Turns out the BBC were right to report that the Oxford Vaccine was 70% effective.
GDBO, they've misled the country and the world, shame on them for raising the hopes of a nation.
No...it definitely can't be said its 70% and definitely not true it is x% prevents symptoms.
"You’ll see reports that the vaccine had 70 percent efficacy, on average; but that’s un-knowable, because we only have numbers on these two regimens, as opposed to everyone in the trials—and how they arrived at those percentages isn’t explained. As far as we know, some of this analysis could hinge on data from just a few sick people."
As explained they mashed together some trials to get the 70% number, but they also disappeared some trial data.
Utterly scandalous, so it is much worse than I thought, there needs to be a criminal investigation into this.
For what crime?
--AS
Attempted genocide.
Trying to convince the UK populace to take their pandemic ending medicine when the numbers don't back that up is tantamount to genocide.
I really hope I missed the sarcasm.
--AS
Sarcasm from me? Disobliging comments about the University of Oxford from me?
That is so unlike me.
I've often wondered what it is you have against England's oldest University. They didn't see fit to award you a 2:2, did they? Or did they decide that your interests would better be served at a smaller or larger institution?
--AS
I decided to apply to England finest university, you know the one with many more Nobel Laureates than the other place.
Wasn’t Britain’s worst ever PM, as discussed in the last thread, an alumnus ?
Nope, both Lord North and Boris Johnson attended Oxford.
Turns out the BBC were right to report that the Oxford Vaccine was 70% effective.
GDBO, they've misled the country and the world, shame on them for raising the hopes of a nation.
No...it definitely can't be said its 70% and definitely not true it is x% prevents symptoms.
"You’ll see reports that the vaccine had 70 percent efficacy, on average; but that’s un-knowable, because we only have numbers on these two regimens, as opposed to everyone in the trials—and how they arrived at those percentages isn’t explained. As far as we know, some of this analysis could hinge on data from just a few sick people."
That’s the Wired article again, which I think is on legal thin ice. Have Oxon responded to it?
The talk of prevents symptoms is 100% incorrect...as they tested everybody weekly and included asymptomatic positives, so whatever percentage you want to use refers to prevents covid. Pfizer and moderna was prevents symptoms.
They tested everyone each week? In which case, that is a very different measure of efficacy.
Turns out the BBC were right to report that the Oxford Vaccine was 70% effective.
GDBO, they've misled the country and the world, shame on them for raising the hopes of a nation.
No...it definitely can't be said its 70% and definitely not true it is x% prevents symptoms.
"You’ll see reports that the vaccine had 70 percent efficacy, on average; but that’s un-knowable, because we only have numbers on these two regimens, as opposed to everyone in the trials—and how they arrived at those percentages isn’t explained. As far as we know, some of this analysis could hinge on data from just a few sick people."
That’s the Wired article again, which I think is on legal thin ice. Have Oxon responded to it?
The talk of prevents symptoms is 100% incorrect...as they tested everybody weekly and included asymptomatic positives, so whatever percentage you want to use refers to prevents covid. Pfizer and moderna was prevents symptoms.
“The talk of” - who is this talking? AZ, Oxon or other people?
AIUI no-one in the Oxon vaccine cohort became ill enough to go to hospital, which is a different thing.
TSE said the BBC got their report correct. But the much mocked inaccurate reporting included the claim relating to preventing symptoms, which just isn't true, that isn't what their trial(s) looked at. The tested for anybody who contracted COVID, with or without symptoms.
I noticed they have finally edited the main pieces now, but still talk about protection against developing symptoms.
Yes, the way that was reported was clearly wrong because as you say AZ chalked an asymptomatic infection up as - rightly - an infection.
But it wasn’t AZ/Oxon doing that misreporting, it was journalists mangling it.
I don't think that correct. As I understand it they had to be symptomatic cases to reach the interim analysis trigger point. The asymptomatic data will follow, presumably.
I wish people would stop with the flag waving. It is appropriate at Prom concerts but not in science.
Depends which flag is being waved. People haven't even stopped Brexitsplaining/Remainsplaining when it comes to vaccine acquisition, let alone other matters.
Turns out the BBC were right to report that the Oxford Vaccine was 70% effective.
GDBO, they've misled the country and the world, shame on them for raising the hopes of a nation.
No...it definitely can't be said its 70% and definitely not true it is x% prevents symptoms.
"You’ll see reports that the vaccine had 70 percent efficacy, on average; but that’s un-knowable, because we only have numbers on these two regimens, as opposed to everyone in the trials—and how they arrived at those percentages isn’t explained. As far as we know, some of this analysis could hinge on data from just a few sick people."
That’s the Wired article again, which I think is on legal thin ice. Have Oxon responded to it?
The talk of prevents symptoms is 100% incorrect...as they tested everybody weekly and included asymptomatic positives, so whatever percentage you want to use refers to prevents covid. Pfizer and moderna was prevents symptoms.
They tested everyone each week? In which case, that is a very different measure of efficacy.
Can someone briefly update me on the Oxon full-full / half-full thing? I keep reading snippets on here but it seems to be a very stretched discussion, hard to piece together the responses.
OK.
People given full dose / full dose of the AZN/Oxford vaccine saw efficacy of 60-70%. People given half dose / full dose of vaccine saw efficacy close to 90%.
HOWEVER, the half dose / full dose people were all under 55 (so this may simply be the case that the vaccine is much more efficacious on the young), and the numbers are too small to be certain that this isn't simply a statistical anomoly.
It is worth noting, however, that (AFAUI) none of the people who got the AZN/Oxford vaccine became seriously ill with CV19, and it does not require sub zero storage at all. It is therefore a vaccine that could be useful for (a) the young and (b) emerging markets.
Sure that was my exact understanding, yet people like Foxy and Francis seem to be pouring water on the whole trial.
That strikes me as very serious allegation. And perhaps somewhat unfair?
The Wired article alleges that the way the results have been presented is such that they are not reporting clean data. Instead they've chosen to process it, and present it in the most flattering way possible.
It's a highly partisan article, which is based largely on supposition. The author seems to think that just because she hasn't seen the full data, the statisticians analysing the results haven't. And she seems to be arguing that lack of proof of efficacity (on data she herself argues is incomplete) is proof of inefficacity.
One to file, if not quite in the bin, at most in the 'needs corroboration' pile.
I spend almost a decade as an equity analyst. Companies that attempted to present results using esoteric (just thought up) measures, rather than - you know - actual profit and loss were usually hiding something.
Turns out the BBC were right to report that the Oxford Vaccine was 70% effective.
GDBO, they've misled the country and the world, shame on them for raising the hopes of a nation.
No...it definitely can't be said its 70% and definitely not true it is x% prevents symptoms.
"You’ll see reports that the vaccine had 70 percent efficacy, on average; but that’s un-knowable, because we only have numbers on these two regimens, as opposed to everyone in the trials—and how they arrived at those percentages isn’t explained. As far as we know, some of this analysis could hinge on data from just a few sick people."
That’s the Wired article again, which I think is on legal thin ice. Have Oxon responded to it?
The talk of prevents symptoms is 100% incorrect...as they tested everybody weekly and included asymptomatic positives, so whatever percentage you want to use refers to prevents covid. Pfizer and moderna was prevents symptoms.
“The talk of” - who is this talking? AZ, Oxon or other people?
AIUI no-one in the Oxon vaccine cohort became ill enough to go to hospital, which is a different thing.
TSE said the BBC got their report correct. But the much mocked inaccurate reporting included the claim relating to preventing symptoms, which just isn't true, that isn't what their trial(s) looked at. The tested for anybody who contracted COVID, with or without symptoms.
I noticed they have finally edited the main pieces now, but still talk about protection against developing symptoms.
Yes, the way that was reported was clearly wrong because as you say AZ chalked an asymptomatic infection up as - rightly - an infection.
But it wasn’t AZ/Oxon doing that misreporting, it was journalists mangling it.
I don't think that correct. As I understand it they had to be symptomatic cases to reach the interim analysis trigger point. The asymptomatic data will follow, presumably.
I wish people would stop with the flag waving. It is appropriate at Prom concerts but not in science.
...says the man whose icon has as its background a, er... waving flag.
One of Fox jr2's artworks. Part a series for an A level project on political rage and conflict.
Fantastic news if so, and a dry crisp outlook on the forecast - opens up opportunities for winter pints and meeting mates under the outdoor heaters.
It’s appalling news for pubs. Look at the rules. It makes it very difficult indeed to do business. Daughter is dreading being in Tier 2 because of the constraints. She will have to ring all her existing bookings and see if they can / want to continue. And bear in mind that she cannot turn a blind eye to people claiming to be one household/one support bubble when she knows they aren’t because of the risk of a fine which would wipe out what little she has left.
Plus the rules increase her costs because of the need for table service.
If it cannot be Tier 1 it would be better to be in Tier 3.
The government really has hung the hospitality industry out to dry.
It is so hard seeing your child being in tears at seeing their hard work being rendered pointless. What makes it worse is that in this district, Covid has been very low for months and months. This area is being bundled in with places like Carlisle which are over 2 hours away, much like Manchester. It feels constantly like being punished for something you haven’t done.
That is saddening to hear. Is there any chance you will get Tier 1 status?
None at all. Newsnight was reporting that nowhere will be in Tier 1 even though that was the tier we were in before and even though cases have been low.
I am seriously concerned about the prospects for places like those of your daughter. I hope she can fashion a living from Tier 2 - there might be loopholes somewhere (such as separating groups across two tables)?
We have been discussing this all evening. It would mean putting in smaller tables - another cost. Will this be worth it? But the one household/support bubble rule makes it very difficult.
