Oh for goodness sake the BBC are saying just about every 5 seconds now and with a banner on the screen that the vaccine is 70 to 90 effective and even saying it is 70% effective but with the 0.5 and 1 dose is 90% effective.
No it is 62 to 90% effective or rises from 62% to 90% with the 0.5/1 dose.
How can they be so useless and cause so much confusion.
Certainly been a bit of a PR disaster for AZ and Oxford. You cannot blame the BBC for reporting the line they have been given by AZ or Oxford (most likely the latter).
So here is the reality, the AZ/Oxford news is REALLY good news. Even if it is 70% efficacious that is still very good, and we should not have issues with supply. If we can vaccinate most of the population with a 70% effective vaccine it is game over for Mr. Covid. As the great woman once said "Just rejoice at that news"!
Probably as they were prioritising getting the results out as fast as possible, rather than spending time on how best to spin them. It's a minor problem rather than a disaster.
And there will be further announcements as the rest of the data is processed (and as more results come in - remember they will still be recording any cases which happened after the cutoff date on the 4th November for this report).
Great idea, with the bonus that the injecting nurse's spiel would be identical to one of his classic chat-up lines: 'Now you may feel a little prick...'
You know I'm happy if I'm taking the piss out of Boris
Eco data shows we are heading for a double dip recession, brought on by the second lockdown
"Labour has lost members at a rate of nearly 250 a day since Sir Keir Starmer was elected last spring, with supporters of Jeremy Corbyn leading an exodus from the party.
Membership fell by just under 57,000 people, or 10 per cent, between April and November, according to official figures from its internal elections.
It is the first time that party figures have shown Labour’s membership falling below half a million since 2016, when Mr Corbyn’s leadership prompted a surge of new members."
Given Corbyn led Labour to its worst defeat since 1935 last year we can probably safely say that an increase in Labour membership is inversely correlated to its appeal to swing voters, so that might actually be good news for Starmer
One day hopefully the Tories might find a way to get rid of their own swiveleyed entryists from the BNP/UKIP/Brexit parties and we might see a return to a choice between two parties that are actually serious about competent government.
On topic: They must not give Trump a deal. It is the easy option, but it is wrong. It is not only morally wrong it is strategically wrong for the long term.
Any would be dictator needs to know that if they fail the consequences will be harsh (and that goes for people who knowingly facilitated him/her).
Trump has come perilously close to succeeding.
If you prosecute him, all that will happen is that he will be seen as a martyr and reinforce his support.
It will also guarantee that the Republicans will seek to prosecute Biden on whatever grounds when he finishes being President, especially as Trump didn't seek to prosecute Clinton.
GOP lawyers attempting to 'prosecute' Biden should be a good laugh if the quality of their current shenanigans is anything to go by.
If they take control of the House in 2022 and keep the Senate, expect payback for the impeachment hearings.
Do you think Putin's Russia interferes with foreign elections or not? I think they do, and even if they didn't that Trump winning in 2016 was an optimum result for them. I believe Trump winning again would have been optimum for them, the current imbroglio is second best and a Biden landslide would definitely not have turned Vlad's frown upside down. Whether they expended any resources on making stuff happen is a separate issue.
No doubt he is no focussing his attention on the next Scottish Independence referendum. He just loves you Nats and your divisive agendas! How useful are you feeling?
Oh for goodness sake the BBC are saying just about every 5 seconds now and with a banner on the screen that the vaccine is 70 to 90 effective and even saying it is 70% effective but with the 0.5 and 1 dose is 90% effective.
No it is 62 to 90% effective or rises from 62% to 90% with the 0.5/1 dose.
How can they be so useless and cause so much confusion.
Certainly been a bit of a PR disaster for AZ and Oxford. You cannot blame the BBC for reporting the line they have been given by AZ or Oxford (most likely the latter).
So here is the reality, the AZ/Oxford news is REALLY good news. Even if it is 70% efficacious that is still very good, and we should not have issues with supply. If we can vaccinate most of the population with a 70% effective vaccine it is game over for Mr. Covid. As the great woman once said "Just rejoice at that news"!
Probably as they were prioritising getting the results out as fast as possible, rather than spending time on how best to spin them. It's a minor problem rather than a disaster.
And there will be further announcements as the rest of the data is processed (and as more results come in - remember they will still be recording any cases which happened after the cutoff date on the 4th November for this report).
I really really hope they have drilled Boris to not use the 70% figure this afternoon. Make it clear the regime that will be applied is 90% and covers even asymptotic cases, which the other two previous ones we don't know about.
Anybody from government looking in on here, go bash this into your boss....please.
Oh for goodness sake the BBC are saying just about every 5 seconds now and with a banner on the screen that the vaccine is 70 to 90 effective and even saying it is 70% effective but with the 0.5 and 1 dose is 90% effective.
No it is 62 to 90% effective or rises from 62% to 90% with the 0.5/1 dose.
How can they be so useless and cause so much confusion.
Certainly been a bit of a PR disaster for AZ and Oxford. You cannot blame the BBC for reporting the line they have been given by AZ or Oxford (most likely the latter).
So here is the reality, the AZ/Oxford news is REALLY good news. Even if it is 70% efficacious that is still very good, and we should not have issues with supply. If we can vaccinate most of the population with a 70% effective vaccine it is game over for Mr. Covid. As the great woman once said "Just rejoice at that news"!
Probably as they were prioritising getting the results out as fast as possible, rather than spending time on how best to spin them. It's a minor problem rather than a disaster.
And there will be further announcements as the rest of the data is processed (and as more results come in - remember they will still be recording any cases which happened after the cutoff date on the 4th November for this report).
And since the 4th the second wave has been at its peak so there are probably quite a few more events in both trial modes.
It is only fair, I saw him in the lab, in his lab-coat inventing it, not six weeks ago.
Actually first weaker dose, the Johnson Jab, the full strength one, the Boris Booster...
Now that would be a big PR disaster. "Boris" is already a byword for massive overbilling prior to application and subsequent inactivity and failure thereafter.
The BBC article on it is absolutely terrible, this in particular is factually incorrect:
"Are the results disappointing? After Pfizer and Moderna both produced vaccines delivering 95% protection from Covid-19, a figure of 70% is still highly effective, but will be seen by some as relatively disappointing.
But this is still a vaccine that can save lives from Covid-19 and is more effective than a seasonal flu jab."
It's not 70%, its 62% and 90% for the two dosage variations and as we've discussed here the 90% variation includes testing for asymptomatic cases where neither of the other two trials did that.
I'd be surprised if whoever wrote that could put their own clothes on in the morning.
The journalist who wrote that supposedly has a degree in Biology....face palm. Obviously missed the modules that covered reading scientific papers of real world medical trials.
Blame AZ's PR department for not writing clear press releases, not the BBC or other news organisations. What AZ says in scientific papers is not the issue here.
On topic: They must not give Trump a deal. It is the easy option, but it is wrong. It is not only morally wrong it is strategically wrong for the long term.
Any would be dictator needs to know that if they fail the consequences will be harsh (and that goes for people who knowingly facilitated him/her).
Trump has come perilously close to succeeding.
If you prosecute him, all that will happen is that he will be seen as a martyr and reinforce his support.
It will also guarantee that the Republicans will seek to prosecute Biden on whatever grounds when he finishes being President, especially as Trump didn't seek to prosecute Clinton.
GOP lawyers attempting to 'prosecute' Biden should be a good laugh if the quality of their current shenanigans is anything to go by.
If they take control of the House in 2022 and keep the Senate, expect payback for the impeachment hearings.
"Labour has lost members at a rate of nearly 250 a day since Sir Keir Starmer was elected last spring, with supporters of Jeremy Corbyn leading an exodus from the party.
Membership fell by just under 57,000 people, or 10 per cent, between April and November, according to official figures from its internal elections.
It is the first time that party figures have shown Labour’s membership falling below half a million since 2016, when Mr Corbyn’s leadership prompted a surge of new members."
The BBC article on it is absolutely terrible, this in particular is factually incorrect:
"Are the results disappointing? After Pfizer and Moderna both produced vaccines delivering 95% protection from Covid-19, a figure of 70% is still highly effective, but will be seen by some as relatively disappointing.
But this is still a vaccine that can save lives from Covid-19 and is more effective than a seasonal flu jab."
It's not 70%, its 62% and 90% for the two dosage variations and as we've discussed here the 90% variation includes testing for asymptomatic cases where neither of the other two trials did that.
I'd be surprised if whoever wrote that could put their own clothes on in the morning.
The journalist who wrote that supposedly has a degree in Biology....face palm. Obviously missed the modules that covered reading scientific papers of real world medical trials.
Blame AZ's PR department for not writing clear press releases, not the BBC or other news organisations. What AZ says in scientific papers is not the issue here.
On topic: They must not give Trump a deal. It is the easy option, but it is wrong. It is not only morally wrong it is strategically wrong for the long term.
Any would be dictator needs to know that if they fail the consequences will be harsh (and that goes for people who knowingly facilitated him/her).
Trump has come perilously close to succeeding.
If you prosecute him, all that will happen is that he will be seen as a martyr and reinforce his support.
It will also guarantee that the Republicans will seek to prosecute Biden on whatever grounds when he finishes being President, especially as Trump didn't seek to prosecute Clinton.
GOP lawyers attempting to 'prosecute' Biden should be a good laugh if the quality of their current shenanigans is anything to go by.
If they take control of the House in 2022 and keep the Senate, expect payback for the impeachment hearings.
Do you think Putin's Russia interferes with foreign elections or not? I think they do, and even if they didn't that Trump winning in 2016 was an optimum result for them. I believe Trump winning again would have been optimum for them, the current imbroglio is second best and a Biden landslide would definitely not have turned Vlad's frown upside down. Whether they expended any resources on making stuff happen is a separate issue.
You find it difficult to believe Russia doesn;t interfere with foreign elections, even though there isn;t much evidence.
I find it difficult to believe a total no-mark candidate got ten million more votes than the brilliant and charismatic first black president of America, even though right now there isn;t much evidence.
Your double negatives and misuse of semi colons is making your stuff even more unreadable than usual. The idea of you thinking Obama is brillant and charismatic is a good laff tho'.
On topic: They must not give Trump a deal. It is the easy option, but it is wrong. It is not only morally wrong it is strategically wrong for the long term.
Any would be dictator needs to know that if they fail the consequences will be harsh (and that goes for people who knowingly facilitated him/her).
Trump has come perilously close to succeeding.
If you prosecute him, all that will happen is that he will be seen as a martyr and reinforce his support.
It will also guarantee that the Republicans will seek to prosecute Biden on whatever grounds when he finishes being President, especially as Trump didn't seek to prosecute Clinton.
GOP lawyers attempting to 'prosecute' Biden should be a good laugh if the quality of their current shenanigans is anything to go by.
If they take control of the House in 2022 and keep the Senate, expect payback for the impeachment hearings.
It says that the Oxford vaccine is '70% effective at preventing Covid symptoms'. NO!!!
It's just so infuriating. We have a potentially incredible vaccine designed and manufactured in the UK and the BBC are completely fucking it up.
I'm really looking forwards to seeing the final data readouts from it and if that 90% figure holds up and what proportion of those who recorded infections were asymptomatic.
I'm particularly reassured that they did weekly testing of the trial participants, which gives me a lot more confidence than with the other vaccines.
I fear that the 70% figure will stick, and the idea that we're being given a substandard vaccine will spread, when it might actually be more effective than the others if you do a like-for-like comparison.
"Labour has lost members at a rate of nearly 250 a day since Sir Keir Starmer was elected last spring, with supporters of Jeremy Corbyn leading an exodus from the party.
Membership fell by just under 57,000 people, or 10 per cent, between April and November, according to official figures from its internal elections.
It is the first time that party figures have shown Labour’s membership falling below half a million since 2016, when Mr Corbyn’s leadership prompted a surge of new members."
It says that the Oxford vaccine is '70% effective at preventing Covid symptoms'. NO!!!
It's just so infuriating. We have a potentially incredible vaccine designed and manufactured in the UK and the BBC are completely fucking it up.
I'm really looking forwards to seeing the final data readouts from it and if that 90% figure holds up and what proportion of those who recorded infections were asymptomatic.
I'm particularly reassured that they did weekly testing of the trial participants, which gives me a lot more confidence than with the other vaccines.
I fear that the 70% figure will stick, and the idea that we're being given a substandard vaccine will spread, when it might actually be more effective than the others if you do a like-for-like comparison.
Top of the summary on BBC News website...still...
"A coronavirus vaccine developed by the University of Oxford stops 70% of people from developing symptoms, a large-scale trial shows. Other vaccines showed 95% protection but the Oxford jab is cheaper and easier to store and distribute."
