Do we have any idea whether x% effectiveness means
(1) "x% of the population become immune with this vaccine, and can meet infected people all the time and never catch it" or (2) "everyone has a reduction of x% in the probability of catching the infection on any one occasion exposed to it"?
If (1) were the case, then if x is high (e.g. Pfizer's 95%), we might start behaving normally. In particular, NHS staff who meet infected people all the time might be well-prrotected. If (2) is the case then we still need to socially distance etc. until the spread drops so far that you rarely meet an infected person (because you'll still catch it if you keep meeting them, just "100-x%" of time you would have caught it before).
Unfortunately, I'm not sure we can answer this?
Very interesting question. Hope others more viro'd up answer but here is my take -
A vax effectiveness of 90% means that if I take it my risk of becoming infected is 10% of what it would be if I did not take it.
So, for example, if my condition and lifestyle means I have a 50% chance of getting Covid in the next 3 months, if I take the vaccine, all else being equal, my chance of getting it drops to 5%.
And then hopefully the vax does 2 other things for me. It reduces the chance of me getting VERY sick if I do get it. And it stops me somehow spreading it despite not having it.
From the national as opposed to the personal interest it is really the first of these "other things" that is the key. If you are unlucky enough to catch the virus anyway despite your improved chances you are unlikely to need hospital treatment.
Yes, that looms large in my thinking. I'd accept a higher chance of catching it in exchange for a lower chance of getting seriously ill. I'd accept being 21 again, as it were.
I think that is a good way to look at it and a good reason for our current ranking of priorities. This disease is not equal opportunity. The vast majority of 21 year olds who get it will not be ill at all. Many may not even know that they've had it. We all want to get to that stage as fast as possible but especially those who are likely to suffer serious complications as a result.
The point I do not fully get is this one about "does the vaccine stop you spreading it?" This is apparently not proven by the trials but I don't understand why not. We know it reduces the chance of being infected. So the inference here is it might be possible to pass on the virus without being infected yourself? Is that it?
Most of the trials didn't test whether people were infected, only if they were showing symptoms.
So it's possible that the vaccines prevented the symptoms, but not the infection - so a vaccinated person could still spread the virus asymptomatically to a person who hasn't received the vaccine.
The podcast How to Vaccinate the World specifically said no trials have yet determined whether the vaccine prevents onwards transmission because that was not what the trials were designed to do (same with single dose efficacy).
Doesn't stop people (yesterday on R5 some kind of doctors' pressure group for example) saying it does.
Basically the government got the strategy completely wrong and now they're having to try these odd strategies to ensure that hospitals are staffed properly and schools have teachers. Instead we've decided to waste our vaccines on older people who could have stayed indoors for another couple of months.
The US vaccine rollout is much, much better than ours. They've got their priorities right.
If the elderly could just "stay indoors" why have they been filling our hospitals?
The government have the right priorities. Need to cut hospitalisations fast. Care homes are one of the worst superspreaders in the entire nation and a source of a quarter of all deaths and a vast proportion of hospitalisations.
We're running out of doctors and nurses to staff the hospitals. Loads of them are getting isolation notices and wards are running on fumes.
With just 800K jabs we could have made a real dent in keeping the NHS running over the winter period. We really are in a "48h to save the NHS" situation and we've wasted the vaccine doses we do have.
We have done. Second doses only started yesterday.
I'm saying that all doses should be doing to the NHS until all front line staff have been jabbed. No point in hospitals with no doctors and nurses, which according to family in the NHS front line is what's happening.
I don't think any hospitals have 'no doctors and nurses', they may be seeing more patients than those doctors and nurses would like - and preventing a quarter of the patients from arriving in the hospital in the first place will reduce the strain on those doctors and nurses that are there dramatically.
Especially since that quarter of hospitalisations are more likely to get seriously ill, end in ICU and/or die.
Reducing 25% of ambulances call outs and hospitalisations from this will have an immediate impact.
It's not 25%, at 800k first shot to over 80s the reduction is maybe 5%, wards across the country are reporting they are short staffed and people in the front line are taking double shifts to cover it.
We won't get to that 25% figure until the end of January at the earliest, probably mid February at the current roll out rate. The NHS is going to collapse in between.
People are having to do extra shifts due to too many patients coming in, not simply a lack of staff. If there were fewer patients there would be less strain.
25% of hospitalisations come from 1.6 million people. So 800k is half of that group (12.5% of admissions), at 70% efficacy it should reduce admissions by about 9%. Given this group have worse outcomes and longer stays in hospital I believe that could reduce the strain on doctors and nurses by about 10%.
Would giving the vaccine to doctors and nurses increase NHS supply of doctors and nurses by nearly 10%?
On the last point, yes it would. More than that. It's why basically every other country including the US is vaccinating front line medical staff first. The maths works out that short staffed hospitals are worse for public health than over 80s waiting a bit longer. The government got it wrong and now the NHS is going to have very large problems in January and most of February.
Once again we've focussed on the individual rather than the collective good. In a situation akin to wartime individual good goes out of the window. Doctors and nurses are our soldiers in this fight and we're sending them into battle bare handed.
Eliminating a quarter of incoming hospitalisations is in the collective good. The vaccine won't add a quarter to NHS staff, but reducing a quarter of patients being admitted to hospitals is of immediate benefit to the collective.
I'd like to see any data on how many NHS staff are out of action due to the virus who wouldn't be with the vaccine, I doubt it is anything like 10% to 25%.
It's not a quarter. It's about 5-7% at the current level. It won't be a quarter until at least the end of January if not a couple of weeks after. We haven't given a over 80s two jabs. We've given some of them one jab.
I think the first second jabs were actually given yesterday.
But say it's 7%. 105% of hospital capacity is a disaster. 98% is fine.
Staffing running at 100% with 105% capacity is better than 80% running at 98% capacity, the latter situation ends in disaster. That's what we're about to get in January and February. Other countries have made the same calculation and prioritised healthcare workers because of that.
Except the JCVI quite rightly don't seem to believe vaccines would add 20% to staffing capacity.
It is all about admissions that is the problem at the minute for staffing. Stopping the artillery of high admission rates from a small fraction of the population will help the NHS dramatically.
Except they're wrong, it's what's actually happening on the ground. Like with many things, these mathematical models they rely on crumble when they come into contact with the real world.
These same types told us that the circuit breaker would save between 800 and 107,000 lives. One day, maybe soon, you'll learn to disregard all of these mathematical models and rely on what's actually happening on the ground. As it stands London hospitals (I'm using this because I actually know what's happening in London, I'm sure Foxy can illuminate us on Leicester) are suffering from staffing issues which is causing a capacity crunch, doctors and nurses are getting constant isolation notices and the capacity crunch is coming from a younger cohort, not the older one which is much more risk averse than they were in first wave (which shows in the overall rate).