Most people when they go out want to meet friends not just go out with the same people they’ve been locked up with all bloody year, however much you love them. So is there enough of that sort of business?
There’ll be few tourists at this time of year because people aren’t meant to travel if in Tier 3.
Drinkers can only come if they have a meal so she’s looking at doing smaller meals for them. But again on the whole people don’t come to a pub to sit eating a meal by themselves. They come in before a meal or after and many of the people who come for meals are doing it for socialising purposes. Which is forbidden.
So she is looking at takeaways.
It is dire. Pubs and restaurants are open in theory but in reality it’s like saying someone is a competitor in a marathon but then hobbling one ankle and kneecapping one of their knees.
Turns out the BBC were right to report that the Oxford Vaccine was 70% effective.
GDBO, they've misled the country and the world, shame on them for raising the hopes of a nation.
No...it definitely can't be said its 70% and definitely not true it is x% prevents symptoms.
"You’ll see reports that the vaccine had 70 percent efficacy, on average; but that’s un-knowable, because we only have numbers on these two regimens, as opposed to everyone in the trials—and how they arrived at those percentages isn’t explained. As far as we know, some of this analysis could hinge on data from just a few sick people."
As explained they mashed together some trials to get the 70% number, but they also disappeared some trial data.
No they didn’t - they just didn’t put it all in the press release
That is the claim made by the Wired article.
I know.
I also know AZ and they are a scientifically rigorous organisation
Yes, of course they are. But AZ have not yet published enough to confirm what they say.
They will, in due course. I think we perhaps underestimate just how much work is involved in publishing comprehensive results.
The press releases could have been handled far better, particularly over the half dose results, but it won’t make any difference to what gets published and reviewed.
And note that very similar criticisms were (rightly) made over some of Moderna’s early press releases.
Turns out the BBC were right to report that the Oxford Vaccine was 70% effective.
GDBO, they've misled the country and the world, shame on them for raising the hopes of a nation.
No...it definitely can't be said its 70% and definitely not true it is x% prevents symptoms.
"You’ll see reports that the vaccine had 70 percent efficacy, on average; but that’s un-knowable, because we only have numbers on these two regimens, as opposed to everyone in the trials—and how they arrived at those percentages isn’t explained. As far as we know, some of this analysis could hinge on data from just a few sick people."
As explained they mashed together some trials to get the 70% number, but they also disappeared some trial data.
Utterly scandalous, so it is much worse than I thought, there needs to be a criminal investigation into this.
For what crime?
--AS
Attempted genocide.
Trying to convince the UK populace to take their pandemic ending medicine when the numbers don't back that up is tantamount to genocide.
I really hope I missed the sarcasm.
--AS
Sarcasm from me? Disobliging comments about the University of Oxford from me?
That is so unlike me.
I've often wondered what it is you have against England's oldest University. They didn't see fit to award you a 2:2, did they? Or did they decide that your interests would better be served at a smaller or larger institution?
--AS
I decided to apply to England finest university, you know the one with many more Nobel Laureates than the other place.
Wasn’t Britain’s worst ever PM, as discussed in the last thread, an alumnus ?
Nope, both Lord North and Boris Johnson attended Oxford.
Well that’s certainly competition for the ‘blubbering, blundering buffoon’, I’ll grant you.
Fantastic news if so, and a dry crisp outlook on the forecast - opens up opportunities for winter pints and meeting mates under the outdoor heaters.
It’s appalling news for pubs. Look at the rules. It makes it very difficult indeed to do business. Daughter is dreading being in Tier 2 because of the constraints. She will have to ring all her existing bookings and see if they can / want to continue. And bear in mind that she cannot turn a blind eye to people claiming to be one household/one support bubble when she knows they aren’t because of the risk of a fine which would wipe out what little she has left.
Plus the rules increase her costs because of the need for table service.
If it cannot be Tier 1 it would be better to be in Tier 3.
The government really has hung the hospitality industry out to dry.
It is so hard seeing your child being in tears at seeing their hard work being rendered pointless. What makes it worse is that in this district, Covid has been very low for months and months. This area is being bundled in with places like Carlisle which are over 2 hours away, much like Manchester. It feels constantly like being punished for something you haven’t done.
That is saddening to hear. Is there any chance you will get Tier 1 status?
None at all. Newsnight was reporting that nowhere will be in Tier 1 even though that was the tier we were in before and even though cases have been low.
I am seriously concerned about the prospects for places like those of your daughter. I hope she can fashion a living from Tier 2 - there might be loopholes somewhere (such as separating groups across two tables)?
We have been discussing this all evening. It would mean putting in smaller tables - another cost. Will this be worth it? But the one household/support bubble rule makes it very difficult.
Most people when they go out want to meet friends not just go out with the same people they’ve been locked up with all bloody year, however much you love them. So is there enough of that sort of business?
There’ll be few tourists at this time of year because people aren’t meant to travel if in Tier 3.
Drinkers can only come if they have a meal so she’s looking at doing smaller meals for them. But again on the whole people don’t come to a pub to sit eating a meal by themselves. They come in before a meal or after and many of the people who come for meals are doing it for socialising purposes. Which is forbidden.
So she is looking at takeaways.
It is dire. Pubs and restaurants are open in theory but in reality it’s like saying someone is a competitor in a marathon but then hobbling one ankle and kneecapping one of their knees.
Would it not be worth buying a job lot of the cheapest microwaveable ready meals available and giving them away with peoples first drinks to get around it? Cost your daughter a pound a punter probably?
Turns out the BBC were right to report that the Oxford Vaccine was 70% effective.
GDBO, they've misled the country and the world, shame on them for raising the hopes of a nation.
No...it definitely can't be said its 70% and definitely not true it is x% prevents symptoms.
"You’ll see reports that the vaccine had 70 percent efficacy, on average; but that’s un-knowable, because we only have numbers on these two regimens, as opposed to everyone in the trials—and how they arrived at those percentages isn’t explained. As far as we know, some of this analysis could hinge on data from just a few sick people."
That’s the Wired article again, which I think is on legal thin ice. Have Oxon responded to it?
The talk of prevents symptoms is 100% incorrect...as they tested everybody weekly and included asymptomatic positives, so whatever percentage you want to use refers to prevents covid. Pfizer and moderna was prevents symptoms.
“The talk of” - who is this talking? AZ, Oxon or other people?
AIUI no-one in the Oxon vaccine cohort became ill enough to go to hospital, which is a different thing.
TSE said the BBC got their report correct. But the much mocked inaccurate reporting included the claim relating to preventing symptoms, which just isn't true, that isn't what their trial(s) looked at. The tested for anybody who contracted COVID, with or without symptoms.
I noticed they have finally edited the main pieces now, but still talk about protection against developing symptoms.
Yes, the way that was reported was clearly wrong because as you say AZ chalked an asymptomatic infection up as - rightly - an infection.
But it wasn’t AZ/Oxon doing that misreporting, it was journalists mangling it.
I don't think that correct. As I understand it they had to be symptomatic cases to reach the interim analysis trigger point. The asymptomatic data will follow, presumably.
I wish people would stop with the flag waving. It is appropriate at Prom concerts but not in science.
...says the man whose icon has as its background a, er... waving flag.
One of Fox jr2's artworks. Part a series for an A level project on political rage and conflict.
BBC will give Marcus Rashford a special award for his efforts to end child food poverty after he missed out on Sports Personality of the Year shortlist. The striker will also be the subject of a BBC documentary as the player tries to 'understand the effects of food poverty and how Covid-19 has contributed to the issue'.
A special award and a documentary. Well I can see how the BBC avoids any political controversy but could someone just explain it for the rest of the class?
Fantastic news if so, and a dry crisp outlook on the forecast - opens up opportunities for winter pints and meeting mates under the outdoor heaters.
It’s appalling news for pubs. Look at the rules. It makes it very difficult indeed to do business. Daughter is dreading being in Tier 2 because of the constraints. She will have to ring all her existing bookings and see if they can / want to continue. And bear in mind that she cannot turn a blind eye to people claiming to be one household/one support bubble when she knows they aren’t because of the risk of a fine which would wipe out what little she has left.
Plus the rules increase her costs because of the need for table service.
If it cannot be Tier 1 it would be better to be in Tier 3.
The government really has hung the hospitality industry out to dry.
It is so hard seeing your child being in tears at seeing their hard work being rendered pointless. What makes it worse is that in this district, Covid has been very low for months and months. This area is being bundled in with places like Carlisle which are over 2 hours away, much like Manchester. It feels constantly like being punished for something you haven’t done.
That is saddening to hear. Is there any chance you will get Tier 1 status?
None at all. Newsnight was reporting that nowhere will be in Tier 1 even though that was the tier we were in before and even though cases have been low.
I am seriously concerned about the prospects for places like those of your daughter. I hope she can fashion a living from Tier 2 - there might be loopholes somewhere (such as separating groups across two tables)?
We have been discussing this all evening. It would mean putting in smaller tables - another cost. Will this be worth it? But the one household/support bubble rule makes it very difficult.
Most people when they go out want to meet friends not just go out with the same people they’ve been locked up with all bloody year, however much you love them. So is there enough of that sort of business?
There’ll be few tourists at this time of year because people aren’t meant to travel if in Tier 3.
Drinkers can only come if they have a meal so she’s looking at doing smaller meals for them. But again on the whole people don’t come to a pub to sit eating a meal by themselves. They come in before a meal or after and many of the people who come for meals are doing it for socialising purposes. Which is forbidden.
So she is looking at takeaways.