WRONG, WRONG, MFing WRONG on several counts in 2 f##king sentences.
Oh for goodness sake the BBC are saying just about every 5 seconds now and with a banner on the screen that the vaccine is 70 to 90 effective and even saying it is 70% effective but with the 0.5 and 1 dose is 90% effective.
No it is 62 to 90% effective or rises from 62% to 90% with the 0.5/1 dose.
How can they be so useless and cause so much confusion.
Certainly been a bit of a PR disaster for AZ and Oxford. You cannot blame the BBC for reporting the line they have been given by AZ or Oxford (most likely the latter).
So here is the reality, the AZ/Oxford news is REALLY good news. Even if it is 70% efficacious that is still very good, and we should not have issues with supply. If we can vaccinate most of the population with a 70% effective vaccine it is game over for Mr. Covid. As the great woman once said "Just rejoice at that news"!
Probably as they were prioritising getting the results out as fast as possible, rather than spending time on how best to spin them. It's a minor problem rather than a disaster.
And there will be further announcements as the rest of the data is processed (and as more results come in - remember they will still be recording any cases which happened after the cutoff date on the 4th November for this report).
That was my thought as I said early this morning and hopefully it will be the 90% figure.
But you would have thought someone at the BBC would have grasped this by now wouldn't you?
"Labour has lost members at a rate of nearly 250 a day since Sir Keir Starmer was elected last spring, with supporters of Jeremy Corbyn leading an exodus from the party.
Membership fell by just under 57,000 people, or 10 per cent, between April and November, according to official figures from its internal elections.
It is the first time that party figures have shown Labour’s membership falling below half a million since 2016, when Mr Corbyn’s leadership prompted a surge of new members."
Bye, bye! They, along with Corbyn are all welcome to join the Conservatives, they delivered them an 80 seat majority after all.
I think most of them have gone Green
I don't care what colour they are, they are all idiots!
Aren't these people of all opinions who are skint now in lockdown economics and so aren't renewing?
Also worth noting that through Corbyn's tenure it always felt like the UK or Labour could be on the brink of either another election or leadership election.
Now for the first time in half a decade there are no significant elections expected for a good few years.
Evidence that would hold up in court, came there none....
And yet something like 30 odd people with 200 odd charges have resulted from the Special Counsel's investigation despite the across the board obstruction of justice from the Whitehouse, which is something that Mueller has said Trump could be charged with once he ceases to be President. Imagine what they might have found if the DOJ had allowed a full investigation and if Trump and his associates had testified in court.
"Labour has lost members at a rate of nearly 250 a day since Sir Keir Starmer was elected last spring, with supporters of Jeremy Corbyn leading an exodus from the party.
Membership fell by just under 57,000 people, or 10 per cent, between April and November, according to official figures from its internal elections.
It is the first time that party figures have shown Labour’s membership falling below half a million since 2016, when Mr Corbyn’s leadership prompted a surge of new members."
Given Corbyn led Labour to its worst defeat since 1935 last year we can probably safely say that an increase in Labour membership is inversely correlated to its appeal to swing voters, so that might actually be good news for Starmer
One day hopefully the Tories might find a way to get rid of their own swiveleyed entryists from the BNP/UKIP/Brexit parties and we might see a return to a choice between two parties that are actually serious about competent government.
We've had two gargantuan recessions in the space of not much more than a decade. 2008 and 2020. In both cases both mainstream parties more or less agreed with the policies that led to these, completely free of entryism.
Entryism is thriving because of the regular giant pile-ups so called 'competent government' is creating. As Trump himself said, I am here because you guys messed up so badly.
Thanks to everyone so far who replied with their views on whether a 'normal' wedding/reception on 1st May is likely to be possible. As a few of you noted, the challenge with wedding planning is how far in advance we need to make decisions and sign contracts or adapt them. We might be able to push any decision on whether we scale back the wedding until mid January to see what things are looking like. Any other views are welcome; I find it useful to get outsider perspectives as sometimes I cannot see the wood for the trees when the decision is so close to me!
There is always the option of a minimal wedding now and have a party much later when the dust has settled (which also saves on the specifically wedding-related costs of the latter event, which is also now much easier to organise at shorter notice). Like the common small wedding plus bigger party, just not on the same day.
I know a pair who got married with just the celebrant and two witnesses on that principle, and went straight home afterward. They didn't want to wait, for good reasons, but equally they didn't want to put anyone at risk. Their wedding had already been scrapped in the first lockdown, and they had no idea when things would settle (and how).
I also know a couple who did that, and livestreamed their wedding to friends and relatives who'd normally have been there. Next year they will hold a traditional wedding celebration once the country has been reopened.
"All UK adults could be vaccinated by the Spring" just quoted on BBC News.
Spring ends on 21 June next year, so sounds plausible (it wont be all, but all who want it and can be bothered to turn up on time, and arent excluded for some reason). Spring as in around April time which is when most associate it with, seems unlikely.
"Labour has lost members at a rate of nearly 250 a day since Sir Keir Starmer was elected last spring, with supporters of Jeremy Corbyn leading an exodus from the party.
Membership fell by just under 57,000 people, or 10 per cent, between April and November, according to official figures from its internal elections.
It is the first time that party figures have shown Labour’s membership falling below half a million since 2016, when Mr Corbyn’s leadership prompted a surge of new members."
Given Corbyn led Labour to its worst defeat since 1935 last year we can probably safely say that an increase in Labour membership is inversely correlated to its appeal to swing voters, so that might actually be good news for Starmer
One day hopefully the Tories might find a way to get rid of their own swiveleyed entryists from the BNP/UKIP/Brexit parties and we might see a return to a choice between two parties that are actually serious about competent government.
We've had two gargantuan recessions in the space of not much more than a decade. 2008 and 2020. In both cases both mainstream parties more or less agreed with the policies that led to these, completely free of entryism.
Entryism is thriving because of the regular giant pile-ups so called 'competent government' is creating. As Trump himself said, I am here because you guys messed up so badly.
On topic: They must not give Trump a deal. It is the easy option, but it is wrong. It is not only morally wrong it is strategically wrong for the long term.
Any would be dictator needs to know that if they fail the consequences will be harsh (and that goes for people who knowingly facilitated him/her).
Trump has come perilously close to succeeding.
If you prosecute him, all that will happen is that he will be seen as a martyr and reinforce his support.
It will also guarantee that the Republicans will seek to prosecute Biden on whatever grounds when he finishes being President, especially as Trump didn't seek to prosecute Clinton.
GOP lawyers attempting to 'prosecute' Biden should be a good laugh if the quality of their current shenanigans is anything to go by.
If they take control of the House in 2022 and keep the Senate, expect payback for the impeachment hearings.
Do you think Putin's Russia interferes with foreign elections or not? I think they do, and even if they didn't that Trump winning in 2016 was an optimum result for them. I believe Trump winning again would have been optimum for them, the current imbroglio is second best and a Biden landslide would definitely not have turned Vlad's frown upside down. Whether they expended any resources on making stuff happen is a separate issue.
You find it difficult to believe Russia doesn;t interfere with foreign elections, even though there isn;t much evidence.
I find it difficult to believe a total no-mark candidate got ten million more votes than the brilliant and charismatic first black president of America, even though right now there isn;t much evidence.
Your double negatives and misuse of semi colons is making your stuff even more unreadable than usual. The idea of you thinking Obama is brillant and charismatic is a good laff tho'.
I am a busy person, sorry. I save my best grammar for those who pay me.
It says that the Oxford vaccine is '70% effective at preventing Covid symptoms'. NO!!!
It's just so infuriating. We have a potentially incredible vaccine designed and manufactured in the UK and the BBC are completely fucking it up.
I'm really looking forwards to seeing the final data readouts from it and if that 90% figure holds up and what proportion of those who recorded infections were asymptomatic.
I'm particularly reassured that they did weekly testing of the trial participants, which gives me a lot more confidence than with the other vaccines.
I fear that the 70% figure will stick, and the idea that we're being given a substandard vaccine will spread, when it might actually be more effective than the others if you do a like-for-like comparison.
Yes, we could, because of idiots at the BBC, end up with a situation where the AZ/Ox vaccine is actually the best for preventing symptoms and spread of the virus but sees reluctance among the wider population because the reporting of it has been atrocious. The asymptomatic testing is absolutely key in all of this and I've seen The Times and Guardian talk about it, but the BBC are sticking with this idiotic 70% reduction in symptoms line which is actually fake news because in those 131 events there will have been people who tested positive asymptomatically in the vaccine group.
"Labour has lost members at a rate of nearly 250 a day since Sir Keir Starmer was elected last spring, with supporters of Jeremy Corbyn leading an exodus from the party.
Membership fell by just under 57,000 people, or 10 per cent, between April and November, according to official figures from its internal elections.
It is the first time that party figures have shown Labour’s membership falling below half a million since 2016, when Mr Corbyn’s leadership prompted a surge of new members."
Given Corbyn led Labour to its worst defeat since 1935 last year we can probably safely say that an increase in Labour membership is inversely correlated to its appeal to swing voters, so that might actually be good news for Starmer
One day hopefully the Tories might find a way to get rid of their own swiveleyed entryists from the BNP/UKIP/Brexit parties and we might see a return to a choice between two parties that are actually serious about competent government.
We've had two gargantuan recessions in the space of not much more than a decade. 2008 and 2020. In both cases both mainstream parties more or less agreed with the policies that led to these, completely free of entryism.
Entryism is thriving because of the regular giant pile-ups so called 'competent government' is creating. As Trump himself said, I am here because you guys messed up so badly.
The government did not create COVID19.
Indeed but it created the response to it. And it still does. The UK will shrink by 11% this year, probably. Many countries will get away with a smaller rate of contraction.
On topic: They must not give Trump a deal. It is the easy option, but it is wrong. It is not only morally wrong it is strategically wrong for the long term.
Any would be dictator needs to know that if they fail the consequences will be harsh (and that goes for people who knowingly facilitated him/her).
Trump has come perilously close to succeeding.
If you prosecute him, all that will happen is that he will be seen as a martyr and reinforce his support.
It will also guarantee that the Republicans will seek to prosecute Biden on whatever grounds when he finishes being President, especially as Trump didn't seek to prosecute Clinton.
GOP lawyers attempting to 'prosecute' Biden should be a good laugh if the quality of their current shenanigans is anything to go by.
If they take control of the House in 2022 and keep the Senate, expect payback for the impeachment hearings.
Do you think Putin's Russia interferes with foreign elections or not? I think they do, and even if they didn't that Trump winning in 2016 was an optimum result for them. I believe Trump winning again would have been optimum for them, the current imbroglio is second best and a Biden landslide would definitely not have turned Vlad's frown upside down. Whether they expended any resources on making stuff happen is a separate issue.
No doubt he is no focussing his attention on the next Scottish Independence referendum. He just loves you Nats and your divisive agendas! How useful are you feeling?
Haha, a very dodgy quotation from Tass is pretty par for the course for evidence from a nationalist. It has been well known for years that Putin wishes to see the breakup of UK, so why on earth would Cameron make such you a request? Just be honest you must love Putin. He is a nationalist, and he has no doubt been using his methods to con the gullible north of the border since the advent of social media. He loves you just as much as he loves Brexiteers; you are all the same to him, Useful Idiots with simplistic answers to complex questions that are great to manipulate to his satisfaction. He is on your side and you are on his.
"Labour has lost members at a rate of nearly 250 a day since Sir Keir Starmer was elected last spring, with supporters of Jeremy Corbyn leading an exodus from the party.
Membership fell by just under 57,000 people, or 10 per cent, between April and November, according to official figures from its internal elections.
It is the first time that party figures have shown Labour’s membership falling below half a million since 2016, when Mr Corbyn’s leadership prompted a surge of new members."
Given Corbyn led Labour to its worst defeat since 1935 last year we can probably safely say that an increase in Labour membership is inversely correlated to its appeal to swing voters, so that might actually be good news for Starmer
One day hopefully the Tories might find a way to get rid of their own swiveleyed entryists from the BNP/UKIP/Brexit parties and we might see a return to a choice between two parties that are actually serious about competent government.
We've had two gargantuan recessions in the space of not much more than a decade. 2008 and 2020. In both cases both mainstream parties more or less agreed with the policies that led to these, completely free of entryism.
Entryism is thriving because of the regular giant pile-ups so called 'competent government' is creating. As Trump himself said, I am here because you guys messed up so badly.
And now he's gone because he messed up so badly. This was a thoroughly winnable election for him, but he committed one unforced error after another this year.
Not to mention that his pro-Wall Street staff and policies are indistinguishable from those that led to the 2008 crash, so I'm not sure how things would have been different under him.
