Poe’s law applies here: I looked at that and assumed it was a parody.
Nope, he's a proper Trump supporter.
He was one of the people that really got the Pizzagate lies spread. He's also a fan of the white replacement theory.
Then there was this.
The alt-right doesn't really understand the concept of protesting. First, they spent a lot of money at Starbucks...to protest Starbucks. Then, they boycotted Hamilton (because hey, let's boycott the things that are ultra expensive, right?). And now, they're dumping Rogue One (which hits theaters later this month) with the hashtag #DumpStarWars, because of (oh, hey, shocker) fake news.
Twitter user Jack Posobiec, who's allegedly the "special projects director" for a group called Citizens for Trump, tweeted claiming that the writers of Rogue One rewrote and reshot the film to "add in Anti Trump [sic] scenes calling him a racist."
"I started [the hashtag] this morning with a Periscope in response to the writers of Rogue One calling Trump a Nazi," Posobiec told Esquire Thursday evening, adding that he was previously a "big time" Star Wars fan and was "really excited" to see Rogue One.
Of course, a Disney representative told TheWrap that this claim is entirely untrue, but that didn't stop Posobiec from starting a Star Wars boycott with a tweetstorm:
It is indeed. And to answer your point last night, when you said that you chose your wife whereas the UK didn't choose the Lisbon treaty; absolutely wrong. The country, in the shape of the democratically elected government, did indeed choose the Lisbon Treaty.
No I never said the UK didn't choose the Lisbon Treaty. What I said was that I didn't choose it.
The UK in the form of Gordon Brown and Tony Blair reneging on their last election manifesto chose it - and what was the result afterwards? The UK rejected that party and elected Cameron and has never looked back leading to Brexit.
Do you see the point yet? Democracy should rest with the public ultimately and no Parliament can or should bind its successors. Blair and Brown reneging on their manifesto by signing Lisbon was a disreputable way to act. The public by voting 4 General Election and 1 Referendum in a row have reversed that.
Brown signing Lisbon having promised at the election not to is not the same as me choosing my own wife. It is more comparable to one "elder" choosing everyone's partner, compelling them to get married, then saying there is no way to get divorced without leaving the tribe. Now people have chosen to leave the tribe.
My point is and was that you may not have chosen it but the country did. Democratically. Now of course you may want every decision the government makes to be run by you but I see some problems with that.
"The Country" chose to sign the Lisbon Treaty.
So the analogy stands. You, by getting married, gave up some of your personal sovereignty and ability to go whoring but were wholly sovereign nevertheless as you could at any time go whoring and could indeed leave the marriage.
That you choose to stay in your marriage (which I hope will last for many years) is therefore a compromise of your personal sovereignty.
The country did not democratically.
The government did breaching its manifesto promise - there is nothing democratic about that. The government lost its next election, that is democratic.
So under the principle of "no Parliament can bind its successor" then the rogue Parliament of Brown signing Lisbon in breach of his manifesto commitment not to do so without a referendum ought to have been able to be reversed by the next Parliament. But its wasn't possible.
That I choose to stay in my marriage is not a compromise of my personal sovereignty, it is my choice. If I choose to end it I can do so. The UK could not reverse what Brown did signing Lisbon without leaving the EU altogether - so thankfully we have now taken that course. I am sure you must applaud that since it was the only option left post-Brown right?
Anything the government does, including not following its manifesto, is a democratic act as the people will have voted in a government which they should have realised could not follow its manifesto.
I doubt most people expect the government to do the opposite of its manifesto. But democracy doesn't end the day of the election or once Parliament passes a law.
The principle you keep ignoring that is a key element of Parliamentary Democracy is that no Parliament can bind it's successors. If a government does something we dislike not a part of its manifesto (like Lisbon) then we can elect a different government to reverse that.
The EU made laws irreversible. That is why it is antidemocratic.
Given Brown passed Lisbon in breach of the manifesto and against the public's wishes how do you think the public can or should get it democratically reversed?
Anything a democratically-elected government does is democratic.
Even banning all future elections?
It would be the act of a democratically-elected government so yes.
Hitler says hi.
Yes the tyranny of the majority.
Hence the paraphernalia around government eg the separation of the legislative and executive, etc.
It is essential that the vaccines are delivered in the groupings advised and nobody jumps the queue no matter how wealthy or famous who may think they can buy their way to the front
I would disagree. As soon as supply exceeds the ability of the NHS to deliver it systematically, release it to the open market so as many further agents can deliver it. The coverage would then expand more quickly.
I respect your professional knowledge but if that means the wealthy and famous are able to jump the queue then that is wrong
That's how a free market works.
I do not think this is anything like comparable to a commercial venture
The shareholders of Pfizer, AZN, and Moderna for example might take a different view.
Havent AZN and Moderna accepted its a not for profit exercise along with Johnson and Johnson?
No one seriously ill out of 20000 sounds like it works extremely well even if its technical effectiveness is lower.
I get a handful of colds each year, I don't mind if one of those happens to be covid if my chances of getting seriously ill from it is less than 1 in 20000.
AZ as approved today has a 62% efficacy.
That's missing the main point. We have far more of the Oxford vaccine coming, and coming sooner as well. On the other hand Pfizer is not widely available, and Moderna won't be available for months.
So in terms of protecting as much of the population as possible, and hopefully surpressing the pandemic, the Oxford vaccine is our best bet. And if as seems to be the case two full doses about 12 weeks apart gets us to 90% efficacy we will do that too.
For individuals today Pfizer is your quickest path to immunity, but for the whole UK population it will be the Oxford vaccine.
Debating this treaty really is a great waste of time. What if Parliament decided, you know what, clause 1457 on page 767 isn't really what we wanted? The choice remains the same. Either you vote for the package or you vote against the package and choose no deal. It really is that simple.
Debating this treaty really is a great waste of time. What if Parliament decided, you know what, clause 1457 on page 767 isn't really what we wanted? The choice remains the same. Either you vote for the package or you vote against the package and choose no deal. It really is that simple.
Blackford should be told that the time of any more "points of order" he interrupts the debate with will be taken out of his own speaking time when it is his turn to speak.
It is essential that the vaccines are delivered in the groupings advised and nobody jumps the queue no matter how wealthy or famous who may think they can buy their way to the front
I would disagree. As soon as supply exceeds the ability of the NHS to deliver it systematically, release it to the open market so as many further agents can deliver it. The coverage would then expand more quickly.
I respect your professional knowledge but if that means the wealthy and famous are able to jump the queue then that is wrong
No, not least because a private AZN jab would cost about the same as a meal out.
If NHS capacity cannot cope with demand, then why restrict delivery rather than open up to other agents. I am only suggesting opening up to private providers when supply exceeds NHS capacity.
Remember that we are dealing with an exhausted NHS at full stretch already.
The virus doesnt care about how rich you are. If excess supply can be used and mobile and sociable people are able to get the vaccine sooner then it would be better for all of us.
Hm, I had thought AZN were building up a huge stockpile of the vaccines to be distributed as soon as they were approved. Now it sounds as though production is starting from scratch.
Good news about the AZN vaccine, although I'm still feeling a bit angsty about the decision to basically extend the time between the two doses.
I hope that's a decision genuinely justified by/based on all the trial data, and isn't just a reaction to the threat posed by the new more transmissible variant.
Why? If the first dose does give some protection the priority must be to give the first dose to as many people as possible. As it happens there is some evidence that the increased gap may even be beneficial but even if it wasn't I don't understand your logic.
What of those in care homes? They still haven`t received the first jab and if they are now to wait 12 weeks to the second then does the time to when they can see visitors again gets lengthened?
In Scotland they have been given priority for their first jab. I would have thought most people in care homes would be pretty high up the list anyway on age. Whether they are then safe to have visitors will depend on the question of whether they can still transmit, even if they don't become ill.
Those in care homes as supposed to be at the top of the list. But is isn`t happening due to temperature requirements of the Pfizer vaccine.
I wonder whether the government should be switching policy here: administer the one-dose fridge-temperature vaccine to care home residents instead?
If it can be done faster that way then I would say yes.
Debating this treaty really is a great waste of time. What if Parliament decided, you know what, clause 1457 on page 767 isn't really what we wanted? The choice remains the same. Either you vote for the package or you vote against the package and choose no deal. It really is that simple.
It is essential that the vaccines are delivered in the groupings advised and nobody jumps the queue no matter how wealthy or famous who may think they can buy their way to the front
I would disagree. As soon as supply exceeds the ability of the NHS to deliver it systematically, release it to the open market so as many further agents can deliver it. The coverage would then expand more quickly.
I respect your professional knowledge but if that means the wealthy and famous are able to jump the queue then that is wrong
That's how a free market works.
I do not think this is anything like comparable to a commercial venture
The shareholders of Pfizer, AZN, and Moderna for example might take a different view.
Havent AZN and Moderna accepted its a not for profit exercise along with Johnson and Johnson?
Debating this treaty really is a great waste of time. What if Parliament decided, you know what, clause 1457 on page 767 isn't really what we wanted? The choice remains the same. Either you vote for the package or you vote against the package and choose no deal. It really is that simple.
» show previous quotes So Scotland should leave the EU with no deal?
Scotland should have remained in the EU and will be back in as soon as possible after independence. Unfortunately being a colony we were forced out by our Colonial Masters against our will.
Brexit makes the case for independence unanswerable. 55% of Scots wanted to stay in the UK, but 62% wanted to stay in the EU. We were dragged out by the English. It has switched me from Unionist to Nationalist.
Not really 'unanswerable'. It depends how much importance you attach to membership of each? The turnout for the EU referendum was much lower than for the 2014 one.
Most Scots didn't expect the English to vote to leave, so there wasn't the urgency to vote in 2016. After all, we were told in 2014 that if we voted No then we would stay in the EU. Who could have guessed that that was a flat out lie?
It wasn’t a lie.
At that time Brexit hadn’t been voted for (and I don’t think the referendum had even been announced).
No statement about the future looks at every conceivable scenario
OK. So circumstances have changed in ways people couldn't even have conceived since 2014, is that what you're saying? I take it you agree that Scotland should have another referendum then in light of this.
Yes, circumstances changed.
And I gave no problem with Scotland having another vote, say in 20 years
Voting again and again until you get the answer you want is undemocratic
Democracy doesn't have a 20 year timespan, it has a 5 year timespan.
Parliament lasts 5 years not 20 years.
2021 is the next scheduled Holyrood elections. That is not "voting again and again" it is a regularly scheduled election.
If the Scots elect a government committed to another referendum that is not "voting again and again" it is democracy in action.
If circumstances have changed, why wait another 20 years? If they haven't changed, then 2014 was won on a lie. It's as simple as that.
Debating this treaty really is a great waste of time. What if Parliament decided, you know what, clause 1457 on page 767 isn't really what we wanted? The choice remains the same. Either you vote for the package or you vote against the package and choose no deal. It really is that simple.
Agreed, but it makes the luvvies feel important.
There is that. Politicians do need to feel important. It's such a lousy and unattractive job in every other respect.
As OGH says, this all needs to be done fairly and transparently. MY understanding is the initial vaccine doses were sent to those areas with higher proportion of the population over 80. I live in Newham - a relatively "young" area so it'll be interesting to see what progress on vaccination has been made here.