It is dire. Pubs and restaurants are open in theory but in reality it’s like saying someone is a competitor in a marathon but then hobbling one ankle and kneecapping one of their knees.
Would it not be worth buying a job lot of the cheapest microwaveable ready meals available and giving them away with peoples first drinks to get around it? Cost your daughter a pound a punter probably?
You could probably do that!
Would lower the gastronomic standards massively at the pub, but as long as the landlady disowned the meals and said they were there purely for regulatory reasons, it’s not clear what the government could do.
AIUI it’s not incumbent on punters to actually eat any food, they simply have to order it.
Turns out the BBC were right to report that the Oxford Vaccine was 70% effective.
GDBO, they've misled the country and the world, shame on them for raising the hopes of a nation.
No...it definitely can't be said its 70% and definitely not true it is x% prevents symptoms.
"You’ll see reports that the vaccine had 70 percent efficacy, on average; but that’s un-knowable, because we only have numbers on these two regimens, as opposed to everyone in the trials—and how they arrived at those percentages isn’t explained. As far as we know, some of this analysis could hinge on data from just a few sick people."
As explained they mashed together some trials to get the 70% number, but they also disappeared some trial data.
No they didn’t - they just didn’t put it all in the press release
That is the claim made by the Wired article.
I know.
I also know AZ and they are a scientifically rigorous organisation
Yes, of course they are. But AZ have not yet published enough to confirm what they say.
They will, in due course. I think we perhaps underestimate just how much work is involved in publishing comprehensive results.
The press releases could have been handled far better, particularly over the half dose results, but it won’t make any difference to what gets published and reviewed.
And note that very similar criticisms were (rightly) made over some of Moderna’s early press releases.
A large part of being competent is giving the appearance of being competent. Even if the vaccine is the best thing since apple pie, this charade has given masses of ammunition to the anti vaccine lobby. It all looks distressingly Johnson-like, cocking up and then masking it with buffoonery about "serendipity." Bigging up the serendipitous result without reference to its very young age group was dishonest.
Turns out the BBC were right to report that the Oxford Vaccine was 70% effective.
GDBO, they've misled the country and the world, shame on them for raising the hopes of a nation.
No...it definitely can't be said its 70% and definitely not true it is x% prevents symptoms.
"You’ll see reports that the vaccine had 70 percent efficacy, on average; but that’s un-knowable, because we only have numbers on these two regimens, as opposed to everyone in the trials—and how they arrived at those percentages isn’t explained. As far as we know, some of this analysis could hinge on data from just a few sick people."
As explained they mashed together some trials to get the 70% number, but they also disappeared some trial data.
No they didn’t - they just didn’t put it all in the press release
That is the claim made by the Wired article.
I know.
I also know AZ and they are a scientifically rigorous organisation
Yes, of course they are. But AZ have not yet published enough to confirm what they say.
They will, in due course. I think we perhaps underestimate just how much work is involved in publishing comprehensive results.
The press releases could have been handled far better, particularly over the half dose results, but it won’t make any difference to what gets published and reviewed.
And note that very similar criticisms were (rightly) made over some of Moderna’s early press releases.
A large part of being competent is giving the appearance of being competent. Even if the vaccine is the best thing since apple pie, this charade has given masses of ammunition to the anti vaccine lobby. It all looks distressingly Johnson-like, cocking up and then masking it with buffoonery about "serendipity." Bigging up the serendipitous result without reference to its very young age group was dishonest.
I don’t disagree. But it won’t make any difference to the results.
Turns out the BBC were right to report that the Oxford Vaccine was 70% effective.
GDBO, they've misled the country and the world, shame on them for raising the hopes of a nation.
Did they? Their own press release and Professor used the 70% headline figure. The 90% was advanced as a possibility.
Yet people are now trashing the whole trial.
The BBC also used the 70% figure, yet two people on here spent the entire day trashing the BBC for not using the 90% figure - and trashing those of us who were defending the BBC on the basis of the Astrozeneca press release.
What's the point of the BBC News is they are just going to copy and paste the headline from a press release? It isn't an excuse. The point of the media is to check out stories and get the facts.
The same way as they kept using the day of death announcement stats provided by the government, when it soon became clear to everybody they were misleading due to the delay in reporting / backfilling and should not be reported in that way.
How many days should the BBC have waited before publishing the story, while its statisticians checked the fine print of AZ's studies? Of course the BBC would rely on the press release.
Turns out the BBC were right to report that the Oxford Vaccine was 70% effective.
GDBO, they've misled the country and the world, shame on them for raising the hopes of a nation.
Did they? Their own press release and Professor used the 70% headline figure. The 90% was advanced as a possibility.
Yet people are now trashing the whole trial.
The BBC also used the 70% figure, yet two people on here spent the entire day trashing the BBC for not using the 90% figure - and trashing those of us who were defending the BBC on the basis of the Astrozeneca press release.
What's the point of the BBC News is they are just going to copy and paste the headline from a press release? It isn't an excuse. The point of the media is to check out stories and get the facts.
The same way as they kept using the day of death announcement stats provided by the government, when it soon became clear to everybody they were misleading due to the delay in reporting / backfilling and should not be reported in that way.
How many days should the BBC have waited before publishing the story, while its statisticians checked the fine print of AZ's studies? Of course the BBC would rely on the press release.
They kept repeating the same incorrect stuff for 2 days. All the rest of the mainstream media realised after about 2hrs and corrected their reporting accordingly. That is why people were bashing it on here.
Also, it didn't require PhD statistical analysis to correctly write, there were 2 trials, one with 62%, one with 90%, the second has a much smaller sample size, thus caution.
Same with the date of death announcement, that still going on now 6+ months later. Same with testing numbers.
Fantastic news if so, and a dry crisp outlook on the forecast - opens up opportunities for winter pints and meeting mates under the outdoor heaters.
It’s appalling news for pubs. Look at the rules. It makes it very difficult indeed to do business. Daughter is dreading being in Tier 2 because of the constraints. She will have to ring all her existing bookings and see if they can / want to continue. And bear in mind that she cannot turn a blind eye to people claiming to be one household/one support bubble when she knows they aren’t because of the risk of a fine which would wipe out what little she has left.
Plus the rules increase her costs because of the need for table service.
If it cannot be Tier 1 it would be better to be in Tier 3.
The government really has hung the hospitality industry out to dry.
It is so hard seeing your child being in tears at seeing their hard work being rendered pointless. What makes it worse is that in this district, Covid has been very low for months and months. This area is being bundled in with places like Carlisle which are over 2 hours away, much like Manchester. It feels constantly like being punished for something you haven’t done.
That is saddening to hear. Is there any chance you will get Tier 1 status?
None at all. Newsnight was reporting that nowhere will be in Tier 1 even though that was the tier we were in before and even though cases have been low.
I am seriously concerned about the prospects for places like those of your daughter. I hope she can fashion a living from Tier 2 - there might be loopholes somewhere (such as separating groups across two tables)?
We have been discussing this all evening. It would mean putting in smaller tables - another cost. Will this be worth it? But the one household/support bubble rule makes it very difficult.
Most people when they go out want to meet friends not just go out with the same people they’ve been locked up with all bloody year, however much you love them. So is there enough of that sort of business?
There’ll be few tourists at this time of year because people aren’t meant to travel if in Tier 3.
Drinkers can only come if they have a meal so she’s looking at doing smaller meals for them. But again on the whole people don’t come to a pub to sit eating a meal by themselves. They come in before a meal or after and many of the people who come for meals are doing it for socialising purposes. Which is forbidden.
So she is looking at takeaways.
It is dire. Pubs and restaurants are open in theory but in reality it’s like saying someone is a competitor in a marathon but then hobbling one ankle and kneecapping one of their knees.
Would it not be worth buying a job lot of the cheapest microwaveable ready meals available and giving them away with peoples first drinks to get around it? Cost your daughter a pound a punter probably?
You could probably do that!
Would lower the gastronomic standards massively at the pub, but as long as the landlady disowned the meals and said they were there purely for regulatory reasons, it’s not clear what the government could do.
AIUI it’s not incumbent on punters to actually eat any food, they simply have to order it.
Yes just a move to allow drinkers who don’t want to eat to come in. If people actually want food, offer them the VIP menu aka the menu
Has anyone got any tips on how to discover an organisation's internal email address format? Googling "*@url" isn't working.
You could look up the MX records in DNS but it is possible they use something different internally. It depends what you want to know. These days, most firms of any repute are contactable by Twitter.
Turns out the BBC were right to report that the Oxford Vaccine was 70% effective.
GDBO, they've misled the country and the world, shame on them for raising the hopes of a nation.
Did they? Their own press release and Professor used the 70% headline figure. The 90% was advanced as a possibility.
Yet people are now trashing the whole trial.
The BBC also used the 70% figure, yet two people on here spent the entire day trashing the BBC for not using the 90% figure - and trashing those of us who were defending the BBC on the basis of the Astrozeneca press release.
What's the point of the BBC News is they are just going to copy and paste the headline from a press release? It isn't an excuse. The point of the media is to check out stories and get the facts.
The same way as they kept using the day of death announcement stats provided by the government, when it soon became clear to everybody they were misleading due to the delay in reporting / backfilling and should not be reported in that way.
How many days should the BBC have waited before publishing the story, while its statisticians checked the fine print of AZ's studies? Of course the BBC would rely on the press release.
They kept repeating the same incorrect stuff for 2 days. All the rest of the mainstream media realised after about 2hrs and corrected their reporting.
No they didn't, because the corrected version turns out to be further from the truth than the original which the BBC stuck with.