It says that the Oxford vaccine is '70% effective at preventing Covid symptoms'. NO!!!
It's just so infuriating. We have a potentially incredible vaccine designed and manufactured in the UK and the BBC are completely fucking it up.
I'm really looking forwards to seeing the final data readouts from it and if that 90% figure holds up and what proportion of those who recorded infections were asymptomatic.
I'm particularly reassured that they did weekly testing of the trial participants, which gives me a lot more confidence than with the other vaccines.
I fear that the 70% figure will stick, and the idea that we're being given a substandard vaccine will spread, when it might actually be more effective than the others if you do a like-for-like comparison.
Top of the summary on BBC News website...still...
"A coronavirus vaccine developed by the University of Oxford stops 70% of people from developing symptoms, a large-scale trial shows. Other vaccines showed 95% protection but the Oxford jab is cheaper and easier to store and distribute."
WRONG, WRONG, MFing WRONG on several counts in 2 f##king sentences.
It says that the Oxford vaccine is '70% effective at preventing Covid symptoms'. NO!!!
It's just so infuriating. We have a potentially incredible vaccine designed and manufactured in the UK and the BBC are completely fucking it up.
I'm really looking forwards to seeing the final data readouts from it and if that 90% figure holds up and what proportion of those who recorded infections were asymptomatic.
I'm particularly reassured that they did weekly testing of the trial participants, which gives me a lot more confidence than with the other vaccines.
I fear that the 70% figure will stick, and the idea that we're being given a substandard vaccine will spread, when it might actually be more effective than the others if you do a like-for-like comparison.
Top of the summary on BBC News website...still...
"A coronavirus vaccine developed by the University of Oxford stops 70% of people from developing symptoms, a large-scale trial shows. Other vaccines showed 95% protection but the Oxford jab is cheaper and easier to store and distribute."
WRONG, WRONG, MFing WRONG on several counts in 2 f##king sentences.
That's actually fake news on the BBC. The trial tested for asymptomatic infection as well and symptomatic. Honestly, this is completely undermining what should be a massive piece of good news in the fight against the virus here and elsewhere in the world.
At some point pretty soon the Treasury has to assert itself over the believers in the Magic Money Tree. If it doesn’t, then we will all have to become reacquainted with the delights of funny money.
It says that the Oxford vaccine is '70% effective at preventing Covid symptoms'. NO!!!
It's just so infuriating. We have a potentially incredible vaccine designed and manufactured in the UK and the BBC are completely fucking it up.
I'm really looking forwards to seeing the final data readouts from it and if that 90% figure holds up and what proportion of those who recorded infections were asymptomatic.
I'm particularly reassured that they did weekly testing of the trial participants, which gives me a lot more confidence than with the other vaccines.
I fear that the 70% figure will stick, and the idea that we're being given a substandard vaccine will spread, when it might actually be more effective than the others if you do a like-for-like comparison.
Top of the summary on BBC News website...still...
"A coronavirus vaccine developed by the University of Oxford stops 70% of people from developing symptoms, a large-scale trial shows. Other vaccines showed 95% protection but the Oxford jab is cheaper and easier to store and distribute."
WRONG, WRONG, MFing WRONG on several counts in 2 f##king sentences.
That's actually fake news on the BBC. The trial tested for asymptomatic infection as well and symptomatic. Honestly, this is completely undermining what should be a massive piece of good news in the fight against the virus here and elsewhere in the world.
The thing is as well, it won't get corrected and will get shared via social media like the £42bn on moonshot bollocks....and because of it being so cheap and easy to store, this will be THE vaccine for places like Africa, and it will be all too easy for anti-vax fake news to be spread using real links to the likes of the BBC.
On topic: They must not give Trump a deal. It is the easy option, but it is wrong. It is not only morally wrong it is strategically wrong for the long term.
Any would be dictator needs to know that if they fail the consequences will be harsh (and that goes for people who knowingly facilitated him/her).
Trump has come perilously close to succeeding.
If you prosecute him, all that will happen is that he will be seen as a martyr and reinforce his support.
It will also guarantee that the Republicans will seek to prosecute Biden on whatever grounds when he finishes being President, especially as Trump didn't seek to prosecute Clinton.
GOP lawyers attempting to 'prosecute' Biden should be a good laugh if the quality of their current shenanigans is anything to go by.
If they take control of the House in 2022 and keep the Senate, expect payback for the impeachment hearings.
Do you think Putin's Russia interferes with foreign elections or not? I think they do, and even if they didn't that Trump winning in 2016 was an optimum result for them. I believe Trump winning again would have been optimum for them, the current imbroglio is second best and a Biden landslide would definitely not have turned Vlad's frown upside down. Whether they expended any resources on making stuff happen is a separate issue.
No doubt he is no focussing his attention on the next Scottish Independence referendum. He just loves you Nats and your divisive agendas! How useful are you feeling?
It says that the Oxford vaccine is '70% effective at preventing Covid symptoms'. NO!!!
It's just so infuriating. We have a potentially incredible vaccine designed and manufactured in the UK and the BBC are completely fucking it up.
I'm really looking forwards to seeing the final data readouts from it and if that 90% figure holds up and what proportion of those who recorded infections were asymptomatic.
I'm particularly reassured that they did weekly testing of the trial participants, which gives me a lot more confidence than with the other vaccines.
I fear that the 70% figure will stick, and the idea that we're being given a substandard vaccine will spread, when it might actually be more effective than the others if you do a like-for-like comparison.
Top of the summary on BBC News website...still...
"A coronavirus vaccine developed by the University of Oxford stops 70% of people from developing symptoms, a large-scale trial shows. Other vaccines showed 95% protection but the Oxford jab is cheaper and easier to store and distribute."
WRONG, WRONG, MFing WRONG on several counts in 2 f##king sentences.
That's actually fake news on the BBC. The trial tested for asymptomatic infection as well and symptomatic. Honestly, this is completely undermining what should be a massive piece of good news in the fight against the virus here and elsewhere in the world.
The thing is as well, it won't get corrected and will get shared via social media like the £42bn on moonshot bollocks....and the thing is because of it being so cheap and easy to store, this will be THE vaccine for places like Africa, and it will be all too easy for anti-vax fake news to be spread using real links to the likes of the BBC.
They seem to want to push the narrative of this being a less good but cheaper vaccine. That's the sense I get from reading their coverage of it. It's incredibly irresponsible and the DG needs to be summoned to Downing Street to explain what they're thinking.
"Labour has lost members at a rate of nearly 250 a day since Sir Keir Starmer was elected last spring, with supporters of Jeremy Corbyn leading an exodus from the party.
Membership fell by just under 57,000 people, or 10 per cent, between April and November, according to official figures from its internal elections.
It is the first time that party figures have shown Labour’s membership falling below half a million since 2016, when Mr Corbyn’s leadership prompted a surge of new members."
Given Corbyn led Labour to its worst defeat since 1935 last year we can probably safely say that an increase in Labour membership is inversely correlated to its appeal to swing voters, so that might actually be good news for Starmer
One day hopefully the Tories might find a way to get rid of their own swiveleyed entryists from the BNP/UKIP/Brexit parties and we might see a return to a choice between two parties that are actually serious about competent government.
We've had two gargantuan recessions in the space of not much more than a decade. 2008 and 2020. In both cases both mainstream parties more or less agreed with the policies that led to these, completely free of entryism.
Entryism is thriving because of the regular giant pile-ups so called 'competent government' is creating. As Trump himself said, I am here because you guys messed up so badly.
The government did not create COVID19.
Indeed but it created the response to it. And it still does. The UK will shrink by 11% this year, probably. Many countries will get away with a smaller rate of contraction.
The 11% is rather disingenuous given the way it is measured it is largely a statistical anomaly that much will bounce back from next year.
No country has gone without an economic impact and the ones with the least impact seem to be those who locked down the virus harder and faster which is not what I recall you advising.
Can you name any economy following policies you endorse that hasn't been hit economically?
It seems to me that the press have had the temerity to accept what Oxford told them, and add the outrageous spin that 70 is not as big a number as 90. Primary end points are primary end points, guys, and you stick to protocols or what is the point of them. What has happened this morning is that the government has been on the scientists' case and told them to TONE DOWN the science and numeracy in favour of telling people what they want to hear. It is bizarre that this is being championed as a triumph of statistical literacy.
There's a distinction though, the trial was 70% effective across two modes. One had 62% efficacy and one had 90% efficacy. The vaccine that will come to market will be based on the 90% efficacy mode, therefore the vaccine has 90% efficacy. That's why the 90% figure is what should be shouted from the rooftops, more than happy for the 62% to be put out there as well, the 70% figure is actually a statistical phantom because there is no vaccine dosage that will give 70% efficacy.
You really expect British journalists to be able to understand something that nuanced?
It isn't just nuanced, it is plain wrong. Where is anyone getting "The vaccine that will come to market will be based on the 90% efficacy mode" from, when what Pollard said is
"Prof Andrew Pollard, the trial's lead investigator, said he was "really pleased" with the results as "it means we have a vaccine for the world".
However, protection was 90% in an analysis of around 3,000 people given a half-sized first dose and a full-sized second dose.
Prof Pollard said the finding was "intriguing" and would mean "we would have a lot more doses to distribute.""
"intriguing" means "requires further investigation" and "would" means conditionally on the results of investigation.
Wishful thinking is great, but this ooh I know more about science than professional science journalists stuff is less so.
What has actually happened is this: the 62% outcome is the only outcome Oxford can legitimately report *according to the rules of their own trial*. The 90% one is obviously better, but not reportable, but rather than pass over it altogether they tried to fudge it into the stats with the 70% average figure. That may be a nonsense figure, but if so why put it out there at all?
Actually the Prof said they will be submitting the 90% mode to the MHRA. The 90% mode is what the vaccine will be.
In which case he has changed his mind since this morning, which is what I was saying. "Would" means something different from "will."
But the half/full mode is statistically significant and it will be submitted for regulatory approval. I don't understand what point you're trying to make here.
That you are, bluntly, making up the facts while giving it large about how hopelessly unscientific the rest of the world is. "Excitingly, we’ve found that one of our dosing regimens may be around 90% effective and if this dosing regime is used, more people could be vaccinated with planned vaccine supply." Pollard. "The vaccine that will come to market will be based on the 90% efficacy mode." You. Are those saying the same thing or different things?
It seems to me that the press have had the temerity to accept what Oxford told them, and add the outrageous spin that 70 is not as big a number as 90. Primary end points are primary end points, guys, and you stick to protocols or what is the point of them. What has happened this morning is that the government has been on the scientists' case and told them to TONE DOWN the science and numeracy in favour of telling people what they want to hear. It is bizarre that this is being championed as a triumph of statistical literacy.
There's a distinction though, the trial was 70% effective across two modes. One had 62% efficacy and one had 90% efficacy. The vaccine that will come to market will be based on the 90% efficacy mode, therefore the vaccine has 90% efficacy. That's why the 90% figure is what should be shouted from the rooftops, more than happy for the 62% to be put out there as well, the 70% figure is actually a statistical phantom because there is no vaccine dosage that will give 70% efficacy.
You really expect British journalists to be able to understand something that nuanced?
It isn't just nuanced, it is plain wrong. Where is anyone getting "The vaccine that will come to market will be based on the 90% efficacy mode" from, when what Pollard said is
"Prof Andrew Pollard, the trial's lead investigator, said he was "really pleased" with the results as "it means we have a vaccine for the world".
However, protection was 90% in an analysis of around 3,000 people given a half-sized first dose and a full-sized second dose.
Prof Pollard said the finding was "intriguing" and would mean "we would have a lot more doses to distribute.""
"intriguing" means "requires further investigation" and "would" means conditionally on the results of investigation.
Wishful thinking is great, but this ooh I know more about science than professional science journalists stuff is less so.
What has actually happened is this: the 62% outcome is the only outcome Oxford can legitimately report *according to the rules of their own trial*. The 90% one is obviously better, but not reportable, but rather than pass over it altogether they tried to fudge it into the stats with the 70% average figure. That may be a nonsense figure, but if so why put it out there at all?
Actually the Prof said they will be submitting the 90% mode to the MHRA. The 90% mode is what the vaccine will be.
In which case he has changed his mind since this morning, which is what I was saying. "Would" means something different from "will."
But the half/full mode is statistically significant and it will be submitted for regulatory approval. I don't understand what point you're trying to make here.
That you are, bluntly, making up the facts while giving it large about how hopelessly unscientific the rest of the world is. "Excitingly, we’ve found that one of our dosing regimens may be around 90% effective and if this dosing regime is used, more people could be vaccinated with planned vaccine supply." Pollard. "The vaccine that will come to market will be based on the 90% efficacy mode." You. Are those saying the same thing or different things?
