless models?
So as SAGE release another set of graphs allegedly predicting high numbers of people ending up in hospital over the next few weeks, we continue to hear the line that "80% are vaxxed, therefore there remain 6 million vulnerable". Does anyone ever ask them to explain the figures from ONS suggesting that high 90s% of people have antibodies - the difference presumably being made up by prior infection - and why the believed immunity to serious illness caused by this isn't reflected in the models?
Also the need to continue to ask the question about whether, in a world where vaccines and other developed "immunity" appears to give high protection against serious illness, but less so again infection, whether the current approach to categorising Covid deaths is particularly helpful or increasingly misleading?
It's almost as if they didn't read the boy who cried wolf. They keep producing their garbage data and they've lost all of their credibility. Even today Whitty was banging on about heading into winter at a higher infection baseline than last year, however, he didn't mention that immunity levels are probably 10x higher than they were in September 2020.
So as SAGE release another set of graphs allegedly predicting high numbers of people ending up in hospital over the next few weeks, we continue to hear the line that "80% are vaxxed, therefore there remain 6 million vulnerable". Does anyone ever ask them to explain the figures from ONS suggesting that high 90s% of people have antibodies - the difference presumably being made up by prior infection - and why the believed immunity to serious illness caused by this isn't reflected in the models?
Also the need to continue to ask the question about whether, in a world where vaccines and other developed "immunity" appears to give high protection against serious illness, but less so again infection, whether the current approach to categorising Covid deaths is particularly helpful or increasingly misleading?
It's almost as if they didn't read the boy who cried wolf. They keep producing their garbage data and they've lost all of their credibility. Even today Whitty was banging on about heading into winter at a higher infection baseline than last year, however, he didn't mention that immunity levels are probably 10x higher than they were in September 2020.
The problem is on here we call them out...the wider public i don't think remember the horseshit,
New models come, media misreport them, iSAGE all over the media screaming disaster, Starmer echoing it....and then we rinse and repeat.
It all gets lost in the noise that the original models that kicked all this off was utter garbage.
So as SAGE release another set of graphs allegedly predicting high numbers of people ending up in hospital over the next few weeks, we continue to hear the line that "80% are vaxxed, therefore there remain 6 million vulnerable". Does anyone ever ask them to explain the figures from ONS suggesting that high 90s% of people have antibodies - the difference presumably being made up by prior infection - and why the believed immunity to serious illness caused by this isn't reflected in the models?
Also the need to continue to ask the question about whether, in a world where vaccines and other developed "immunity" appears to give high protection against serious illness, but less so again infection, whether the current approach to categorising Covid deaths is particularly helpful or increasingly misleading?
One thing about the ONS antibody stat is it is percentage of 16+, it doesn't measure children
So as SAGE release another set of graphs allegedly predicting high numbers of people ending up in hospital over the next few weeks, we continue to hear the line that "80% are vaxxed, therefore there remain 6 million vulnerable". Does anyone ever ask them to explain the figures from ONS suggesting that high 90s% of people have antibodies - the difference presumably being made up by prior infection - and why the believed immunity to serious illness caused by this isn't reflected in the models?
Also the need to continue to ask the question about whether, in a world where vaccines and other developed "immunity" appears to give high protection against serious illness, but less so again infection, whether the current approach to categorising Covid deaths is particularly helpful or increasingly misleading?
One thing about the ONS antibody stat is it is percentage of 16+, it doesn't measure children
Kids aren't exactly going to contribute any significant number to hospitalisation, though. 7k hospitalisations per day just seems completely ridiculous, we'd need maybe 10x our current number of cases per day which is about 2m per week. Who exactly is it they are suggesting is going to be infected?
So as SAGE release another set of graphs allegedly predicting high numbers of people ending up in hospital over the next few weeks, we continue to hear the line that "80% are vaxxed, therefore there remain 6 million vulnerable". Does anyone ever ask them to explain the figures from ONS suggesting that high 90s% of people have antibodies - the difference presumably being made up by prior infection - and why the believed immunity to serious illness caused by this isn't reflected in the models?
Also the need to continue to ask the question about whether, in a world where vaccines and other developed "immunity" appears to give high protection against serious illness, but less so again infection, whether the current approach to categorising Covid deaths is particularly helpful or increasingly misleading?
I missed the presser. Did anyone ask about the 100,000 cases a day?
So as SAGE release another set of graphs allegedly predicting high numbers of people ending up in hospital over the next few weeks, we continue to hear the line that "80% are vaxxed, therefore there remain 6 million vulnerable". Does anyone ever ask them to explain the figures from ONS suggesting that high 90s% of people have antibodies - the difference presumably being made up by prior infection - and why the believed immunity to serious illness caused by this isn't reflected in the models?
Also the need to continue to ask the question about whether, in a world where vaccines and other developed "immunity" appears to give high protection against serious illness, but less so again infection, whether the current approach to categorising Covid deaths is particularly helpful or increasingly misleading?
I missed the presser. Did anyone ask about the 100,000 cases a day?
Couldn't fit many questions in after Prof Peston gave another lecture....
So as SAGE release another set of graphs allegedly predicting high numbers of people ending up in hospital over the next few weeks, we continue to hear the line that "80% are vaxxed, therefore there remain 6 million vulnerable". Does anyone ever ask them to explain the figures from ONS suggesting that high 90s% of people have antibodies - the difference presumably being made up by prior infection - and why the believed immunity to serious illness caused by this isn't reflected in the models?
Also the need to continue to ask the question about whether, in a world where vaccines and other developed "immunity" appears to give high protection against serious illness, but less so again infection, whether the current approach to categorising Covid deaths is particularly helpful or increasingly misleading?
I missed the presser. Did anyone ask about the 100,000 cases a day?
Nah it wasn't presented then. I think it's been dumped out.
So as SAGE release another set of graphs allegedly predicting high numbers of people ending up in hospital over the next few weeks, we continue to hear the line that "80% are vaxxed, therefore there remain 6 million vulnerable". Does anyone ever ask them to explain the figures from ONS suggesting that high 90s% of people have antibodies - the difference presumably being made up by prior infection - and why the believed immunity to serious illness caused by this isn't reflected in the models?
Also the need to continue to ask the question about whether, in a world where vaccines and other developed "immunity" appears to give high protection against serious illness, but less so again infection, whether the current approach to categorising Covid deaths is particularly helpful or increasingly misleading?
I missed the presser. Did anyone ask about the 100,000 cases a day?
Nah it wasn't presented then. I think it's been dumped out.
Two days after the January 6 attack on the US Capitol, President Donald Trump's top military adviser, Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Mark Milley, single-handedly took secret action to limit Trump from potentially ordering a dangerous military strike or launching nuclear weapons, according to "Peril," a new book by legendary journalist Bob Woodward and veteran Washington Post reporter Robert Costa.
Woodward and Costa write that Milley, deeply shaken by the assault, 'was certain that Trump had gone into a serious mental decline in the aftermath of the election, with Trump now all but manic, screaming at officials and constructing his own alternate reality about endless election conspiracies.'
Milley worried that Trump could 'go rogue,' the authors write.
"You never know what a president's trigger point is," Milley told his senior staff, according to the book.
In response, Milley took extraordinary action, and called a secret meeting in his Pentagon office on January 8 to review the process for military action, including launching nuclear weapons. Speaking to senior military officials in charge of the National Military Command Center, the Pentagon's war room, Milley instructed them not to take orders from anyone unless he was involved.