The government has got the wrong priorities and in January the whole country is going to pay for that as the NHS simply won't be able to cope. Other countries, including the US, realised this and have made healthcare workers number one on the priority list to ensure they don't reach a situation similar to what we're about to face either with doctors and nurses having to work despite isolation notices or hospitals being completely short staffed and overrun with patients under the age of 65 where there is an explosion in infections.
Yes and on the ground the NHS is being overwhelmed by too many admissions. The vaccine reduces admissions.
Being Covid-positive is not the only reason for NHS staff to be off, nor do we know yet what reduction in being Covid-positive (as opposed to symptomatic) the vaccine gives, since the NHS staff even the vaccinated quite rightly need to be removed from the front line if positive.
So given you know what is happening in the ground in London what percentage of NHS staff are off specifically due to being Covid positive as opposed to other reasons? What percentage reduction would the vaccination impact on that?
Scotland was European before it was British, according to Mr Blackford.
What does he mean? That the first Scots came from Ireland?
No - he is referring to the alliance networks, I imagine, also cultural ones (e.g. universities). Britain as a modern history thingy didn't happen till 1603 and/or 1707.
Britain as an actual placey thingy, rather than a political construct, existed rather longer ago. Were the Iceni not British?
The Iceni were Welsh.
So, British?
I don't really know what you mean by the ovate word "British".
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
The Iceni with Brythonic Celts. They spoke a language related to Old Welsh.
IANAE but my recollection is that Boudicca's husband was a ruler in Norfolk and that her rebellion was principally in East Anglia. As she was a queen of the Iceni I am struggling to see how that makes them Welsh, as opposed to Britons (many of whom may have spoken a language more related to Welsh than other current languages). Happy to have the error of my ways explained.
But, Boudicca's rebellion was not in "East Anglia" .
The Angles were yet to arrive on the shores of the country we now call "England". There was to be no Kingdom of the East Angles until many hundreds of years later.
Nor was there a Wales. Indeed, arguably there never was, back then.
There was not a Wales (which is an Anglo-Saxon word meaning filthy bastard foreigner scum).
But, there was a Cymry, derived from the Brythonic meaning fellow countrymen.
Kirsty Blackman (SNP) on mute when trying to make her speech. Happens to us all in this remote era in fairness. Edit. I can only hope that the bit on mute was the best bit.
Do we have any idea whether x% effectiveness means
(1) "x% of the population become immune with this vaccine, and can meet infected people all the time and never catch it" or (2) "everyone has a reduction of x% in the probability of catching the infection on any one occasion exposed to it"?
If (1) were the case, then if x is high (e.g. Pfizer's 95%), we might start behaving normally. In particular, NHS staff who meet infected people all the time might be well-prrotected. If (2) is the case then we still need to socially distance etc. until the spread drops so far that you rarely meet an infected person (because you'll still catch it if you keep meeting them, just "100-x%" of time you would have caught it before).
Unfortunately, I'm not sure we can answer this?
Very interesting question. Hope others more viro'd up answer but here is my take -
A vax effectiveness of 90% means that if I take it my risk of becoming infected is 10% of what it would be if I did not take it.
So, for example, if my condition and lifestyle means I have a 50% chance of getting Covid in the next 3 months, if I take the vaccine, all else being equal, my chance of getting it drops to 5%.
And then hopefully the vax does 2 other things for me. It reduces the chance of me getting VERY sick if I do get it. And it stops me somehow spreading it despite not having it.
From the national as opposed to the personal interest it is really the first of these "other things" that is the key. If you are unlucky enough to catch the virus anyway despite your improved chances you are unlikely to need hospital treatment.
Yes, that looms large in my thinking. I'd accept a higher chance of catching it in exchange for a lower chance of getting seriously ill. I'd accept being 21 again, as it were.
I think that is a good way to look at it and a good reason for our current ranking of priorities. This disease is not equal opportunity. The vast majority of 21 year olds who get it will not be ill at all. Many may not even know that they've had it. We all want to get to that stage as fast as possible but especially those who are likely to suffer serious complications as a result.
The point I do not fully get is this one about "does the vaccine stop you spreading it?" This is apparently not proven by the trials but I don't understand why not. We know it reduces the chance of being infected. So the inference here is it might be possible to pass on the virus without being infected yourself? Is that it?
We already know the asymptomatic can spread it.
The vaccine might make you an asymptomatic spreader, we don't know that yet it is too early to tell. But the JCVI clearly believe it will reduce spread which is why it is prioritising NHS staff and Care staff.
Yes but if you are infected with no symptoms you are still infected. And I thought the trials proved that the vaccine reduces the chance of being infected.
So, if the trials do NOT prove it also reduces the chance of you spreading the virus, the inference is that people might be able to spread the virus even when not infected by it, symptoms or not.
And what level of effectiveness can we have “every confidence in” ?
Having read the trial documents the efficacy is an odd one to understand and easily compare. In the AZ trial because of the weekly PCR test for participants, anyone who tested positive was then assessed for symptoms and even the most minor ones such as the sniffles or a solitary headache would count towards the total number of symptomatic COVID patients in the vaccine arm. They created a rod for their own back because not a single person out there cares about getting the sniffles or a couple of headaches or other relatively minor symptoms. Symptoms that didn't get recorded in the other trials and didn't count towards their symptomatic COVID patients in the vaccine arm.
I await the full trial data and classification of symptoms in the vaccine arm, that may actually help us to calculate efficacy of it against serious symptoms and mild symptoms rather than what may just be coincidental ones.
And as a cultural nation Britain was invented in the 1700s so Blackford is right.
When did continental cultural identity become a thing?
I would suggest the concept of Christendom at the time of the Crusades, which was a continental wide cause.
Western, Mid and SE Europe though. Not NE. There were crusades to 'convert' the heathen Prussiana and the Baltic States. Not, tbh, sure when the Finns became Christian.
Do we have any idea whether x% effectiveness means
(1) "x% of the population become immune with this vaccine, and can meet infected people all the time and never catch it" or (2) "everyone has a reduction of x% in the probability of catching the infection on any one occasion exposed to it"?
If (1) were the case, then if x is high (e.g. Pfizer's 95%), we might start behaving normally. In particular, NHS staff who meet infected people all the time might be well-prrotected. If (2) is the case then we still need to socially distance etc. until the spread drops so far that you rarely meet an infected person (because you'll still catch it if you keep meeting them, just "100-x%" of time you would have caught it before).
Unfortunately, I'm not sure we can answer this?
Very interesting question. Hope others more viro'd up answer but here is my take -
A vax effectiveness of 90% means that if I take it my risk of becoming infected is 10% of what it would be if I did not take it.
So, for example, if my condition and lifestyle means I have a 50% chance of getting Covid in the next 3 months, if I take the vaccine, all else being equal, my chance of getting it drops to 5%.
And then hopefully the vax does 2 other things for me. It reduces the chance of me getting VERY sick if I do get it. And it stops me somehow spreading it despite not having it.
From the national as opposed to the personal interest it is really the first of these "other things" that is the key. If you are unlucky enough to catch the virus anyway despite your improved chances you are unlikely to need hospital treatment.