Given that they are submitting the 1.5 dose regimen for approval it seems as though they are the same thing.
"Labour has lost members at a rate of nearly 250 a day since Sir Keir Starmer was elected last spring, with supporters of Jeremy Corbyn leading an exodus from the party.
Membership fell by just under 57,000 people, or 10 per cent, between April and November, according to official figures from its internal elections.
It is the first time that party figures have shown Labour’s membership falling below half a million since 2016, when Mr Corbyn’s leadership prompted a surge of new members."
Given Corbyn led Labour to its worst defeat since 1935 last year we can probably safely say that an increase in Labour membership is inversely correlated to its appeal to swing voters, so that might actually be good news for Starmer
One day hopefully the Tories might find a way to get rid of their own swiveleyed entryists from the BNP/UKIP/Brexit parties and we might see a return to a choice between two parties that are actually serious about competent government.
We've had two gargantuan recessions in the space of not much more than a decade. 2008 and 2020. In both cases both mainstream parties more or less agreed with the policies that led to these, completely free of entryism.
Entryism is thriving because of the regular giant pile-ups so called 'competent government' is creating. As Trump himself said, I am here because you guys messed up so badly.
It says that the Oxford vaccine is '70% effective at preventing Covid symptoms'. NO!!!
It's just so infuriating. We have a potentially incredible vaccine designed and manufactured in the UK and the BBC are completely fucking it up.
I'm really looking forwards to seeing the final data readouts from it and if that 90% figure holds up and what proportion of those who recorded infections were asymptomatic.
I'm particularly reassured that they did weekly testing of the trial participants, which gives me a lot more confidence than with the other vaccines.
I fear that the 70% figure will stick, and the idea that we're being given a substandard vaccine will spread, when it might actually be more effective than the others if you do a like-for-like comparison.
Top of the summary on BBC News website...still...
"A coronavirus vaccine developed by the University of Oxford stops 70% of people from developing symptoms, a large-scale trial shows. Other vaccines showed 95% protection but the Oxford jab is cheaper and easier to store and distribute."
WRONG, WRONG, MFing WRONG on several counts in 2 f##king sentences.
That's actually fake news on the BBC. The trial tested for asymptomatic infection as well and symptomatic. Honestly, this is completely undermining what should be a massive piece of good news in the fight against the virus here and elsewhere in the world.
The thing is as well, it won't get corrected and will get shared via social media like the £42bn on moonshot bollocks....and the thing is because of it being so cheap and easy to store, this will be THE vaccine for places like Africa, and it will be all too easy for anti-vax fake news to be spread using real links to the likes of the BBC.
They seem to want to push the narrative of this being a less good but cheaper vaccine. That's the sense I get from reading their coverage of it. It's incredibly irresponsible and the DG needs to be summoned to Downing Street to explain what they're thinking.
My guess would be is they think are spinning this positively, saying hey its still 70% and dead cheap and loads of it. When in fact they are wrong and as you say spreading a message that it is inferior. There are going to be loads of people turn up and demand the good one from America, that not that shit one.
"Labour has lost members at a rate of nearly 250 a day since Sir Keir Starmer was elected last spring, with supporters of Jeremy Corbyn leading an exodus from the party.
Membership fell by just under 57,000 people, or 10 per cent, between April and November, according to official figures from its internal elections.
It is the first time that party figures have shown Labour’s membership falling below half a million since 2016, when Mr Corbyn’s leadership prompted a surge of new members."
Given Corbyn led Labour to its worst defeat since 1935 last year we can probably safely say that an increase in Labour membership is inversely correlated to its appeal to swing voters, so that might actually be good news for Starmer
One day hopefully the Tories might find a way to get rid of their own swiveleyed entryists from the BNP/UKIP/Brexit parties and we might see a return to a choice between two parties that are actually serious about competent government.
We've had two gargantuan recessions in the space of not much more than a decade. 2008 and 2020. In both cases both mainstream parties more or less agreed with the policies that led to these, completely free of entryism.
Entryism is thriving because of the regular giant pile-ups so called 'competent government' is creating. As Trump himself said, I am here because you guys messed up so badly.
And now he's gone because he messed up so badly. This was a thoroughly winnable election for him, but he committed one unforced error after another this year.
Not to mention that his pro-Wall Street staff and policies are indistinguishable from those that led to the 2008 crash, so I'm not sure how things would have been different under him.
Our economy will shrink ten per cent plus this year and our debt will soar. We will bear the scars for decades.
America are looking at a three per cent contraction.
On topic: They must not give Trump a deal. It is the easy option, but it is wrong. It is not only morally wrong it is strategically wrong for the long term.
Any would be dictator needs to know that if they fail the consequences will be harsh (and that goes for people who knowingly facilitated him/her).
Trump has come perilously close to succeeding.
If you prosecute him, all that will happen is that he will be seen as a martyr and reinforce his support.
It will also guarantee that the Republicans will seek to prosecute Biden on whatever grounds when he finishes being President, especially as Trump didn't seek to prosecute Clinton.
GOP lawyers attempting to 'prosecute' Biden should be a good laugh if the quality of their current shenanigans is anything to go by.
If they take control of the House in 2022 and keep the Senate, expect payback for the impeachment hearings.
Do you think Putin's Russia interferes with foreign elections or not? I think they do, and even if they didn't that Trump winning in 2016 was an optimum result for them. I believe Trump winning again would have been optimum for them, the current imbroglio is second best and a Biden landslide would definitely not have turned Vlad's frown upside down. Whether they expended any resources on making stuff happen is a separate issue.
No doubt he is no focussing his attention on the next Scottish Independence referendum. He just loves you Nats and your divisive agendas! How useful are you feeling?
You'll never get over being on the same side as Nigel Farage, Nick Griffin, George Galloway, Boris Johnson and all the other British Nationalists, will you?
It seems to me that the press have had the temerity to accept what Oxford told them, and add the outrageous spin that 70 is not as big a number as 90. Primary end points are primary end points, guys, and you stick to protocols or what is the point of them. What has happened this morning is that the government has been on the scientists' case and told them to TONE DOWN the science and numeracy in favour of telling people what they want to hear. It is bizarre that this is being championed as a triumph of statistical literacy.
There's a distinction though, the trial was 70% effective across two modes. One had 62% efficacy and one had 90% efficacy. The vaccine that will come to market will be based on the 90% efficacy mode, therefore the vaccine has 90% efficacy. That's why the 90% figure is what should be shouted from the rooftops, more than happy for the 62% to be put out there as well, the 70% figure is actually a statistical phantom because there is no vaccine dosage that will give 70% efficacy.
You really expect British journalists to be able to understand something that nuanced?
It isn't just nuanced, it is plain wrong. Where is anyone getting "The vaccine that will come to market will be based on the 90% efficacy mode" from, when what Pollard said is
"Prof Andrew Pollard, the trial's lead investigator, said he was "really pleased" with the results as "it means we have a vaccine for the world".
However, protection was 90% in an analysis of around 3,000 people given a half-sized first dose and a full-sized second dose.
Prof Pollard said the finding was "intriguing" and would mean "we would have a lot more doses to distribute.""
"intriguing" means "requires further investigation" and "would" means conditionally on the results of investigation.
Wishful thinking is great, but this ooh I know more about science than professional science journalists stuff is less so.
What has actually happened is this: the 62% outcome is the only outcome Oxford can legitimately report *according to the rules of their own trial*. The 90% one is obviously better, but not reportable, but rather than pass over it altogether they tried to fudge it into the stats with the 70% average figure. That may be a nonsense figure, but if so why put it out there at all?
Actually the Prof said they will be submitting the 90% mode to the MHRA. The 90% mode is what the vaccine will be.
In which case he has changed his mind since this morning, which is what I was saying. "Would" means something different from "will."
But the half/full mode is statistically significant and it will be submitted for regulatory approval. I don't understand what point you're trying to make here.
That you are, bluntly, making up the facts while giving it large about how hopelessly unscientific the rest of the world is. "Excitingly, we’ve found that one of our dosing regimens may be around 90% effective and if this dosing regime is used, more people could be vaccinated with planned vaccine supply." Pollard. "The vaccine that will come to market will be based on the 90% efficacy mode." You. Are those saying the same thing or different things?
Yes it may be 90% though there is a confidence interval around that. 🤦🏻♂️
The 90% is what is being submitted to the MHRA for approval.
On topic: They must not give Trump a deal. It is the easy option, but it is wrong. It is not only morally wrong it is strategically wrong for the long term.
Any would be dictator needs to know that if they fail the consequences will be harsh (and that goes for people who knowingly facilitated him/her).
Trump has come perilously close to succeeding.
If you prosecute him, all that will happen is that he will be seen as a martyr and reinforce his support.
It will also guarantee that the Republicans will seek to prosecute Biden on whatever grounds when he finishes being President, especially as Trump didn't seek to prosecute Clinton.
GOP lawyers attempting to 'prosecute' Biden should be a good laugh if the quality of their current shenanigans is anything to go by.
If they take control of the House in 2022 and keep the Senate, expect payback for the impeachment hearings.
On topic: They must not give Trump a deal. It is the easy option, but it is wrong. It is not only morally wrong it is strategically wrong for the long term.
Any would be dictator needs to know that if they fail the consequences will be harsh (and that goes for people who knowingly facilitated him/her).
Trump has come perilously close to succeeding.
If you prosecute him, all that will happen is that he will be seen as a martyr and reinforce his support.
It will also guarantee that the Republicans will seek to prosecute Biden on whatever grounds when he finishes being President, especially as Trump didn't seek to prosecute Clinton.
GOP lawyers attempting to 'prosecute' Biden should be a good laugh if the quality of their current shenanigans is anything to go by.
If they take control of the House in 2022 and keep the Senate, expect payback for the impeachment hearings.
On topic: They must not give Trump a deal. It is the easy option, but it is wrong. It is not only morally wrong it is strategically wrong for the long term.
Any would be dictator needs to know that if they fail the consequences will be harsh (and that goes for people who knowingly facilitated him/her).
Trump has come perilously close to succeeding.
If you prosecute him, all that will happen is that he will be seen as a martyr and reinforce his support.
It will also guarantee that the Republicans will seek to prosecute Biden on whatever grounds when he finishes being President, especially as Trump didn't seek to prosecute Clinton.
GOP lawyers attempting to 'prosecute' Biden should be a good laugh if the quality of their current shenanigans is anything to go by.
If they take control of the House in 2022 and keep the Senate, expect payback for the impeachment hearings.
Do you think Putin's Russia interferes with foreign elections or not? I think they do, and even if they didn't that Trump winning in 2016 was an optimum result for them. I believe Trump winning again would have been optimum for them, the current imbroglio is second best and a Biden landslide would definitely not have turned Vlad's frown upside down. Whether they expended any resources on making stuff happen is a separate issue.
No doubt he is no focussing his attention on the next Scottish Independence referendum. He just loves you Nats and your divisive agendas! How useful are you feeling?
Salmond's plea to Putin "Gi's a job!" And he duly obliged.
That's Scouser, not Scots.
I have my own views on the matter, as fanmously does Ms Sturgeon, but in fairness that was after he had left government and elected office. And also he did not get a job. His firm provided the show to RT to broadcast. Not the same thing.
The world’s top surgical glove maker has had to shut factories due to coronavirus. The Malaysian company, Top Glove, will close over half of its factories after a surge in cases among workers, authorities said Monday.
But there has been a cluster of virus outbreaks among Top Glove employees – many of whom are low-paid migrant workers – at factories in an industrial area near the capital, Kuala Lumpur. More than 1,000 cases were recorded Monday, prompting the government to order the plants to close.
"Labour has lost members at a rate of nearly 250 a day since Sir Keir Starmer was elected last spring, with supporters of Jeremy Corbyn leading an exodus from the party.
Membership fell by just under 57,000 people, or 10 per cent, between April and November, according to official figures from its internal elections.
It is the first time that party figures have shown Labour’s membership falling below half a million since 2016, when Mr Corbyn’s leadership prompted a surge of new members."
Given Corbyn led Labour to its worst defeat since 1935 last year we can probably safely say that an increase in Labour membership is inversely correlated to its appeal to swing voters, so that might actually be good news for Starmer
One day hopefully the Tories might find a way to get rid of their own swiveleyed entryists from the BNP/UKIP/Brexit parties and we might see a return to a choice between two parties that are actually serious about competent government.
We've had two gargantuan recessions in the space of not much more than a decade. 2008 and 2020. In both cases both mainstream parties more or less agreed with the policies that led to these, completely free of entryism.