Back to numbers, 3 million over 80, a further 9 million between 65 and 80 and a further 13 million between 50 and 65. The priority must be to reduce, if not eliminate, the deaths and the hospitalisations - the cases will continue as those below the age of vaccination (and presumably at little risk) can still pass it around themselves.
What else don't I know? Most days I plumb new depths in the Marianas Trench of my ignorance but two thoughts - first, no one has said anything about how long the immunity from the vaccines last? Will we have to go through this every year (hopefully with one jab to rebuild the immunity) so it becomes in effect the "new flu jab" or is this now lifetime immunity about which I'm highly sceptical?
Second point, does vaccination prevent transmission? It won't matter so much but if you can still be infected and transmit - even though you suffer no symptoms or ill effects - there's still a problem. From what little I've read that I comprehend, I suspect the vaccine inhibits transmission so all good for a return to all this hugging and touching that we seem to have sorely missed (damnit, whatever happened to British reserve?).
For now, for the immediate, the problem is very much still with us. Unfortunately, we continue to bump up against human behaviour and the almost manic desire to live "a normal life". In my part of the world, a significant minority do not wear masks or take any precautions and this new variant will continue to thrive. The question then becomes the speed of vaccination versus the spread of the virus.
The truth is, I suspect, many of those being vaccinated now have effectively shielded for the past nine months - they aren't the problem inasmuch as they aren't spreading the virus. I did idly wonder a few weeks back whether we'd got this the wrong way round and we should have been vaccinating those spreading the virus first to reduce the transmission but I could well be wrong about that.
As for "lockdowns", nothing has been as severe as the initial confinement in March and April. Even now, my cafe is still open for takeaway so apart from the pubs (so beloved of some PB regulars), the gyms (ditto) and the tattoo parlours (I'm going to say ditto in lieu of any other evidence), I'm not noticing a lot of change from Tier 3 to Tier 4 and it's all far easier than the spring but that's the thing about hope - it takes away the fear and the caution that goes with it.
There is an argument for high profile slebs to be able to jump the queue, if it convinces lots of anti-vaxxers to take it.
F**** off you loony
Don't know if you remember the polio scare in the 50s but Elvis Presley publicly taking the Salk vaccine as an injection (it was later available orally) turned reluctant American youth favourable towards it.
It is indeed. And to answer your point last night, when you said that you chose your wife whereas the UK didn't choose the Lisbon treaty; absolutely wrong. The country, in the shape of the democratically elected government, did indeed choose the Lisbon Treaty.
No I never said the UK didn't choose the Lisbon Treaty. What I said was that I didn't choose it.
The UK in the form of Gordon Brown and Tony Blair reneging on their last election manifesto chose it - and what was the result afterwards? The UK rejected that party and elected Cameron and has never looked back leading to Brexit.
Do you see the point yet? Democracy should rest with the public ultimately and no Parliament can or should bind its successors. Blair and Brown reneging on their manifesto by signing Lisbon was a disreputable way to act. The public by voting 4 General Election and 1 Referendum in a row have reversed that.
Brown signing Lisbon having promised at the election not to is not the same as me choosing my own wife. It is more comparable to one "elder" choosing everyone's partner, compelling them to get married, then saying there is no way to get divorced without leaving the tribe. Now people have chosen to leave the tribe.
....another for the crap Brexit analogy file.
It wasn't my analogy, it was Nigelb and TOPPING that came up with it.
TOPPING was trying to argue that my being married is incompatible with "personal sovereignty". His analogy not mine. Difference is though I chose my wife, she chose me - and if either of us decide we don't want to remain married we can get divorced.
So yes the marriage analogy was crap. But I was arguing against it.
The strategy of arguing against an analogy by building on it is rarely a fruitful one.
Debating this treaty really is a great waste of time. What if Parliament decided, you know what, clause 1457 on page 767 isn't really what we wanted? The choice remains the same. Either you vote for the package or you vote against the package and choose no deal. It really is that simple.
Agree that voting down the deal is the height of foolishness, and in some cases rank hypocrisy, but given this agreement will be a "movable feast' of discussion with the EU, no harm in Parliament putting down markers of where it could welcome changes in the future.
No one seriously ill out of 20000 sounds like it works extremely well even if its technical effectiveness is lower.
I get a handful of colds each year, I don't mind if one of those happens to be covid if my chances of getting seriously ill from it is less than 1 in 20000.
AZ as approved today has a 62% efficacy.
How many got serious ill? Why does it matter what strain a cold is if the chances of getting seriously ill are less than 1 in 20000?
62% is wholly misleading.
And 62% in any case is apparently perfectly fine as far as vaccine efficacy goes generally, if reports on their production is right. Scaring people about that could be dangerous.
Debating this treaty really is a great waste of time. What if Parliament decided, you know what, clause 1457 on page 767 isn't really what we wanted? The choice remains the same. Either you vote for the package or you vote against the package and choose no deal. It really is that simple.
Ends and means. Debate has lots of utility regardless of the conclusion being foregone.
It is essential that the vaccines are delivered in the groupings advised and nobody jumps the queue no matter how wealthy or famous who may think they can buy their way to the front
I would disagree. As soon as supply exceeds the ability of the NHS to deliver it systematically, release it to the open market so as many further agents can deliver it. The coverage would then expand more quickly.
I respect your professional knowledge but if that means the wealthy and famous are able to jump the queue then that is wrong
No, not least because a private AZN jab would cost about the same as a meal out.
If NHS capacity cannot cope with demand, then why restrict delivery rather than open up to other agents. I am only suggesting opening up to private providers when supply exceeds NHS capacity.
Remember that we are dealing with an exhausted NHS at full stretch already.
Don’t the main private providers (eg ELCG) use contracted nurses? I’m not sure there is a reservoir of new trained staff to give the vaccines
It would make sense to use the pharmacy channel but that’s only technically “private” in my view.
I agree about using pharmacies, but why are they only 'technically' private? In my practicing time, certainly at the beginning, they were in a comparable situation to GP's and dentists...... individual practitioners contracted to provide services. There were exceptions.... Boots, the Co-op etc .......but the proportion was something 70-30 towards the individual, or very small groups. However the position has now reversed; at least 70% of pharmacies are controlled by 4 large organisations, and at least two of those organisations...... Boots and Lloyds ...... are owned by US corporations.
In this case you would likely have a mass contract to provide vaccination in a order determined by the government and funded by them. That would be a subcontractor relationship in my view rather than the vaccine being “available privately” in any meaningful sense.
(I’m not sure it is 70% held by the top 4 chains FWIW - from memory there are about 12-13k pharmacies, of which Boots had about 3k, Lloyds 1.5k, Rowlands and Co-op (I forget what they are called these days) about 500-600 each and then Day Lewis at 400.
There are a bunch a smaller chains but almost half are single site proprietor managed pharmacies)
Take the point... an add-on to the current contract for pharmaceutical services.
On numbers, according to the latest figures I could find, from the Pharmaceutical Journal in 2016, the figures are "Large multiples (100 or more pharmacies) make up 49.2% of the community pharmacy market in Great Britain, with 12 companies owning 7,085 pharmacies. Small multiples (6–99 pharmacies) account for 12.4% of the market, with 145 companies owning 1,785 pharmacies, and independents (1–5 pharmacies) control 38.4% of the market, with 4,184 companies owning 5,519 pharmacies."
It is indeed. And to answer your point last night, when you said that you chose your wife whereas the UK didn't choose the Lisbon treaty; absolutely wrong. The country, in the shape of the democratically elected government, did indeed choose the Lisbon Treaty.
No I never said the UK didn't choose the Lisbon Treaty. What I said was that I didn't choose it.
The UK in the form of Gordon Brown and Tony Blair reneging on their last election manifesto chose it - and what was the result afterwards? The UK rejected that party and elected Cameron and has never looked back leading to Brexit.
Do you see the point yet? Democracy should rest with the public ultimately and no Parliament can or should bind its successors. Blair and Brown reneging on their manifesto by signing Lisbon was a disreputable way to act. The public by voting 4 General Election and 1 Referendum in a row have reversed that.
Brown signing Lisbon having promised at the election not to is not the same as me choosing my own wife. It is more comparable to one "elder" choosing everyone's partner, compelling them to get married, then saying there is no way to get divorced without leaving the tribe. Now people have chosen to leave the tribe.
My point is and was that you may not have chosen it but the country did. Democratically. Now of course you may want every decision the government makes to be run by you but I see some problems with that.
"The Country" chose to sign the Lisbon Treaty.
So the analogy stands. You, by getting married, gave up some of your personal sovereignty and ability to go whoring but were wholly sovereign nevertheless as you could at any time go whoring and could indeed leave the marriage.
That you choose to stay in your marriage (which I hope will last for many years) is therefore a compromise of your personal sovereignty.
The country did not democratically.
The government did breaching its manifesto promise - there is nothing democratic about that. The government lost its next election, that is democratic.
So under the principle of "no Parliament can bind its successor" then the rogue Parliament of Brown signing Lisbon in breach of his manifesto commitment not to do so without a referendum ought to have been able to be reversed by the next Parliament. But its wasn't possible.
That I choose to stay in my marriage is not a compromise of my personal sovereignty, it is my choice. If I choose to end it I can do so. The UK could not reverse what Brown did signing Lisbon without leaving the EU altogether - so thankfully we have now taken that course. I am sure you must applaud that since it was the only option left post-Brown right?
Anything the government does, including not following its manifesto, is a democratic act as the people will have voted in a government which they should have realised could not follow its manifesto.
I doubt most people expect the government to do the opposite of its manifesto. But democracy doesn't end the day of the election or once Parliament passes a law.
The principle you keep ignoring that is a key element of Parliamentary Democracy is that no Parliament can bind it's successors. If a government does something we dislike not a part of its manifesto (like Lisbon) then we can elect a different government to reverse that.
The EU made laws irreversible. That is why it is antidemocratic.
Given Brown passed Lisbon in breach of the manifesto and against the public's wishes how do you think the public can or should get it democratically reversed?
Anything a democratically-elected government does is democratic.
Even banning all future elections?
It would be the act of a democratically-elected government so yes.
Hitler says hi.
Yes the tyranny of the majority.
Hence the paraphernalia around government eg the separation of the legislative and executive, etc.
There is a lot more to democracy than having elections.
» show previous quotes So Scotland should leave the EU with no deal?
Scotland should have remained in the EU and will be back in as soon as possible after independence. Unfortunately being a colony we were forced out by our Colonial Masters against our will.
Brexit makes the case for independence unanswerable. 55% of Scots wanted to stay in the UK, but 62% wanted to stay in the EU. We were dragged out by the English. It has switched me from Unionist to Nationalist.
Not really 'unanswerable'. It depends how much importance you attach to membership of each? The turnout for the EU referendum was much lower than for the 2014 one.
Most Scots didn't expect the English to vote to leave, so there wasn't the urgency to vote in 2016. After all, we were told in 2014 that if we voted No then we would stay in the EU. Who could have guessed that that was a flat out lie?
It wasn’t a lie.
At that time Brexit hadn’t been voted for (and I don’t think the referendum had even been announced).
No statement about the future looks at every conceivable scenario
OK. So circumstances have changed in ways people couldn't even have conceived since 2014, is that what you're saying? I take it you agree that Scotland should have another referendum then in light of this.