Yes, that looms large in my thinking. I'd accept a higher chance of catching it in exchange for a lower chance of getting seriously ill. I'd accept being 21 again, as it were.
I think that is a good way to look at it and a good reason for our current ranking of priorities. This disease is not equal opportunity. The vast majority of 21 year olds who get it will not be ill at all. Many may not even know that they've had it. We all want to get to that stage as fast as possible but especially those who are likely to suffer serious complications as a result.
The point I do not fully get is this one about "does the vaccine stop you spreading it?" This is apparently not proven by the trials but I don't understand why not. We know it reduces the chance of being infected. So the inference here is it might be possible to pass on the virus without being infected yourself? Is that it?
Most of the trials didn't test whether people were infected, only if they were showing symptoms.
So it's possible that the vaccines prevented the symptoms, but not the infection - so a vaccinated person could still spread the virus asymptomatically to a person who hasn't received the vaccine.
Which is another reason the best thing for the NHS is to protect the 1.6 million first before doctors and nurses.
Preventing the symptoms and thus hospitalisations will go a long way to reducing the strain on the NHS. But if a doctor or nurse gets the vaccine, becomes an asymptomatic carrier and then tests positive they'll still have to be removed from the front line even though they're vaccinated.
Maybe. When things were (maybe still are?) very bad in Liege, in Belgium, in the autumn they were asking asymptomatic staff to work in the Covid wards.
If the system is on the verge of collapse it's the sort of decision that becomes necessary.
I don't think the detail of the vaccine rollout will end up making the crucial difference. The critical factor is: Can restrictions in lockdown three reduce the infection rate?
If they can't then the vaccination programme isn't going to have an effect fast enough to prevent collapse of the hospital system.
We'll find out whether the infection rate is coming under control during next week - when they'll only just be starting to use the AZN vaccine.
And what level of effectiveness can we have “every confidence in” ?
Having read the trial documents the efficacy is an odd one to understand and easily compare. In the AZ trial because of the weekly PCR test for participants, anyone who tested positive was then assessed for symptoms and even the most minor ones such as the sniffles or a solitary headache would count towards the total number of symptomatic COVID patients in the vaccine arm. They created a rod for their own back because not a single person out there cares about getting the sniffles or a couple of headaches or other relatively minor symptoms. Symptoms that didn't get recorded in the other trials and didn't count towards their symptomatic COVID patients in the vaccine arm.
I await the full trial data and classification of symptoms in the vaccine arm, that may actually help us to calculate efficacy of it against serious symptoms and mild symptoms rather than what may just be coincidental ones.
"A new YouGov poll of 1,640 people suggests that 28% of Americans believe that Bill Gates wants to use vaccines to implant microchips in people - with the figure rising to 44% among Republicans."
And what level of effectiveness can we have “every confidence in” ?
Having read the trial documents the efficacy is an odd one to understand and easily compare. In the AZ trial because of the weekly PCR test for participants, anyone who tested positive was then assessed for symptoms and even the most minor ones such as the sniffles or a solitary headache would count towards the total number of symptomatic COVID patients in the vaccine arm. They created a rod for their own back because not a single person out there cares about getting the sniffles or a couple of headaches or other relatively minor symptoms. Symptoms that didn't get recorded in the other trials and didn't count towards their symptomatic COVID patients in the vaccine arm.
I await the full trial data and classification of symptoms in the vaccine arm, that may actually help us to calculate efficacy of it against serious symptoms and mild symptoms rather than what may just be coincidental ones.
My understanding is that to be "symptomatic" in the AZN trial cov002 that they had to have one of 3 symptoms: fever, cough or loss of taste and smell. Anything less than that would count as "asymptomatic" even if there were symptoms.
In the South African and Brazilian studies, there were different criteria for symptoms (as well as different placebo and dosage regimes) and no asymptomatic testing.
Was there any consistency between the trials run in each country? It doesn't appear that way.
Not really, and that is a problem when trying to analyse as one meta-analysis.
It appears safe though, and mostly effective. In the current dire situation it needs to be rolled out despite the efficacy data being substandard.
I think further trials would struggle to recruit, particularly in vulnerable populations. We are probably going to have to depend on post market surveillance.
It's a complicated issue anyway, as if approved elsewhere based on a UK trial, the population being dosed will have very different characteristics from that of the UK. But both trials and populations showed similar immune system effects, and a similar relationship between the number of infections in the placebo and vaccine groups.
Bottom line would seem to be that the vaccine works, whether the precise efficacy is 60, 70 or even 80% (for the delayed booster protocol). Even the lowest of those figures is sufficient for it to be useful, and for the foreseeable future, and for most of us, there isn't an alternative.
Scotland was European before it was British, according to Mr Blackford.
What does he mean? That the first Scots came from Ireland?
No - he is referring to the alliance networks, I imagine, also cultural ones (e.g. universities). Britain as a modern history thingy didn't happen till 1603 and/or 1707.
Britain as an actual placey thingy, rather than a political construct, existed rather longer ago. Were the Iceni not British?
The Iceni were Welsh.
So, British?
I don't really know what you mean by the ovate word "British".
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
The Iceni with Brythonic Celts. They spoke a language related to Old Welsh.
IANAE but my recollection is that Boudicca's husband was a ruler in Norfolk and that her rebellion was principally in East Anglia. As she was a queen of the Iceni I am struggling to see how that makes them Welsh, as opposed to Britons (many of whom may have spoken a language more related to Welsh than other current languages). Happy to have the error of my ways explained.
But, Boudicca's rebellion was not in "East Anglia" .
The Angles were yet to arrive on the shores of the country we now call "England". There was to be no Kingdom of the East Angles until many hundreds of years later.
Nor was there a Wales. Indeed, arguably there never was, back then.
There was not a Wales (which is an Anglo-Saxon word meaning filthy bastard foreigner scum).
But, there was a Cymry, derived from the Brythonic meaning fellow countrymen.
Boudicca is Cymric.
But they were all separate tribes, often at war, making it very easy for the Romans to divide and conquer.
Slapping a label on them all in retrospect, whether ‘Wales’ or ‘Cymric’, would be like going back and telling the Native Americans they were all such.
Scotland was European before it was British, according to Mr Blackford.
What does he mean? That the first Scots came from Ireland?
No - he is referring to the alliance networks, I imagine, also cultural ones (e.g. universities). Britain as a modern history thingy didn't happen till 1603 and/or 1707.
Britain as an actual placey thingy, rather than a political construct, existed rather longer ago. Were the Iceni not British?
The Iceni were Welsh.
So, British?
I don't really know what you mean by the ovate word "British".
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
The Iceni with Brythonic Celts. They spoke a language related to Old Welsh.
IANAE but my recollection is that Boudicca's husband was a ruler in Norfolk and that her rebellion was principally in East Anglia. As she was a queen of the Iceni I am struggling to see how that makes them Welsh, as opposed to Britons (many of whom may have spoken a language more related to Welsh than other current languages). Happy to have the error of my ways explained.