Turns out the BBC were right to report that the Oxford Vaccine was 70% effective.
GDBO, they've misled the country and the world, shame on them for raising the hopes of a nation.
Did they? Their own press release and Professor used the 70% headline figure. The 90% was advanced as a possibility.
Yet people are now trashing the whole trial.
The BBC also used the 70% figure, yet two people on here spent the entire day trashing the BBC for not using the 90% figure - and trashing those of us who were defending the BBC on the basis of the Astrozeneca press release.
What's the point of the BBC News is they are just going to copy and paste the headline from a press release? It isn't an excuse. The point of the media is to check out stories and get the facts.
The same way as they kept using the day of death announcement stats provided by the government, when it soon became clear to everybody they were misleading due to the delay in reporting / backfilling and should not be reported in that way.
How many days should the BBC have waited before publishing the story, while its statisticians checked the fine print of AZ's studies? Of course the BBC would rely on the press release.
They kept repeating the same incorrect stuff for 2 days. All the rest of the mainstream media realised after about 2hrs and corrected their reporting.
No they didn't, because the corrected version turns out to be further from the truth than the original which the BBC stuck with.
No....reporting 2 trials, 62% and 90% (including caveat of much small sample size) is not further from the truth. Most of the rest of the mainstream media managed to move to this. We now have further info which means we should be even more careful about the 90% figure.
Has anyone got any tips on how to discover an organisation's internal email address format? Googling "*@url" isn't working.
You could look up the MX records in DNS but it is possible they use something different internally. It depends what you want to know. These days, most firms of any repute are contactable by Twitter.
This isn't a customer service issue or anything like that. I wanted to email a certain person in a specific firm about possible work experience or internship opportunities. Usually I can find out if it's firstname.lastname@url or lastname@url from a Google search but not in this particular case.
I guess I will just have to try different combinations. 🤦♂️
Turns out the BBC were right to report that the Oxford Vaccine was 70% effective.
GDBO, they've misled the country and the world, shame on them for raising the hopes of a nation.
No...it definitely can't be said its 70% and definitely not true it is x% prevents symptoms.
"You’ll see reports that the vaccine had 70 percent efficacy, on average; but that’s un-knowable, because we only have numbers on these two regimens, as opposed to everyone in the trials—and how they arrived at those percentages isn’t explained. As far as we know, some of this analysis could hinge on data from just a few sick people."
That’s the Wired article again, which I think is on legal thin ice. Have Oxon responded to it?
The talk of prevents symptoms is 100% incorrect...as they tested everybody weekly and included asymptomatic positives, so whatever percentage you want to use refers to prevents covid. Pfizer and moderna was prevents symptoms.
“The talk of” - who is this talking? AZ, Oxon or other people?
AIUI no-one in the Oxon vaccine cohort became ill enough to go to hospital, which is a different thing.
TSE said the BBC got their report correct. But the much mocked inaccurate reporting included the claim relating to preventing symptoms, which just isn't true, that isn't what their trial(s) looked at. The tested for anybody who contracted COVID, with or without symptoms.
I noticed they have finally edited the main pieces now, but still talk about protection against developing symptoms.
Yes, the way that was reported was clearly wrong because as you say AZ chalked an asymptomatic infection up as - rightly - an infection.
But it wasn’t AZ/Oxon doing that misreporting, it was journalists mangling it.
I don't think that correct. As I understand it they had to be symptomatic cases to reach the interim analysis trigger point. The asymptomatic data will follow, presumably.
I wish people would stop with the flag waving. It is appropriate at Prom concerts but not in science.
...says the man whose icon has as its background a, er... waving flag.
One of Fox jr2's artworks. Part a series for an A level project on political rage and conflict.
And very good it is too!
Yes, he got an A at A level for Fine Art. Some of his pictures are rather large, but I don't like to get rid.
Turns out the BBC were right to report that the Oxford Vaccine was 70% effective.
GDBO, they've misled the country and the world, shame on them for raising the hopes of a nation.
Did they? Their own press release and Professor used the 70% headline figure. The 90% was advanced as a possibility.
Yet people are now trashing the whole trial.
The BBC also used the 70% figure, yet two people on here spent the entire day trashing the BBC for not using the 90% figure - and trashing those of us who were defending the BBC on the basis of the Astrozeneca press release.
What's the point of the BBC News is they are just going to copy and paste the headline from a press release? It isn't an excuse. The point of the media is to check out stories and get the facts.
The same way as they kept using the day of death announcement stats provided by the government, when it soon became clear to everybody they were misleading due to the delay in reporting / backfilling and should not be reported in that way.
How many days should the BBC have waited before publishing the story, while its statisticians checked the fine print of AZ's studies? Of course the BBC would rely on the press release.
They kept repeating the same incorrect stuff for 2 days. All the rest of the mainstream media realised after about 2hrs and corrected their reporting.
No they didn't, because the corrected version turns out to be further from the truth than the original which the BBC stuck with.
No....reporting 2 trials, 62% and 90% (including caveat of much small sample size) is not further from the truth. Most of the rest of the mainstream media managed to move to this.
...but omitting caveat of much younger age group. There are no winners here.
Has anyone got any tips on how to discover an organisation's internal email address format? Googling "*@url" isn't working.
You could look up the MX records in DNS but it is possible they use something different internally. It depends what you want to know. These days, most firms of any repute are contactable by Twitter.
This isn't a customer service issue or anything like that. I wanted to email a certain person in a specific firm about possible work experience or internship opportunities. Usually I can find out if it's firstname.lastname@url or lastname@url from a Google search but not in this particular case.
I guess I will just have to try different combinations. 🤦♂️
Look him or her up on Linkedin. Even if their email address is not listed, you can message them on Linkedin which will notify them you have done so.
ETA or google firstname lastname company and see if they are listed in trade directories.
Turns out the BBC were right to report that the Oxford Vaccine was 70% effective.
GDBO, they've misled the country and the world, shame on them for raising the hopes of a nation.
Did they? Their own press release and Professor used the 70% headline figure. The 90% was advanced as a possibility.
Yet people are now trashing the whole trial.
The BBC also used the 70% figure, yet two people on here spent the entire day trashing the BBC for not using the 90% figure - and trashing those of us who were defending the BBC on the basis of the Astrozeneca press release.
What's the point of the BBC News is they are just going to copy and paste the headline from a press release? It isn't an excuse. The point of the media is to check out stories and get the facts.
The same way as they kept using the day of death announcement stats provided by the government, when it soon became clear to everybody they were misleading due to the delay in reporting / backfilling and should not be reported in that way.
How many days should the BBC have waited before publishing the story, while its statisticians checked the fine print of AZ's studies? Of course the BBC would rely on the press release.
They kept repeating the same incorrect stuff for 2 days. All the rest of the mainstream media realised after about 2hrs and corrected their reporting.
No they didn't, because the corrected version turns out to be further from the truth than the original which the BBC stuck with.
No....reporting 2 trials, 62% and 90% (including caveat of much small sample size) is not further from the truth. Most of the rest of the mainstream media managed to move to this.
...but omitting caveat of much younger age group. There are no winners here.
Turns out the BBC were right to report that the Oxford Vaccine was 70% effective.
GDBO, they've misled the country and the world, shame on them for raising the hopes of a nation.
Did they? Their own press release and Professor used the 70% headline figure. The 90% was advanced as a possibility.
Yet people are now trashing the whole trial.
The BBC also used the 70% figure, yet two people on here spent the entire day trashing the BBC for not using the 90% figure - and trashing those of us who were defending the BBC on the basis of the Astrozeneca press release.
What's the point of the BBC News is they are just going to copy and paste the headline from a press release? It isn't an excuse. The point of the media is to check out stories and get the facts.
The same way as they kept using the day of death announcement stats provided by the government, when it soon became clear to everybody they were misleading due to the delay in reporting / backfilling and should not be reported in that way.
How many days should the BBC have waited before publishing the story, while its statisticians checked the fine print of AZ's studies? Of course the BBC would rely on the press release.
They kept repeating the same incorrect stuff for 2 days. All the rest of the mainstream media realised after about 2hrs and corrected their reporting.
No they didn't, because the corrected version turns out to be further from the truth than the original which the BBC stuck with.
Has anyone got any tips on how to discover an organisation's internal email address format? Googling "*@url" isn't working.
You could look up the MX records in DNS but it is possible they use something different internally. It depends what you want to know. These days, most firms of any repute are contactable by Twitter.
This isn't a customer service issue or anything like that. I wanted to email a certain person in a specific firm about possible work experience or internship opportunities. Usually I can find out if it's firstname.lastname@url or lastname@url from a Google search but not in this particular case.
I guess I will just have to try different combinations. 🤦♂️
Many organisations have moved to try and hide these for instance using asking people to use images rather than text for any mention of an email address (or writing it out like "name.at.companyname.com"), to stop the Google spider finding them, and making them available to the world in order to try and minimize spam.
Has anyone got any tips on how to discover an organisation's internal email address format? Googling "*@url" isn't working.
You could look up the MX records in DNS but it is possible they use something different internally. It depends what you want to know. These days, most firms of any repute are contactable by Twitter.
This isn't a customer service issue or anything like that. I wanted to email a certain person in a specific firm about possible work experience or internship opportunities. Usually I can find out if it's firstname.lastname@url or lastname@url from a Google search but not in this particular case.
I guess I will just have to try different combinations. 🤦♂️
Look him or her up on Linkedin. Even if their email address is not listed, you can message them on Linkedin which will notify them you have done so.
Way ahead of you, but I can only message them if I have LinkedIn Premium, which I do not. I guess I could subscribe, which may be generally useful, but this person does not appear to be very active on LinkedIn.