"No matter what you are told, you do the procedure. You do the process. And I'm part of that procedure," Milley told the officers, according to the book. He then went around the room, looked each officer in the eye, and asked them to verbally confirm they understood.
"Got it?" Milley asked, according to the book.
"Yes, sir."
'Milley considered it an oath,' the authors write.
I know energy is something of interest on here. I received the following email from Utility Point this evening (I don't remember getting such an email the last time I had my provider fold on me):
You may be aware last year OFGEM announced that all suppliers where required to offer extended payment terms and be more lenient with the collection of debt due to the pandemic, something they are asking to continue into this winter. Utility Point has always supported all its members and understands the variability of vulnerability and that it is not static, supporting many of our members through hard and uncertain times. Unfortunately, this extra support has meant an increase in debt and deficit.
...Indeed, in most cases the only reason that suppliers end up charging more for energy than it costs is to offset the cost of debt and the collection of debt which is a major issue in the industry and one that requires a rethink as those that can, and do pay, end up paying for those that don’t pay.
So as SAGE release another set of graphs allegedly predicting high numbers of people ending up in hospital over the next few weeks, we continue to hear the line that "80% are vaxxed, therefore there remain 6 million vulnerable". Does anyone ever ask them to explain the figures from ONS suggesting that high 90s% of people have antibodies - the difference presumably being made up by prior infection - and why the believed immunity to serious illness caused by this isn't reflected in the models?
Also the need to continue to ask the question about whether, in a world where vaccines and other developed "immunity" appears to give high protection against serious illness, but less so again infection, whether the current approach to categorising Covid deaths is particularly helpful or increasingly misleading?
It's almost as if they didn't read the boy who cried wolf. They keep producing their garbage data and they've lost all of their credibility. Even today Whitty was banging on about heading into winter at a higher infection baseline than last year, however, he didn't mention that immunity levels are probably 10x higher than they were in September 2020.
The problem is on here we call them out...the wider public i don't think remember the horseshit,
New models come, media misreport them, iSAGE all over the media screaming disaster, Starmer echoing it....and then we rinse and repeat.
It all gets lost in the noise that the original models that kicked all this off was utter garbage.
True.
Unfortunately ministers are basing policy on things like NPIs based on this modelling garbage. And those NPIs effect all of us and knacker the economy.
As Lilico is pointing out tonight: the latest garbage model figure of 7K hospitalisations a day by next month needs heroic increases in case #s to start happening like tomorrow. The figure dropped 25% today.
The COVID numbers today do look like the case reduction is real, but I'm still not convinced we're over the peak rather than merely having hit a col. The brief hot weather that came at the start of September will be feeding into the numbers now and August Bank Holiday shifts in when cases were tested/reported are still a factor in the figures.
The initial LFT results for schools in England don't seem to have been a big driver - my son's college reported only 6 positives in just shy of 3k tests.
I don't rule out that we're getting close enough to herd immunity levels that there is a noticeable brake, but even if so I'd expect with colder weather and the second or third infection cycles at schools, that a fight between opposing effects would mean no consistently sustained decrease until half term holidays.
So as SAGE release another set of graphs allegedly predicting high numbers of people ending up in hospital over the next few weeks, we continue to hear the line that "80% are vaxxed, therefore there remain 6 million vulnerable". Does anyone ever ask them to explain the figures from ONS suggesting that high 90s% of people have antibodies - the difference presumably being made up by prior infection - and why the believed immunity to serious illness caused by this isn't reflected in the models?
Also the need to continue to ask the question about whether, in a world where vaccines and other developed "immunity" appears to give high protection against serious illness, but less so again infection, whether the current approach to categorising Covid deaths is particularly helpful or increasingly misleading?
It's almost as if they didn't read the boy who cried wolf. They keep producing their garbage data and they've lost all of their credibility. Even today Whitty was banging on about heading into winter at a higher infection baseline than last year, however, he didn't mention that immunity levels are probably 10x higher than they were in September 2020.
The problem is on here we call them out...the wider public i don't think remember the horseshit,
New models come, media misreport them, iSAGE all over the media screaming disaster, Starmer echoing it....and then we rinse and repeat.
It all gets lost in the noise that the original models that kicked all this off was utter garbage.
True.
Unfortunately ministers are basing policy on things like NPIs based on this modelling garbage. And those NPIs effect all of us and knacker the economy.
As Lilico is pointing out tonight: the latest garbage model figure of 7K hospitalisations a day by next month needs heroic increases in case #s to start happening like tomorrow. The figure dropped 25% today.
Not just that but THE major contributor towards predictions of rapidly increasing case numbers is supposed to be kids in school (and perhaps students at university). But it is not at all clear that significantly rising case numbers among these groups (if it happens) will actually do anything except reduce significantly the percentage of confirmed cases that end up in hospital.
I know energy is something of interest on here. I received the following email from Utility Point this evening (I don't remember getting such an email the last time I had my provider fold on me):
You may be aware last year OFGEM announced that all suppliers where required to offer extended payment terms and be more lenient with the collection of debt due to the pandemic, something they are asking to continue into this winter. Utility Point has always supported all its members and understands the variability of vulnerability and that it is not static, supporting many of our members through hard and uncertain times. Unfortunately, this extra support has meant an increase in debt and deficit.
...Indeed, in most cases the only reason that suppliers end up charging more for energy than it costs is to offset the cost of debt and the collection of debt which is a major issue in the industry and one that requires a rethink as those that can, and do pay, end up paying for those that don’t pay.
I'd like to know how much that equates to in the average bill before I lose any sleep over it. Surely the same in any buy-now-pay-later industry, too? Banking, mobile phones, etc.
I have no idea to be honest, and instinctively I'm thinking that the smaller firms would attract better customers, but who knows?
What I suspect is the case is that the price cap - which is also mentioned in the email - will have put much more pressure on smaller firms than the Big 6 providers.
The first piece of advice my PhD supervisor gave me back in the day when working with modeling / ML....as soon as you have run something, do a raincheck, ask yourself if the output is even possible or realistic...
7000 hospitalisations in a month....we would have to be having 100,000s of daily infections in a couple of weeks time for that.
It is also noteworthy that the "falling cases were just a consequence of reduced testing" crowd, have gone noticeably quiet as testing numbers have ramped up again in recent weeks.
Two days after the January 6 attack on the US Capitol, President Donald Trump's top military adviser, Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Mark Milley, single-handedly took secret action to limit Trump from potentially ordering a dangerous military strike or launching nuclear weapons, according to "Peril," a new book by legendary journalist Bob Woodward and veteran Washington Post reporter Robert Costa.
Woodward and Costa write that Milley, deeply shaken by the assault, 'was certain that Trump had gone into a serious mental decline in the aftermath of the election, with Trump now all but manic, screaming at officials and constructing his own alternate reality about endless election conspiracies.'
Milley worried that Trump could 'go rogue,' the authors write.
"You never know what a president's trigger point is," Milley told his senior staff, according to the book.
In response, Milley took extraordinary action, and called a secret meeting in his Pentagon office on January 8 to review the process for military action, including launching nuclear weapons. Speaking to senior military officials in charge of the National Military Command Center, the Pentagon's war room, Milley instructed them not to take orders from anyone unless he was involved.