But, Boudicca's rebellion was not in "East Anglia" .
The Angles were yet to arrive on the shores of the country we now call "England". There was to be no Kingdom of the East Angles until many hundreds of years later.
Nor was there a Wales. Indeed, arguably there never was, back then.
There was not a Wales (which is an Anglo-Saxon word meaning filthy bastard foreigner scum).
But, there was a Cymry, derived from the Brythonic meaning fellow countrymen.
Boudicca is Cymric.
Actually we don't know. She may have regarded everyone living outside the Iceni kingdom as filthy bastard foreigner scum, whatever language they spoke.
And what level of effectiveness can we have “every confidence in” ?
Having read the trial documents the efficacy is an odd one to understand and easily compare. In the AZ trial because of the weekly PCR test for participants, anyone who tested positive was then assessed for symptoms and even the most minor ones such as the sniffles or a solitary headache would count towards the total number of symptomatic COVID patients in the vaccine arm. They created a rod for their own back because not a single person out there cares about getting the sniffles or a couple of headaches or other relatively minor symptoms. Symptoms that didn't get recorded in the other trials and didn't count towards their symptomatic COVID patients in the vaccine arm.
I await the full trial data and classification of symptoms in the vaccine arm, that may actually help us to calculate efficacy of it against serious symptoms and mild symptoms rather than what may just be coincidental ones.
Do we have any idea whether x% effectiveness means
(1) "x% of the population become immune with this vaccine, and can meet infected people all the time and never catch it" or (2) "everyone has a reduction of x% in the probability of catching the infection on any one occasion exposed to it"?
If (1) were the case, then if x is high (e.g. Pfizer's 95%), we might start behaving normally. In particular, NHS staff who meet infected people all the time might be well-prrotected. If (2) is the case then we still need to socially distance etc. until the spread drops so far that you rarely meet an infected person (because you'll still catch it if you keep meeting them, just "100-x%" of time you would have caught it before).
Unfortunately, I'm not sure we can answer this?
Very interesting question. Hope others more viro'd up answer but here is my take -
A vax effectiveness of 90% means that if I take it my risk of becoming infected is 10% of what it would be if I did not take it.
So, for example, if my condition and lifestyle means I have a 50% chance of getting Covid in the next 3 months, if I take the vaccine, all else being equal, my chance of getting it drops to 5%.
And then hopefully the vax does 2 other things for me. It reduces the chance of me getting VERY sick if I do get it. And it stops me somehow spreading it despite not having it.
From the national as opposed to the personal interest it is really the first of these "other things" that is the key. If you are unlucky enough to catch the virus anyway despite your improved chances you are unlikely to need hospital treatment.
Yes, that looms large in my thinking. I'd accept a higher chance of catching it in exchange for a lower chance of getting seriously ill. I'd accept being 21 again, as it were.
I think that is a good way to look at it and a good reason for our current ranking of priorities. This disease is not equal opportunity. The vast majority of 21 year olds who get it will not be ill at all. Many may not even know that they've had it. We all want to get to that stage as fast as possible but especially those who are likely to suffer serious complications as a result.
The point I do not fully get is this one about "does the vaccine stop you spreading it?" This is apparently not proven by the trials but I don't understand why not. We know it reduces the chance of being infected. So the inference here is it might be possible to pass on the virus without being infected yourself? Is that it?
Most of the trials didn't test whether people were infected, only if they were showing symptoms.
So it's possible that the vaccines prevented the symptoms, but not the infection - so a vaccinated person could still spread the virus asymptomatically to a person who hasn't received the vaccine.
Ah RIGHT. Thank you.
I had assumed that the participants were regularly tested.
Starmer is making a mistake. Labour is making a mistake. They are in the same lobby as Steve Baker. Disgusting decision.
Instead of respecting Democracy they are playing political games.
To believe in democracy you have to believe everyone in parliament can vote with their conscience on what they think of the deal, for the country and their constituents, without the weapon of no deal held to their heads.
If then it passes, it passes. That’s democracy saying yes. And, if governments deal can’t pass despite an eighty seat majority over all other parties, democracy is saying no.
Is that all Labour is now, a split between unreconstructed IRA loving Marxists or ambitious New Labour sell outs? If so then it is toast. This is the day history will point to as the day Labour became toast.
Obviously I disagree,
Let’s deal with how history views this.
2016 Labour leadership and front bench do not campaign very hard for Remain. It’s almost like they have always believed in brexit.
2017 Labour stand in GE on slim majority of voters in a flawed direct democracy vote have spoken a brexit means brexit platform.
2019 any chance of a sensible as possible soft brexit slaughtered by Labour. Any chance of a confirmatory vote slaughtered by Labour.
2020 ambitious slimy pole climbing New Labour leadership vote for and ensure hardest of brexit endorsing slimmest of deals.
Conclusion. This is not a Tory Brexit. Labour has the blood of British economy on its hands. As households and government coffers become poorer Labour has that blood on its hands too.
The referendum was not a "flawed direct democracy vote". You lose your readers by making that point.
there is a difference between direct democracy and representative democracy. And the question of mixing the two. Once people vote in a referendum, what is the role of parliament and representatives?
The word comes from Ancient Greece, Demo = people, Cracy = rule. However the whole point of the democracy in Ancient Greece wasn’t so that 52% ever trumps 48%, actual democracy is about tolerating minority views in the big decisions for a society going forwards, not just as fairest, but to minimise ongoing conflict. So that is a Brexit not just for the 52% (many of which actually did not vote for hard brexit) but the views of the 48% too.
representative democracy is far stronger than direct democracy because it allows for more efficient scrutiny by a sufficiently small number of people with time and skills, who have maturity of judgment and unbiased in opinion to go into forensic depth and come to a more enlightened conclusion on behalf of all people and points of view. key difference between direct and representative forms of democracy is representatives not simply to communicate the wishes of the electorate but to use their own judgment in the exercise of their powers, even if their views are not reflective of those of a majority of voters, but the voters can still remove them. If you don’t agree with me on that then you don’t actually agree with parliamentary democracy.
Democracy is really about what do you do when you disagree. And the time and skills to scrutinise and debate to a strong conclusion.
do you believe democracy is all about tolerating and involving minority view points as far as possible? Those of you saying no are brexiteers? Just like they don’t understand sovereignty, brexiteers haven’t a clue what democracy is either.
Direct democracy relies on the quality of the debate. lets look at how legitimate 2016 is? Did the campaign inform the voters or confuse or mislead them? When people voted were they sure what they would be getting? Were all risks with both options fully appreciated? Was just the two options enough? I’m not saying people don’t have the education or skills to participate in direct democracy, but are we confident each direct democracy event will have a free and strong debate and produce strong decisions?
The actual two months of campaigning in 2016 were utter feckin nonsense. Fact.
How do you think our experiment in one off direct democracy fitted in with our usual system of representative democracy deciding these big complicated questions?
You think it went well?
U.K. dined out on investment due to our long record of stability. One dalliance with direct democracy trashed that record and made ourselves laughing stock of the world. Fact.