Yes, circumstances changed.
And I gave no problem with Scotland having another vote, say in 20 years
Voting again and again until you get the answer you want is undemocratic
Democracy doesn't have a 20 year timespan, it has a 5 year timespan.
Parliament lasts 5 years not 20 years.
2021 is the next scheduled Holyrood elections. That is not "voting again and again" it is a regularly scheduled election.
If the Scots elect a government committed to another referendum that is not "voting again and again" it is democracy in action.
If circumstances have changed, why wait another 20 years? If they haven't changed, then 2014 was won on a lie. It's as simple as that.
I have no issue with indyref2 at sometime in the next few years but simple it will not be and I would just suggest to our SNP friends that the debate will be highly controversial and much as they may think independence is guaranteed I would suggest it is far from it
There is an argument for high profile slebs to be able to jump the queue, if it convinces lots of anti-vaxxers to take it.
F**** off you loony
Don't know if you remember the polio scare in the 50s but Elvis Presley publicly taking the Salk vaccine as an injection (it was later available orally) turned reluctant American youth favourable towards it.
Right now it’s the elderly getting vaccinated, and high-profile elderly people are helping out by publicising their vaccination.
When it’s time for the under-40s to get vaccinated, and not before, then hopefully some high-profile people under 40 will help out too.
Debating this treaty really is a great waste of time. What if Parliament decided, you know what, clause 1457 on page 767 isn't really what we wanted? The choice remains the same. Either you vote for the package or you vote against the package and choose no deal. It really is that simple.
It is, but parliament should still have the opportunity, ideally more than it does have but that isn't possible. The decision is that binary but as our representatives they should discuss it together.
» show previous quotes So Scotland should leave the EU with no deal?
Scotland should have remained in the EU and will be back in as soon as possible after independence. Unfortunately being a colony we were forced out by our Colonial Masters against our will.
Brexit makes the case for independence unanswerable. 55% of Scots wanted to stay in the UK, but 62% wanted to stay in the EU. We were dragged out by the English. It has switched me from Unionist to Nationalist.
Not really 'unanswerable'. It depends how much importance you attach to membership of each? The turnout for the EU referendum was much lower than for the 2014 one.
Most Scots didn't expect the English to vote to leave, so there wasn't the urgency to vote in 2016. After all, we were told in 2014 that if we voted No then we would stay in the EU. Who could have guessed that that was a flat out lie?
It wasn’t a lie.
At that time Brexit hadn’t been voted for (and I don’t think the referendum had even been announced).
No statement about the future looks at every conceivable scenario
OK. So circumstances have changed in ways people couldn't even have conceived since 2014, is that what you're saying? I take it you agree that Scotland should have another referendum then in light of this.
Yes, circumstances changed.
And I gave no problem with Scotland having another vote, say in 20 years
Voting again and again until you get the answer you want is undemocratic
If circumstances have changed (and leaving the EU is a massive change for Scotland) then logic dictates you allow another referendum now. Where is the logic in waiting 20 years?
No one seriously ill out of 20000 sounds like it works extremely well even if its technical effectiveness is lower.
I get a handful of colds each year, I don't mind if one of those happens to be covid if my chances of getting seriously ill from it is less than 1 in 20000.
AZ as approved today has a 62% efficacy.
How many got serious ill? Why does it matter what strain a cold is if the chances of getting seriously ill are less than 1 in 20000?
62% is wholly misleading.
And 62% in any case is apparently perfectly fine as far as vaccine efficacy goes generally, if reports on their production is right. Scaring people about that could be dangerous.
The government need to hammer home the message that all the indications are that one full dose provides very high protection from serious illness. That is by far the most important goal.
Two doses ~12 weeks apart will it seems bring the efficacy up to the levels of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. Oh and Oxford is cheaper, easier, more available, etc.
Don't forget that Johnson and Johnson vaccine trial results should be along in 3-4 weeks. They stopped taking new applicants weeks ago, because they already jabbed over 40k people and significant covid positives across whole cohort (hopefully all due to placebo).
This is the absolute daddy of ease of deployment. One shot and done, no artic conditions required or knackered if lightly shaken.
Debating this treaty really is a great waste of time. What if Parliament decided, you know what, clause 1457 on page 767 isn't really what we wanted? The choice remains the same. Either you vote for the package or you vote against the package and choose no deal. It really is that simple.
Ends and means. Debate has lots of utility regardless of the conclusion being foregone.
The conclusion is not foregone. Parliament has the right to say no. It won't of course but it has the right. The debate, well, other than the social care of making politicians think that they matter and we care what they think, I am not seeing the utility.
All the reports are the EU won't approve the Oxford vaccine anytime soon. I wonder if European countries will go to a single dose strategy?
Astra Zeneca haven’t submitted an application yet - and when they do I suspect the EMA will take its time.
I’m surprised at that. I suspect the EU is being misleading.
Typically you don’t officially “submit an application” until *all the data* is available. The regulators don’t start looking until that point because they want to look at the totality of the data.
The MHRA allowed what is called a “rolling submission” - you file each chapter (tox, preclinical, CMC, clinical etc) as it is available.
I don’t know whether the EMA allowed a rolling submission for Jenner/AZ but I would be surprised if they didn’t.
My guess is that the EMA is engaging in some pre-emptive blame shifting relying on journalists taking them at face value and Astra not wanting get into a public fight with its regulator
Thanks - do you think EMA capacity has been affected by their bolt from London?
We've been through this. Charles is wrong. Anyone in the EU could apply for the rolling process but only the UK did.
The vaccine expertise for the EU previously resided in the UK with the MHRA. All such related matters were referred to the UK for this reason.
Since Brexit and the separation the MHRA's application for a rolling review only applied to the UK (it would previously have applied to the whole of the EU). Any other EU regulatory body could have applied for one but as the expertise was not there (I'm guessing?) none did.
So if anything Brexit meant that the EU received its green light later than the UK. Which I suppose for the Brexiters is a huge win.
The vaccines have gained *emergency authorisation* which is different. Safety trials continue. Due to FoI some info is freely available in the USA that I don't think is issued to the public here or in the EU.
Pfizer and Moderna aren't vaccines, nor are coronavirus vaccines necessarily as useful in a risk-benefit comparison as influenza vaccines. Effective treatment protocols have been pioneered by Dr Pierre Kory and many others but some rich people don't want us to know about them.
PB is a great betting site. But too many people since Feb 2020 have seemed unable to think for themselves.
Enjoy your (mostly unnecessary) jabs But if in doubt be sceptical and ask 'Cui bono'. 4-5 PB contributors clearly do.
Good news about the AZN vaccine, although I'm still feeling a bit angsty about the decision to basically extend the time between the two doses.
I hope that's a decision genuinely justified by/based on all the trial data, and isn't just a reaction to the threat posed by the new more transmissible variant.
Why? If the first dose does give some protection the priority must be to give the first dose to as many people as possible. As it happens there is some evidence that the increased gap may even be beneficial but even if it wasn't I don't understand your logic.
The logic of giving more people their first shot hasn't escaped me, I just wouldn't want to significantly compromise overall efficacy of the vaccine if it turned out that giving people two shots closer together gave a better level of protection.
Clearly in the current circumstances there's going to be a trade-off between how good the overall double-dose is and how quickly you can vaccinate the whole population, so we have to assume that that element is all factored into the approval process.
You might be deciding between a smaller number of people having very good protection and a larger number of people having only "ok" protection, to break it down to its most simple level. But if the data suggests the increased gap is beneficial then it's all well and good.
Blackford should be told that the time of any more "points of order" he interrupts the debate with will be taken out of his own speaking time when it is his turn to speak.
Why should it be taken from the time of others?
In my experience 95% of points of order are not even points of order. Hows his ratio?
It's interesting that we haven't heard whether or not the Queen and the Duke have had the vaccine. I do think we have less of an anti-vax problem here and more of a "it's not fair that they've had it and I haven't had it" problem so perhaps it makes sense that the powers that be don't want to say either way.
There is an argument for high profile slebs to be able to jump the queue, if it convinces lots of anti-vaxxers to take it.
F**** off you loony
Don't know if you remember the polio scare in the 50s but Elvis Presley publicly taking the Salk vaccine as an injection (it was later available orally) turned reluctant American youth favourable towards it.
Right now it’s the elderly getting vaccinated, and high-profile elderly people are helping out by publicising their vaccination.
When it’s time for the under-40s to get vaccinated, and not before, then hopefully some high-profile people under 40 will help out too.
Yes, the point however is that "celebrities" taking the vaccine early provide a demonstration effect. It is not just "queue jumping". Applies to any age groups you like.
Debating this treaty really is a great waste of time. What if Parliament decided, you know what, clause 1457 on page 767 isn't really what we wanted? The choice remains the same. Either you vote for the package or you vote against the package and choose no deal. It really is that simple.
No it isn't! The UK has a choice of the deal or the deal. Shagger has already signed it. So in the unlikely event that MPs vote it down today they will get to vote again and again until they accede.
All the reports are the EU won't approve the Oxford vaccine anytime soon. I wonder if European countries will go to a single dose strategy?
Astra Zeneca haven’t submitted an application yet - and when they do I suspect the EMA will take its time.
I’m surprised at that. I suspect the EU is being misleading.
Typically you don’t officially “submit an application” until *all the data* is available. The regulators don’t start looking until that point because they want to look at the totality of the data.
The MHRA allowed what is called a “rolling submission” - you file each chapter (tox, preclinical, CMC, clinical etc) as it is available.
I don’t know whether the EMA allowed a rolling submission for Jenner/AZ but I would be surprised if they didn’t.
My guess is that the EMA is engaging in some pre-emptive blame shifting relying on journalists taking them at face value and Astra not wanting get into a public fight with its regulator
Thanks - do you think EMA capacity has been affected by their bolt from London?
We've been through this. Charles is wrong. Anyone in the EU could apply for the rolling process but only the UK did.
The vaccine expertise for the EU previously resided in the UK with the MHRA. All such related matters were referred to the UK for this reason.
Since Brexit and the separation the MHRA's application for a rolling review only applied to the UK (it would previously have applied to the whole of the EU). Any other EU regulatory body could have applied for one but as the expertise was not there (I'm guessing?) none did.
So if anything Brexit meant that the EU received its green light later than the UK. Which I suppose for the Brexiters is a huge win.
The vaccines have gained *emergency authorisation* which is different. Safety trials continue. Due to FoI some info is freely available in the USA that I don't think is issued to the public here or in the EU.
Pfizer and Moderna aren't vaccines, nor are coronavirus vaccines necessarily as useful in a risk-benefit comparison as influenza vaccines. Effective treatment protocols have been pioneered by Dr Pierre Kory and many others but some rich people don't want us to know about them.
PB is a great betting site. But too many people since Feb 2020 have seemed unable to think for themselves.
Enjoy your (mostly unnecessary) jabs But if in doubt be sceptical and ask 'Cui bono'. 4-5 PB contributors clearly do.
Care to elaborate on the 'some rich people dont want us to know about them'?
Without detail an expression like that is a giant red flag to several different things.
» show previous quotes So Scotland should leave the EU with no deal?
Scotland should have remained in the EU and will be back in as soon as possible after independence. Unfortunately being a colony we were forced out by our Colonial Masters against our will.