"No matter what you are told, you do the procedure. You do the process. And I'm part of that procedure," Milley told the officers, according to the book. He then went around the room, looked each officer in the eye, and asked them to verbally confirm they understood.
"Got it?" Milley asked, according to the book.
"Yes, sir."
'Milley considered it an oath,' the authors write.
The first piece of advice my PhD supervisor gave me back in the day when working with modeling / ML....ask yourself if the output possible or realistic...
7000 hospitalisations in a month....we would have to be having 100,000s of daily infections in a couple of weeks time for that.
The sniff test. The idea of 7k hospitalisations per day doesn't pass the sniff test. It's completely stupid, especially given there will be 25-30m third vaccine doses given to the most likely to be hospitalised. 7k per day from everyone else would need something like 300-400k infections per day. It isn't credible.
The first piece of advice my PhD supervisor gave me back in the day when working with modeling / ML....as soon as you have run something, do a raincheck, ask yourself if the output is even possible or realistic...
7000 hospitalisations in a month....we would have to be having 100,000s of daily infections in a couple of weeks time for that.
I don't think they care anymore. They are just being told to come up with some garbage numbers that can be used in the press to scare a few more people into staying at WFH or missing a social event and maybe getting the vax if they haven't already.
The first piece of advice my PhD supervisor gave me back in the day when working with modeling / ML....as soon as you have run something, do a raincheck, ask yourself if the output is even possible or realistic...
7000 hospitalisations in a month....we would have to be having 100,000s of daily infections in a couple of weeks time for that.
Oh Lord, the Warwick group haven't been booting up their ZX Spectrums again, have they?
James Melville Cherry blossom @JamesMelville · 13m Ok. I wasn’t sure whether to post this. I have had one jab. Since then I have developed myocarditis. I am a very fit and healthy man who hasn’t ever had any significant health problems until now.
Can't win the London Mayoralty, it is the election system that is wrong!
Why is that Twitter handle called Politics for Ali? Is that Mohammed Ali? Or a girl called Ali?
Anyway, FPTP for all elections was in the Tories manifesto in 2019 which won a landslide majority so ... 🤷♂️
Ironically, less than 50% of the vote is what is needed to change the electoral system but not overturn any other decisions that are made, funny how that works.
This is entirely cynical, there is evidently nothing wrong with the London Mayoralty system, BoJo won it twice.
The first piece of advice my PhD supervisor gave me back in the day when working with modeling / ML....as soon as you have run something, do a raincheck, ask yourself if the output is even possible or realistic...
7000 hospitalisations in a month....we would have to be having 100,000s of daily infections in a couple of weeks time for that.
Oh Lord, the Warwick group haven't been booting up their ZX Spectrums again, have they?
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 3h How much longer will the media have an appetite for "We're all gonna die this Autumn!" pieces? Presumably pretty soon it'll just get embarrassing to have ever run one?
For anyone with any of the energy providers who have gone bust, I've recently signed up with Octopus Energy. Pretty impressed with their service and rates and have myself a competitive 2-year fixed rate.
And if you get referred by an existing customer you (and they) get a bonus. Just sayin'. 😉
The first piece of advice my PhD supervisor gave me back in the day when working with modeling / ML....as soon as you have run something, do a raincheck, ask yourself if the output is even possible or realistic...
7000 hospitalisations in a month....we would have to be having 100,000s of daily infections in a couple of weeks time for that.
I don't think they care anymore. They are just being told to come up with some garbage numbers that can be used in the press to scare a few more people into staying at WFH or missing a social event and maybe getting the vax if they haven't already.
Most folks don't need to be scared into WFH. Just given the option by their employer.
I've done one day in the office this week. That's enough for me.
The first piece of advice my PhD supervisor gave me back in the day when working with modeling / ML....as soon as you have run something, do a raincheck, ask yourself if the output is even possible or realistic...
7000 hospitalisations in a month....we would have to be having 100,000s of daily infections in a couple of weeks time for that.
Oh Lord, the Warwick group haven't been booting up their ZX Spectrums again, have they?
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 3h How much longer will the media have an appetite for "We're all gonna die this Autumn!" pieces? Presumably pretty soon it'll just get embarrassing to have ever run one?
Prof Peston will give it the good old British try....
The first piece of advice my PhD supervisor gave me back in the day when working with modeling / ML....as soon as you have run something, do a raincheck, ask yourself if the output is even possible or realistic...
7000 hospitalisations in a month....we would have to be having 100,000s of daily infections in a couple of weeks time for that.
Oh Lord, the Warwick group haven't been booting up their ZX Spectrums again, have they?
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 3h How much longer will the media have an appetite for "We're all gonna die this Autumn!" pieces? Presumably pretty soon it'll just get embarrassing to have ever run one?
For as long as it generates sales/clickbait, presumably? Apart from anything else, a significant fraction of the population is still shit scared and ready to lap up this kind of coverage.
The first piece of advice my PhD supervisor gave me back in the day when working with modeling / ML....as soon as you have run something, do a raincheck, ask yourself if the output is even possible or realistic...
7000 hospitalisations in a month....we would have to be having 100,000s of daily infections in a couple of weeks time for that.
I don't think they care anymore. They are just being told to come up with some garbage numbers that can be used in the press to scare a few more people into staying at WFH or missing a social event and maybe getting the vax if they haven't already.
Most folks don't need to be scared into WFH. Just given the option by their employer.
I've done one day in the office this week. That's enough for me.
I think it's more that they make it more difficult for employers (particularly public sector employers) to insist that people spend a bit more time coming into the office.
Never trust a scientist. Hell's Bells they don't even trust each other.
The good thing is that we're required to publish methods (and, increasingly data and analysis code, which can only be a good thing). Therefore, when we're being stupid or dishonest, it's fairly easy for people to spot.
I'm not up to date with this 7000 hospitalisations stuff or where it's come from, but it does sound far fetched (I wouldn't want to go further than that without the context). It should however be easy enough to spot the, presumably, erroneous assumptions.
The first piece of advice my PhD supervisor gave me back in the day when working with modeling / ML....as soon as you have run something, do a raincheck, ask yourself if the output is even possible or realistic...
7000 hospitalisations in a month....we would have to be having 100,000s of daily infections in a couple of weeks time for that.
Oh Lord, the Warwick group haven't been booting up their ZX Spectrums again, have they?
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 3h How much longer will the media have an appetite for "We're all gonna die this Autumn!" pieces? Presumably pretty soon it'll just get embarrassing to have ever run one?
For as long as it generates sales/clickbait, presumably? Apart from anything else, a significant fraction of the population is still shit scared and ready to lap up this kind of coverage.
That proportion is definitely going down. My mum used to be a super masker, literally stepped out of the house and put her mask on then didn't take it off until she got back in, would even wear it in the car. Last week she stopped doing that, not sure what changed for her. Maybe she got bored or saw everyone else not wearing them. 🤷♂️
Le Pen is promising to privatise state owned TV and radio and nationalise the motorways in plans called "really populist and really demagogic" by Macron's transport minister.
For anyone with any of the energy providers who have gone bust, I've recently signed up with Octopus Energy. Pretty impressed with their service and rates and have myself a competitive 2-year fixed rate.
And if you get referred by an existing customer you (and they) get a bonus. Just sayin'. 😉
We are also with Octopus after they took over our previous supplier's customer base.
The gas smells the same, so no complaints from me.