Entryism is thriving because of the regular giant pile-ups so called 'competent government' is creating. As Trump himself said, I am here because you guys messed up so badly.
And now he's gone because he messed up so badly. This was a thoroughly winnable election for him, but he committed one unforced error after another this year.
Not to mention that his pro-Wall Street staff and policies are indistinguishable from those that led to the 2008 crash, so I'm not sure how things would have been different under him.
Our economy will shrink ten per cent plus this year and our debt will soar. We will bear the scars for decades.
America are looking at a three per cent contraction.
That's not true. America measures its GDP differently to how we do but actually the data available so far appears to indicate the real economic data is quite comparable.
Our debt hasn't soared either. Our QE has soared but we don't pay interest on that. If you want to talk about soaring debt you might want to look at how debt levels have changed in the USA under Trump's whole term.
It seems to me that the press have had the temerity to accept what Oxford told them, and add the outrageous spin that 70 is not as big a number as 90. Primary end points are primary end points, guys, and you stick to protocols or what is the point of them. What has happened this morning is that the government has been on the scientists' case and told them to TONE DOWN the science and numeracy in favour of telling people what they want to hear. It is bizarre that this is being championed as a triumph of statistical literacy.
There's a distinction though, the trial was 70% effective across two modes. One had 62% efficacy and one had 90% efficacy. The vaccine that will come to market will be based on the 90% efficacy mode, therefore the vaccine has 90% efficacy. That's why the 90% figure is what should be shouted from the rooftops, more than happy for the 62% to be put out there as well, the 70% figure is actually a statistical phantom because there is no vaccine dosage that will give 70% efficacy.
You really expect British journalists to be able to understand something that nuanced?
It isn't just nuanced, it is plain wrong. Where is anyone getting "The vaccine that will come to market will be based on the 90% efficacy mode" from, when what Pollard said is
"Prof Andrew Pollard, the trial's lead investigator, said he was "really pleased" with the results as "it means we have a vaccine for the world".
However, protection was 90% in an analysis of around 3,000 people given a half-sized first dose and a full-sized second dose.
Prof Pollard said the finding was "intriguing" and would mean "we would have a lot more doses to distribute.""
"intriguing" means "requires further investigation" and "would" means conditionally on the results of investigation.
Wishful thinking is great, but this ooh I know more about science than professional science journalists stuff is less so.
What has actually happened is this: the 62% outcome is the only outcome Oxford can legitimately report *according to the rules of their own trial*. The 90% one is obviously better, but not reportable, but rather than pass over it altogether they tried to fudge it into the stats with the 70% average figure. That may be a nonsense figure, but if so why put it out there at all?
Actually the Prof said they will be submitting the 90% mode to the MHRA. The 90% mode is what the vaccine will be.
In which case he has changed his mind since this morning, which is what I was saying. "Would" means something different from "will."
But the half/full mode is statistically significant and it will be submitted for regulatory approval. I don't understand what point you're trying to make here.
That you are, bluntly, making up the facts while giving it large about how hopelessly unscientific the rest of the world is. "Excitingly, we’ve found that one of our dosing regimens may be around 90% effective and if this dosing regime is used, more people could be vaccinated with planned vaccine supply." Pollard. "The vaccine that will come to market will be based on the 90% efficacy mode." You. Are those saying the same thing or different things?
That's because of the CI, even the 62% mode has a CI.
The ~90% mode is being submitted for regulatory approval, any vaccine product that comes to market will be based on it. Again, I don't understand what point you're trying to make here. Prof Pollard literally said this morning that the half/full dose mode is what will be taken to the MHRA, the AZ vaccine product that gets approval will be a half dose then a full dose four weeks later which has been shown to have ~90% efficacy.
On topic: They must not give Trump a deal. It is the easy option, but it is wrong. It is not only morally wrong it is strategically wrong for the long term.
Any would be dictator needs to know that if they fail the consequences will be harsh (and that goes for people who knowingly facilitated him/her).
Trump has come perilously close to succeeding.
If you prosecute him, all that will happen is that he will be seen as a martyr and reinforce his support.
It will also guarantee that the Republicans will seek to prosecute Biden on whatever grounds when he finishes being President, especially as Trump didn't seek to prosecute Clinton.
GOP lawyers attempting to 'prosecute' Biden should be a good laugh if the quality of their current shenanigans is anything to go by.
If they take control of the House in 2022 and keep the Senate, expect payback for the impeachment hearings.
Do you think Putin's Russia interferes with foreign elections or not? I think they do, and even if they didn't that Trump winning in 2016 was an optimum result for them. I believe Trump winning again would have been optimum for them, the current imbroglio is second best and a Biden landslide would definitely not have turned Vlad's frown upside down. Whether they expended any resources on making stuff happen is a separate issue.
You find it difficult to believe Russia doesn;t interfere with foreign elections, even though there isn;t much evidence.
I find it difficult to believe a total no-mark candidate got ten million more votes than the brilliant and charismatic first black president of America, even though right now there isn;t much evidence.
Your double negatives and misuse of semi colons is making your stuff even more unreadable than usual. The idea of you thinking Obama is brillant and charismatic is a good laff tho'.
I am a busy person, sorry. I save my best grammar for those who pay me.
Some mind blowing false equivalence from @MrEd here today. The long and the short of it is there is no senate supermajority to impeach Biden with. The same as for Trump. Half of the USA believes the GOP are bad faith actors anyway, so there's absolutely no reason for anyone to hold back on anything Trump related based off of some vague notion of the GOP striking back somehow, they'd do it anyway. Trump is currently losing support within the GOP too - it's already a senate majority that believes Biden is rightfully president elect. The situation with GOP governors is even worse for Trump than that.
On topic: They must not give Trump a deal. It is the easy option, but it is wrong. It is not only morally wrong it is strategically wrong for the long term.
Any would be dictator needs to know that if they fail the consequences will be harsh (and that goes for people who knowingly facilitated him/her).
Trump has come perilously close to succeeding.
If you prosecute him, all that will happen is that he will be seen as a martyr and reinforce his support.
It will also guarantee that the Republicans will seek to prosecute Biden on whatever grounds when he finishes being President, especially as Trump didn't seek to prosecute Clinton.
GOP lawyers attempting to 'prosecute' Biden should be a good laugh if the quality of their current shenanigans is anything to go by.
If they take control of the House in 2022 and keep the Senate, expect payback for the impeachment hearings.
On topic: They must not give Trump a deal. It is the easy option, but it is wrong. It is not only morally wrong it is strategically wrong for the long term.
Any would be dictator needs to know that if they fail the consequences will be harsh (and that goes for people who knowingly facilitated him/her).
Trump has come perilously close to succeeding.
If you prosecute him, all that will happen is that he will be seen as a martyr and reinforce his support.
It will also guarantee that the Republicans will seek to prosecute Biden on whatever grounds when he finishes being President, especially as Trump didn't seek to prosecute Clinton.
GOP lawyers attempting to 'prosecute' Biden should be a good laugh if the quality of their current shenanigans is anything to go by.
If they take control of the House in 2022 and keep the Senate, expect payback for the impeachment hearings.
On topic: They must not give Trump a deal. It is the easy option, but it is wrong. It is not only morally wrong it is strategically wrong for the long term.
Any would be dictator needs to know that if they fail the consequences will be harsh (and that goes for people who knowingly facilitated him/her).
Trump has come perilously close to succeeding.
If you prosecute him, all that will happen is that he will be seen as a martyr and reinforce his support.
It will also guarantee that the Republicans will seek to prosecute Biden on whatever grounds when he finishes being President, especially as Trump didn't seek to prosecute Clinton.
GOP lawyers attempting to 'prosecute' Biden should be a good laugh if the quality of their current shenanigans is anything to go by.
If they take control of the House in 2022 and keep the Senate, expect payback for the impeachment hearings.
Do you think Putin's Russia interferes with foreign elections or not? I think they do, and even if they didn't that Trump winning in 2016 was an optimum result for them. I believe Trump winning again would have been optimum for them, the current imbroglio is second best and a Biden landslide would definitely not have turned Vlad's frown upside down. Whether they expended any resources on making stuff happen is a separate issue.
No doubt he is no focussing his attention on the next Scottish Independence referendum. He just loves you Nats and your divisive agendas! How useful are you feeling?
You'll never get over being on the same side as Nigel Farage, Nick Griffin, George Galloway, Boris Johnson and all the other British Nationalists, will you?
Did you see the latest news about HM the Q in 2014? Apparently the D of Y let the cat out of the bag rather.
"Labour has lost members at a rate of nearly 250 a day since Sir Keir Starmer was elected last spring, with supporters of Jeremy Corbyn leading an exodus from the party.
Membership fell by just under 57,000 people, or 10 per cent, between April and November, according to official figures from its internal elections.
It is the first time that party figures have shown Labour’s membership falling below half a million since 2016, when Mr Corbyn’s leadership prompted a surge of new members."
Given Corbyn led Labour to its worst defeat since 1935 last year we can probably safely say that an increase in Labour membership is inversely correlated to its appeal to swing voters, so that might actually be good news for Starmer
One day hopefully the Tories might find a way to get rid of their own swiveleyed entryists from the BNP/UKIP/Brexit parties and we might see a return to a choice between two parties that are actually serious about competent government.
We've had two gargantuan recessions in the space of not much more than a decade. 2008 and 2020. In both cases both mainstream parties more or less agreed with the policies that led to these, completely free of entryism.
Entryism is thriving because of the regular giant pile-ups so called 'competent government' is creating. As Trump himself said, I am here because you guys messed up so badly.
And now he's gone because he messed up so badly. This was a thoroughly winnable election for him, but he committed one unforced error after another this year.
Not to mention that his pro-Wall Street staff and policies are indistinguishable from those that led to the 2008 crash, so I'm not sure how things would have been different under him.
Our economy will shrink ten per cent plus this year and our debt will soar. We will bear the scars for decades.
America are looking at a three per cent contraction.
Trump has added $3.1 trillion to the US national debt since he took office, so soaring debt doesn't seem to be a concern of his. Let's see what happens once the vaccines are deployed and normal economic activity resumes before we write the UK economy off forever.
On topic: They must not give Trump a deal. It is the easy option, but it is wrong. It is not only morally wrong it is strategically wrong for the long term.
Any would be dictator needs to know that if they fail the consequences will be harsh (and that goes for people who knowingly facilitated him/her).
Trump has come perilously close to succeeding.
If you prosecute him, all that will happen is that he will be seen as a martyr and reinforce his support.
It will also guarantee that the Republicans will seek to prosecute Biden on whatever grounds when he finishes being President, especially as Trump didn't seek to prosecute Clinton.
GOP lawyers attempting to 'prosecute' Biden should be a good laugh if the quality of their current shenanigans is anything to go by.
If they take control of the House in 2022 and keep the Senate, expect payback for the impeachment hearings.
Do you think Putin's Russia interferes with foreign elections or not? I think they do, and even if they didn't that Trump winning in 2016 was an optimum result for them. I believe Trump winning again would have been optimum for them, the current imbroglio is second best and a Biden landslide would definitely not have turned Vlad's frown upside down. Whether they expended any resources on making stuff happen is a separate issue.
No doubt he is no focussing his attention on the next Scottish Independence referendum. He just loves you Nats and your divisive agendas! How useful are you feeling?
You'll never get over being on the same side as Nigel Farage, Nick Griffin, George Galloway, Boris Johnson and all the other British Nationalists, will you?
He's a nasty intolerant closed minded bigot. Just ignore him.
There was horrible shop tv footage shown on bbc last week of a woman who pulled all the wine off shelves in a coop after being asked to use the one way system. Bury I think it was. Said she got off with a caution.
Is "despite being 70%" going to be the new "because of / despite Brexit"....
At this rate we'll have a good chunk of population immunised using the half/full measure technique, and the BBC will be reporting "the population is 70% immune".
"Labour has lost members at a rate of nearly 250 a day since Sir Keir Starmer was elected last spring, with supporters of Jeremy Corbyn leading an exodus from the party.
Membership fell by just under 57,000 people, or 10 per cent, between April and November, according to official figures from its internal elections.
It is the first time that party figures have shown Labour’s membership falling below half a million since 2016, when Mr Corbyn’s leadership prompted a surge of new members."
Given Corbyn led Labour to its worst defeat since 1935 last year we can probably safely say that an increase in Labour membership is inversely correlated to its appeal to swing voters, so that might actually be good news for Starmer
One day hopefully the Tories might find a way to get rid of their own swiveleyed entryists from the BNP/UKIP/Brexit parties and we might see a return to a choice between two parties that are actually serious about competent government.