Brexit makes the case for independence unanswerable. 55% of Scots wanted to stay in the UK, but 62% wanted to stay in the EU. We were dragged out by the English. It has switched me from Unionist to Nationalist.
Not really 'unanswerable'. It depends how much importance you attach to membership of each? The turnout for the EU referendum was much lower than for the 2014 one.
Most Scots didn't expect the English to vote to leave, so there wasn't the urgency to vote in 2016. After all, we were told in 2014 that if we voted No then we would stay in the EU. Who could have guessed that that was a flat out lie?
It wasn’t a lie.
At that time Brexit hadn’t been voted for (and I don’t think the referendum had even been announced).
No statement about the future looks at every conceivable scenario
OK. So circumstances have changed in ways people couldn't even have conceived since 2014, is that what you're saying? I take it you agree that Scotland should have another referendum then in light of this.
Yes, circumstances changed.
And I gave no problem with Scotland having another vote, say in 20 years
Voting again and again until you get the answer you want is undemocratic
Democracy doesn't have a 20 year timespan, it has a 5 year timespan.
Parliament lasts 5 years not 20 years.
2021 is the next scheduled Holyrood elections. That is not "voting again and again" it is a regularly scheduled election.
If the Scots elect a government committed to another referendum that is not "voting again and again" it is democracy in action.
If circumstances have changed, why wait another 20 years? If they haven't changed, then 2014 was won on a lie. It's as simple as that.
I have no issue with indyref2 at sometime in the next few years but simple it will not be and I would just suggest to our SNP friends that the debate will be highly controversial and much as they may think independence is guaranteed I would suggest it is far from it
Glad to hear it. It will I am sure be a contentious debate and the result is not certain. There will be a significant short term economic cost to independence, pre 2016 I would have said it wasn't worth it. But it is now clear that England and Scotland are on divergent paths, and 2016 demonstrated that Scotland needs to be able to make its own choices if it is to protect its interests. It's time for Scotland to chart its own course.
» show previous quotes So Scotland should leave the EU with no deal?
Scotland should have remained in the EU and will be back in as soon as possible after independence. Unfortunately being a colony we were forced out by our Colonial Masters against our will.
Nope.
Scotland had two choices in 2014
a) you are part of the U.K. demos b) you are a distinct demos
You chose (a)
Therefore when there was a vote of the U.K. demos in 2016 you voted as part of it.
The only scenario where your claim would be true is if you had voted for independence in 2014 abut it hadn’t yet been completed by the time Brexit happened and the EU turned out to be a rigid and impracticable organisation
Thanks, it’s these types of lofty pronouncements from afar that have been sadly lacking in the constitutional debate. Let’s hope the people of Scotland sit up and take notice.
Not a fan of the Vicar of Bath?
I’m certainly vastly entertained by all the Yoons who are now hanging on his every word, and it’s quite touching to see some solidarity between Scotch immigrants.
It is indeed. And to answer your point last night, when you said that you chose your wife whereas the UK didn't choose the Lisbon treaty; absolutely wrong. The country, in the shape of the democratically elected government, did indeed choose the Lisbon Treaty.
No I never said the UK didn't choose the Lisbon Treaty. What I said was that I didn't choose it.
The UK in the form of Gordon Brown and Tony Blair reneging on their last election manifesto chose it - and what was the result afterwards? The UK rejected that party and elected Cameron and has never looked back leading to Brexit.
Do you see the point yet? Democracy should rest with the public ultimately and no Parliament can or should bind its successors. Blair and Brown reneging on their manifesto by signing Lisbon was a disreputable way to act. The public by voting 4 General Election and 1 Referendum in a row have reversed that.
Brown signing Lisbon having promised at the election not to is not the same as me choosing my own wife. It is more comparable to one "elder" choosing everyone's partner, compelling them to get married, then saying there is no way to get divorced without leaving the tribe. Now people have chosen to leave the tribe.
My point is and was that you may not have chosen it but the country did. Democratically. Now of course you may want every decision the government makes to be run by you but I see some problems with that.
"The Country" chose to sign the Lisbon Treaty.
So the analogy stands. You, by getting married, gave up some of your personal sovereignty and ability to go whoring but were wholly sovereign nevertheless as you could at any time go whoring and could indeed leave the marriage.
That you choose to stay in your marriage (which I hope will last for many years) is therefore a compromise of your personal sovereignty.
The country did not democratically.
The government did breaching its manifesto promise - there is nothing democratic about that. The government lost its next election, that is democratic.
So under the principle of "no Parliament can bind its successor" then the rogue Parliament of Brown signing Lisbon in breach of his manifesto commitment not to do so without a referendum ought to have been able to be reversed by the next Parliament. But its wasn't possible.
That I choose to stay in my marriage is not a compromise of my personal sovereignty, it is my choice. If I choose to end it I can do so. The UK could not reverse what Brown did signing Lisbon without leaving the EU altogether - so thankfully we have now taken that course. I am sure you must applaud that since it was the only option left post-Brown right?
Anything the government does, including not following its manifesto, is a democratic act as the people will have voted in a government which they should have realised could not follow its manifesto.
I doubt most people expect the government to do the opposite of its manifesto. But democracy doesn't end the day of the election or once Parliament passes a law.
The principle you keep ignoring that is a key element of Parliamentary Democracy is that no Parliament can bind it's successors. If a government does something we dislike not a part of its manifesto (like Lisbon) then we can elect a different government to reverse that.
The EU made laws irreversible. That is why it is antidemocratic.
Given Brown passed Lisbon in breach of the manifesto and against the public's wishes how do you think the public can or should get it democratically reversed?
Anything a democratically-elected government does is democratic.
Even banning all future elections?
It would be the act of a democratically-elected government so yes.
Hitler says hi.
Yes the tyranny of the majority.
Hence the paraphernalia around government eg the separation of the legislative and executive, etc.
There is a lot more to democracy than having elections.
Indeed.
Like having those elections be free and fair, meaningful and decisive.
It is indeed. And to answer your point last night, when you said that you chose your wife whereas the UK didn't choose the Lisbon treaty; absolutely wrong. The country, in the shape of the democratically elected government, did indeed choose the Lisbon Treaty.
No I never said the UK didn't choose the Lisbon Treaty. What I said was that I didn't choose it.
The UK in the form of Gordon Brown and Tony Blair reneging on their last election manifesto chose it - and what was the result afterwards? The UK rejected that party and elected Cameron and has never looked back leading to Brexit.
Do you see the point yet? Democracy should rest with the public ultimately and no Parliament can or should bind its successors. Blair and Brown reneging on their manifesto by signing Lisbon was a disreputable way to act. The public by voting 4 General Election and 1 Referendum in a row have reversed that.
Brown signing Lisbon having promised at the election not to is not the same as me choosing my own wife. It is more comparable to one "elder" choosing everyone's partner, compelling them to get married, then saying there is no way to get divorced without leaving the tribe. Now people have chosen to leave the tribe.
My point is and was that you may not have chosen it but the country did. Democratically. Now of course you may want every decision the government makes to be run by you but I see some problems with that.
"The Country" chose to sign the Lisbon Treaty.
So the analogy stands. You, by getting married, gave up some of your personal sovereignty and ability to go whoring but were wholly sovereign nevertheless as you could at any time go whoring and could indeed leave the marriage.
That you choose to stay in your marriage (which I hope will last for many years) is therefore a compromise of your personal sovereignty.
The country did not democratically.
The government did breaching its manifesto promise - there is nothing democratic about that. The government lost its next election, that is democratic.
So under the principle of "no Parliament can bind its successor" then the rogue Parliament of Brown signing Lisbon in breach of his manifesto commitment not to do so without a referendum ought to have been able to be reversed by the next Parliament. But its wasn't possible.
That I choose to stay in my marriage is not a compromise of my personal sovereignty, it is my choice. If I choose to end it I can do so. The UK could not reverse what Brown did signing Lisbon without leaving the EU altogether - so thankfully we have now taken that course. I am sure you must applaud that since it was the only option left post-Brown right?
Anything the government does, including not following its manifesto, is a democratic act as the people will have voted in a government which they should have realised could not follow its manifesto.
I doubt most people expect the government to do the opposite of its manifesto. But democracy doesn't end the day of the election or once Parliament passes a law.
The principle you keep ignoring that is a key element of Parliamentary Democracy is that no Parliament can bind it's successors. If a government does something we dislike not a part of its manifesto (like Lisbon) then we can elect a different government to reverse that.
The EU made laws irreversible. That is why it is antidemocratic.
Given Brown passed Lisbon in breach of the manifesto and against the public's wishes how do you think the public can or should get it democratically reversed?
Anything a democratically-elected government does is democratic.
This was literally the argument @Philip_Thompson used himself to justify everything the current administration has done. The guy is a hypocrite of the highest order.
No. My argument is that democracy does not end and anything this administration does can and should be able to be reversed at the next election. No hypocrisy.
If the next government wishes to reverse this deal they can issue a termination notice.
So what is hypocritical about that?
If this government did something that went in complete contravention of the manifesto, seeking to make it irreversible for the next one, then that would be a different matter.
Reversibility matters.
You are whinging that the Lisbon Treaty was irreversible and therefore somehow different.
I’m not sure if you’ve noticed but we’ve recently been through a process known as “Brexit”.
It is indeed. And to answer your point last night, when you said that you chose your wife whereas the UK didn't choose the Lisbon treaty; absolutely wrong. The country, in the shape of the democratically elected government, did indeed choose the Lisbon Treaty.
No I never said the UK didn't choose the Lisbon Treaty. What I said was that I didn't choose it.
The UK in the form of Gordon Brown and Tony Blair reneging on their last election manifesto chose it - and what was the result afterwards? The UK rejected that party and elected Cameron and has never looked back leading to Brexit.
Do you see the point yet? Democracy should rest with the public ultimately and no Parliament can or should bind its successors. Blair and Brown reneging on their manifesto by signing Lisbon was a disreputable way to act. The public by voting 4 General Election and 1 Referendum in a row have reversed that.
Brown signing Lisbon having promised at the election not to is not the same as me choosing my own wife. It is more comparable to one "elder" choosing everyone's partner, compelling them to get married, then saying there is no way to get divorced without leaving the tribe. Now people have chosen to leave the tribe.
My point is and was that you may not have chosen it but the country did. Democratically. Now of course you may want every decision the government makes to be run by you but I see some problems with that.
"The Country" chose to sign the Lisbon Treaty.
So the analogy stands. You, by getting married, gave up some of your personal sovereignty and ability to go whoring but were wholly sovereign nevertheless as you could at any time go whoring and could indeed leave the marriage.
That you choose to stay in your marriage (which I hope will last for many years) is therefore a compromise of your personal sovereignty.
The country did not democratically.
The government did breaching its manifesto promise - there is nothing democratic about that. The government lost its next election, that is democratic.
So under the principle of "no Parliament can bind its successor" then the rogue Parliament of Brown signing Lisbon in breach of his manifesto commitment not to do so without a referendum ought to have been able to be reversed by the next Parliament. But its wasn't possible.
That I choose to stay in my marriage is not a compromise of my personal sovereignty, it is my choice. If I choose to end it I can do so. The UK could not reverse what Brown did signing Lisbon without leaving the EU altogether - so thankfully we have now taken that course. I am sure you must applaud that since it was the only option left post-Brown right?