So as SAGE release another set of graphs allegedly predicting high numbers of people ending up in hospital over the next few weeks, we continue to hear the line that "80% are vaxxed, therefore there remain 6 million vulnerable". Does anyone ever ask them to explain the figures from ONS suggesting that high 90s% of people have antibodies - the difference presumably being made up by prior infection - and why the believed immunity to serious illness caused by this isn't reflected in the models?
Also the need to continue to ask the question about whether, in a world where vaccines and other developed "immunity" appears to give high protection against serious illness, but less so again infection, whether the current approach to categorising Covid deaths is particularly helpful or increasingly misleading?
It's almost as if they didn't read the boy who cried wolf. They keep producing their garbage data and they've lost all of their credibility. Even today Whitty was banging on about heading into winter at a higher infection baseline than last year, however, he didn't mention that immunity levels are probably 10x higher than they were in September 2020.
The problem is on here we call them out...the wider public i don't think remember the horseshit,
New models come, media misreport them, iSAGE all over the media screaming disaster, Starmer echoing it....and then we rinse and repeat.
It all gets lost in the noise that the original models that kicked all this off was utter garbage.
True.
Unfortunately ministers are basing policy on things like NPIs based on this modelling garbage. And those NPIs effect all of us and knacker the economy.
As Lilico is pointing out tonight: the latest garbage model figure of 7K hospitalisations a day by next month needs heroic increases in case #s to start happening like tomorrow. The figure dropped 25% today.
7k Hospitalisations a day, assuming, with few new vaccinations, that the relationship between cases and Hospitalisations is now static, would mean over 200k detected cases a day. Given 50% detection, which we've been close to for ages, that would mean 3.5 million infections in a week, and hitting herd immunity in a matter of 2-3 weeks. I don't think there's anywhere near that acceleration potential in the ecosystem
Even if cases vs Hospitalisations are worse than static because of, for instance, waning immunity, that is still going to need a big number, and boosters come into the mix quickly and continue through the winter.
The first piece of advice my PhD supervisor gave me back in the day when working with modeling / ML....as soon as you have run something, do a raincheck, ask yourself if the output is even possible or realistic...
7000 hospitalisations in a month....we would have to be having 100,000s of daily infections in a couple of weeks time for that.
That's their middle scenario. The bad scenario is just hilarious. Their upside scenario is 2000 hospitalisations by the end of this month.
It's really hard to explain this in a way which says anything good for the integrity of the modellers involved.
The first piece of advice my PhD supervisor gave me back in the day when working with modeling / ML....as soon as you have run something, do a raincheck, ask yourself if the output is even possible or realistic...
7000 hospitalisations in a month....we would have to be having 100,000s of daily infections in a couple of weeks time for that.
I don't think they care anymore. They are just being told to come up with some garbage numbers that can be used in the press to scare a few more people into staying at WFH or missing a social event and maybe getting the vax if they haven't already.
Most folks don't need to be scared into WFH. Just given the option by their employer.
I've done one day in the office this week. That's enough for me.
I think it's more that they make it more difficult for employers (particularly public sector employers) to insist that people spend a bit more time coming into the office.
But many, like mine, have said that a hybrid model is the new normal. That's a big reduction in commuter journeys and bums on seats into the long term.
Plus of course companies reducing their office space.
Can't win the London Mayoralty, it is the election system that is wrong!
Why is that Twitter handle called Politics for Ali? Is that Mohammed Ali? Or a girl called Ali?
Anyway, FPTP for all elections was in the Tories manifesto in 2019 which won a landslide majority so ... 🤷♂️
Ironically, less than 50% of the vote is what is needed to change the electoral system but not overturn any other decisions that are made, funny how that works.
This is entirely cynical, there is evidently nothing wrong with the London Mayoralty system, BoJo won it twice.
What are you talking about?
Changing the electoral system works on the same basis as reversing every other decision that is made too. By Parliamentary democracy.
There isn't anything that can't be reversed, that's part of the fundamental basics of Parliamentary Sovereignty.
So how is that "funny" how it works? What do you think can't be overturned?
The first piece of advice my PhD supervisor gave me back in the day when working with modeling / ML....as soon as you have run something, do a raincheck, ask yourself if the output is even possible or realistic...
7000 hospitalisations in a month....we would have to be having 100,000s of daily infections in a couple of weeks time for that.
Oh Lord, the Warwick group haven't been booting up their ZX Spectrums again, have they?
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 3h How much longer will the media have an appetite for "We're all gonna die this Autumn!" pieces? Presumably pretty soon it'll just get embarrassing to have ever run one?
For as long as it generates sales/clickbait, presumably? Apart from anything else, a significant fraction of the population is still shit scared and ready to lap up this kind of coverage.
That proportion is definitely going down. My mum used to be a super masker, literally stepped out of the house and put her mask on then didn't take it off until she got back in, would even wear it in the car. Last week she stopped doing that, not sure what changed for her. Maybe she got bored or saw everyone else not wearing them. 🤷♂️
There are still a lot of maskers around though. No shortage in the shops, and when I took the train down to London on Saturday morning it was full of them. Although, granted, the train was jam packed full of people full stop, because Great Northern couldn't run a piss up in the proverbial.
We are still forced to use the rotten things in corridors and such like at work, with no end in sight. A visiting contractor recently remarked that we were the only business left that they visit where this is still the case.
For anyone with any of the energy providers who have gone bust, I've recently signed up with Octopus Energy. Pretty impressed with their service and rates and have myself a competitive 2-year fixed rate.
And if you get referred by an existing customer you (and they) get a bonus. Just sayin'. 😉
We are also with Octopus after they took over our previous supplier's customer base.
The gas smells the same, so no complaints from me.
I signed an 18 month deal with Utility Point back in July, so whilst I felt good about having fixed my price for 18 months, I've now lost that and will get stung when I have to go back in to the market when I get set up on the provider of last resort.
The problem is, you just have no idea as to who is about to go pop. It's illegal to trade insolvent so the first you know about it is when it gets announced. Not saying that any other will go, but don't be surprised if more do follow.
The first piece of advice my PhD supervisor gave me back in the day when working with modeling / ML....as soon as you have run something, do a raincheck, ask yourself if the output is even possible or realistic...
7000 hospitalisations in a month....we would have to be having 100,000s of daily infections in a couple of weeks time for that.
That's their middle scenario. The bad scenario is just hilarious. Their upside scenario is 2000 hospitalisations by the end of this month.
It's really hard to explain this in a way which says anything good for the integrity of the modellers involved.
The irony is that the even admit that the situation post July has been far better than they anticipated. The conclusion... if we've had fewer recorded cases, hospitalisations and deaths post July reopening than expected, then it has just left a much bigger pool of people to feed into cases, hospitalisations and deaths going forward!
The first piece of advice my PhD supervisor gave me back in the day when working with modeling / ML....as soon as you have run something, do a raincheck, ask yourself if the output is even possible or realistic...
7000 hospitalisations in a month....we would have to be having 100,000s of daily infections in a couple of weeks time for that.
That's their middle scenario. The bad scenario is just hilarious. Their upside scenario is 2000 hospitalisations by the end of this month.
It's really hard to explain this in a way which says anything good for the integrity of the modellers involved.
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.
What difference does that make?
The question is whether the child can show "competence" or not. I don't see how the competence required varies based upon whether its a vaccine centre or a GP that measures it. If the vaccine centre can test for competence then job done.