We've had two gargantuan recessions in the space of not much more than a decade. 2008 and 2020. In both cases both mainstream parties more or less agreed with the policies that led to these, completely free of entryism.
Entryism is thriving because of the regular giant pile-ups so called 'competent government' is creating. As Trump himself said, I am here because you guys messed up so badly.
And now he's gone because he messed up so badly. This was a thoroughly winnable election for him, but he committed one unforced error after another this year.
Not to mention that his pro-Wall Street staff and policies are indistinguishable from those that led to the 2008 crash, so I'm not sure how things would have been different under him.
Our economy will shrink ten per cent plus this year and our debt will soar. We will bear the scars for decades.
America are looking at a three per cent contraction.
That's not true. America measures its GDP differently to how we do but actually the data available so far appears to indicate the real economic data is quite comparable.
Our debt hasn't soared either. Our QE has soared but we don't pay interest on that. If you want to talk about soaring debt you might want to look at how debt levels have changed in the USA under Trump's whole term.
I'm with Heneghan. The epidemic ended in June and what we have seen since is nothing more than a giant exercise to vindicate the government's policies and those of its utterly discredited sage team.
An exercise that has seen massive and unnecessary damage to our economy.
Of course there was always a big economic hit. But its far, far larger than it needed to be.
"Labour has lost members at a rate of nearly 250 a day since Sir Keir Starmer was elected last spring, with supporters of Jeremy Corbyn leading an exodus from the party.
Membership fell by just under 57,000 people, or 10 per cent, between April and November, according to official figures from its internal elections.
It is the first time that party figures have shown Labour’s membership falling below half a million since 2016, when Mr Corbyn’s leadership prompted a surge of new members."
Given Corbyn led Labour to its worst defeat since 1935 last year we can probably safely say that an increase in Labour membership is inversely correlated to its appeal to swing voters, so that might actually be good news for Starmer
One day hopefully the Tories might find a way to get rid of their own swiveleyed entryists from the BNP/UKIP/Brexit parties and we might see a return to a choice between two parties that are actually serious about competent government.
We've had two gargantuan recessions in the space of not much more than a decade. 2008 and 2020. In both cases both mainstream parties more or less agreed with the policies that led to these, completely free of entryism.
Entryism is thriving because of the regular giant pile-ups so called 'competent government' is creating. As Trump himself said, I am here because you guys messed up so badly.
And now he's gone because he messed up so badly. This was a thoroughly winnable election for him, but he committed one unforced error after another this year.
Not to mention that his pro-Wall Street staff and policies are indistinguishable from those that led to the 2008 crash, so I'm not sure how things would have been different under him.
Our economy will shrink ten per cent plus this year and our debt will soar. We will bear the scars for decades.
America are looking at a three per cent contraction.
That's not true. America measures its GDP differently to how we do but actually the data available so far appears to indicate the real economic data is quite comparable.
Our debt hasn't soared either. Our QE has soared but we don't pay interest on that. If you want to talk about soaring debt you might want to look at how debt levels have changed in the USA under Trump's whole term.
I'm with Heneghan. The epidemic ended in June and what we have seen since is nothing more than a giant exercise to vindicate the government's policies and those of its utterly discredited sage team.
An exercise that has seen massive and unnecessary damage to our economy.
Of course there was always a big economic hit. But its far, far larger than it needed to be.
On topic: They must not give Trump a deal. It is the easy option, but it is wrong. It is not only morally wrong it is strategically wrong for the long term.
Any would be dictator needs to know that if they fail the consequences will be harsh (and that goes for people who knowingly facilitated him/her).
Trump has come perilously close to succeeding.
If you prosecute him, all that will happen is that he will be seen as a martyr and reinforce his support.
It will also guarantee that the Republicans will seek to prosecute Biden on whatever grounds when he finishes being President, especially as Trump didn't seek to prosecute Clinton.
GOP lawyers attempting to 'prosecute' Biden should be a good laugh if the quality of their current shenanigans is anything to go by.
If they take control of the House in 2022 and keep the Senate, expect payback for the impeachment hearings.
Do you think Putin's Russia interferes with foreign elections or not? I think they do, and even if they didn't that Trump winning in 2016 was an optimum result for them. I believe Trump winning again would have been optimum for them, the current imbroglio is second best and a Biden landslide would definitely not have turned Vlad's frown upside down. Whether they expended any resources on making stuff happen is a separate issue.
No doubt he is no focussing his attention on the next Scottish Independence referendum. He just loves you Nats and your divisive agendas! How useful are you feeling?
You'll never get over being on the same side as Nigel Farage, Nick Griffin, George Galloway, Boris Johnson and all the other British Nationalists, will you?
Did you see the latest news about HM the Q in 2014? Apparently the D of Y let the cat out of the bag rather.
Is that the interview with Lionel Barber? If what he said is true HMQ goes very much down in my estimation, the rest are of course still mediocre no marks, or worse in Andrew's case.
Lots of talk about the UK foreign aid budget recently. I'd suggest using the 2021 aid budget to offer the UK vaccine free to any country in the world who wants it instead of how it is normally distributed. Would be fantastic PR for the UK and probably make a bigger difference than normal foreign aid spend.
On topic: They must not give Trump a deal. It is the easy option, but it is wrong. It is not only morally wrong it is strategically wrong for the long term.
Any would be dictator needs to know that if they fail the consequences will be harsh (and that goes for people who knowingly facilitated him/her).
Trump has come perilously close to succeeding.
If you prosecute him, all that will happen is that he will be seen as a martyr and reinforce his support.
It will also guarantee that the Republicans will seek to prosecute Biden on whatever grounds when he finishes being President, especially as Trump didn't seek to prosecute Clinton.
GOP lawyers attempting to 'prosecute' Biden should be a good laugh if the quality of their current shenanigans is anything to go by.
If they take control of the House in 2022 and keep the Senate, expect payback for the impeachment hearings.
On topic: They must not give Trump a deal. It is the easy option, but it is wrong. It is not only morally wrong it is strategically wrong for the long term.
Any would be dictator needs to know that if they fail the consequences will be harsh (and that goes for people who knowingly facilitated him/her).
Trump has come perilously close to succeeding.
If you prosecute him, all that will happen is that he will be seen as a martyr and reinforce his support.
It will also guarantee that the Republicans will seek to prosecute Biden on whatever grounds when he finishes being President, especially as Trump didn't seek to prosecute Clinton.
GOP lawyers attempting to 'prosecute' Biden should be a good laugh if the quality of their current shenanigans is anything to go by.
If they take control of the House in 2022 and keep the Senate, expect payback for the impeachment hearings.
Lots of talk about the UK foreign aid budget recently. I'd suggest using the 2021 aid budget to offer the UK vaccine free to any country in the world who wants it instead of how it is normally distributed. Would be fantastic PR for the UK and probably make a bigger difference than normal foreign aid spend.
Good idea, but the cynic in me thinks BJ wants a cheap win with the 'giving money to furriners is bad' brigade.
Some mind blowing false equivalence from @MrEd here today. The long and the short of it is there is no senate supermajority to impeach Biden with. The same as for Trump. Half of the USA believes the GOP are bad faith actors anyway, so there's absolutely no reason for anyone to hold back on anything Trump related based off of some vague notion of the GOP striking back somehow, they'd do it anyway. Trump is currently losing support within the GOP too - it's already a senate majority that believes Biden is rightfully president elect. The situation with GOP governors is even worse for Trump than that.
I've heard a few people say a majority of the Senate recognises Biden as President Elect, I heard someone else mention 5 GOP Senators doing so, but the only one I've explicitly heard confirm it is Romney. Has anyone else who is a GOP Senator explicitly recognised Biden as POTUS elect?
"Labour has lost members at a rate of nearly 250 a day since Sir Keir Starmer was elected last spring, with supporters of Jeremy Corbyn leading an exodus from the party.
Membership fell by just under 57,000 people, or 10 per cent, between April and November, according to official figures from its internal elections.
It is the first time that party figures have shown Labour’s membership falling below half a million since 2016, when Mr Corbyn’s leadership prompted a surge of new members."
Given Corbyn led Labour to its worst defeat since 1935 last year we can probably safely say that an increase in Labour membership is inversely correlated to its appeal to swing voters, so that might actually be good news for Starmer
One day hopefully the Tories might find a way to get rid of their own swiveleyed entryists from the BNP/UKIP/Brexit parties and we might see a return to a choice between two parties that are actually serious about competent government.
We've had two gargantuan recessions in the space of not much more than a decade. 2008 and 2020. In both cases both mainstream parties more or less agreed with the policies that led to these, completely free of entryism.
Entryism is thriving because of the regular giant pile-ups so called 'competent government' is creating. As Trump himself said, I am here because you guys messed up so badly.
And now he's gone because he messed up so badly. This was a thoroughly winnable election for him, but he committed one unforced error after another this year.
Not to mention that his pro-Wall Street staff and policies are indistinguishable from those that led to the 2008 crash, so I'm not sure how things would have been different under him.
Our economy will shrink ten per cent plus this year and our debt will soar. We will bear the scars for decades.
America are looking at a three per cent contraction.
That's not true. America measures its GDP differently to how we do but actually the data available so far appears to indicate the real economic data is quite comparable.
Our debt hasn't soared either. Our QE has soared but we don't pay interest on that. If you want to talk about soaring debt you might want to look at how debt levels have changed in the USA under Trump's whole term.
I'm with Heneghan. The epidemic ended in June and what we have seen since is nothing more than a giant exercise to vindicate the government's policies and those of its utterly discredited sage team.
An exercise that has seen massive and unnecessary damage to our economy.
Of course there was always a big economic hit. But its far, far larger than it needed to be.
The state of this take...
Better tell all those slackers in ICU. "Take up your bed and walk. And get back to work!"
"Labour has lost members at a rate of nearly 250 a day since Sir Keir Starmer was elected last spring, with supporters of Jeremy Corbyn leading an exodus from the party.
Membership fell by just under 57,000 people, or 10 per cent, between April and November, according to official figures from its internal elections.
It is the first time that party figures have shown Labour’s membership falling below half a million since 2016, when Mr Corbyn’s leadership prompted a surge of new members."
Given Corbyn led Labour to its worst defeat since 1935 last year we can probably safely say that an increase in Labour membership is inversely correlated to its appeal to swing voters, so that might actually be good news for Starmer
One day hopefully the Tories might find a way to get rid of their own swiveleyed entryists from the BNP/UKIP/Brexit parties and we might see a return to a choice between two parties that are actually serious about competent government.
We've had two gargantuan recessions in the space of not much more than a decade. 2008 and 2020. In both cases both mainstream parties more or less agreed with the policies that led to these, completely free of entryism.
Entryism is thriving because of the regular giant pile-ups so called 'competent government' is creating. As Trump himself said, I am here because you guys messed up so badly.
And now he's gone because he messed up so badly. This was a thoroughly winnable election for him, but he committed one unforced error after another this year.
Not to mention that his pro-Wall Street staff and policies are indistinguishable from those that led to the 2008 crash, so I'm not sure how things would have been different under him.
Our economy will shrink ten per cent plus this year and our debt will soar. We will bear the scars for decades.
America are looking at a three per cent contraction.
That's not true. America measures its GDP differently to how we do but actually the data available so far appears to indicate the real economic data is quite comparable.
Our debt hasn't soared either. Our QE has soared but we don't pay interest on that. If you want to talk about soaring debt you might want to look at how debt levels have changed in the USA under Trump's whole term.
I'm with Heneghan. The epidemic ended in June and what we have seen since is nothing more than a giant exercise to vindicate the government's policies and those of its utterly discredited sage team.
An exercise that has seen massive and unnecessary damage to our economy.
Of course there was always a big economic hit. But its far, far larger than it needed to be.
Out of curiosity, what do you think killed the 15,000-odd people who have died since the start of July within 28 days of a positive result?
Lots of talk about the UK foreign aid budget recently. I'd suggest using the 2021 aid budget to offer the UK vaccine free to any country in the world who wants it instead of how it is normally distributed. Would be fantastic PR for the UK and probably make a bigger difference than normal foreign aid spend.
Yeah, and given how cheap it is it probably wouldn't take up a huge fraction of the budget.
"Labour has lost members at a rate of nearly 250 a day since Sir Keir Starmer was elected last spring, with supporters of Jeremy Corbyn leading an exodus from the party.
Membership fell by just under 57,000 people, or 10 per cent, between April and November, according to official figures from its internal elections.
It is the first time that party figures have shown Labour’s membership falling below half a million since 2016, when Mr Corbyn’s leadership prompted a surge of new members."