Remain voters quite rightly will never accept brexit referendum because it was second rate version of democracy producing an absurd result.
Basically the government got the strategy completely wrong and now they're having to try these odd strategies to ensure that hospitals are staffed properly and schools have teachers. Instead we've decided to waste our vaccines on older people who could have stayed indoors for another couple of months.
The US vaccine rollout is much, much better than ours. They've got their priorities right.
If the elderly could just "stay indoors" why have they been filling our hospitals?
The government have the right priorities. Need to cut hospitalisations fast. Care homes are one of the worst superspreaders in the entire nation and a source of a quarter of all deaths and a vast proportion of hospitalisations.
We're running out of doctors and nurses to staff the hospitals. Loads of them are getting isolation notices and wards are running on fumes.
With just 800K jabs we could have made a real dent in keeping the NHS running over the winter period. We really are in a "48h to save the NHS" situation and we've wasted the vaccine doses we do have.
We have done. Second doses only started yesterday.
I'm saying that all doses should be doing to the NHS until all front line staff have been jabbed. No point in hospitals with no doctors and nurses, which according to family in the NHS front line is what's happening.
I don't think any hospitals have 'no doctors and nurses', they may be seeing more patients than those doctors and nurses would like - and preventing a quarter of the patients from arriving in the hospital in the first place will reduce the strain on those doctors and nurses that are there dramatically.
Especially since that quarter of hospitalisations are more likely to get seriously ill, end in ICU and/or die.
Reducing 25% of ambulances call outs and hospitalisations from this will have an immediate impact.
It's not 25%, at 800k first shot to over 80s the reduction is maybe 5%, wards across the country are reporting they are short staffed and people in the front line are taking double shifts to cover it.
We won't get to that 25% figure until the end of January at the earliest, probably mid February at the current roll out rate. The NHS is going to collapse in between.
People are having to do extra shifts due to too many patients coming in, not simply a lack of staff. If there were fewer patients there would be less strain.
25% of hospitalisations come from 1.6 million people. So 800k is half of that group (12.5% of admissions), at 70% efficacy it should reduce admissions by about 9%. Given this group have worse outcomes and longer stays in hospital I believe that could reduce the strain on doctors and nurses by about 10%.
Would giving the vaccine to doctors and nurses increase NHS supply of doctors and nurses by nearly 10%?
On the last point, yes it would. More than that. It's why basically every other country including the US is vaccinating front line medical staff first. The maths works out that short staffed hospitals are worse for public health than over 80s waiting a bit longer. The government got it wrong and now the NHS is going to have very large problems in January and most of February.
Once again we've focussed on the individual rather than the collective good. In a situation akin to wartime individual good goes out of the window. Doctors and nurses are our soldiers in this fight and we're sending them into battle bare handed.
Eliminating a quarter of incoming hospitalisations is in the collective good. The vaccine won't add a quarter to NHS staff, but reducing a quarter of patients being admitted to hospitals is of immediate benefit to the collective.
I'd like to see any data on how many NHS staff are out of action due to the virus who wouldn't be with the vaccine, I doubt it is anything like 10% to 25%.
In my Trust it is 6%, so about 650 staff at any one time.
Many are isolating due to contacts. Unless the vaccinated are made exempt from that, there wouldn't be an enormous benefit. Some of the illness is mental health related rather than physical, or long covid, so may not yet be able to return.
Do we have any idea whether x% effectiveness means
(1) "x% of the population become immune with this vaccine, and can meet infected people all the time and never catch it" or (2) "everyone has a reduction of x% in the probability of catching the infection on any one occasion exposed to it"?
If (1) were the case, then if x is high (e.g. Pfizer's 95%), we might start behaving normally. In particular, NHS staff who meet infected people all the time might be well-prrotected. If (2) is the case then we still need to socially distance etc. until the spread drops so far that you rarely meet an infected person (because you'll still catch it if you keep meeting them, just "100-x%" of time you would have caught it before).
Unfortunately, I'm not sure we can answer this?
Very interesting question. Hope others more viro'd up answer but here is my take -
A vax effectiveness of 90% means that if I take it my risk of becoming infected is 10% of what it would be if I did not take it.
So, for example, if my condition and lifestyle means I have a 50% chance of getting Covid in the next 3 months, if I take the vaccine, all else being equal, my chance of getting it drops to 5%.
And then hopefully the vax does 2 other things for me. It reduces the chance of me getting VERY sick if I do get it. And it stops me somehow spreading it despite not having it.
From the national as opposed to the personal interest it is really the first of these "other things" that is the key. If you are unlucky enough to catch the virus anyway despite your improved chances you are unlikely to need hospital treatment.
Yes, that looms large in my thinking. I'd accept a higher chance of catching it in exchange for a lower chance of getting seriously ill. I'd accept being 21 again, as it were.
I think that is a good way to look at it and a good reason for our current ranking of priorities. This disease is not equal opportunity. The vast majority of 21 year olds who get it will not be ill at all. Many may not even know that they've had it. We all want to get to that stage as fast as possible but especially those who are likely to suffer serious complications as a result.
The point I do not fully get is this one about "does the vaccine stop you spreading it?" This is apparently not proven by the trials but I don't understand why not. We know it reduces the chance of being infected. So the inference here is it might be possible to pass on the virus without being infected yourself? Is that it?
We already know the asymptomatic can spread it.
The vaccine might make you an asymptomatic spreader, we don't know that yet it is too early to tell. But the JCVI clearly believe it will reduce spread which is why it is prioritising NHS staff and Care staff.
Yes but if you are infected with no symptoms you are still infected. And I thought the trials proved that the vaccine reduces the chance of being infected.
So, if the trials do NOT prove it also reduces the chance of you spreading the virus, the inference is that people might be able to spread the virus even when not infected by it, symptoms or not.
See what I mean?
No. The trials did not seek to measure onward transmission, so the trials say nothing about onward transmission, period.
So what people are discussing is the theoretical possibility of the vaccine providing protection against the disease and not against infection in some part of the population, not actual data pointing to this in fact being the case.
So there is no inference at all, just a discussion of theoretical possibilities about vaccinated persons becoming infected, asymptomatic and spreaders.
You cannot be a spreader if you are not infected except in the very limited sense of surface contamination and contact transmission - you touch something that is contaminated, then touch someone else and pass the contamination on to that person without ever becoming infected yourself. But that is not an infection chain that I can see contributing in any material way to the path of the pandemic.
I may have a chance to buy 1/3rd acre of land behind by garden. I currently rent it from the landowner. How can a fair price be established? Would it be a multiple of the rent or is there a per acre guide for "garden land". There is no development potential and the land is on a slope and is no use to a farmer or as a horse paddock.
Alternatively, would the adjusted garden size - which would be increasing sixfold I guess - put value on my house? And if so would the current landowner argue for the extra value?
Finally, would there be a separate land ownership for the land in isolation with the land registry, or would the boundaries of my current plot be expanded to envelope the new land? Are there any stamp duty implications either way?