If I remember rightly, the Gillick competence test is well established. I don't see why there should be a problem using the same system.
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.
What difference does that make?
The question is whether the child can show "competence" or not. I don't see how the competence required varies based upon whether its a vaccine centre or a GP that measures it. If the vaccine centre can test for competence then job done.
If I remember rightly, the Gillick competence test is well established. I don't see why there should be a problem using the same system.
Precisely and if the vaccine centre can apply the test appropriately then why shouldn't they? Why should we be wasting a GP's time doing that?
The first piece of advice my PhD supervisor gave me back in the day when working with modeling / ML....as soon as you have run something, do a raincheck, ask yourself if the output is even possible or realistic...
7000 hospitalisations in a month....we would have to be having 100,000s of daily infections in a couple of weeks time for that.
That's their middle scenario. The bad scenario is just hilarious. Their upside scenario is 2000 hospitalisations by the end of this month.
It's really hard to explain this in a way which says anything good for the integrity of the modellers involved.
The first piece of advice my PhD supervisor gave me back in the day when working with modeling / ML....as soon as you have run something, do a raincheck, ask yourself if the output is even possible or realistic...
7000 hospitalisations in a month....we would have to be having 100,000s of daily infections in a couple of weeks time for that.
That's their middle scenario. The bad scenario is just hilarious. Their upside scenario is 2000 hospitalisations by the end of this month.
It's really hard to explain this in a way which says anything good for the integrity of the modellers involved.
Can't win the London Mayoralty, it is the election system that is wrong!
Why is that Twitter handle called Politics for Ali? Is that Mohammed Ali? Or a girl called Ali?
Anyway, FPTP for all elections was in the Tories manifesto in 2019 which won a landslide majority so ... 🤷♂️
Ironically, less than 50% of the vote is what is needed to change the electoral system but not overturn any other decisions that are made, funny how that works.
This is entirely cynical, there is evidently nothing wrong with the London Mayoralty system, BoJo won it twice.
What are you talking about?
Changing the electoral system works on the same basis as reversing every other decision that is made too. By Parliamentary democracy.
There isn't anything that can't be reversed, that's part of the fundamental basics of Parliamentary Sovereignty.
So how is that "funny" how it works? What do you think can't be overturned?
To be fair, if parliament voted for a system of one-man, one-vote, and that man was Jeremy Corbyn, we'd have a problem.
I think the convention that major constitutional change - like Scottish Independence, Brexit, or a change to the voting system - requires a referendum is a generally good one.
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.
What difference does that make?
The question is whether the child can show "competence" or not. I don't see how the competence required varies based upon whether its a vaccine centre or a GP that measures it. If the vaccine centre can test for competence then job done.
One might think a vaccine centre might be better placed to judge competence to take a vaccine than a GP. Plus. You can't get to see a GP already. Do we want them using their time judging Gillicks?
Indeed, one of the places most relevant to Gillick is contraception services, STD, and abortion. It is something that a lot of under 16s access away from their GPs, as often that is where other members of their family go.
In practice, I don't think many teens will be vaccinated under Gillick, as it is good practice in assessing competence to enquire why the child doesn't want parents involved. Outside issues of sexuality that is pretty rare, though there are obviously some family situations where relations are very abnormal. The pros and cons of vaccination in this age are finely balanced, and vaccinating against* parental will potentially injurious to the child-parent relationship, so would rarely be done.
*Gillick competence goes both ways so children can also refuse despite parental desire for vaccination.
The first piece of advice my PhD supervisor gave me back in the day when working with modeling / ML....as soon as you have run something, do a raincheck, ask yourself if the output is even possible or realistic...
7000 hospitalisations in a month....we would have to be having 100,000s of daily infections in a couple of weeks time for that.
That's their middle scenario. The bad scenario is just hilarious. Their upside scenario is 2000 hospitalisations by the end of this month.
It's really hard to explain this in a way which says anything good for the integrity of the modellers involved.
LOL, the "bad scenario" is so bad it goes off the top of the chart....
Le Pen is promising to privatise state owned TV and radio and nationalise the motorways in plans called "really populist and really demagogic" by Macron's transport minister.
The first piece of advice my PhD supervisor gave me back in the day when working with modeling / ML....as soon as you have run something, do a raincheck, ask yourself if the output is even possible or realistic...
7000 hospitalisations in a month....we would have to be having 100,000s of daily infections in a couple of weeks time for that.
Oh Lord, the Warwick group haven't been booting up their ZX Spectrums again, have they?
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 3h How much longer will the media have an appetite for "We're all gonna die this Autumn!" pieces? Presumably pretty soon it'll just get embarrassing to have ever run one?
For as long as it generates sales/clickbait, presumably? Apart from anything else, a significant fraction of the population is still shit scared and ready to lap up this kind of coverage.
That proportion is definitely going down. My mum used to be a super masker, literally stepped out of the house and put her mask on then didn't take it off until she got back in, would even wear it in the car. Last week she stopped doing that, not sure what changed for her. Maybe she got bored or saw everyone else not wearing them. 🤷♂️
I used to be like that, whenever I walked to Ilford's Valentine's Park, I always wore a mask, but in recent weeks I only wear a mask when going to the shops. A few weeks back, I walked all the way to Wanstead and back without a mask, and at the weekend walked to South Woodford and back.
Le Pen is promising to privatise state owned TV and radio and nationalise the motorways in plans called "really populist and really demagogic" by Macron's transport minister.
Le Pen is promising to privatise state owned TV and radio and nationalise the motorways in plans called "really populist and really demagogic" by Macron's transport minister.
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.
What difference does that make?
The question is whether the child can show "competence" or not. I don't see how the competence required varies based upon whether its a vaccine centre or a GP that measures it. If the vaccine centre can test for competence then job done.
One might think a vaccine centre might be better placed to judge competence to take a vaccine than a GP. Plus. You can't get to see a GP already. Do we want them using their time judging Gillicks?
Indeed, one of the places most relevant to Gillick is contraception services, STD, and abortion. It is something that a lot of under 16s access away from their GPs, as often that is where other members of their family go.
In practice, I don't think many teens will be vaccinated under Gillick, as it is good practice in assessing competence to enquire why the child doesn't want parents involved. Outside issues of sexuality that is pretty rare, though there are obviously some family situations where relations are very abnormal. The pros and cons of vaccination in this age are finely balanced, and vaccinating against* parental will potentially injurious to the child-parent relationship, so would rarely be done.
*Gillick competence goes both ways so children can also refuse despite parental desire for vaccination.
I'd have thought "my parents are anti-vaxxers/COVID deniers" would be a good reason
The first piece of advice my PhD supervisor gave me back in the day when working with modeling / ML....as soon as you have run something, do a raincheck, ask yourself if the output is even possible or realistic...
7000 hospitalisations in a month....we would have to be having 100,000s of daily infections in a couple of weeks time for that.
That's their middle scenario. The bad scenario is just hilarious. Their upside scenario is 2000 hospitalisations by the end of this month.
It's really hard to explain this in a way which says anything good for the integrity of the modellers involved.
What's completely stupid is that the current R value is under 1, somewhere around 0.8 by my calculation. I have no idea where they get R1.1 from and then have that sustained over a very long period of time given how close we are to the herd immunity threshold (estimated 75-85% of people with immunity now against a 85% to hit herd immunity).