Has anyone got any tips on how to discover an organisation's internal email address format? Googling "*@url" isn't working.
You could look up the MX records in DNS but it is possible they use something different internally. It depends what you want to know. These days, most firms of any repute are contactable by Twitter.
This isn't a customer service issue or anything like that. I wanted to email a certain person in a specific firm about possible work experience or internship opportunities. Usually I can find out if it's firstname.lastname@url or lastname@url from a Google search but not in this particular case.
I guess I will just have to try different combinations. 🤦♂️
Many organisations have moved to try and hide these for instance using asking people to use images rather than text for any mention of an email address (or writing out "name at url", to stop the Google spider finding them, and making them available to the world in order to try and minimize spam.
Has anyone got any tips on how to discover an organisation's internal email address format? Googling "*@url" isn't working.
You could look up the MX records in DNS but it is possible they use something different internally. It depends what you want to know. These days, most firms of any repute are contactable by Twitter.
This isn't a customer service issue or anything like that. I wanted to email a certain person in a specific firm about possible work experience or internship opportunities. Usually I can find out if it's firstname.lastname@url or lastname@url from a Google search but not in this particular case.
I guess I will just have to try different combinations. 🤦♂️
Many organisations have moved to try and hide these for instance using asking people to use images rather than text for any mention of an email address (or writing out "name at url", to stop the Google spider finding them, and making them available to the world in order to try and minimize spam.
Those pesky devils
Actually, more and more, its all about things like Slack, just totally bypassing email. The big advantage with that is you get to control who can contact you.
Both Georgia Republican Senators seem to have gotten themselves in a bit of trouble with their stock trading.
Don’t know about prison, though. While Obama made Congressional insider trading a crime back in 2012, it seems that no one has yet been convicted.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/insider/2020/05/26/how-senators-may-have-avoided-insider-trading-charges/?sh=3111905627ba ... Insider trading by a member of Congress is a crime. To bring a case here, however, federal authorities must overcome two obstacles: the Speech and Debate Clause, and proving “materiality” in novel circumstances. Indeed, the announcement that the authorities have closed their investigations into three senators may show these obstacles already have proven too steep....
Has anyone got any tips on how to discover an organisation's internal email address format? Googling "*@url" isn't working.
You could look up the MX records in DNS but it is possible they use something different internally. It depends what you want to know. These days, most firms of any repute are contactable by Twitter.
This isn't a customer service issue or anything like that. I wanted to email a certain person in a specific firm about possible work experience or internship opportunities. Usually I can find out if it's firstname.lastname@url or lastname@url from a Google search but not in this particular case.
I guess I will just have to try different combinations. 🤦♂️
Many organisations have moved to try and hide these for instance using asking people to use images rather than text for any mention of an email address (or writing out "name at url", to stop the Google spider finding them, and making them available to the world in order to try and minimize spam.
Those pesky devils
You could circumvent all this with one phone call, surely?
Has anyone got any tips on how to discover an organisation's internal email address format? Googling "*@url" isn't working.
You could look up the MX records in DNS but it is possible they use something different internally. It depends what you want to know. These days, most firms of any repute are contactable by Twitter.
This isn't a customer service issue or anything like that. I wanted to email a certain person in a specific firm about possible work experience or internship opportunities. Usually I can find out if it's firstname.lastname@url or lastname@url from a Google search but not in this particular case.
I guess I will just have to try different combinations. 🤦♂️
Many organisations have moved to try and hide these for instance using asking people to use images rather than text for any mention of an email address (or writing out "name at url", to stop the Google spider finding them, and making them available to the world in order to try and minimize spam.
Those pesky devils
You could circumvent all this with one phone call, surely?
Of course, but I don't have a phone number either.
Both Georgia Republican Senators seem to have gotten themselves in a bit of trouble with their stock trading.
Don’t know about prison, though. While Obama made Congressional insider trading a crime back in 2012, it seems that no one has yet been convicted.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/insider/2020/05/26/how-senators-may-have-avoided-insider-trading-charges/?sh=3111905627ba ... Insider trading by a member of Congress is a crime. To bring a case here, however, federal authorities must overcome two obstacles: the Speech and Debate Clause, and proving “materiality” in novel circumstances. Indeed, the announcement that the authorities have closed their investigations into three senators may show these obstacles already have proven too steep....
If you are a director of a firm, in possession of non public information, and you use that to make money, that is pretty darn serious.
Has anyone got any tips on how to discover an organisation's internal email address format? Googling "*@url" isn't working.
You could look up the MX records in DNS but it is possible they use something different internally. It depends what you want to know. These days, most firms of any repute are contactable by Twitter.
This isn't a customer service issue or anything like that. I wanted to email a certain person in a specific firm about possible work experience or internship opportunities. Usually I can find out if it's firstname.lastname@url or lastname@url from a Google search but not in this particular case.
I guess I will just have to try different combinations. 🤦♂️
Many organisations have moved to try and hide these for instance using asking people to use images rather than text for any mention of an email address (or writing out "name at url", to stop the Google spider finding them, and making them available to the world in order to try and minimize spam.
Those pesky devils
Actually, more and more, its all about things like Slack, just totally bypassing email. The big advantage with that is you get to control who can contact you.
One advantage of being made redundant is leaving Slack behind. I've no doubt it lives up to its hype for startups with a dozen employees but dealing with hundreds of workspaces and thousands of channels was less fun.
Has anyone got any tips on how to discover an organisation's internal email address format? Googling "*@url" isn't working.
You could look up the MX records in DNS but it is possible they use something different internally. It depends what you want to know. These days, most firms of any repute are contactable by Twitter.
This isn't a customer service issue or anything like that. I wanted to email a certain person in a specific firm about possible work experience or internship opportunities. Usually I can find out if it's firstname.lastname@url or lastname@url from a Google search but not in this particular case.
I guess I will just have to try different combinations. 🤦♂️
Many organisations have moved to try and hide these for instance using asking people to use images rather than text for any mention of an email address (or writing out "name at url", to stop the Google spider finding them, and making them available to the world in order to try and minimize spam.
Those pesky devils
Actually, more and more, its all about things like Slack, just totally bypassing email. The big advantage with that is you get to control who can contact you.
One advantage of being made redundant is leaving Slack behind. I've no doubt it lives up to its hype for startups with a dozen employees but dealing with hundreds of workspaces and thousands of channels was less fun.
My previous employer (prior to my career change) tried to encourage Teams but everyone preferred email because of the "paper" trail. I was happy to try it but I would get email replies to my Teams messages.
Trump now in to 14 - having been as long as 32 approx 24 hours ago.
Other than Trump meeting Pennsylvania lawmakers at the White house the only news appears to relate to a Pittsburgh Judge's "unprecedented order halting additional steps in the certification of President-elect Joe Biden’s election victory."
See link - whilst the Governor has certified the Presidential election result it appears the Judge's order could interfere with the "assembly of electors".
The state has appealed to the PA Supreme Court (and the original case itself will be heard on Friday). So whilst it may be highly likely that the Judge's order won't stand, as at this moment it may have the effect of interfering with Biden securing PA's electoral college votes.
Trump now in to 14 - having been as long as 32 approx 24 hours ago.
Other than Trump meeting Pennsylvania lawmakers at the White house the only news appears to relate to a Pittsburgh Judge's "unprecedented order halting additional steps in the certification of President-elect Joe Biden’s election victory."
See link - whilst the Governor has certified the Presidential election result it appears the Judge's order could interfere with the "assembly of electors".
The state has appealed to the PA Supreme Court (and the original case itself will be heard on Friday). So whilst it may be highly likely that the Judge's order won't stand, as at this moment it may have the effect of interfering with Biden securing PA's electoral college votes.
Trump now in to 14 - having been as long as 32 approx 24 hours ago.
Other than Trump meeting Pennsylvania lawmakers at the White house the only news appears to relate to a Pittsburgh Judge's "unprecedented order halting additional steps in the certification of President-elect Joe Biden’s election victory."
See link - whilst the Governor has certified the Presidential election result it appears the Judge's order could interfere with the "assembly of electors".
The state has appealed to the PA Supreme Court (and the original case itself will be heard on Friday). So whilst it may be highly likely that the Judge's order won't stand, as at this moment it may have the effect of interfering with Biden securing PA's electoral college votes.
Biden is 74 ECVs ahead so even if he loses Pennsylvania's 20 ECVs, he still wins. Biden 1.07, Trump 14.
If Trump can pick up Pennsylvania (which he can't) he'd move into a new ECV band (currently on 232; PA has 20 ECVs). In a thin market, we have:- 210-239 1.11 240-269 32
I hope the Rashford backers on here didn't put too much money on him. We did try to warn you.
Should Hamilton really be as short as 33/100? I'm not so sure. I still think Ronnie O'Sullivan has a very good chance.
33/100 is a very short price for something decided by an on-the-night public vote. The 10/11 that was available last week however, when the gullible were still thinking that political campaigning is a substitute for sporting achievement...
A BBC spokesperson said: “The criteria for selecting nominees for the shortlist is, and always has been, centred around sporting achievement. Whilst Marcus has had a huge impact outside of his sport , which led to the panel giving him their special award, based on the criteria it was felt his sporting achievement this year wasn’t enough for him to make the shortlist for the main award.”
I guess we'll get the list today. I think Doyle will probably make it as the token woman. Not sure she'll get many votes, but you never know.
Pennsylvania supreme court has just told MAGA judge Patricia McCullough to fuck off
Have they? I mean they should - the case and McCollough's decision are both absurd but dangerous attacks on democracy, but isn't it the middle of the night in Pennsylvania?