Anything the government does, including not following its manifesto, is a democratic act as the people will have voted in a government which they should have realised could not follow its manifesto.
I doubt most people expect the government to do the opposite of its manifesto. But democracy doesn't end the day of the election or once Parliament passes a law.
The principle you keep ignoring that is a key element of Parliamentary Democracy is that no Parliament can bind it's successors. If a government does something we dislike not a part of its manifesto (like Lisbon) then we can elect a different government to reverse that.
The EU made laws irreversible. That is why it is antidemocratic.
Given Brown passed Lisbon in breach of the manifesto and against the public's wishes how do you think the public can or should get it democratically reversed?
Anything a democratically-elected government does is democratic.
Even banning all future elections?
It would be the act of a democratically-elected government so yes.
Hitler says hi.
Yes the tyranny of the majority.
Hence the paraphernalia around government eg the separation of the legislative and executive, etc.
There is a lot more to democracy than having elections.
Indeed.
Like having those elections be free and fair, meaningful and decisive.
I like to think I'm fairly pro-indy but yes Blackford is an arse in the HoC and I avoid listening to his rants.
He generally comes across quite reasonably in a TV interview type of setting outside of the HoC but in it I think he damages the cause more than he helps it.
AZ really completely fucked up the trial didn't they. As in completey and utterly fucked it. Useless company. They've also completely fucked up the manufacturing as well aiui. Honestly, I'd rather have had a competent company in charge even if they refused the cost price pledge, at least we'd have had a proper trial and they wouldn't have completely shit the bed on manufacturing. The Pfizer trial was absolutely brilliant, well thought out and no fuck ups.
If we didn't have this mega emergency the MHRA should have refused and sent AZ back to conduct a new trial with 20k participants on the HD/FD version. Honestly, I think they still should and they should put it up for approval again in a few months.
The clown's not really rising to the occasion here.
I remember listening again to the no confidence debate that led to the 1979 election when it was broadcast earlier this year, and being staggered at the reminder of how much the standard of debate has fallen away since then.
Been looking at the new feed of case by age and admissions by age data from PHE - so far they have data for England...
The following is the full year. Note that the reason for the massive numbers in the later part of the year is mass testing - which allows us to see what is going on.
A more focused view
2 things stand out
- The number of daily cases for the elderly is relatively small and quite stable. - The big numbers in the recent wave are from the 15-44 and 45-64 groups
This may well explain why there isn't a surge in deaths - yet.
» show previous quotes So Scotland should leave the EU with no deal?
Scotland should have remained in the EU and will be back in as soon as possible after independence. Unfortunately being a colony we were forced out by our Colonial Masters against our will.
Brexit makes the case for independence unanswerable. 55% of Scots wanted to stay in the UK, but 62% wanted to stay in the EU. We were dragged out by the English. It has switched me from Unionist to Nationalist.
Not really 'unanswerable'. It depends how much importance you attach to membership of each? The turnout for the EU referendum was much lower than for the 2014 one.
Most Scots didn't expect the English to vote to leave, so there wasn't the urgency to vote in 2016. After all, we were told in 2014 that if we voted No then we would stay in the EU. Who could have guessed that that was a flat out lie?
It wasn’t a lie.
At that time Brexit hadn’t been voted for (and I don’t think the referendum had even been announced).
No statement about the future looks at every conceivable scenario
OK. So circumstances have changed in ways people couldn't even have conceived since 2014, is that what you're saying? I take it you agree that Scotland should have another referendum then in light of this.
Yes, circumstances changed.
And I gave no problem with Scotland having another vote, say in 20 years
Voting again and again until you get the answer you want is undemocratic
Democracy doesn't have a 20 year timespan, it has a 5 year timespan.
Parliament lasts 5 years not 20 years.
2021 is the next scheduled Holyrood elections. That is not "voting again and again" it is a regularly scheduled election.
If the Scots elect a government committed to another referendum that is not "voting again and again" it is democracy in action.
If circumstances have changed, why wait another 20 years? If they haven't changed, then 2014 was won on a lie. It's as simple as that.
I have no issue with indyref2 at sometime in the next few years but simple it will not be and I would just suggest to our SNP friends that the debate will be highly controversial and much as they may think independence is guaranteed I would suggest it is far from it
Glad to hear it. It will I am sure be a contentious debate and the result is not certain. There will be a significant short term economic cost to independence, pre 2016 I would have said it wasn't worth it. But it is now clear that England and Scotland are on divergent paths, and 2016 demonstrated that Scotland needs to be able to make its own choices if it is to protect its interests. It's time for Scotland to chart its own course.
If I could advise our SNP friends dialling down some of rhetoric and making a well argued case is the way forward as being independent very much will still depend on a harmonious relationship with the RUK and angering and abusing them is only likely to make an enemy than a friend
No one seriously ill out of 20000 sounds like it works extremely well even if its technical effectiveness is lower.
I get a handful of colds each year, I don't mind if one of those happens to be covid if my chances of getting seriously ill from it is less than 1 in 20000.
AZ as approved today has a 62% efficacy.
How many got serious ill? Why does it matter what strain a cold is if the chances of getting seriously ill are less than 1 in 20000?
62% is wholly misleading.
And 62% in any case is apparently perfectly fine as far as vaccine efficacy goes generally, if reports on their production is right. Scaring people about that could be dangerous.
No, no. Scaring people is exactly what some want to do. Its become a national sport.
The government should compile a list of anti vaxxers from those who refuse the vaccines and exile them to the Outer Hebrides.
Gruinard is so close to the mainland I don’t think it even counts as Inner Hebrides, but you can have that in perpetuity as long as you pay for electric fencing and watchtowers.
That's a bit unfair on the owners of Gruinard (I went to school with one of them).
It's been cleaned up - a nature reserve mainly, IIRC - now you want to cover it in shite?
Sacrifices have to be made for the public good.
Thames estuary sea forts? Though the twats would probably set up a crackpot radio station pumping out their nonsense 24/7.
Been looking at the new feed of case by age and admissions by age data from PHE - so far they have data for England...
The following is the full year. Note that the reason for the massive numbers in the later part of the year is mass testing - which allows us to see what is going on.
A more focused view
2 things stand out
- The number of daily cases for the elderly is relatively small and quite stable. - The big numbers in the recent wave are from the 15-44 and 45-64 groups - This may well explain why there isn't a surge in deaths - yet.
A picture consistent with current transmission being mostly through schoolchildren to parents.
Maybe we should have started with working age people, prioritising those with the most social interactions?
There is an argument for high profile slebs to be able to jump the queue, if it convinces lots of anti-vaxxers to take it.
F**** off you loony
Don't know if you remember the polio scare in the 50s but Elvis Presley publicly taking the Salk vaccine as an injection (it was later available orally) turned reluctant American youth favourable towards it.
Right now it’s the elderly getting vaccinated, and high-profile elderly people are helping out by publicising their vaccination.
When it’s time for the under-40s to get vaccinated, and not before, then hopefully some high-profile people under 40 will help out too.
Yes, the point however is that "celebrities" taking the vaccine early provide a demonstration effect. It is not just "queue jumping". Applies to any age groups you like.
Getting some celebs in early might indeed be what we need. Not to prove it is safe, but annoy everyone so much that they start asking "Why should X get this before me? I demand it now!" etc
There is an argument for high profile slebs to be able to jump the queue, if it convinces lots of anti-vaxxers to take it.
F**** off you loony
Don't know if you remember the polio scare in the 50s but Elvis Presley publicly taking the Salk vaccine as an injection (it was later available orally) turned reluctant American youth favourable towards it.
Right now it’s the elderly getting vaccinated, and high-profile elderly people are helping out by publicising their vaccination.
When it’s time for the under-40s to get vaccinated, and not before, then hopefully some high-profile people under 40 will help out too.
Yes, the point however is that "celebrities" taking the vaccine early provide a demonstration effect. It is not just "queue jumping". Applies to any age groups you like.
So long as they are receiving the vaccine at the same time as others of their age group then of course it’s fine, and should be encouraged.
Letting them jump the queue to get vaccinated early, because they’re “influencers” or can afford to pay, certainly isn’t, and will generate resentment among the general population.
All the reports are the EU won't approve the Oxford vaccine anytime soon. I wonder if European countries will go to a single dose strategy?
Astra Zeneca haven’t submitted an application yet - and when they do I suspect the EMA will take its time.
I’m surprised at that. I suspect the EU is being misleading.
Typically you don’t officially “submit an application” until *all the data* is available. The regulators don’t start looking until that point because they want to look at the totality of the data.
The MHRA allowed what is called a “rolling submission” - you file each chapter (tox, preclinical, CMC, clinical etc) as it is available.
I don’t know whether the EMA allowed a rolling submission for Jenner/AZ but I would be surprised if they didn’t.
My guess is that the EMA is engaging in some pre-emptive blame shifting relying on journalists taking them at face value and Astra not wanting get into a public fight with its regulator
Thanks - do you think EMA capacity has been affected by their bolt from London?
I think I remember seeing stats that 25-30% of their staff had elected to stay in London but don’t know whether they have replaced them
Debating this treaty really is a great waste of time. What if Parliament decided, you know what, clause 1457 on page 767 isn't really what we wanted? The choice remains the same. Either you vote for the package or you vote against the package and choose no deal. It really is that simple.
No it isn't! The UK has a choice of the deal or the deal. Shagger has already signed it. So in the unlikely event that MPs vote it down today they will get to vote again and again until they accede.
No, we are not in the EU anymore. That's not how things work in a proper democracy. If MPs vote down this deal today there will be no transitional arrangements and WTO terms would start in 2 days time. It is of course possible that after a period of that some other deal would come forward but it would not be this deal.
» show previous quotes So Scotland should leave the EU with no deal?
Scotland should have remained in the EU and will be back in as soon as possible after independence. Unfortunately being a colony we were forced out by our Colonial Masters against our will.
Brexit makes the case for independence unanswerable. 55% of Scots wanted to stay in the UK, but 62% wanted to stay in the EU. We were dragged out by the English. It has switched me from Unionist to Nationalist.
Not really 'unanswerable'. It depends how much importance you attach to membership of each? The turnout for the EU referendum was much lower than for the 2014 one.
Most Scots didn't expect the English to vote to leave, so there wasn't the urgency to vote in 2016. After all, we were told in 2014 that if we voted No then we would stay in the EU. Who could have guessed that that was a flat out lie?
It wasn’t a lie.
At that time Brexit hadn’t been voted for (and I don’t think the referendum had even been announced).
No statement about the future looks at every conceivable scenario
OK. So circumstances have changed in ways people couldn't even have conceived since 2014, is that what you're saying? I take it you agree that Scotland should have another referendum then in light of this.
Yes, circumstances changed.
And I gave no problem with Scotland having another vote, say in 20 years
Voting again and again until you get the answer you want is undemocratic
Such as holding rerun general elections in 2017 and 2019 because the party that won them didn't like the result. That kind of thing.