Eventually the virus just runs out of viable hosts, none of those scenarios have taken that into account and seem to just model an unlimited number of viable hosts.
The first piece of advice my PhD supervisor gave me back in the day when working with modeling / ML....as soon as you have run something, do a raincheck, ask yourself if the output is even possible or realistic...
7000 hospitalisations in a month....we would have to be having 100,000s of daily infections in a couple of weeks time for that.
Oh Lord, the Warwick group haven't been booting up their ZX Spectrums again, have they?
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 3h How much longer will the media have an appetite for "We're all gonna die this Autumn!" pieces? Presumably pretty soon it'll just get embarrassing to have ever run one?
For as long as it generates sales/clickbait, presumably? Apart from anything else, a significant fraction of the population is still shit scared and ready to lap up this kind of coverage.
That proportion is definitely going down. My mum used to be a super masker, literally stepped out of the house and put her mask on then didn't take it off until she got back in, would even wear it in the car. Last week she stopped doing that, not sure what changed for her. Maybe she got bored or saw everyone else not wearing them. 🤷♂️
There are still a lot of maskers around though. No shortage in the shops, and when I took the train down to London on Saturday morning it was full of them. Although, granted, the train was jam packed full of people full stop, because Great Northern couldn't run a piss up in the proverbial.
We are still forced to use the rotten things in corridors and such like at work, with no end in sight. A visiting contractor recently remarked that we were the only business left that they visit where this is still the case.
Maybe 1% of the crowd at LCFC vs MCFC on Saturday were masked. I was in an FFP3, easy to spot when they swing the cameras on the crowd, as my seat is at a good angle for the cameramen.
Is it bad that I want Le Pen to win just for the lolz?
A tiny bit of me (not the majority) also wanted Trump to win for the same primitive and unpleasant reason, and that didn't turn out too good, so maybe I am just a Bad and Frivolous Person
The first piece of advice my PhD supervisor gave me back in the day when working with modeling / ML....as soon as you have run something, do a raincheck, ask yourself if the output is even possible or realistic...
7000 hospitalisations in a month....we would have to be having 100,000s of daily infections in a couple of weeks time for that.
That's their middle scenario. The bad scenario is just hilarious. Their upside scenario is 2000 hospitalisations by the end of this month.
It's really hard to explain this in a way which says anything good for the integrity of the modellers involved.
What's completely stupid is that the current R value is under 1, somewhere around 0.8 by my calculation. I have no idea where they get R1.1 from and then have that sustained over a very long period of time given how close we are to the herd immunity threshold (estimated 75-85% of people with immunity now against a 85% to hit herd immunity).
Eventually the virus just runs out of viable hosts, none of those scenarios have taken that into account and seem to just model an unlimited number of viable hosts.
I rather worry for the next generation of students going through these people's classes....
The first piece of advice my PhD supervisor gave me back in the day when working with modeling / ML....as soon as you have run something, do a raincheck, ask yourself if the output is even possible or realistic...
7000 hospitalisations in a month....we would have to be having 100,000s of daily infections in a couple of weeks time for that.
That's their middle scenario. The bad scenario is just hilarious. Their upside scenario is 2000 hospitalisations by the end of this month.
It's really hard to explain this in a way which says anything good for the integrity of the modellers involved.
What's completely stupid is that the current R value is under 1, somewhere around 0.8 by my calculation. I have no idea where they get R1.1 from and then have that sustained over a very long period of time given how close we are to the herd immunity threshold (estimated 75-85% of people with immunity now against a 85% to hit herd immunity).
Eventually the virus just runs out of viable hosts, none of those scenarios have taken that into account and seem to just model an unlimited number of viable hosts.
Having scanned the report, the main takeaway is that it’s our fault that the predictions were wrong. Apparently we didn’t start mixing enough, or get our behaviour back to pre Covid levels. Honestly, just put your hands up and say you got it wrong. It’s a tricky challenge. Carrying on like this is just making it worse.
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.
What difference does that make?
The question is whether the child can show "competence" or not. I don't see how the competence required varies based upon whether its a vaccine centre or a GP that measures it. If the vaccine centre can test for competence then job done.
One might think a vaccine centre might be better placed to judge competence to take a vaccine than a GP. Plus. You can't get to see a GP already. Do we want them using their time judging Gillicks?
Indeed, one of the places most relevant to Gillick is contraception services, STD, and abortion. It is something that a lot of under 16s access away from their GPs, as often that is where other members of their family go.
In practice, I don't think many teens will be vaccinated under Gillick, as it is good practice in assessing competence to enquire why the child doesn't want parents involved. Outside issues of sexuality that is pretty rare, though there are obviously some family situations where relations are very abnormal. The pros and cons of vaccination in this age are finely balanced, and vaccinating against* parental will potentially injurious to the child-parent relationship, so would rarely be done.
*Gillick competence goes both ways so children can also refuse despite parental desire for vaccination.
I'd have thought "my parents are anti-vaxxers/COVID deniers" would be a good reason
The risk would mostly be to them, rather than the child.
Damaging a family relationship would have to be considered as a side effect in such a situation, which may well swing the balance against vaccination.
On 12-16 vaccination, one disappointment is that antibody testing hasn't become a bigger part of the mix since the summer - if we could say to 30% of teenagers, you've had COVID, you don't need vaccinating, then the risk / benefit balance tips further one way.
I'd also like to see them promoted to vaccine refusers as well, give them a chance to excuse themselves but only by getting their result face to face from a health professional and having a discussion.
Indeed, I think if I got a confirmed COVID case now and the broader spectrum immunity that I would get as a result, then I wouldn't want a booster in those circumstances, I would want it to go to someone who gained some genuine benefit from it, either here or abroad.
Is it bad that I want Le Pen to win just for the lolz?
A tiny bit of me (not the majority) also wanted Trump to win for the same primitive and unpleasant reason, and that didn't turn out too good, so maybe I am just a Bad and Frivolous Person
I don't think a Le Pen win would be anywhere near as dangerous as Trump, who is clearly mad as a cut snake and should be nowhere near a position of government.
Le Pen has repellent views but is at least sane. The biggest problem would be to the UK from a Le Pen victory IMO. That border could get rather fraught.
So as SAGE release another set of graphs allegedly predicting high numbers of people ending up in hospital over the next few weeks, we continue to hear the line that "80% are vaxxed, therefore there remain 6 million vulnerable". Does anyone ever ask them to explain the figures from ONS suggesting that high 90s% of people have antibodies - the difference presumably being made up by prior infection - and why the believed immunity to serious illness caused by this isn't reflected in the models?
Also the need to continue to ask the question about whether, in a world where vaccines and other developed "immunity" appears to give high protection against serious illness, but less so again infection, whether the current approach to categorising Covid deaths is particularly helpful or increasingly misleading?
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 3h In which "7,000 hospitalisations/day" becomes the new "300k cases/day. I see there's a timescale on it: next month. Well, GLWT.
===
It's another load of tosh from SAGE. Why are they still allowed to push these useless models?
Pity we can't have faith in them like we can with the marvellous climate models.
The first piece of advice my PhD supervisor gave me back in the day when working with modeling / ML....as soon as you have run something, do a raincheck, ask yourself if the output is even possible or realistic...
7000 hospitalisations in a month....we would have to be having 100,000s of daily infections in a couple of weeks time for that.