Given Corbyn led Labour to its worst defeat since 1935 last year we can probably safely say that an increase in Labour membership is inversely correlated to its appeal to swing voters, so that might actually be good news for Starmer
One day hopefully the Tories might find a way to get rid of their own swiveleyed entryists from the BNP/UKIP/Brexit parties and we might see a return to a choice between two parties that are actually serious about competent government.
We've had two gargantuan recessions in the space of not much more than a decade. 2008 and 2020. In both cases both mainstream parties more or less agreed with the policies that led to these, completely free of entryism.
Entryism is thriving because of the regular giant pile-ups so called 'competent government' is creating. As Trump himself said, I am here because you guys messed up so badly.
And now he's gone because he messed up so badly. This was a thoroughly winnable election for him, but he committed one unforced error after another this year.
Not to mention that his pro-Wall Street staff and policies are indistinguishable from those that led to the 2008 crash, so I'm not sure how things would have been different under him.
Our economy will shrink ten per cent plus this year and our debt will soar. We will bear the scars for decades.
America are looking at a three per cent contraction.
That's not true. America measures its GDP differently to how we do but actually the data available so far appears to indicate the real economic data is quite comparable.
Our debt hasn't soared either. Our QE has soared but we don't pay interest on that. If you want to talk about soaring debt you might want to look at how debt levels have changed in the USA under Trump's whole term.
I'm with Heneghan. The epidemic ended in June and what we have seen since is nothing more than a giant exercise to vindicate the government's policies and those of its utterly discredited sage team.
An exercise that has seen massive and unnecessary damage to our economy.
Of course there was always a big economic hit. But its far, far larger than it needed to be.
Ok, so the UK government, SAGE, and hundreds of governments around the world were all in a conspiracy to tank their own economies just so that the public wouldn't find out that the pandemic had in fact ended.
Said pandemic ended in June, so all the people who have been infected, hospitalized, and who died since never actually existed.
And if we hadn't taken any public health measures at all, the economy would have been just fine because everyone would have willingly exposed themselves to the virus and lived life exactly as normal.
This is just reality denial, and honestly it drives me round the bend. If we succumb to this kind of fantasy thinking, it makes politics virtually pointless and the making of public policy almost impossible.
Some mind blowing false equivalence from @MrEd here today. The long and the short of it is there is no senate supermajority to impeach Biden with. The same as for Trump. Half of the USA believes the GOP are bad faith actors anyway, so there's absolutely no reason for anyone to hold back on anything Trump related based off of some vague notion of the GOP striking back somehow, they'd do it anyway. Trump is currently losing support within the GOP too - it's already a senate majority that believes Biden is rightfully president elect. The situation with GOP governors is even worse for Trump than that.
I've heard a few people say a majority of the Senate recognises Biden as President Elect, I heard someone else mention 5 GOP Senators doing so, but the only one I've explicitly heard confirm it is Romney. Has anyone else who is a GOP Senator explicitly recognised Biden as POTUS elect?
Lots of talk about the UK foreign aid budget recently. I'd suggest using the 2021 aid budget to offer the UK vaccine free to any country in the world who wants it instead of how it is normally distributed. Would be fantastic PR for the UK and probably make a bigger difference than normal foreign aid spend.
Yeah, and given how cheap it is it probably wouldn't take up a huge fraction of the budget.
If the whole world took it, it pretty much matches the budget.
Oxford just held a press briefing where Prof Pollard said he’s happy that the 90% sub sample is large and robust enough to take to the regulators. That’s good news and allays some of the confusion earlier about hints of this and that.
Sub samples, on PB??
*Statistically significant* sub samples.
It's not just a subsample though, but a cherry-picked subsample. Hopefully they are adjusting the significance thresholds accordingly.
I don't understand why you say it's "cherry picked".
They used two different regimens, and have reported separate results for each. What would have been the point of using two different regimens, if they weren't planning to analyse them separately? If it had been an _unplanned_ analysis, you could obviously describe it as "cherry picked". But if they weren't planning to analyse the results of this regimen, why would they have used it?
It's cherry-picked because we're picking the 90% subsample over the 62% one, without knowing why they should be different. The statistical analysis has to account for the possibility that the 90% subsample is only better by luck. (No I don't know how to do it.)
As an analogy, let's say you do a hundred coin tosses, 50 before sunset and 50 after. Before sunset you happen to get 30 heads and 20 tails, and the other way round after, so 50/50 overall. You might conclude that you can increase your chances to get heads to 60% by tossing your coin before sunset, but that's obviously nonsense.
I'm afraid that still makes no sense to me. There are two regimens, and results have been given for both of them. It's possible the difference is owing to chance, but it doesn't look very likely to me, because there's a relatively small overlap between the confidence intervals.
Certainly you can't say "the vaccine has 90%" efficacy, any more than you can say it has 62% efficacy. But you can say that about the two regimens separately - though as I already said, they should give confidence intervals to reflect the statistical uncertainty.
Okay, let me try a slightly different tack.
Two coins, hundred throws each. For each one, the expected heads is 50. But due to random variation, when doing hundred throws each and then picking out the one with more heads, the expected value actually is a bit higher. Not sure about the exact number, but maybe 55.
In other words, by running two experiments in parallel and picking out the better one, you introduce a bit of bias compared to just running one.
I'm not saying that's an invalid thing to do. I am saying it needs to be taken into account in the statistical analysis of the picked-out subsample.
Some mind blowing false equivalence from @MrEd here today. The long and the short of it is there is no senate supermajority to impeach Biden with. The same as for Trump. Half of the USA believes the GOP are bad faith actors anyway, so there's absolutely no reason for anyone to hold back on anything Trump related based off of some vague notion of the GOP striking back somehow, they'd do it anyway. Trump is currently losing support within the GOP too - it's already a senate majority that believes Biden is rightfully president elect. The situation with GOP governors is even worse for Trump than that.
I've heard a few people say a majority of the Senate recognises Biden as President Elect, I heard someone else mention 5 GOP Senators doing so, but the only one I've explicitly heard confirm it is Romney. Has anyone else who is a GOP Senator explicitly recognised Biden as POTUS elect?
Henry VIII should never have privatised the monasteries.
He argues academics are the new clergy, tech executives the new nobility and almost everyone else back to being the third estate
And none too convincingly.
Academics are certainly anything but celibate. In fact in my experience the problem is too many of them don't know to keep their hands off their students.
Not that I would go bail for medieval clerics either...
"Labour has lost members at a rate of nearly 250 a day since Sir Keir Starmer was elected last spring, with supporters of Jeremy Corbyn leading an exodus from the party.
Membership fell by just under 57,000 people, or 10 per cent, between April and November, according to official figures from its internal elections.
It is the first time that party figures have shown Labour’s membership falling below half a million since 2016, when Mr Corbyn’s leadership prompted a surge of new members."
On topic: They must not give Trump a deal. It is the easy option, but it is wrong. It is not only morally wrong it is strategically wrong for the long term.
Any would be dictator needs to know that if they fail the consequences will be harsh (and that goes for people who knowingly facilitated him/her).
Trump has come perilously close to succeeding.
If you prosecute him, all that will happen is that he will be seen as a martyr and reinforce his support.
It will also guarantee that the Republicans will seek to prosecute Biden on whatever grounds when he finishes being President, especially as Trump didn't seek to prosecute Clinton.
GOP lawyers attempting to 'prosecute' Biden should be a good laugh if the quality of their current shenanigans is anything to go by.
If they take control of the House in 2022 and keep the Senate, expect payback for the impeachment hearings.
Do you think Putin's Russia interferes with foreign elections or not? I think they do, and even if they didn't that Trump winning in 2016 was an optimum result for them. I believe Trump winning again would have been optimum for them, the current imbroglio is second best and a Biden landslide would definitely not have turned Vlad's frown upside down. Whether they expended any resources on making stuff happen is a separate issue.
No doubt he is no focussing his attention on the next Scottish Independence referendum. He just loves you Nats and your divisive agendas! How useful are you feeling?
Salmond's plea to Putin "Gi's a job!" And he duly obliged.
That's Scouser, not Scots.
I have my own views on the matter, as fanmously does Ms Sturgeon, but in fairness that was after he had left government and elected office. And also he did not get a job. His firm provided the show to RT to broadcast. Not the same thing.
Gi' us a wee jobbie? Or does that mean something different?
It seems to me that the press have had the temerity to accept what Oxford told them, and add the outrageous spin that 70 is not as big a number as 90. Primary end points are primary end points, guys, and you stick to protocols or what is the point of them. What has happened this morning is that the government has been on the scientists' case and told them to TONE DOWN the science and numeracy in favour of telling people what they want to hear. It is bizarre that this is being championed as a triumph of statistical literacy.
There's a distinction though, the trial was 70% effective across two modes. One had 62% efficacy and one had 90% efficacy. The vaccine that will come to market will be based on the 90% efficacy mode, therefore the vaccine has 90% efficacy. That's why the 90% figure is what should be shouted from the rooftops, more than happy for the 62% to be put out there as well, the 70% figure is actually a statistical phantom because there is no vaccine dosage that will give 70% efficacy.
You really expect British journalists to be able to understand something that nuanced?
It isn't just nuanced, it is plain wrong. Where is anyone getting "The vaccine that will come to market will be based on the 90% efficacy mode" from, when what Pollard said is
"Prof Andrew Pollard, the trial's lead investigator, said he was "really pleased" with the results as "it means we have a vaccine for the world".
However, protection was 90% in an analysis of around 3,000 people given a half-sized first dose and a full-sized second dose.
Prof Pollard said the finding was "intriguing" and would mean "we would have a lot more doses to distribute.""
"intriguing" means "requires further investigation" and "would" means conditionally on the results of investigation.
Wishful thinking is great, but this ooh I know more about science than professional science journalists stuff is less so.
What has actually happened is this: the 62% outcome is the only outcome Oxford can legitimately report *according to the rules of their own trial*. The 90% one is obviously better, but not reportable, but rather than pass over it altogether they tried to fudge it into the stats with the 70% average figure. That may be a nonsense figure, but if so why put it out there at all?
Actually the Prof said they will be submitting the 90% mode to the MHRA. The 90% mode is what the vaccine will be.
In which case he has changed his mind since this morning, which is what I was saying. "Would" means something different from "will."
But the half/full mode is statistically significant and it will be submitted for regulatory approval. I don't understand what point you're trying to make here.
That you are, bluntly, making up the facts while giving it large about how hopelessly unscientific the rest of the world is. "Excitingly, we’ve found that one of our dosing regimens may be around 90% effective and if this dosing regime is used, more people could be vaccinated with planned vaccine supply." Pollard. "The vaccine that will come to market will be based on the 90% efficacy mode." You. Are those saying the same thing or different things?
Given that they are submitting the 1.5 dose regimen for approval it seems as though they are the same thing.
What is your source for that? My understanding is that all the data from the whole trial get submitted, not just one "regimen." Are you saying that approval for the 62% version is not being sought?
The BBC article on it is absolutely terrible, this in particular is factually incorrect:
"Are the results disappointing? After Pfizer and Moderna both produced vaccines delivering 95% protection from Covid-19, a figure of 70% is still highly effective, but will be seen by some as relatively disappointing.
But this is still a vaccine that can save lives from Covid-19 and is more effective than a seasonal flu jab."
It's not 70%, its 62% and 90% for the two dosage variations and as we've discussed here the 90% variation includes testing for asymptomatic cases where neither of the other two trials did that.
But to be fair to the BBC, this is what Astrazeneca's own press release says, so it's not unreasonable to cite the average efficacy. It's not 'fake news' as you previously said.
One dosing regimen (n=2,741) showed vaccine efficacy of 90% when AZD1222 was given as a half dose, followed by a full dose at least one month apart, and another dosing regimen (n=8,895) showed 62% efficacy when given as two full doses at least one month apart. The combined analysis from both dosing regimens (n=11,636) resulted in an average efficacy of 70%.
It's fake news because we're not going to have the full/full dose available. The half/full dose method will be used and it's 90% effective. AZ are registering full trial results scientifically, that's what they have to do. It's up to the media to provide proper context and the Guardian, Sky, the Mail and others all got it right this morning with the numbers and yet the BBC used hugely irresponsible wording in their headline.
This vaccine prevents 90% of symptomatic and asymptomatic COVID, the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines prevent 95% of symptomatic COVID. Those are the facts.
I think you do need to give a confidence interval rather than just the observed efficacy. The confidence interval is a lot wider for the 90% group than for Pfizer or Moderna.
But it's wider still for the 62% group, because the observed efficacy was so much lower, despite the larger number of participants.
It would be interesting to see what the CI is for each of those dosages trialled, but yes I agree. We don't have the full data to calculate them yet and I'm very interested to see what they are.