AZ really completely fucked up the trial didn't they. As in completey and utterly fucked it. Useless company. They've also completely fucked up the manufacturing as well aiui. Honestly, I'd rather have had a competent company in charge even if they refused the cost price pledge, at least we'd have had a proper trial and they wouldn't have completely shit the bed on manufacturing. The Pfizer trial was absolutely brilliant, well thought out and no fuck ups.
If we didn't have this mega emergency the MHRA should have refused and sent AZ back to conduct a new trial with 20k participants on the HD/FD version. Honestly, I think they still should and they should put it up for approval again in a few months.
You think on a matter this serious the regulators have decided to unprofessionally and unethically approved it for use due to what, external pressure?
That's a very serious and incendiary accusation.
Absent proof of the regulators being corrupt might it be that they consider evidence shows it's safe despite the concerns raised around the trials?
It is indeed. And to answer your point last night, when you said that you chose your wife whereas the UK didn't choose the Lisbon treaty; absolutely wrong. The country, in the shape of the democratically elected government, did indeed choose the Lisbon Treaty.
No I never said the UK didn't choose the Lisbon Treaty. What I said was that I didn't choose it.
The UK in the form of Gordon Brown and Tony Blair reneging on their last election manifesto chose it - and what was the result afterwards? The UK rejected that party and elected Cameron and has never looked back leading to Brexit.
Do you see the point yet? Democracy should rest with the public ultimately and no Parliament can or should bind its successors. Blair and Brown reneging on their manifesto by signing Lisbon was a disreputable way to act. The public by voting 4 General Election and 1 Referendum in a row have reversed that.
Brown signing Lisbon having promised at the election not to is not the same as me choosing my own wife. It is more comparable to one "elder" choosing everyone's partner, compelling them to get married, then saying there is no way to get divorced without leaving the tribe. Now people have chosen to leave the tribe.
My point is and was that you may not have chosen it but the country did. Democratically. Now of course you may want every decision the government makes to be run by you but I see some problems with that.
"The Country" chose to sign the Lisbon Treaty.
So the analogy stands. You, by getting married, gave up some of your personal sovereignty and ability to go whoring but were wholly sovereign nevertheless as you could at any time go whoring and could indeed leave the marriage.
That you choose to stay in your marriage (which I hope will last for many years) is therefore a compromise of your personal sovereignty.
The country did not democratically.
The government did breaching its manifesto promise - there is nothing democratic about that. The government lost its next election, that is democratic.
So under the principle of "no Parliament can bind its successor" then the rogue Parliament of Brown signing Lisbon in breach of his manifesto commitment not to do so without a referendum ought to have been able to be reversed by the next Parliament. But its wasn't possible.
That I choose to stay in my marriage is not a compromise of my personal sovereignty, it is my choice. If I choose to end it I can do so. The UK could not reverse what Brown did signing Lisbon without leaving the EU altogether - so thankfully we have now taken that course. I am sure you must applaud that since it was the only option left post-Brown right?
Anything the government does, including not following its manifesto, is a democratic act as the people will have voted in a government which they should have realised could not follow its manifesto.
I doubt most people expect the government to do the opposite of its manifesto. But democracy doesn't end the day of the election or once Parliament passes a law.
The principle you keep ignoring that is a key element of Parliamentary Democracy is that no Parliament can bind it's successors. If a government does something we dislike not a part of its manifesto (like Lisbon) then we can elect a different government to reverse that.
The EU made laws irreversible. That is why it is antidemocratic.
Given Brown passed Lisbon in breach of the manifesto and against the public's wishes how do you think the public can or should get it democratically reversed?
Anything a democratically-elected government does is democratic.
This was literally the argument @Philip_Thompson used himself to justify everything the current administration has done. The guy is a hypocrite of the highest order.
No. My argument is that democracy does not end and anything this administration does can and should be able to be reversed at the next election. No hypocrisy.
If the next government wishes to reverse this deal they can issue a termination notice.
So what is hypocritical about that?
If this government did something that went in complete contravention of the manifesto, seeking to make it irreversible for the next one, then that would be a different matter.
Reversibility matters.
You are whinging that the Lisbon Treaty was irreversible and therefore somehow different.
I’m not sure if you’ve noticed but we’ve recently been through a process known as “Brexit”.
Thank you for making my point for me: I said it was only reversible via Brexit, which we have rightly done.
@TOPPING wants us to not have Brexit yet still insist that Lisbon is OK and democratic. If you want to close off Brexit as an option then there should be a way to reverse it democratically within the EU - otherwise if the only option is Brexit then you are saying the public was right to take the only option before it.
Was the public right to take the only option before it?
» show previous quotes So Scotland should leave the EU with no deal?
Scotland should have remained in the EU and will be back in as soon as possible after independence. Unfortunately being a colony we were forced out by our Colonial Masters against our will.
Nope.
Scotland had two choices in 2014
a) you are part of the U.K. demos b) you are a distinct demos
You chose (a)
Therefore when there was a vote of the U.K. demos in 2016 you voted as part of it.
The only scenario where your claim would be true is if you had voted for independence in 2014 abut it hadn’t yet been completed by the time Brexit happened and the EU turned out to be a rigid and impracticable organisation
Can only say unionist bollox, dress up the turd as much as you like , it is still a turd.
AZ really completely fucked up the trial didn't they. As in completey and utterly fucked it. Useless company. They've also completely fucked up the manufacturing as well aiui. Honestly, I'd rather have had a competent company in charge even if they refused the cost price pledge, at least we'd have had a proper trial and they wouldn't have completely shit the bed on manufacturing. The Pfizer trial was absolutely brilliant, well thought out and no fuck ups.
If we didn't have this mega emergency the MHRA should have refused and sent AZ back to conduct a new trial with 20k participants on the HD/FD version. Honestly, I think they still should and they should put it up for approval again in a few months.
Should be part of the challenge trial, but they won't participate.
» show previous quotes So Scotland should leave the EU with no deal?
Scotland should have remained in the EU and will be back in as soon as possible after independence. Unfortunately being a colony we were forced out by our Colonial Masters against our will.
Nope.
Scotland had two choices in 2014
a) you are part of the U.K. demos b) you are a distinct demos
You chose (a)
Therefore when there was a vote of the U.K. demos in 2016 you voted as part of it.
The only scenario where your claim would be true is if you had voted for independence in 2014 abut it hadn’t yet been completed by the time Brexit happened and the EU turned out to be a rigid and impracticable organisation
Thanks, it’s these types of lofty pronouncements from afar that have been sadly lacking in the constitutional debate. Let’s hope the people of Scotland sit up and take notice.
I do hope that the people of Scotland do take notice of facts.
I know it’s inconvenient for your political objectives but I can’t help that.
Does the fact that Scots were told that if they wanted to stay in the EU they had to vote No, and then it turned out that the opposite was true, not bother you at all? If you were Scottish do you think you'd be OK with it?
There is a difference between being wrong when you make a statement based on the known facts and “lying”.
Either it was a lie at the time, or circumstances have changed significantly since 2014. Either way a second referendum is justified. You didn't answer my question. How do you think you would feel about all this if you were Scottish? Do you think you'd be OK with it?
Fuck me, you've done it now, Chuck's going to launch into his 'My family, the Scotch years' spiel.
» show previous quotes So Scotland should leave the EU with no deal?
Scotland should have remained in the EU and will be back in as soon as possible after independence. Unfortunately being a colony we were forced out by our Colonial Masters against our will.
Brexit makes the case for independence unanswerable. 55% of Scots wanted to stay in the UK, but 62% wanted to stay in the EU. We were dragged out by the English. It has switched me from Unionist to Nationalist.
Not really 'unanswerable'. It depends how much importance you attach to membership of each? The turnout for the EU referendum was much lower than for the 2014 one.
Most Scots didn't expect the English to vote to leave, so there wasn't the urgency to vote in 2016. After all, we were told in 2014 that if we voted No then we would stay in the EU. Who could have guessed that that was a flat out lie?
It wasn’t a lie.
At that time Brexit hadn’t been voted for (and I don’t think the referendum had even been announced).
No statement about the future looks at every conceivable scenario
OK. So circumstances have changed in ways people couldn't even have conceived since 2014, is that what you're saying? I take it you agree that Scotland should have another referendum then in light of this.
Yes, circumstances changed.
And I gave no problem with Scotland having another vote, say in 20 years
Voting again and again until you get the answer you want is undemocratic
Democracy doesn't have a 20 year timespan, it has a 5 year timespan.
Parliament lasts 5 years not 20 years.
2021 is the next scheduled Holyrood elections. That is not "voting again and again" it is a regularly scheduled election.
If the Scots elect a government committed to another referendum that is not "voting again and again" it is democracy in action.
If circumstances have changed, why wait another 20 years? If they haven't changed, then 2014 was won on a lie. It's as simple as that.
I have no issue with indyref2 at sometime in the next few years but simple it will not be and I would just suggest to our SNP friends that the debate will be highly controversial and much as they may think independence is guaranteed I would suggest it is far from it
Glad to hear it. It will I am sure be a contentious debate and the result is not certain. There will be a significant short term economic cost to independence, pre 2016 I would have said it wasn't worth it. But it is now clear that England and Scotland are on divergent paths, and 2016 demonstrated that Scotland needs to be able to make its own choices if it is to protect its interests. It's time for Scotland to chart its own course.
If I could advise our SNP friends dialling down some of rhetoric and making a well argued case is the way forward as being independent very much will still depend on a harmonious relationship with the RUK and angering and abusing them is only likely to make an enemy than a friend
I can't speak for the SNP, I am not a massive fan of theirs although Sturgeon I think is excellent. I hear a lot more abuse directed in a Northerly than a Southerly direction to be honest, not least on this forum. The fact is that this government is only too obliging in providing the SNP with grievances to exploit, it's like shooting fish in a barrel.
AZ really completely fucked up the trial didn't they. As in completey and utterly fucked it. Useless company. They've also completely fucked up the manufacturing as well aiui. Honestly, I'd rather have had a competent company in charge even if they refused the cost price pledge, at least we'd have had a proper trial and they wouldn't have completely shit the bed on manufacturing. The Pfizer trial was absolutely brilliant, well thought out and no fuck ups.
If we didn't have this mega emergency the MHRA should have refused and sent AZ back to conduct a new trial with 20k participants on the HD/FD version. Honestly, I think they still should and they should put it up for approval again in a few months.
Let us not forget the University of Oxford's role in all of this.
» show previous quotes So Scotland should leave the EU with no deal?
Scotland should have remained in the EU and will be back in as soon as possible after independence. Unfortunately being a colony we were forced out by our Colonial Masters against our will.
Brexit makes the case for independence unanswerable. 55% of Scots wanted to stay in the UK, but 62% wanted to stay in the EU. We were dragged out by the English. It has switched me from Unionist to Nationalist.
Not really 'unanswerable'. It depends how much importance you attach to membership of each? The turnout for the EU referendum was much lower than for the 2014 one.
Most Scots didn't expect the English to vote to leave, so there wasn't the urgency to vote in 2016. After all, we were told in 2014 that if we voted No then we would stay in the EU. Who could have guessed that that was a flat out lie?
It wasn’t a lie.
At that time Brexit hadn’t been voted for (and I don’t think the referendum had even been announced).
No statement about the future looks at every conceivable scenario
OK. So circumstances have changed in ways people couldn't even have conceived since 2014, is that what you're saying? I take it you agree that Scotland should have another referendum then in light of this.