That's their middle scenario. The bad scenario is just hilarious. Their upside scenario is 2000 hospitalisations by the end of this month.
It's really hard to explain this in a way which says anything good for the integrity of the modellers involved.
What's completely stupid is that the current R value is under 1, somewhere around 0.8 by my calculation. I have no idea where they get R1.1 from and then have that sustained over a very long period of time given how close we are to the herd immunity threshold (estimated 75-85% of people with immunity now against a 85% to hit herd immunity).
Eventually the virus just runs out of viable hosts, none of those scenarios have taken that into account and seem to just model an unlimited number of viable hosts.
One care here: 75-85% of people with (some degree of) immunity does not equal 75-85% immunity.
My rounded envelope numbers recently have been:
1/3 of the population have had COVID and carry full immunity. 1/2 of the population have not had COVID but have been vaccinated, and each have 2/3 immunity, so contribute another 1/3 to herd immunity.
So, 2/3 population immunity and we need to reach a bit over 5/6.
So as SAGE release another set of graphs allegedly predicting high numbers of people ending up in hospital over the next few weeks, we continue to hear the line that "80% are vaxxed, therefore there remain 6 million vulnerable". Does anyone ever ask them to explain the figures from ONS suggesting that high 90s% of people have antibodies - the difference presumably being made up by prior infection - and why the believed immunity to serious illness caused by this isn't reflected in the models?
Also the need to continue to ask the question about whether, in a world where vaccines and other developed "immunity" appears to give high protection against serious illness, but less so again infection, whether the current approach to categorising Covid deaths is particularly helpful or increasingly misleading?
One thing about the ONS antibody stat is it is percentage of 16+, it doesn't measure children
Kids aren't exactly going to contribute any significant number to hospitalisation, though. 7k hospitalisations per day just seems completely ridiculous, we'd need maybe 10x our current number of cases per day which is about 2m per week. Who exactly is it they are suggesting is going to be infected?
Oh quite, the 7k hospitalisation figires is just off the wall bonkers.
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.
What difference does that make?
The question is whether the child can show "competence" or not. I don't see how the competence required varies based upon whether its a vaccine centre or a GP that measures it. If the vaccine centre can test for competence then job done.
One might think a vaccine centre might be better placed to judge competence to take a vaccine than a GP. Plus. You can't get to see a GP already. Do we want them using their time judging Gillicks?
Indeed, one of the places most relevant to Gillick is contraception services, STD, and abortion. It is something that a lot of under 16s access away from their GPs, as often that is where other members of their family go.
In practice, I don't think many teens will be vaccinated under Gillick, as it is good practice in assessing competence to enquire why the child doesn't want parents involved. Outside issues of sexuality that is pretty rare, though there are obviously some family situations where relations are very abnormal. The pros and cons of vaccination in this age are finely balanced, and vaccinating against* parental will potentially injurious to the child-parent relationship, so would rarely be done.
*Gillick competence goes both ways so children can also refuse despite parental desire for vaccination.
Substance abuse is another big one. Children's Services deal with this frequently. A question though for a doctor. If the child INSISTS. Either to have or not have? And fully understands the parent/child dynamic consequences. Where then?
Two days after the January 6 attack on the US Capitol, President Donald Trump's top military adviser, Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Mark Milley, single-handedly took secret action to limit Trump from potentially ordering a dangerous military strike or launching nuclear weapons, according to "Peril," a new book by legendary journalist Bob Woodward and veteran Washington Post reporter Robert Costa.
Woodward and Costa write that Milley, deeply shaken by the assault, 'was certain that Trump had gone into a serious mental decline in the aftermath of the election, with Trump now all but manic, screaming at officials and constructing his own alternate reality about endless election conspiracies.'
Milley worried that Trump could 'go rogue,' the authors write.
"You never know what a president's trigger point is," Milley told his senior staff, according to the book.
In response, Milley took extraordinary action, and called a secret meeting in his Pentagon office on January 8 to review the process for military action, including launching nuclear weapons. Speaking to senior military officials in charge of the National Military Command Center, the Pentagon's war room, Milley instructed them not to take orders from anyone unless he was involved.
"No matter what you are told, you do the procedure. You do the process. And I'm part of that procedure," Milley told the officers, according to the book. He then went around the room, looked each officer in the eye, and asked them to verbally confirm they understood.
"Got it?" Milley asked, according to the book.
"Yes, sir."
'Milley considered it an oath,' the authors write.
Comments
That would be January 1st in Newcastle, like.
The question is whether the child can show "competence" or not. I don't see how the competence required varies based upon whether its a vaccine centre or a GP that measures it. If the vaccine centre can test for competence then job done.
But I'm still holding out hope its Le Pen vs someone other than Macron, he'd never get over it.
Two days after the January 6 attack on the US Capitol, President Donald Trump's top military adviser, Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Mark Milley, single-handedly took secret action to limit Trump from potentially ordering a dangerous military strike or launching nuclear weapons, according to "Peril," a new book by legendary journalist Bob Woodward and veteran Washington Post reporter Robert Costa.
Woodward and Costa write that Milley, deeply shaken by the assault, 'was certain that Trump had gone into a serious mental decline in the aftermath of the election, with Trump now all but manic, screaming at officials and constructing his own alternate reality about endless election conspiracies.'
Milley worried that Trump could 'go rogue,' the authors write.
"You never know what a president's trigger point is," Milley told his senior staff, according to the book.
In response, Milley took extraordinary action, and called a secret meeting in his Pentagon office on January 8 to review the process for military action, including launching nuclear weapons. Speaking to senior military officials in charge of the National Military Command Center, the Pentagon's war room, Milley instructed them not to take orders from anyone unless he was involved.
"No matter what you are told, you do the procedure. You do the process. And I'm part of that procedure," Milley told the officers, according to the book. He then went around the room, looked each officer in the eye, and asked them to verbally confirm they understood.
"Got it?" Milley asked, according to the book.
"Yes, sir."
'Milley considered it an oath,' the authors write.
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/09/14/politics/woodward-book-trump-nuclear/index.html
https://twitter.com/livvyjohn/status/1437853468228788225
Shipyards in Romania, Poland and Turkey have been invited to tender for the multi-million pound contract. https://news.stv.tv/highlands-islands/new-calmac-islay-ferries-wont-be-built-in-scotland?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1631647722
https://twitter.com/STVNews/status/1437861655837396998
With the mRNA vaccines, there are essentially two risks:
(1) Analphalxysis - which can kill, but is easily treatable and happens in the immediate aftermath of vaccination
(2) Myocarditis and pericarditis - that is, inflammation of the heart muscle. The issue here is that this is a very common response of your body to exercise when your immune system is working. If you have a cold and go to the gym, that's when you're likely to end up with myocarditis.
The CDC tracks the number of people who've died in the seven days following a Covid vaccine, and the number is 7,439. Which sounds scary. Except that that is actually below the expected death rate you'd expect given that's 350 million person doses were given and were tracked for seven days to see who dies. (Albeit with the proviso that the first number obviously excludes death by trauma.)
Simply, it's far from clear the death rate for the mRNA vaccines is above the one-per-million level.
While it is pretty obvious that Covid kills more than one-in-a-million young people who are infected.
Hows the storage on an iphone
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/08/11/donald-trump-nuclear-weapons-richard-nixon-215478/
Plus. You can't get to see a GP already. Do we want them using their time judging Gillicks?