I am only a mathematician, not a statistician, so don't take this as gospel, but the figures I get (assuming the splits were 3-30 and 27-71) are: Half-full: expected efficacy: 87%, confidence interval (95%): 69-97% Full-full: expected efficacy: 61%, confidence interval (95%): 41-76%
On those figures the choice of regimen looks like a "no-brainer".
No, no, I want more. Full-full has more so its got to better. I will not be cheated with half doses. Do they not have enough? etc etc.
"Labour has lost members at a rate of nearly 250 a day since Sir Keir Starmer was elected last spring, with supporters of Jeremy Corbyn leading an exodus from the party.
Membership fell by just under 57,000 people, or 10 per cent, between April and November, according to official figures from its internal elections.
It is the first time that party figures have shown Labour’s membership falling below half a million since 2016, when Mr Corbyn’s leadership prompted a surge of new members."
Given Corbyn led Labour to its worst defeat since 1935 last year we can probably safely say that an increase in Labour membership is inversely correlated to its appeal to swing voters, so that might actually be good news for Starmer
One day hopefully the Tories might find a way to get rid of their own swiveleyed entryists from the BNP/UKIP/Brexit parties and we might see a return to a choice between two parties that are actually serious about competent government.
We've had two gargantuan recessions in the space of not much more than a decade. 2008 and 2020. In both cases both mainstream parties more or less agreed with the policies that led to these, completely free of entryism.
Entryism is thriving because of the regular giant pile-ups so called 'competent government' is creating. As Trump himself said, I am here because you guys messed up so badly.
Lots of talk about the UK foreign aid budget recently. I'd suggest using the 2021 aid budget to offer the UK vaccine free to any country in the world who wants it instead of how it is normally distributed. Would be fantastic PR for the UK and probably make a bigger difference than normal foreign aid spend.
Yeah, and given how cheap it is it probably wouldn't take up a huge fraction of the budget.
They can have it if they give us a trade deal..
Seriously though, it would be the best use of any aid budget we have.
On topic: They must not give Trump a deal. It is the easy option, but it is wrong. It is not only morally wrong it is strategically wrong for the long term.
Any would be dictator needs to know that if they fail the consequences will be harsh (and that goes for people who knowingly facilitated him/her).
Trump has come perilously close to succeeding.
If you prosecute him, all that will happen is that he will be seen as a martyr and reinforce his support.
It will also guarantee that the Republicans will seek to prosecute Biden on whatever grounds when he finishes being President, especially as Trump didn't seek to prosecute Clinton.
GOP lawyers attempting to 'prosecute' Biden should be a good laugh if the quality of their current shenanigans is anything to go by.
If they take control of the House in 2022 and keep the Senate, expect payback for the impeachment hearings.
Do you think Putin's Russia interferes with foreign elections or not? I think they do, and even if they didn't that Trump winning in 2016 was an optimum result for them. I believe Trump winning again would have been optimum for them, the current imbroglio is second best and a Biden landslide would definitely not have turned Vlad's frown upside down. Whether they expended any resources on making stuff happen is a separate issue.
No doubt he is no focussing his attention on the next Scottish Independence referendum. He just loves you Nats and your divisive agendas! How useful are you feeling?
You'll never get over being on the same side as Nigel Farage, Nick Griffin, George Galloway, Boris Johnson and all the other British Nationalists, will you?
Did you see the latest news about HM the Q in 2014? Apparently the D of Y let the cat out of the bag rather.
Is that the interview with Lionel Barber? If what he said is true HMQ goes very much down in my estimation, the rest are of course still mediocre no marks, or worse in Andrew's case.
Yep. Don't quite know what to make of it - the story of DoY in front of a diplomat from another country. It does rather shake the fiction of HM being above politics.
Some mind blowing false equivalence from @MrEd here today. The long and the short of it is there is no senate supermajority to impeach Biden with. The same as for Trump. Half of the USA believes the GOP are bad faith actors anyway, so there's absolutely no reason for anyone to hold back on anything Trump related based off of some vague notion of the GOP striking back somehow, they'd do it anyway. Trump is currently losing support within the GOP too - it's already a senate majority that believes Biden is rightfully president elect. The situation with GOP governors is even worse for Trump than that.
I've heard a few people say a majority of the Senate recognises Biden as President Elect, I heard someone else mention 5 GOP Senators doing so, but the only one I've explicitly heard confirm it is Romney. Has anyone else who is a GOP Senator explicitly recognised Biden as POTUS elect?
The BBC article on it is absolutely terrible, this in particular is factually incorrect:
"Are the results disappointing? After Pfizer and Moderna both produced vaccines delivering 95% protection from Covid-19, a figure of 70% is still highly effective, but will be seen by some as relatively disappointing.
But this is still a vaccine that can save lives from Covid-19 and is more effective than a seasonal flu jab."
It's not 70%, its 62% and 90% for the two dosage variations and as we've discussed here the 90% variation includes testing for asymptomatic cases where neither of the other two trials did that.
But to be fair to the BBC, this is what Astrazeneca's own press release says, so it's not unreasonable to cite the average efficacy. It's not 'fake news' as you previously said.
One dosing regimen (n=2,741) showed vaccine efficacy of 90% when AZD1222 was given as a half dose, followed by a full dose at least one month apart, and another dosing regimen (n=8,895) showed 62% efficacy when given as two full doses at least one month apart. The combined analysis from both dosing regimens (n=11,636) resulted in an average efficacy of 70%.
It's fake news because we're not going to have the full/full dose available. The half/full dose method will be used and it's 90% effective. AZ are registering full trial results scientifically, that's what they have to do. It's up to the media to provide proper context and the Guardian, Sky, the Mail and others all got it right this morning with the numbers and yet the BBC used hugely irresponsible wording in their headline.
This vaccine prevents 90% of symptomatic and asymptomatic COVID, the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines prevent 95% of symptomatic COVID. Those are the facts.
I think you do need to give a confidence interval rather than just the observed efficacy. The confidence interval is a lot wider for the 90% group than for Pfizer or Moderna.
But it's wider still for the 62% group, because the observed efficacy was so much lower, despite the larger number of participants.
It would be interesting to see what the CI is for each of those dosages trialled, but yes I agree. We don't have the full data to calculate them yet and I'm very interested to see what they are.
I am only a mathematician, not a statistician, so don't take this as gospel, but the figures I get (assuming the splits were 3-30 and 27-71) are: Half-full: expected efficacy: 87%, confidence interval (95%): 69-97% Full-full: expected efficacy: 61%, confidence interval (95%): 41-76%
On those figures the choice of regimen looks like a "no-brainer".
No, no, I want more. Full-full has more so its got to better. I will not be cheated with half doses. Do they not have enough? etc etc.
Some mind blowing false equivalence from @MrEd here today. The long and the short of it is there is no senate supermajority to impeach Biden with. The same as for Trump. Half of the USA believes the GOP are bad faith actors anyway, so there's absolutely no reason for anyone to hold back on anything Trump related based off of some vague notion of the GOP striking back somehow, they'd do it anyway. Trump is currently losing support within the GOP too - it's already a senate majority that believes Biden is rightfully president elect. The situation with GOP governors is even worse for Trump than that.
I've heard a few people say a majority of the Senate recognises Biden as President Elect, I heard someone else mention 5 GOP Senators doing so, but the only one I've explicitly heard confirm it is Romney. Has anyone else who is a GOP Senator explicitly recognised Biden as POTUS elect?
Comments
And there will be further announcements as the rest of the data is processed (and as more results come in - remember they will still be recording any cases which happened after the cutoff date on the 4th November for this report).
https://tinyurl.com/y2bqodrh
Anybody from government looking in on here, go bash this into your boss....please.
https://twitter.com/steve_hawkes/status/1330810143802601472?s=20
https://www.astrazeneca.com/media-centre/press-releases/2020/azd1222hlr.html
Good. That's what's needed on both sides for it to stick.
Quite a bit of evidence did indeed hold up in court.
https://www.businessinsider.com/who-has-been-charged-in-russia-investigation-mueller-trump-2017-12?r=US&IR=T#13-russian-nationals-and-three-russian-companies-9
The only court which could adjudicate evidence against Trump - the Senate - was perhaps not the most unbiased of institutions.
I fear that the 70% figure will stick, and the idea that we're being given a substandard vaccine will spread, when it might actually be more effective than the others if you do a like-for-like comparison.
"A coronavirus vaccine developed by the University of Oxford stops 70% of people from developing symptoms, a large-scale trial shows. Other vaccines showed 95% protection but the Oxford jab is cheaper and easier to store and distribute."
WRONG, WRONG, MFing WRONG on several counts in 2 f##king sentences.
But you would have thought someone at the BBC would have grasped this by now wouldn't you?
Now for the first time in half a decade there are no significant elections expected for a good few years.
Entryism is thriving because of the regular giant pile-ups so called 'competent government' is creating. As Trump himself said, I am here because you guys messed up so badly.
Not to mention that his pro-Wall Street staff and policies are indistinguishable from those that led to the 2008 crash, so I'm not sure how things would have been different under him.
telegraph
No country has gone without an economic impact and the ones with the least impact seem to be those who locked down the virus harder and faster which is not what I recall you advising.
Can you name any economy following policies you endorse that hasn't been hit economically?
America are looking at a three per cent contraction.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8977215/Moment-maskless-woman-SPITS-cashier-Waitrose.html
https://twitter.com/BNODesk/status/1330683240819138560?s=20
The 90% is what is being submitted to the MHRA for approval.
I have my own views on the matter, as fanmously does Ms Sturgeon, but in fairness that was after he had left government and elected office. And also he did not get a job. His firm provided the show to RT to broadcast. Not the same thing.
But there has been a cluster of virus outbreaks among Top Glove employees – many of whom are low-paid migrant workers – at factories in an industrial area near the capital, Kuala Lumpur. More than 1,000 cases were recorded Monday, prompting the government to order the plants to close.
That's not true. America measures its GDP differently to how we do but actually the data available so far appears to indicate the real economic data is quite comparable.
Our debt hasn't soared either. Our QE has soared but we don't pay interest on that. If you want to talk about soaring debt you might want to look at how debt levels have changed in the USA under Trump's whole term.
The ~90% mode is being submitted for regulatory approval, any vaccine product that comes to market will be based on it. Again, I don't understand what point you're trying to make here. Prof Pollard literally said this morning that the half/full dose mode is what will be taken to the MHRA, the AZ vaccine product that gets approval will be a half dose then a full dose four weeks later which has been shown to have ~90% efficacy.
Half of the USA believes the GOP are bad faith actors anyway, so there's absolutely no reason for anyone to hold back on anything Trump related based off of some vague notion of the GOP striking back somehow, they'd do it anyway.
Trump is currently losing support within the GOP too - it's already a senate majority that believes Biden is rightfully president elect. The situation with GOP governors is even worse for Trump than that.
An exercise that has seen massive and unnecessary damage to our economy.
Of course there was always a big economic hit. But its far, far larger than it needed to be.
a) An election is not a court. Trump lies daily and people believe him. Trump being elected does not demonstrate what you purport it to do.
b) Lots of this stuff was known about post the election.
See you have given up touting the weekend USA death figures by the way. Not so proud of how your hero is doing now I'm guessing.
"Take up your bed and walk. And get back to work!"
Said pandemic ended in June, so all the people who have been infected, hospitalized, and who died since never actually existed.
And if we hadn't taken any public health measures at all, the economy would have been just fine because everyone would have willingly exposed themselves to the virus and lived life exactly as normal.
This is just reality denial, and honestly it drives me round the bend. If we succumb to this kind of fantasy thinking, it makes politics virtually pointless and the making of public policy almost impossible.
Murkowski - https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election-2020/senator-murkowski-trump-transition-election-results-biden-b1760133.html
Toomey - https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/republican-senator-pat-toomey-trump-biden-b1759915.html
Rubio - https://www.npr.org/sections/biden-transition-updates/2020/11/16/935594118/sen-rubio-joins-small-group-of-republican-senators-calling-biden-president-elect?t=1606138607943
Two coins, hundred throws each. For each one, the expected heads is 50. But due to random variation, when doing hundred throws each and then picking out the one with more heads, the expected value actually is a bit higher. Not sure about the exact number, but maybe 55.
In other words, by running two experiments in parallel and picking out the better one, you introduce a bit of bias compared to just running one.
I'm not saying that's an invalid thing to do. I am saying it needs to be taken into account in the statistical analysis of the picked-out subsample.
Not that I would go bail for medieval clerics either...
Seriously though, it would be the best use of any aid budget we have.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/18889691.queen-prepared-intervene-2014-indyref-panic-westminster/
https://edition.cnn.com/politics/live-news/election-results-and-news-11-09-20/h_468c195f84bf818304fdf41761bb254e