Both Georgia Republican Senators seem to have gotten themselves in a bit of trouble with their stock trading.
Don’t know about prison, though. While Obama made Congressional insider trading a crime back in 2012, it seems that no one has yet been convicted.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/insider/2020/05/26/how-senators-may-have-avoided-insider-trading-charges/?sh=3111905627ba ... Insider trading by a member of Congress is a crime. To bring a case here, however, federal authorities must overcome two obstacles: the Speech and Debate Clause, and proving “materiality” in novel circumstances. Indeed, the announcement that the authorities have closed their investigations into three senators may show these obstacles already have proven too steep....
If you are a director of a firm, in possession of non public information, and you use that to make money, that is pretty darn serious.
No kidding. The guy should be indicted.
And I realise this falls outside the Congressional insider dealing statute, and seems to be a straightforward insider dealing case. But it appears that he might still get away with it.
Turns out the BBC were right to report that the Oxford Vaccine was 70% effective.
GDBO, they've misled the country and the world, shame on them for raising the hopes of a nation.
No...it definitely can't be said its 70% and definitely not true it is x% prevents symptoms.
"You’ll see reports that the vaccine had 70 percent efficacy, on average; but that’s un-knowable, because we only have numbers on these two regimens, as opposed to everyone in the trials—and how they arrived at those percentages isn’t explained. As far as we know, some of this analysis could hinge on data from just a few sick people."
That’s the Wired article again, which I think is on legal thin ice. Have Oxon responded to it?
The talk of prevents symptoms is 100% incorrect...as they tested everybody weekly and included asymptomatic positives, so whatever percentage you want to use refers to prevents covid. Pfizer and moderna was prevents symptoms.
They tested everyone each week? In which case, that is a very different measure of efficacy.
Weekly swab test.
The Oxford trial tested all participants whether asymptomatic or otherwise every two weeks.
I have not seen it confirmed for sure one way or the other whether Pfizer and Moderna did similar or only tested when symptoms presented. If they did not then it’s clear that this is not an apples to apples comparison and the Oxford vaccine may in fact be superior in almost every way to the others (cost, ease of scaling and deployment, probably no worse on efficacy).
I say almost every way. Because given the apparent conclusions we can draw from the half-full vs full-full dose results, I struggle to see how they can reuse the chimp adenovirus vector for follow up shots in 2022 and beyond if there’s genetic drift in sars cov2. Which would surely mean at a minimum a new safety trial would be needed.
Pennsylvania supreme court has just told MAGA judge Patricia McCullough to fuck off
Have they? I mean they should - the case and McCollough's decision are both absurd but dangerous attacks on democracy, but isn't it the middle of the night in Pennsylvania?
#Pennsylvania "State officials appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court later Wednesday, which triggered an automatic stay of McCullough’s order. They then asked the state high court to step in and dismiss the case altogether." 2/2 https://t.co/EvbW3Mzbb3
Pennsylvania supreme court has just told MAGA judge Patricia McCullough to fuck off
Have they? I mean they should - the case and McCollough's decision are both absurd but dangerous attacks on democracy, but isn't it the middle of the night in Pennsylvania?
#Pennsylvania "State officials appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court later Wednesday, which triggered an automatic stay of McCullough’s order. They then asked the state high court to step in and dismiss the case altogether." 2/2 https://t.co/EvbW3Mzbb3
In my opinion WI is the most in danger of being nullified (And that is remote), PA won't be heard by SCOTUS on this bonkers constitutional issue - and if it is Kav will side with Roberts with the 3 normal judges. Arizona, Georgia and Nevada will send Democrat electors.
Pennsylvania supreme court has just told MAGA judge Patricia McCullough to fuck off
Have they? I mean they should - the case and McCollough's decision are both absurd but dangerous attacks on democracy, but isn't it the middle of the night in Pennsylvania?
In my opinion WI is the most in danger of being nullified (And that is remote), PA won't be heard by SCOTUS on this bonkers constitutional issue - and if it is Kav will side with Roberts with the 3 normal judges. Arizona, Georgia and Nevada will send Democrat electors.
Morning everyone. Skimming through this thread, maybe Biden should (try to) put together a bipartisan review of US electoral systems, with a view to recommending something to the States in a couple of years time.
And, I've every sympathy with Ms Cyclfree and her daughter. I cannot believe that whoever dreamed up the 'must have a substantial meal to have a drink in a pub' policy has ever been out for a quiet drink with friends. Even in my long ago youth I was quite capable of going out and having a few social drinks without getting riotous. (I think)
Pennsylvania supreme court has just told MAGA judge Patricia McCullough to fuck off
Have they? I mean they should - the case and McCollough's decision are both absurd but dangerous attacks on democracy, but isn't it the middle of the night in Pennsylvania?
#Pennsylvania "State officials appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court later Wednesday, which triggered an automatic stay of McCullough’s order. They then asked the state high court to step in and dismiss the case altogether." 2/2 https://t.co/EvbW3Mzbb3
I have not. We're going to be raising Series A in a few months, so it'll be very interesting to watch.
We're kind of interesting among insuretechs (and yes, there should be an 'e' in the middle, otherwise it would be in-sur-tech), in that we have a positive CAC-LTV spread, and have done so since launch.
Both Georgia Republican Senators seem to have gotten themselves in a bit of trouble with their stock trading.
Don’t know about prison, though. While Obama made Congressional insider trading a crime back in 2012, it seems that no one has yet been convicted.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/insider/2020/05/26/how-senators-may-have-avoided-insider-trading-charges/?sh=3111905627ba ... Insider trading by a member of Congress is a crime. To bring a case here, however, federal authorities must overcome two obstacles: the Speech and Debate Clause, and proving “materiality” in novel circumstances. Indeed, the announcement that the authorities have closed their investigations into three senators may show these obstacles already have proven too steep....
If you are a director of a firm, in possession of non public information, and you use that to make money, that is pretty darn serious.
No kidding. The guy should be indicted.
And I realise this falls outside the Congressional insider dealing statute, and seems to be a straightforward insider dealing case. But it appears that he might still get away with it.
Purdue is probably protected (in that Trump can warn the FBI off it) for now, but once Biden has his hand on the tiller, that changes.
Presumably Governor Kemp gets to appoint a replacement, if Perdue goes down for insider trading. And then there'd be a special election?
Both Georgia Republican Senators seem to have gotten themselves in a bit of trouble with their stock trading.
Don’t know about prison, though. While Obama made Congressional insider trading a crime back in 2012, it seems that no one has yet been convicted.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/insider/2020/05/26/how-senators-may-have-avoided-insider-trading-charges/?sh=3111905627ba ... Insider trading by a member of Congress is a crime. To bring a case here, however, federal authorities must overcome two obstacles: the Speech and Debate Clause, and proving “materiality” in novel circumstances. Indeed, the announcement that the authorities have closed their investigations into three senators may show these obstacles already have proven too steep....
If you are a director of a firm, in possession of non public information, and you use that to make money, that is pretty darn serious.
No kidding. The guy should be indicted.
And I realise this falls outside the Congressional insider dealing statute, and seems to be a straightforward insider dealing case. But it appears that he might still get away with it.
Purdue is probably protected (in that Trump can warn the FBI off it) for now, but once Biden has his hand on the tiller, that changes.
Presumably Governor Kemp gets to appoint a replacement, if Perdue goes down for insider trading. And then there'd be a special election?
Both Georgia Republican Senators seem to have gotten themselves in a bit of trouble with their stock trading.
Don’t know about prison, though. While Obama made Congressional insider trading a crime back in 2012, it seems that no one has yet been convicted.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/insider/2020/05/26/how-senators-may-have-avoided-insider-trading-charges/?sh=3111905627ba ... Insider trading by a member of Congress is a crime. To bring a case here, however, federal authorities must overcome two obstacles: the Speech and Debate Clause, and proving “materiality” in novel circumstances. Indeed, the announcement that the authorities have closed their investigations into three senators may show these obstacles already have proven too steep....
If you are a director of a firm, in possession of non public information, and you use that to make money, that is pretty darn serious.
No kidding. The guy should be indicted.
And I realise this falls outside the Congressional insider dealing statute, and seems to be a straightforward insider dealing case. But it appears that he might still get away with it.
Purdue is probably protected (in that Trump can warn the FBI off it) for now, but once Biden has his hand on the tiller, that changes.
Presumably Governor Kemp gets to appoint a replacement, if Perdue goes down for insider trading. And then there'd be a special election?
As long as it doesn’t cost him his seat first.
Who knows. Law and order doesn’t seem to bother Republicans anymore.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/11/stop-the-steal-republicans-anarchists.html ... Republicans have a standard recipe for winning elections: They preach law and order, and they smear their opponents as anarchists. That message worked for them in 2020, and it’s central to their final push of the year: the campaign to hold Georgia’s two U.S. Senate seats, which, in a runoff election on Jan. 5, will determine control of the upper chamber. But President Donald Trump’s defeat, and the refusal of his supporters to accept that result, have turned the Republican narrative on its head. The anarchists aren’t on the left anymore. They’re on the right....
Betfair have not exactly covered themselves in glory.
Meanwhile, a sign of things to come. The Supreme Court ruling against NY's decision to close churches goes against previous rulings with Amy Coney Barrett making the decisive difference. Sigh.
Can someone briefly update me on the Oxon full-full / half-full thing? I keep reading snippets on here but it seems to be a very stretched discussion, hard to piece together the responses.
Basically the methodology of the randomisation is potentially unsound. It is hard to be sure as we only have press releases to go on. The licensing bodies will want to look over the original data.