Any help much appreciated.
These are mainly questions for a surveyor rather than a lawyer. When we bought our current house there was a mistake in the title in that the developer had whipped a bit of land belonging to the school and incorporated it into our gardens. I consulted a surveyor friend who told me that the loss of the garden ground would not affect their calculation of the value of the house on the basis of the RICS tables but he acknowledged that it would make the house harder to sell.
In your case I would expect the reverse. It won't significantly increase the value of the house but it will make the house more attractive to buyers who want a big garden.
So far as value is concerned a multiple of the rent seems a sensible way to measure it because that is what the farmer is giving up in exchange for the title. Of course there is no guarantee for him that the next owner of your house would want the land so some discount on the multiplier would be appropriate. I would suggest that maybe 5x, possibly with a contribution to legal costs, would seem a reasonable ball park.
I am not an English lawyer. In Scotland you would get a separate land certificate for the new bit of land and the 2 would be incorporated when you sold the lot. Either way I can't see that affecting the SDLT.
Thanks. You say that it would make my house more attractive to buyers who want a big garden. But could the converse also be true? I`m not sure which would weigh heavier. The last thing I want to do is to buy the land and it decrease the value of my house.
Regarding the multiplier - the local owner is a large estate, not a farmer. They play the long game with passing the estate through the generations in the uppermost of their minds. There is no way that 5x the rent would cut it. I`d be surprised if they went under 25 x.
I don't think that it would affect the valuation given to the house by surveyors (and hence mortgage lenders) much either way but yes, speaking personally a big garden to look after is not a selling point.
Even at current interest rates 25x seems completely excessive. As I say they have the risk that you or any subsequent owner of your house would not want the land and they are stuck with a bit of ground that you say is of no use to them. They therefore do not have the equivalent of a gilt with a guaranteed return. That is why I would have thought a discount was applicable. As @Gallowgate said you could seek advice from a surveyor but I think that the real question is how much it is worth to you. If its less than the estate wants then you may not have a deal.
Basically the government got the strategy completely wrong and now they're having to try these odd strategies to ensure that hospitals are staffed properly and schools have teachers. Instead we've decided to waste our vaccines on older people who could have stayed indoors for another couple of months.
The US vaccine rollout is much, much better than ours. They've got their priorities right.
If the elderly could just "stay indoors" why have they been filling our hospitals?
The government have the right priorities. Need to cut hospitalisations fast. Care homes are one of the worst superspreaders in the entire nation and a source of a quarter of all deaths and a vast proportion of hospitalisations.
We're running out of doctors and nurses to staff the hospitals. Loads of them are getting isolation notices and wards are running on fumes.
With just 800K jabs we could have made a real dent in keeping the NHS running over the winter period. We really are in a "48h to save the NHS" situation and we've wasted the vaccine doses we do have.
We have done. Second doses only started yesterday.
I'm saying that all doses should be doing to the NHS until all front line staff have been jabbed. No point in hospitals with no doctors and nurses, which according to family in the NHS front line is what's happening.
I don't think any hospitals have 'no doctors and nurses', they may be seeing more patients than those doctors and nurses would like - and preventing a quarter of the patients from arriving in the hospital in the first place will reduce the strain on those doctors and nurses that are there dramatically.
Especially since that quarter of hospitalisations are more likely to get seriously ill, end in ICU and/or die.
Reducing 25% of ambulances call outs and hospitalisations from this will have an immediate impact.
It's not 25%, at 800k first shot to over 80s the reduction is maybe 5%, wards across the country are reporting they are short staffed and people in the front line are taking double shifts to cover it.
We won't get to that 25% figure until the end of January at the earliest, probably mid February at the current roll out rate. The NHS is going to collapse in between.
People are having to do extra shifts due to too many patients coming in, not simply a lack of staff. If there were fewer patients there would be less strain.
25% of hospitalisations come from 1.6 million people. So 800k is half of that group (12.5% of admissions), at 70% efficacy it should reduce admissions by about 9%. Given this group have worse outcomes and longer stays in hospital I believe that could reduce the strain on doctors and nurses by about 10%.
Would giving the vaccine to doctors and nurses increase NHS supply of doctors and nurses by nearly 10%?
On the last point, yes it would. More than that. It's why basically every other country including the US is vaccinating front line medical staff first. The maths works out that short staffed hospitals are worse for public health than over 80s waiting a bit longer. The government got it wrong and now the NHS is going to have very large problems in January and most of February.
Once again we've focussed on the individual rather than the collective good. In a situation akin to wartime individual good goes out of the window. Doctors and nurses are our soldiers in this fight and we're sending them into battle bare handed.
Eliminating a quarter of incoming hospitalisations is in the collective good. The vaccine won't add a quarter to NHS staff, but reducing a quarter of patients being admitted to hospitals is of immediate benefit to the collective.
I'd like to see any data on how many NHS staff are out of action due to the virus who wouldn't be with the vaccine, I doubt it is anything like 10% to 25%.
It's not a quarter. It's about 5-7% at the current level. It won't be a quarter until at least the end of January if not a couple of weeks after. We haven't given a over 80s two jabs. We've given some of them one jab.
I think the first second jabs were actually given yesterday.
But say it's 7%. 105% of hospital capacity is a disaster. 98% is fine.
Staffing running at 100% with 105% capacity is better than 80% running at 98% capacity, the latter situation ends in disaster. That's what we're about to get in January and February. Other countries have made the same calculation and prioritised healthcare workers because of that.
But we have done. They are in Priority 2 with the over-80s and effectively Priority 1 due to the difficulties rolling out Pfizer in care homes.
Just to get practical about it, given the relatively small number of persons in care homes and the rate of vaccination - how many days difference does it make to bump frontline healthcare workers above them? My guess is not much and we are arguing about angels on pinheads.
It doesn't make much odds. Healthcare workers have been receiving jabs since day 1 of rollout.
In the form of the Twelve Day of Christmas, since the last Scottish Referendum we will have had:
3 General Elections 2 Scottish Elections 1 Brexit Referendum
How much more is needed for a Partridge in a Pear Tree for it to be considered 'a reasonable period of time' since the last one? 1 nationwide election since the last one would be enough for me but 6 nationwide elections in that time period is surely far more than enough to recognise time has changed.
The "time" argument is a red herring imo. There's been a fundamental change of circumstances. If there hadn't been, it would be a bit soon to be having another Ref, but there has, undeniably so, and if on top of that the SNP win a mandate at Holyrood on a Sindy2 platform, the case for it looks pretty solid to me.
The 'significant change' argument goes against having an early indyref as much as it goes for it. If it is such a significant change, how can an indyref be valid when the ramifications of such a significant change as Brexit are not yet known? Surely a period of 5 years to experience life in post-Brexit Britain is sensible and warranted. What could be the harm to the Indy cause? It will win by a landslide if Brexit is half as bad as it's cracked up to be.