Iran is one month away from having enough highly enriched uranium for "a single nuclear weapon," the New York Times reported Tuesday, adding that this development may increase pressure on the United States to return to the 2015 nuclear deal with Tehran and world powers.
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/iran-one-month-away-from-weapon-grade-uranium-for-nuke-report-says-1.10207881
Also the need to continue to ask the question about whether, in a world where vaccines and other developed "immunity" appears to give high protection against serious illness, but less so again infection, whether the current approach to categorising Covid deaths is particularly helpful or increasingly misleading?
Andrew Lilico
@andrew_lilico
·
3h
In which "7,000 hospitalisations/day" becomes the new "300k cases/day. I see there's a timescale on it: next month. Well, GLWT.
===
It's another load of tosh from SAGE. Why are they still allowed to push these useless models?
New models come, media misreport them, iSAGE all over the media screaming disaster, Starmer echoing it....and then we rinse and repeat.
It all gets lost in the noise that the original models that kicked all this off was utter garbage.
Is Trump even aware that his mark on world history by obliterating Planet Earth is counter productive if there is no one left to read about it?
https://1drv.ms/w/s!Av4jQcUMVtBpj2nG2u_uoI5GmHz8?e=AnbnEW
The bits that caught my eye were:
You may be aware last year OFGEM announced that all suppliers where required to offer extended payment terms and be more lenient with the collection of debt due to the pandemic, something they are asking to continue into this winter. Utility Point has always supported all its members and understands the variability of vulnerability and that it is not static, supporting many of our members through hard and uncertain times. Unfortunately, this extra support has meant an increase in debt and deficit.
...Indeed, in most cases the only reason that suppliers end up charging more for energy than it costs is to offset the cost of debt and the collection of debt which is a major issue in the industry and one that requires a rethink as those that can, and do pay, end up paying for those that don’t pay.
Can't win the London Mayoralty, it is the election system that is wrong!
Unfortunately ministers are basing policy on things like NPIs based on this modelling garbage. And those NPIs effect all of us and knacker the economy.
As Lilico is pointing out tonight: the latest garbage model figure of 7K hospitalisations a day by next month needs heroic increases in case #s to start happening like tomorrow. The figure dropped 25% today.
The initial LFT results for schools in England don't seem to have been a big driver - my son's college reported only 6 positives in just shy of 3k tests.
I don't rule out that we're getting close enough to herd immunity levels that there is a noticeable brake, but even if so I'd expect with colder weather and the second or third infection cycles at schools, that a fight between opposing effects would mean no consistently sustained decrease until half term holidays.
What I suspect is the case is that the price cap - which is also mentioned in the email - will have put much more pressure on smaller firms than the Big 6 providers.
Anyway, FPTP for all elections was in the Tories manifesto in 2019 which won a landslide majority so ... 🤷♂️
7000 hospitalisations in a month....we would have to be having 100,000s of daily infections in a couple of weeks time for that.
America is truly f*cked if that dangerous clown gets back in. As are the rest of us.
James Melville Cherry blossom
@JamesMelville
·
13m
Ok. I wasn’t sure whether to post this. I have had one jab. Since then I have developed myocarditis. I am a very fit and healthy man who hasn’t ever had any significant health problems until now.
This is entirely cynical, there is evidently nothing wrong with the London Mayoralty system, BoJo won it twice.
Andrew Lilico
@andrew_lilico
·
3h
How much longer will the media have an appetite for "We're all gonna die this Autumn!" pieces? Presumably pretty soon it'll just get embarrassing to have ever run one?
And if you get referred by an existing customer you (and they) get a bonus. Just sayin'. 😉
I've done one day in the office this week. That's enough for me.
I'm not up to date with this 7000 hospitalisations stuff or where it's come from, but it does sound far fetched (I wouldn't want to go further than that without the context). It should however be easy enough to spot the, presumably, erroneous assumptions.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-09-14/french-minister-slams-le-pen-s-plan-to-renationalize-highways
The gas smells the same, so no complaints from me.
Even if cases vs Hospitalisations are worse than static because of, for instance, waning immunity, that is still going to need a big number, and boosters come into the mix quickly and continue through the winter.
It's really hard to explain this in a way which says anything good for the integrity of the modellers involved.
Plus of course companies reducing their office space.
Changing the electoral system works on the same basis as reversing every other decision that is made too. By Parliamentary democracy.
There isn't anything that can't be reversed, that's part of the fundamental basics of Parliamentary Sovereignty.
So how is that "funny" how it works? What do you think can't be overturned?
We are still forced to use the rotten things in corridors and such like at work, with no end in sight. A visiting contractor recently remarked that we were the only business left that they visit where this is still the case.
The problem is, you just have no idea as to who is about to go pop. It's illegal to trade insolvent so the first you know about it is when it gets announced. Not saying that any other will go, but don't be surprised if more do follow.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/14/bring-in-measures-soon-or-risk-7000-daily-covid-cases-sage-warns
I think the convention that major constitutional change - like Scottish Independence, Brexit, or a change to the voting system - requires a referendum is a generally good one.
In practice, I don't think many teens will be vaccinated under Gillick, as it is good practice in assessing competence to enquire why the child doesn't want parents involved. Outside issues of sexuality that is pretty rare, though there are obviously some family situations where relations are very abnormal. The pros and cons of vaccination in this age are finely balanced, and vaccinating against* parental will potentially injurious to the child-parent relationship, so would rarely be done.
*Gillick competence goes both ways so children can also refuse despite parental desire for vaccination.
(Albeit France's privatised motorways are generally excellent.)
Eric Topol
@EricTopol
·
1h
Does abdominal #obesity reduce the immune response to
@BioNTech_Group /@Pfizer's vaccine?
https://medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.09.10.21262710v1
Looks that way for people without prior Covid. As assessed by waist circumference ✓ (far better than BMI) serially, including after 3 months
Eventually the virus just runs out of viable hosts, none of those scenarios have taken that into account and seem to just model an unlimited number of viable hosts.
A tiny bit of me (not the majority) also wanted Trump to win for the same primitive and unpleasant reason, and that didn't turn out too good, so maybe I am just a Bad and Frivolous Person
Damaging a family relationship would have to be considered as a side effect in such a situation, which may well swing the balance against vaccination.
Considering the election is tomorrow, if he's seen the vote count result he might have a point!
I'd also like to see them promoted to vaccine refusers as well, give them a chance to excuse themselves but only by getting their result face to face from a health professional and having a discussion.
Indeed, I think if I got a confirmed COVID case now and the broader spectrum immunity that I would get as a result, then I wouldn't want a booster in those circumstances, I would want it to go to someone who gained some genuine benefit from it, either here or abroad.
Le Pen has repellent views but is at least sane. The biggest problem would be to the UK from a Le Pen victory IMO. That border could get rather fraught.
2 STD microbes were on a railway line, what did one say to the other?
"I think we're a gonner here"
My rounded envelope numbers recently have been:
1/3 of the population have had COVID and carry full immunity.
1/2 of the population have not had COVID but have been vaccinated, and each have 2/3 immunity, so contribute another 1/3 to herd immunity.
So, 2/3 population immunity and we need to reach a bit over 5/6.
A question though for a doctor. If the child INSISTS. Either to have or not have? And fully understands the parent/child dynamic consequences. Where then?
Add in QAnon who have an organised campaign to run for school boards and you have a genuinely scary situation.