It doesn't mean that the vaccine is a dud, just not yet sufficiently proven.
Is that true? Or someone’s opinion? That sounds a very serious allegation to me.
It raised a few eyebrows with me - about the article rather than the study, though. It did have the faintest whiff of a hack job.
I was okayish with the repeated charges against using a meta-analysis to gain more and more information - when done properly, they’re more than fine for other science as they improve statistical scope (I understand many health studies are meta-analyses), but maybe there’s a specific reason they’re bad in this sense. Although AZN/Oxford have been up front with presenting that data (it’s exactly how wired are asking the question).
The placebo thing got me scratching my head. How would that affect anyone in the vaccine arms? Unless there was any reason at all to suggest either placebo was somehow efficacious against covid, it seems a totally irrelevant charge.
When they got towards implying near-malfeasance with “presumably none of the others [demonstrated efficacy],” I, and at least one acquaintance independently, started to suspect some sort of vaccine nationalism that we’ve seen before. Why immediately presume failure that’s been ineptly covered up rather than the obvious presumption that not enough events have yet happened for those particular ones to be given any statistical significance yet?
Coupled with the NY Times one saying that they were worse than Pfizer and Moderna for providing initial data in [checks notes] the exact same way as Pfizer and Moderna, it does rather raise eyebrows. Yes, I’d prefer a peer-reviewed paper first, but under the circumstances and breathless desire for some information as soon as possible, we know that’s not possible. And the only reason we know these details is because all three companies are providing all the details they have.
The only real concern I have on the AZN/Oxford one is that the more efficacious regime hasn’t yet been trialled on the over 55s (apparently; need full confirmation on that). That the smaller dose was given out deliberately for most of the trial after the initial unintentional one happened and provided encouraging data seems fine. Numbers are small, but still statistically significant.
There's nothing to it. Trump's attempts to void democracy are increasingly pitiful to behold.
Do we expect him to try to disrupt Biden's Inauguration? Or will Biden say he doesn't want a crowd, due to Covid and Trump consequently claim that the lack of a crowd shows that 'the people' really recognise that they've been cheated!
I don't think anyone ever used the term Soft or Hard Brexit pre referendum. Soft Brexit was just invented by Remainers who couldn't come to terms with the fact they had lost.
Interestingly prior to the election the the majoriry of the money staked on the main market went on Trump. Since the election it has been all Biden.
People are purchasing money from whosoever it is putting up the other side.
That doesn't make sense.
Every bet has a buyer and a seller. For every £1 staked on Biden, there has to be £1 staked on Trump. It is only the ratio of winnings (i.e. the price) that changes.
Sure, its a two sided market place but as I understand it on their market overview page Betfair report how much money has backed each candidate.
There's nothing to it. Trump's attempts to void democracy are increasingly pitiful to behold.
Do we expect him to try to disrupt Biden's Inauguration? Or will Biden say he doesn't want a crowd, due to Covid and Trump consequently claim that the lack of a crowd shows that 'the people' really recognise that they've been cheated!
Definitely the latter, parroted by Trumpists like MrEd.
I don't think anyone ever used the term Soft or Hard Brexit pre referendum. Soft Brexit was just invented by Remainers who couldn't come to terms with the fact they had lost.
Soft Brexit means a deal with trade continuing with the EU almost as before.
Hard Brexit is what happens when we don't have a deal with the EU as exporting anything is going to be f**** impossible.
I don't think anyone ever used the term Soft or Hard Brexit pre referendum. Soft Brexit was just invented by Remainers who couldn't come to terms with the fact they had lost.
Before the referendum, Vote Leave never defined what they meant by leaving the single market. They ever tried to argue that we weren't in the single market to begin with, implying that it would mean no change.
I don't think anyone ever used the term Soft or Hard Brexit pre referendum. Soft Brexit was just invented by Remainers who couldn't come to terms with the fact they had lost.
Before the referendum, Vote Leave never defined what they meant by leaving the single market. They ever tried to argue that we weren't in the single market to begin with, implying that it would mean no change.
No they didn't. They rightly recognised we weren't fully integrated (we weren't) but said we would leave the single market, leave the ECJ and take back control of our laws, money and borders.
That's not "Soft". That was only invented post referendum.
As I keep pointing out, any deal that imposes customs and standards checks at the border will shut us down. That French test of a few days ago was checking only the immigration status of the driver - 70 seconds. Looks what queues it generated. It will take substantially longer than that to check the full load carried on the vehicle.
That is where the real fun starts. There is a lack of customs clerks on both sides of the channel. Before the EEA really kicked in there used to be a couple of thousand clerks on either side - now its reported as being in the dozens at best. With cross-border traffic now 400% of what it was back then.
No clerks to process the paperwork. No computer system to handle the paperwork. No customs agents to check the paperwork. No facilities to hold the agents the vehicles or the impounded for inspection loads. Things will quite literally grind to a halt and stay that way. Or the UK can agree a "continuity" deal with the EU as we have with Canada. The right to make changes at an unspecified later time but for now we continue the status quo. The right to have babies. Even though we can't have babies.
Politically these are the End Times for the PM. He announces a continuity deal and unleashes fire and damnation from the ERG, Faragistas and the press. He announces a deal with customs checks and we run out of fresh food medicines and fuel fairly quickly. Either way, he is done. For the PB Tories who live in the real world which is the least worst option for the party...?
Interestingly prior to the election the the majoriry of the money staked on the main market went on Trump. Since the election it has been all Biden.
People are purchasing money from whosoever it is putting up the other side.
That doesn't make sense.
Every bet has a buyer and a seller. For every £1 staked on Biden, there has to be £1 staked on Trump. It is only the ratio of winnings (i.e. the price) that changes.
Sure, its a two sided market place but as I understand it on their market overview page Betfair report how much money has backed each candidate.
All that means is that before the election Trump was mostly the favorite - I've no idea how long the market has been going but presumably for a long time Trump would have been a very clear favorite as it wasn't even known who his challenger was going to be. If you looked just the week immediately before the election (when Biden was favorite in a 2 horse race) then there would obviously have to have been more money backing Biden than Trump. And since the election (when it has been a totally 2 horse race) it just means that Biden has been favorite.
Can someone briefly update me on the Oxon full-full / half-full thing? I keep reading snippets on here but it seems to be a very stretched discussion, hard to piece together the responses.
Basically the methodology of the randomisation is potentially unsound. It is hard to be sure as we only have press releases to go on. The licensing bodies will want to look over the original data.
It doesn't mean that the vaccine is a dud, just not yet sufficiently proven.
Is that true? Or someone’s opinion? That sounds a very serious allegation to me.
The only real concern I have on the AZN/Oxford one is that the more efficacious regime hasn’t yet been trialled on the over 55s
Crikey, that's your only concern?
I have many and not just because of that article, which I agree was quite the hatchet. I don't think that's vaccine nationalism. It's because many of us smell a rat. For me it all began a couple of months ago when Andrew Pollard appeared to depart from science and entered the kind of entrepreneurial patter that I'd expect from a door-to-door salesman. It left a nasty taste in the mouth.
Nothing since has disabused me of that. The reports that they issued on efficacy, apparently rushed out because of the stellar show by both Moderna and Pfizer, contain some bizarrely muddled and mixed data. I am particularly concerned about their mashup of "70%" efficacy which doesn't stand up to the slightest scrutiny. It's an unscientific hotpotch of two radically different trials with two totally different datasets sets. You can't take those and make up an average.
And questions have been circulating in scientific circles for days. This one in Nature appeared earlier in the week:
Comments
Most people when they go out want to meet friends not just go out with the same people they’ve been locked up with all bloody year, however much you love them. So is there enough of that sort of business?
There’ll be few tourists at this time of year because people aren’t meant to travel if in Tier 3.
Drinkers can only come if they have a meal so she’s looking at doing smaller meals for them. But again on the whole people don’t come to a pub to sit eating a meal by themselves. They come in before a meal or after and many of the people who come for meals are doing it for socialising purposes. Which is forbidden.
So she is looking at takeaways.
It is dire. Pubs and restaurants are open in theory but in reality it’s like saying someone is a competitor in a marathon but then hobbling one ankle and kneecapping one of their knees.
I think we perhaps underestimate just how much work is involved in publishing comprehensive results.
The press releases could have been handled far better, particularly over the half dose results, but it won’t make any difference to what gets published and reviewed.
And note that very similar criticisms were (rightly) made over some of Moderna’s early press releases.
Too late - PA has already certified the presidential result.
Wow.
He does look suspiciously young for 62/63.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wakefield
Would lower the gastronomic standards massively at the pub, but as long as the landlady disowned the meals and said they were there purely for regulatory reasons, it’s not clear what the government could do.
AIUI it’s not incumbent on punters to actually eat any food, they simply have to order it.
But it won’t make any difference to the results.
Both Georgia Republican Senators seem to have gotten themselves in a bit of trouble with their stock trading.
Model Elle Macpherson has been accused of promoting an ‘anti-vaccination’ campaign, after appearing alongside partner, former doctor Andrew Wakefield.
https://metro.co.uk/2020/11/24/elle-macpherson-accused-of-promoting-anti-vax-campaign-13647148/?ito=cbshare
Also, it didn't require PhD statistical analysis to correctly write, there were 2 trials, one with 62%, one with 90%, the second has a much smaller sample size, thus caution.
Same with the date of death announcement, that still going on now 6+ months later. Same with testing numbers.
I guess I will just have to try different combinations. 🤦♂️
ETA or google firstname lastname company and see if they are listed in trade directories.