Yes, circumstances changed.
And I gave no problem with Scotland having another vote, say in 20 years
Voting again and again until you get the answer you want is undemocratic
Democracy doesn't have a 20 year timespan, it has a 5 year timespan.
Parliament lasts 5 years not 20 years.
2021 is the next scheduled Holyrood elections. That is not "voting again and again" it is a regularly scheduled election.
If the Scots elect a government committed to another referendum that is not "voting again and again" it is democracy in action.
If circumstances have changed, why wait another 20 years? If they haven't changed, then 2014 was won on a lie. It's as simple as that.
I have no issue with indyref2 at sometime in the next few years but simple it will not be and I would just suggest to our SNP friends that the debate will be highly controversial and much as they may think independence is guaranteed I would suggest it is far from it
Assuming the SNP win a mandate at Holyrood, Sturgeon will be in a position on Sindy not dissimilar from the one Johnson was in on Brexit. Just as he demanded another election to get Brexit done, calling on parliament to stop frustrating it, so she will be demanding another referendum to get Sindy done, and calling on Westminster to stop frustrating it. It's a strong position but it's all cart right now. Holyrood first. That's the horse.
AZ really completely fucked up the trial didn't they. As in completey and utterly fucked it. Useless company. They've also completely fucked up the manufacturing as well aiui. Honestly, I'd rather have had a competent company in charge even if they refused the cost price pledge, at least we'd have had a proper trial and they wouldn't have completely shit the bed on manufacturing. The Pfizer trial was absolutely brilliant, well thought out and no fuck ups.
If we didn't have this mega emergency the MHRA should have refused and sent AZ back to conduct a new trial with 20k participants on the HD/FD version. Honestly, I think they still should and they should put it up for approval again in a few months.
How likely is it one company is completely fucked up and useless and another absolutely brilliant when they recruit the same type of people? Extreme and unhelpful hyperbole.
There is an argument for high profile slebs to be able to jump the queue, if it convinces lots of anti-vaxxers to take it.
F**** off you loony
Don't know if you remember the polio scare in the 50s but Elvis Presley publicly taking the Salk vaccine as an injection (it was later available orally) turned reluctant American youth favourable towards it.
Right now it’s the elderly getting vaccinated, and high-profile elderly people are helping out by publicising their vaccination.
When it’s time for the under-40s to get vaccinated, and not before, then hopefully some high-profile people under 40 will help out too.
Yes, the point however is that "celebrities" taking the vaccine early provide a demonstration effect. It is not just "queue jumping". Applies to any age groups you like.
I have had visions of someone particularly high profile (maybe e.g. Biden or similar in the US) having the vaccine live on TV and being the one in a million (or whatever it is) who takes an instant and severe allergic reaction to it, thereby utterly ruining the progress of the vaccination programme in that country.
Highly unlikely of course, but 2020's been that sort of year.
» show previous quotes So Scotland should leave the EU with no deal?
Scotland should have remained in the EU and will be back in as soon as possible after independence. Unfortunately being a colony we were forced out by our Colonial Masters against our will.
Nope.
Scotland had two choices in 2014
a) you are part of the U.K. demos b) you are a distinct demos
You chose (a)
Therefore when there was a vote of the U.K. demos in 2016 you voted as part of it.
The only scenario where your claim would be true is if you had voted for independence in 2014 abut it hadn’t yet been completed by the time Brexit happened and the EU turned out to be a rigid and impracticable organisation
Thanks, it’s these types of lofty pronouncements from afar that have been sadly lacking in the constitutional debate. Let’s hope the people of Scotland sit up and take notice.
I do hope that the people of Scotland do take notice of facts.
I know it’s inconvenient for your political objectives but I can’t help that.
Does the fact that Scots were told that if they wanted to stay in the EU they had to vote No, and then it turned out that the opposite was true, not bother you at all? If you were Scottish do you think you'd be OK with it?
There is a difference between being wrong when you make a statement based on the known facts and “lying”.
Either it was a lie at the time, or circumstances have changed significantly since 2014. Either way a second referendum is justified. You didn't answer my question. How do you think you would feel about all this if you were Scottish? Do you think you'd be OK with it?
Fuck me, you've done it now, Chuck's going to launch into his 'My family, the Scotch years' spiel.
I thought he comes from a family of benevolent Irish landlords? I may have misplaced by copy of Burke's Peerage so can't be wholly sure.
All the reports are the EU won't approve the Oxford vaccine anytime soon. I wonder if European countries will go to a single dose strategy?
Astra Zeneca haven’t submitted an application yet - and when they do I suspect the EMA will take its time.
I’m surprised at that. I suspect the EU is being misleading.
Typically you don’t officially “submit an application” until *all the data* is available. The regulators don’t start looking until that point because they want to look at the totality of the data.
The MHRA allowed what is called a “rolling submission” - you file each chapter (tox, preclinical, CMC, clinical etc) as it is available.
I don’t know whether the EMA allowed a rolling submission for Jenner/AZ but I would be surprised if they didn’t.
My guess is that the EMA is engaging in some pre-emptive blame shifting relying on journalists taking them at face value and Astra not wanting get into a public fight with its regulator
Thanks - do you think EMA capacity has been affected by their bolt from London?
We've been through this. Charles is wrong. Anyone in the EU could apply for the rolling process but only the UK did.
The vaccine expertise for the EU previously resided in the UK with the MHRA. All such related matters were referred to the UK for this reason.
Since Brexit and the separation the MHRA's application for a rolling review only applied to the UK (it would previously have applied to the whole of the EU). Any other EU regulatory body could have applied for one but as the expertise was not there (I'm guessing?) none did.
So if anything Brexit meant that the EU received its green light later than the UK. Which I suppose for the Brexiters is a huge win.
The vaccines have gained *emergency authorisation* which is different. Safety trials continue. Due to FoI some info is freely available in the USA that I don't think is issued to the public here or in the EU.
Pfizer and Moderna aren't vaccines, nor are coronavirus vaccines necessarily as useful in a risk-benefit comparison as influenza vaccines. Effective treatment protocols have been pioneered by Dr Pierre Kory and many others but some rich people don't want us to know about them.
PB is a great betting site. But too many people since Feb 2020 have seemed unable to think for themselves.
Enjoy your (mostly unnecessary) jabs But if in doubt be sceptical and ask 'Cui bono'. 4-5 PB contributors clearly do.
We dont want to be 'treating' people at all as a cure, we want to avoid them seeing a doctor to be treated if & when they come into contact with the virus. Secondly who is going to pay for the treatment protocols, its a hell of a lot more costly than the vaccine.
Been looking at the new feed of case by age and admissions by age data from PHE - so far they have data for England...
The following is the full year. Note that the reason for the massive numbers in the later part of the year is mass testing - which allows us to see what is going on.
A more focused view
2 things stand out
- The number of daily cases for the elderly is relatively small and quite stable. - The big numbers in the recent wave are from the 15-44 and 45-64 groups - This may well explain why there isn't a surge in deaths - yet.
A picture consistent with current transmission being mostly through schoolchildren to parents.
Maybe we should have started with working age people, prioritising those with the most social interactions?
That's cases - have a look at the hospitalisation data.
There's 3.2 million over 80s in the UK. if there are out of the picture, the hospital situation becomes much, much better.
AZ really completely fucked up the trial didn't they. As in completey and utterly fucked it. Useless company. They've also completely fucked up the manufacturing as well aiui. Honestly, I'd rather have had a competent company in charge even if they refused the cost price pledge, at least we'd have had a proper trial and they wouldn't have completely shit the bed on manufacturing. The Pfizer trial was absolutely brilliant, well thought out and no fuck ups.
If we didn't have this mega emergency the MHRA should have refused and sent AZ back to conduct a new trial with 20k participants on the HD/FD version. Honestly, I think they still should and they should put it up for approval again in a few months.
You think on a matter this serious the regulators have decided to unprofessionally and unethically approved it for use due to what, external pressure?
That's a very serious and incendiary accusation.
Absent proof of the regulators being corrupt might it be that they consider evidence shows it's safe despite the concerns raised around the trials?
I'm not suggesting it's unsafe and 62% is plenty to be getting on with, however, there is data showing potential for a 95% effective formula which doesn't need a 12 week gap between jabs. AZ also very obviously fucked up the trial. The MHRA should have given this provisional approval and also sent them back for a completely new trial that isn't completely fucked up like this one was.
I think it's fair to recognise that AZ have made mistakes in the trial process, they should rectify them even if it means running a new trial.
It is indeed. And to answer your point last night, when you said that you chose your wife whereas the UK didn't choose the Lisbon treaty; absolutely wrong. The country, in the shape of the democratically elected government, did indeed choose the Lisbon Treaty.
No I never said the UK didn't choose the Lisbon Treaty. What I said was that I didn't choose it.
The UK in the form of Gordon Brown and Tony Blair reneging on their last election manifesto chose it - and what was the result afterwards? The UK rejected that party and elected Cameron and has never looked back leading to Brexit.
Do you see the point yet? Democracy should rest with the public ultimately and no Parliament can or should bind its successors. Blair and Brown reneging on their manifesto by signing Lisbon was a disreputable way to act. The public by voting 4 General Election and 1 Referendum in a row have reversed that.
Brown signing Lisbon having promised at the election not to is not the same as me choosing my own wife. It is more comparable to one "elder" choosing everyone's partner, compelling them to get married, then saying there is no way to get divorced without leaving the tribe. Now people have chosen to leave the tribe.
My point is and was that you may not have chosen it but the country did. Democratically. Now of course you may want every decision the government makes to be run by you but I see some problems with that.
"The Country" chose to sign the Lisbon Treaty.
So the analogy stands. You, by getting married, gave up some of your personal sovereignty and ability to go whoring but were wholly sovereign nevertheless as you could at any time go whoring and could indeed leave the marriage.
That you choose to stay in your marriage (which I hope will last for many years) is therefore a compromise of your personal sovereignty.
The country did not democratically.
The government did breaching its manifesto promise - there is nothing democratic about that. The government lost its next election, that is democratic.
So under the principle of "no Parliament can bind its successor" then the rogue Parliament of Brown signing Lisbon in breach of his manifesto commitment not to do so without a referendum ought to have been able to be reversed by the next Parliament. But its wasn't possible.
That I choose to stay in my marriage is not a compromise of my personal sovereignty, it is my choice. If I choose to end it I can do so. The UK could not reverse what Brown did signing Lisbon without leaving the EU altogether - so thankfully we have now taken that course. I am sure you must applaud that since it was the only option left post-Brown right?
Anything the government does, including not following its manifesto, is a democratic act as the people will have voted in a government which they should have realised could not follow its manifesto.
I doubt most people expect the government to do the opposite of its manifesto. But democracy doesn't end the day of the election or once Parliament passes a law.
The principle you keep ignoring that is a key element of Parliamentary Democracy is that no Parliament can bind it's successors. If a government does something we dislike not a part of its manifesto (like Lisbon) then we can elect a different government to reverse that.
The EU made laws irreversible. That is why it is antidemocratic.
Given Brown passed Lisbon in breach of the manifesto and against the public's wishes how do you think the public can or should get it democratically reversed?
Anything a democratically-elected government does is democratic.
Even banning all future elections?