Do we have any idea whether x% effectiveness means
(1) "x% of the population become immune with this vaccine, and can meet infected people all the time and never catch it" or (2) "everyone has a reduction of x% in the probability of catching the infection on any one occasion exposed to it"?
If (1) were the case, then if x is high (e.g. Pfizer's 95%), we might start behaving normally. In particular, NHS staff who meet infected people all the time might be well-prrotected. If (2) is the case then we still need to socially distance etc. until the spread drops so far that you rarely meet an infected person (because you'll still catch it if you keep meeting them, just "100-x%" of time you would have caught it before).
Unfortunately, I'm not sure we can answer this?
Very interesting question. Hope others more viro'd up answer but here is my take -
A vax effectiveness of 90% means that if I take it my risk of becoming infected is 10% of what it would be if I did not take it.
So, for example, if my condition and lifestyle means I have a 50% chance of getting Covid in the next 3 months, if I take the vaccine, all else being equal, my chance of getting it drops to 5%.
And then hopefully the vax does 2 other things for me. It reduces the chance of me getting VERY sick if I do get it. And it stops me somehow spreading it despite not having it.
From the national as opposed to the personal interest it is really the first of these "other things" that is the key. If you are unlucky enough to catch the virus anyway despite your improved chances you are unlikely to need hospital treatment.
Yes, that looms large in my thinking. I'd accept a higher chance of catching it in exchange for a lower chance of getting seriously ill. I'd accept being 21 again, as it were.
I think that is a good way to look at it and a good reason for our current ranking of priorities. This disease is not equal opportunity. The vast majority of 21 year olds who get it will not be ill at all. Many may not even know that they've had it. We all want to get to that stage as fast as possible but especially those who are likely to suffer serious complications as a result.
The point I do not fully get is this one about "does the vaccine stop you spreading it?" This is apparently not proven by the trials but I don't understand why not. We know it reduces the chance of being infected. So the inference here is it might be possible to pass on the virus without being infected yourself? Is that it?
We already know the asymptomatic can spread it.
The vaccine might make you an asymptomatic spreader, we don't know that yet it is too early to tell. But the JCVI clearly believe it will reduce spread which is why it is prioritising NHS staff and Care staff.
Yes but if you are infected with no symptoms you are still infected. And I thought the trials proved that the vaccine reduces the chance of being infected.
So, if the trials do NOT prove it also reduces the chance of you spreading the virus, the inference is that people might be able to spread the virus even when not infected by it, symptoms or not.
See what I mean?
You've reached a nonsense conclusion on the basis of a misunderstanding that's already been explained to you. The trials did not show people were not infected. Only that they didn't have symptoms.
Do we have any idea whether x% effectiveness means
(1) "x% of the population become immune with this vaccine, and can meet infected people all the time and never catch it" or (2) "everyone has a reduction of x% in the probability of catching the infection on any one occasion exposed to it"?
If (1) were the case, then if x is high (e.g. Pfizer's 95%), we might start behaving normally. In particular, NHS staff who meet infected people all the time might be well-prrotected. If (2) is the case then we still need to socially distance etc. until the spread drops so far that you rarely meet an infected person (because you'll still catch it if you keep meeting them, just "100-x%" of time you would have caught it before).
Unfortunately, I'm not sure we can answer this?
Very interesting question. Hope others more viro'd up answer but here is my take -
A vax effectiveness of 90% means that if I take it my risk of becoming infected is 10% of what it would be if I did not take it.
So, for example, if my condition and lifestyle means I have a 50% chance of getting Covid in the next 3 months, if I take the vaccine, all else being equal, my chance of getting it drops to 5%.
And then hopefully the vax does 2 other things for me. It reduces the chance of me getting VERY sick if I do get it. And it stops me somehow spreading it despite not having it.
From the national as opposed to the personal interest it is really the first of these "other things" that is the key. If you are unlucky enough to catch the virus anyway despite your improved chances you are unlikely to need hospital treatment.
Yes, that looms large in my thinking. I'd accept a higher chance of catching it in exchange for a lower chance of getting seriously ill. I'd accept being 21 again, as it were.
I think that is a good way to look at it and a good reason for our current ranking of priorities. This disease is not equal opportunity. The vast majority of 21 year olds who get it will not be ill at all. Many may not even know that they've had it. We all want to get to that stage as fast as possible but especially those who are likely to suffer serious complications as a result.
The point I do not fully get is this one about "does the vaccine stop you spreading it?" This is apparently not proven by the trials but I don't understand why not. We know it reduces the chance of being infected. So the inference here is it might be possible to pass on the virus without being infected yourself? Is that it?
Well we do have asymptomatic transmission already. The risk must be that you carry enough of the virus to infect others but it doesn't actually make you ill because your body defence mechanisms protect you. It doesn't really make much sense to me either.
I'm with it now. I'd assumed the trials tested all the volunteers regularly for Covid. But no - it went on reported symptoms.
Basically the government got the strategy completely wrong and now they're having to try these odd strategies to ensure that hospitals are staffed properly and schools have teachers. Instead we've decided to waste our vaccines on older people who could have stayed indoors for another couple of months.
The US vaccine rollout is much, much better than ours. They've got their priorities right.
If the elderly could just "stay indoors" why have they been filling our hospitals?
The government have the right priorities. Need to cut hospitalisations fast. Care homes are one of the worst superspreaders in the entire nation and a source of a quarter of all deaths and a vast proportion of hospitalisations.
We're running out of doctors and nurses to staff the hospitals. Loads of them are getting isolation notices and wards are running on fumes.
With just 800K jabs we could have made a real dent in keeping the NHS running over the winter period. We really are in a "48h to save the NHS" situation and we've wasted the vaccine doses we do have.
We have done. Second doses only started yesterday.
I'm saying that all doses should be doing to the NHS until all front line staff have been jabbed. No point in hospitals with no doctors and nurses, which according to family in the NHS front line is what's happening.
I don't think any hospitals have 'no doctors and nurses', they may be seeing more patients than those doctors and nurses would like - and preventing a quarter of the patients from arriving in the hospital in the first place will reduce the strain on those doctors and nurses that are there dramatically.
Especially since that quarter of hospitalisations are more likely to get seriously ill, end in ICU and/or die.
Reducing 25% of ambulances call outs and hospitalisations from this will have an immediate impact.
It's not 25%, at 800k first shot to over 80s the reduction is maybe 5%, wards across the country are reporting they are short staffed and people in the front line are taking double shifts to cover it.
We won't get to that 25% figure until the end of January at the earliest, probably mid February at the current roll out rate. The NHS is going to collapse in between.
People are having to do extra shifts due to too many patients coming in, not simply a lack of staff. If there were fewer patients there would be less strain.
25% of hospitalisations come from 1.6 million people. So 800k is half of that group (12.5% of admissions), at 70% efficacy it should reduce admissions by about 9%. Given this group have worse outcomes and longer stays in hospital I believe that could reduce the strain on doctors and nurses by about 10%.
Would giving the vaccine to doctors and nurses increase NHS supply of doctors and nurses by nearly 10%?