But 70% is not correct on any front.
Good night.
I look forward to not getting a reply.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/insider/2020/05/26/how-senators-may-have-avoided-insider-trading-charges/?sh=3111905627ba
... Insider trading by a member of Congress is a crime. To bring a case here, however, federal authorities must overcome two obstacles: the Speech and Debate Clause, and proving “materiality” in novel circumstances. Indeed, the announcement that the authorities have closed their investigations into three senators may show these obstacles already have proven too steep....
https://twitter.com/HLNinEngeland/status/1331733925153091585?s=20
Other than Trump meeting Pennsylvania lawmakers at the White house the only news appears to relate to a Pittsburgh Judge's "unprecedented order halting additional steps in the certification of President-elect Joe Biden’s election victory."
See link - whilst the Governor has certified the Presidential election result it appears the Judge's order could interfere with the "assembly of electors".
The state has appealed to the PA Supreme Court (and the original case itself will be heard on Friday). So whilst it may be highly likely that the Judge's order won't stand, as at this moment it may have the effect of interfering with Biden securing PA's electoral college votes.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-11-25/pennsylvania-judge-blocks-further-election-certification-steps
Biden 1.07
Democrats 1.07
Biden PV 1.03
Biden PV 49-51.9% 1.04
Trump PV 46-48.9% 1.06
Trump ECV 210-239 1.11
Biden ECV 300-329 1.08
Biden ECV Hcap -48.5 1.04
Biden ECV Hcap -63.5 1.06
Trump ECV Hcap +81.5 1.01
AZ Dem 1.05
GA Dem 1.06
MI Dem 1.06
NV Dem 1.03
PA Dem 1.07
WI Dem 1.05
Trump to leave before end of term NO 1.08
Trump exit date 2021 1.08
210-239 1.11
240-269 32
Should Hamilton really be as short as 33/100? I'm not so sure. I still think Ronnie O'Sullivan has a very good chance.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-8987809/Marcus-Rashford-misses-Sports-Personality-Year-receive-special-award.html
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/54968207
More importantly, is Hollie Doyle listed?
A BBC spokesperson said: “The criteria for selecting nominees for the shortlist is, and always has been, centred around sporting achievement. Whilst Marcus has had a huge impact outside of his sport , which led to the panel giving him their special award, based on the criteria it was felt his sporting achievement this year wasn’t enough for him to make the shortlist for the main award.”
I guess we'll get the list today. I think Doyle will probably make it as the token woman. Not sure she'll get many votes, but you never know.
"The shortlist for the main Sports Personality of the Year award will be announced closer to the show."
So I suspect a while to wait for shortlist.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/54968207
And I realise this falls outside the Congressional insider dealing statute, and seems to be a straightforward insider dealing case. But it appears that he might still get away with it.
I have not seen it confirmed for sure one way or the other whether Pfizer and Moderna did similar or only tested when symptoms presented. If they did not then it’s clear that this is not an apples to apples comparison and the Oxford vaccine may in fact be superior in almost every way to the others (cost, ease of scaling and deployment, probably no worse on efficacy).
I say almost every way. Because given the apparent conclusions we can draw from the half-full vs full-full dose results, I struggle to see how they can reuse the chimp adenovirus vector for follow up shots in 2022 and beyond if there’s genetic drift in sars cov2. Which would surely mean at a minimum a new safety trial would be needed.
But we worry about that when we get there.
Your link is paywalled.
EDIT: Per David Durand's twitter they have ASKED the PA Supreme Court to dismiss the case.
I can't see anywhere that the PA Supreme Court has yet done so.
https://twitter.com/edleonklinger/status/1104726860439658496
Skimming through this thread, maybe Biden should (try to) put together a bipartisan review of US electoral systems, with a view to recommending something to the States in a couple of years time.
And, I've every sympathy with Ms Cyclfree and her daughter. I cannot believe that whoever dreamed up the 'must have a substantial meal to have a drink in a pub' policy has ever been out for a quiet drink with friends. Even in my long ago youth I was quite capable of going out and having a few social drinks without getting riotous. (I think)
Your link is paywalled.
EDIT: Per David Durand's twitter they have ASKED the PA Supreme Court to dismiss the case.
I can't see anywhere that the PA Supreme Court has yet done so.
https://twitter.com/DKaplanWTAE/status/1331754899831484416
"is continued" means the PASC ruling overrides
We're kind of interesting among insuretechs (and yes, there should be an 'e' in the middle, otherwise it would be in-sur-tech), in that we have a positive CAC-LTV spread, and have done so since launch.
Trump’s last legacy, along with a determined assault on the rule of law.
Presumably Governor Kemp gets to appoint a replacement, if Perdue goes down for insider trading. And then there'd be a special election?
Law and order doesn’t seem to bother Republicans anymore.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/11/stop-the-steal-republicans-anarchists.html
... Republicans have a standard recipe for winning elections: They preach law and order, and they smear their opponents as anarchists. That message worked for them in 2020, and it’s central to their final push of the year: the campaign to hold Georgia’s two U.S. Senate seats, which, in a runoff election on Jan. 5, will determine control of the upper chamber. But President Donald Trump’s defeat, and the refusal of his supporters to accept that result, have turned the Republican narrative on its head. The anarchists aren’t on the left anymore. They’re on the right....
Meanwhile, a sign of things to come. The Supreme Court ruling against NY's decision to close churches goes against previous rulings with Amy Coney Barrett making the decisive difference. Sigh.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/26/us/supreme-court-coronavirus-religion-new-york.html
I was okayish with the repeated charges against using a meta-analysis to gain more and more information - when done properly, they’re more than fine for other science as they improve statistical scope (I understand many health studies are meta-analyses), but maybe there’s a specific reason they’re bad in this sense. Although AZN/Oxford have been up front with presenting that data (it’s exactly how wired are asking the question).
The placebo thing got me scratching my head. How would that affect anyone in the vaccine arms? Unless there was any reason at all to suggest either placebo was somehow efficacious against covid, it seems a totally irrelevant charge.
When they got towards implying near-malfeasance with “presumably none of the others [demonstrated efficacy],” I, and at least one acquaintance independently, started to suspect some sort of vaccine nationalism that we’ve seen before. Why immediately presume failure that’s been ineptly covered up rather than the obvious presumption that not enough events have yet happened for those particular ones to be given any statistical significance yet?
Coupled with the NY Times one saying that they were worse than Pfizer and Moderna for providing initial data in [checks notes] the exact same way as Pfizer and Moderna, it does rather raise eyebrows. Yes, I’d prefer a peer-reviewed paper first, but under the circumstances and breathless desire for some information as soon as possible, we know that’s not possible. And the only reason we know these details is because all three companies are providing all the details they have.
The only real concern I have on the AZN/Oxford one is that the more efficacious regime hasn’t yet been trialled on the over 55s (apparently; need full confirmation on that). That the smaller dose was given out deliberately for most of the trial after the initial unintentional one happened and provided encouraging data seems fine. Numbers are small, but still statistically significant.
Nothing to see here, I am sure.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/gop-effort-to-invalidate-more-than-2-5-million-votes-in-pennsylvania-dealt-another-setback/ar-BB1bmMsf
There's nothing to it. Trump's attempts to void democracy are increasingly pitiful to behold.
I don't think anyone ever used the term Soft or Hard Brexit pre referendum. Soft Brexit was just invented by Remainers who couldn't come to terms with the fact they had lost.
https://www.wired.com/story/the-astrazeneca-covid-vaccine-data-isnt-up-to-snuff/
Hard Brexit is what happens when we don't have a deal with the EU as exporting anything is going to be f**** impossible.
That's not "Soft". That was only invented post referendum.
That smells of a dodgy hack job.
That is where the real fun starts. There is a lack of customs clerks on both sides of the channel. Before the EEA really kicked in there used to be a couple of thousand clerks on either side - now its reported as being in the dozens at best. With cross-border traffic now 400% of what it was back then.
No clerks to process the paperwork. No computer system to handle the paperwork. No customs agents to check the paperwork. No facilities to hold the agents the vehicles or the impounded for inspection loads. Things will quite literally grind to a halt and stay that way. Or the UK can agree a "continuity" deal with the EU as we have with Canada. The right to make changes at an unspecified later time but for now we continue the status quo. The right to have babies. Even though we can't have babies.
Politically these are the End Times for the PM. He announces a continuity deal and unleashes fire and damnation from the ERG, Faragistas and the press. He announces a deal with customs checks and we run out of fresh food medicines and fuel fairly quickly. Either way, he is done. For the PB Tories who live in the real world which is the least worst option for the party...?
If you looked just the week immediately before the election (when Biden was favorite in a 2 horse race) then there would obviously have to have been more money backing Biden than Trump.
And since the election (when it has been a totally 2 horse race) it just means that Biden has been favorite.
I have many and not just because of that article, which I agree was quite the hatchet. I don't think that's vaccine nationalism. It's because many of us smell a rat. For me it all began a couple of months ago when Andrew Pollard appeared to depart from science and entered the kind of entrepreneurial patter that I'd expect from a door-to-door salesman. It left a nasty taste in the mouth.
Nothing since has disabused me of that. The reports that they issued on efficacy, apparently rushed out because of the stellar show by both Moderna and Pfizer, contain some bizarrely muddled and mixed data. I am particularly concerned about their mashup of "70%" efficacy which doesn't stand up to the slightest scrutiny. It's an unscientific hotpotch of two radically different trials with two totally different datasets sets. You can't take those and make up an average.
And questions have been circulating in scientific circles for days. This one in Nature appeared earlier in the week:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03326-w