It would be the act of a democratically-elected government so yes.
We differ in the source of Parliament’s authority (the government’s authority only comes from the royal prerogative plus its ability to control parliament)
My view is that parliament is the elected representative body of the demos. They have authority over most day to day decisions during their term. But to “change the rules of the game” - leaving the EU, Scottish independence or the length of their own mandate for example - you need to refer back to the people for a specific mandate
» show previous quotes So Scotland should leave the EU with no deal?
Scotland should have remained in the EU and will be back in as soon as possible after independence. Unfortunately being a colony we were forced out by our Colonial Masters against our will.
Nope.
Scotland had two choices in 2014
a) you are part of the U.K. demos b) you are a distinct demos
You chose (a)
Therefore when there was a vote of the U.K. demos in 2016 you voted as part of it.
The only scenario where your claim would be true is if you had voted for independence in 2014 abut it hadn’t yet been completed by the time Brexit happened and the EU turned out to be a rigid and impracticable organisation
Thanks, it’s these types of lofty pronouncements from afar that have been sadly lacking in the constitutional debate. Let’s hope the people of Scotland sit up and take notice.
Not a fan of the Vicar of Bath?
I’m certainly vastly entertained by all the Yoons who are now hanging on his every word, and it’s quite touching to see some solidarity between Scotch immigrants.
He's certainly funnier than The Fat Crofter or #NoDealNicola....
Been looking at the new feed of case by age and admissions by age data from PHE - so far they have data for England...
The following is the full year. Note that the reason for the massive numbers in the later part of the year is mass testing - which allows us to see what is going on.
A more focused view
2 things stand out
- The number of daily cases for the elderly is relatively small and quite stable. - The big numbers in the recent wave are from the 15-44 and 45-64 groups - This may well explain why there isn't a surge in deaths - yet.
A picture consistent with current transmission being mostly through schoolchildren to parents.
Maybe we should have started with working age people, prioritising those with the most social interactions?
That's cases - have a look at the hospitalisation data.
There's 3.2 million over 80s in the UK. if there are out of the picture, the hospital situation becomes much, much better.
True. But the over 80s probably aren't catching it from other over 80s.
"Scottish Labour has found itself trapped in a no-win dilemma over Brexit after it decided to back a Scottish National party motion against the Brexit deal in Holyrood later on Wednesday - in direct contradiction to Keir Starmer’s stance at Westminster.
To the consternation of his internal critics, Richard Leonard, the party’s Scottish leader, announced on Tuesday the party would vote with the SNP to reject the deal by arguing it would cause unjustified economic damage in Scotland."
On the Graun feed - more there if wanted. The other surprise, at least in view of what was being said on this forum yesterday, is that Ian Murray, MP for Morningside Matrons, is very much supporting Mr Starmer and voting for the deal.
AZ really completely fucked up the trial didn't they. As in completey and utterly fucked it. Useless company. They've also completely fucked up the manufacturing as well aiui. Honestly, I'd rather have had a competent company in charge even if they refused the cost price pledge, at least we'd have had a proper trial and they wouldn't have completely shit the bed on manufacturing. The Pfizer trial was absolutely brilliant, well thought out and no fuck ups.
If we didn't have this mega emergency the MHRA should have refused and sent AZ back to conduct a new trial with 20k participants on the HD/FD version. Honestly, I think they still should and they should put it up for approval again in a few months.
How likely is it one company is completely fucked up and useless and another absolutely brilliant when they recruit the same type of people? Extreme and unhelpful hyperbole.
Have you seen some tech company disasters....they often weren't for the quality of the people (on paper) they hired.
Scots by 47% to 17% also want MPs to pass the Deal so further evidence Sturgeon and Blackford have made a huge gaffe telling SNP MPs to oppose the Deal against the will of the people of Scotland!
Comments
Hence the paraphernalia around government eg the separation of the legislative and executive, etc.
So in terms of protecting as much of the population as possible, and hopefully surpressing the pandemic, the Oxford vaccine is our best bet. And if as seems to be the case two full doses about 12 weeks apart gets us to 90% efficacy we will do that too.
For individuals today Pfizer is your quickest path to immunity, but for the whole UK population it will be the Oxford vaccine.
Why should it be taken from the time of others?
I have never said this.
As OGH says, this all needs to be done fairly and transparently. MY understanding is the initial vaccine doses were sent to those areas with higher proportion of the population over 80. I live in Newham - a relatively "young" area so it'll be interesting to see what progress on vaccination has been made here.
Back to numbers, 3 million over 80, a further 9 million between 65 and 80 and a further 13 million between 50 and 65. The priority must be to reduce, if not eliminate, the deaths and the hospitalisations - the cases will continue as those below the age of vaccination (and presumably at little risk) can still pass it around themselves.
What else don't I know? Most days I plumb new depths in the Marianas Trench of my ignorance but two thoughts - first, no one has said anything about how long the immunity from the vaccines last? Will we have to go through this every year (hopefully with one jab to rebuild the immunity) so it becomes in effect the "new flu jab" or is this now lifetime immunity about which I'm highly sceptical?
Second point, does vaccination prevent transmission? It won't matter so much but if you can still be infected and transmit - even though you suffer no symptoms or ill effects - there's still a problem. From what little I've read that I comprehend, I suspect the vaccine inhibits transmission so all good for a return to all this hugging and touching that we seem to have sorely missed (damnit, whatever happened to British reserve?).
For now, for the immediate, the problem is very much still with us. Unfortunately, we continue to bump up against human behaviour and the almost manic desire to live "a normal life". In my part of the world, a significant minority do not wear masks or take any precautions and this new variant will continue to thrive. The question then becomes the speed of vaccination versus the spread of the virus.
The truth is, I suspect, many of those being vaccinated now have effectively shielded for the past nine months - they aren't the problem inasmuch as they aren't spreading the virus. I did idly wonder a few weeks back whether we'd got this the wrong way round and we should have been vaccinating those spreading the virus first to reduce the transmission but I could well be wrong about that.
As for "lockdowns", nothing has been as severe as the initial confinement in March and April. Even now, my cafe is still open for takeaway so apart from the pubs (so beloved of some PB regulars), the gyms (ditto) and the tattoo parlours (I'm going to say ditto in lieu of any other evidence), I'm not noticing a lot of change from Tier 3 to Tier 4 and it's all far easier than the spring but that's the thing about hope - it takes away the fear and the caution that goes with it.
On numbers, according to the latest figures I could find, from the Pharmaceutical Journal in 2016, the figures are
"Large multiples (100 or more pharmacies) make up 49.2% of the community pharmacy market in Great Britain, with 12 companies owning 7,085 pharmacies. Small multiples (6–99 pharmacies) account for 12.4% of the market, with 145 companies owning 1,785 pharmacies, and independents (1–5 pharmacies) control 38.4% of the market, with 4,184 companies owning 5,519 pharmacies."
When it’s time for the under-40s to get vaccinated, and not before, then hopefully some high-profile people under 40 will help out too.
Two doses ~12 weeks apart will it seems bring the efficacy up to the levels of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. Oh and Oxford is cheaper, easier, more available, etc.
This is the absolute daddy of ease of deployment. One shot and done, no artic conditions required or knackered if lightly shaken.
And UK again has a decent order for it.
Pfizer and Moderna aren't vaccines, nor are coronavirus vaccines necessarily as useful in a risk-benefit comparison as influenza vaccines. Effective treatment protocols have been pioneered by Dr Pierre Kory and many others but some rich people don't want us to know about them.
PB is a great betting site. But too many people since Feb 2020 have seemed unable to think for themselves.
Enjoy your (mostly unnecessary) jabs But if in doubt be sceptical and ask 'Cui bono'. 4-5 PB contributors clearly do.
Clearly in the current circumstances there's going to be a trade-off between how good the overall double-dose is and how quickly you can vaccinate the whole population, so we have to assume that that element is all factored into the approval process.
You might be deciding between a smaller number of people having very good protection and a larger number of people having only "ok" protection, to break it down to its most simple level. But if the data suggests the increased gap is beneficial then it's all well and good.
Without detail an expression like that is a giant red flag to several different things.
Like having those elections be free and fair, meaningful and decisive.
Not the case with the EU yet regrettably.
I’m not sure if you’ve noticed but we’ve recently been through a process known as “Brexit”.
He generally comes across quite reasonably in a TV interview type of setting outside of the HoC but in it I think he damages the cause more than he helps it.
If we didn't have this mega emergency the MHRA should have refused and sent AZ back to conduct a new trial with 20k participants on the HD/FD version. Honestly, I think they still should and they should put it up for approval again in a few months.
I remember listening again to the no confidence debate that led to the 1979 election when it was broadcast earlier this year, and being staggered at the reminder of how much the standard of debate has fallen away since then.
The following is the full year. Note that the reason for the massive numbers in the later part of the year is mass testing - which allows us to see what is going on.
A more focused view
2 things stand out
- The number of daily cases for the elderly is relatively small and quite stable.
- The big numbers in the recent wave are from the 15-44 and 45-64 groups
This may well explain why there isn't a surge in deaths - yet.
Thames estuary sea forts? Though the twats would probably set up a crackpot radio station pumping out their nonsense 24/7.
Maybe we should have started with working age people, prioritising those with the most social interactions?
Letting them jump the queue to get vaccinated early, because they’re “influencers” or can afford to pay, certainly isn’t, and will generate resentment among the general population.
and
What stands out here is that the 65-84 and 85+ are massive contributors to the hospitalisations.
Sadly, the admissions data doesn't break out 18-64 group into finer detail - I presume that the most of numbers are in the older group.
That's a very serious and incendiary accusation.
Absent proof of the regulators being corrupt might it be that they consider evidence shows it's safe despite the concerns raised around the trials?
@TOPPING wants us to not have Brexit yet still insist that Lisbon is OK and democratic. If you want to close off Brexit as an option then there should be a way to reverse it democratically within the EU - otherwise if the only option is Brexit then you are saying the public was right to take the only option before it.
Was the public right to take the only option before it?
https://twitter.com/EUCouncilPress/status/1344200995027480576?s=20
Highly unlikely of course, but 2020's been that sort of year.
There's 3.2 million over 80s in the UK. if there are out of the picture, the hospital situation becomes much, much better.
I think it's fair to recognise that AZ have made mistakes in the trial process, they should rectify them even if it means running a new trial.
My view is that parliament is the elected representative body of the demos. They have authority over most day to day decisions during their term. But to “change the rules of the game” - leaving the EU, Scottish independence or the length of their own mandate for example - you need to refer back to the people for a specific mandate
To the consternation of his internal critics, Richard Leonard, the party’s Scottish leader, announced on Tuesday the party would vote with the SNP to reject the deal by arguing it would cause unjustified economic damage in Scotland."
On the Graun feed - more there if wanted. The other surprise, at least in view of what was being said on this forum yesterday, is that Ian Murray, MP for Morningside Matrons, is very much supporting Mr Starmer and voting for the deal.
https://time.com/5919982/lord-of-the-rings-christmas-movies/
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1344222785896288256?s=20
Scots by 47% to 17% also want MPs to pass the Deal so further evidence Sturgeon and Blackford have made a huge gaffe telling SNP MPs to oppose the Deal against the will of the people of Scotland!
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2020/12/30/2ac0b/1