On the last point, yes it would. More than that. It's why basically every other country including the US is vaccinating front line medical staff first. The maths works out that short staffed hospitals are worse for public health than over 80s waiting a bit longer. The government got it wrong and now the NHS is going to have very large problems in January and most of February.
Once again we've focussed on the individual rather than the collective good. In a situation akin to wartime individual good goes out of the window. Doctors and nurses are our soldiers in this fight and we're sending them into battle bare handed.
Eliminating a quarter of incoming hospitalisations is in the collective good. The vaccine won't add a quarter to NHS staff, but reducing a quarter of patients being admitted to hospitals is of immediate benefit to the collective.
I'd like to see any data on how many NHS staff are out of action due to the virus who wouldn't be with the vaccine, I doubt it is anything like 10% to 25%.
In my Trust it is 6%, so about 650 staff at any one time.
Many are isolating due to contacts. Unless the vaccinated are made exempt from that, there wouldn't be an enormous benefit. Some of the illness is mental health related rather than physical, or long covid, so may not yet be able to return.
Will the vaccinated be exempt from isolating after contacting the infected ?
Its similar to how those who have been infected previously are supposed to isolate because of new contacts.
In the form of the Twelve Day of Christmas, since the last Scottish Referendum we will have had:
3 General Elections 2 Scottish Elections 1 Brexit Referendum
How much more is needed for a Partridge in a Pear Tree for it to be considered 'a reasonable period of time' since the last one? 1 nationwide election since the last one would be enough for me but 6 nationwide elections in that time period is surely far more than enough to recognise time has changed.
The "time" argument is a red herring imo. There's been a fundamental change of circumstances. If there hadn't been, it would be a bit soon to be having another Ref, but there has, undeniably so, and if on top of that the SNP win a mandate at Holyrood on a Sindy2 platform, the case for it looks pretty solid to me.
The 'significant change' argument goes against having an early indyref as much as it goes for it. If it is such a significant change, how can an indyref be valid when the ramifications of such a significant change as Brexit are not yet known? Surely a period of 5 years to experience life in post-Brexit Britain is sensible and warranted. What could be the harm to the Indy cause? It will win by a landslide if Brexit is half as bad as it's cracked up to be.
You lot have had 4 & 1/2 years to explain how great Brexit is going to be and convince voters of that. You can regurgitate all that good stuff in a referendum campaign.
And what level of effectiveness can we have “every confidence in” ?
Having read the trial documents the efficacy is an odd one to understand and easily compare. In the AZ trial because of the weekly PCR test for participants, anyone who tested positive was then assessed for symptoms and even the most minor ones such as the sniffles or a solitary headache would count towards the total number of symptomatic COVID patients in the vaccine arm. They created a rod for their own back because not a single person out there cares about getting the sniffles or a couple of headaches or other relatively minor symptoms. Symptoms that didn't get recorded in the other trials and didn't count towards their symptomatic COVID patients in the vaccine arm.
I await the full trial data and classification of symptoms in the vaccine arm, that may actually help us to calculate efficacy of it against serious symptoms and mild symptoms rather than what may just be coincidental ones.
Do we have any idea whether x% effectiveness means
(1) "x% of the population become immune with this vaccine, and can meet infected people all the time and never catch it" or (2) "everyone has a reduction of x% in the probability of catching the infection on any one occasion exposed to it"?
If (1) were the case, then if x is high (e.g. Pfizer's 95%), we might start behaving normally. In particular, NHS staff who meet infected people all the time might be well-prrotected. If (2) is the case then we still need to socially distance etc. until the spread drops so far that you rarely meet an infected person (because you'll still catch it if you keep meeting them, just "100-x%" of time you would have caught it before).
Unfortunately, I'm not sure we can answer this?
Very interesting question. Hope others more viro'd up answer but here is my take -
A vax effectiveness of 90% means that if I take it my risk of becoming infected is 10% of what it would be if I did not take it.
So, for example, if my condition and lifestyle means I have a 50% chance of getting Covid in the next 3 months, if I take the vaccine, all else being equal, my chance of getting it drops to 5%.
And then hopefully the vax does 2 other things for me. It reduces the chance of me getting VERY sick if I do get it. And it stops me somehow spreading it despite not having it.
From the national as opposed to the personal interest it is really the first of these "other things" that is the key. If you are unlucky enough to catch the virus anyway despite your improved chances you are unlikely to need hospital treatment.
Yes, that looms large in my thinking. I'd accept a higher chance of catching it in exchange for a lower chance of getting seriously ill. I'd accept being 21 again, as it were.
I think that is a good way to look at it and a good reason for our current ranking of priorities. This disease is not equal opportunity. The vast majority of 21 year olds who get it will not be ill at all. Many may not even know that they've had it. We all want to get to that stage as fast as possible but especially those who are likely to suffer serious complications as a result.
The point I do not fully get is this one about "does the vaccine stop you spreading it?" This is apparently not proven by the trials but I don't understand why not. We know it reduces the chance of being infected. So the inference here is it might be possible to pass on the virus without being infected yourself? Is that it?
Most of the trials didn't test whether people were infected, only if they were showing symptoms.
So it's possible that the vaccines prevented the symptoms, but not the infection - so a vaccinated person could still spread the virus asymptomatically to a person who hasn't received the vaccine.
Which is another reason the best thing for the NHS is to protect the 1.6 million first before doctors and nurses.
Preventing the symptoms and thus hospitalisations will go a long way to reducing the strain on the NHS. But if a doctor or nurse gets the vaccine, becomes an asymptomatic carrier and then tests positive they'll still have to be removed from the front line even though they're vaccinated.
Maybe. When things were (maybe still are?) very bad in Liege, in Belgium, in the autumn they were asking asymptomatic staff to work in the Covid wards.
If the system is on the verge of collapse it's the sort of decision that becomes necessary.
I don't think the detail of the vaccine rollout will end up making the crucial difference. The critical factor is: Can restrictions in lockdown three reduce the infection rate?
If they can't then the vaccination programme isn't going to have an effect fast enough to prevent collapse of the hospital system.
We'll find out whether the infection rate is coming under control during next week - when they'll only just be starting to use the AZN vaccine.
Something else to think of.
We are well north of 800,000 first doses.
the policy so far has been to aim for
75% over 80s 20% care home staff 5% NHS staff
The earliest numbers suggest that about 70% over 80s is being achieved, with the balance being taken up by NHS staff.
if 5% - 40,000 NHS staff if 10% - 80,000 NHS staff
Assuming these are all frontline staff (not actually the case) - somewhere between 10 and 20% of the NHS medical workforce have received their first jab.
Scotland was European before it was British, according to Mr Blackford.
What does he mean? That the first Scots came from Ireland?
No - he is referring to the alliance networks, I imagine, also cultural ones (e.g. universities). Britain as a modern history thingy didn't happen till 1603 and/or 1707.
Britain as an actual placey thingy, rather than a political construct, existed rather longer ago. Were the Iceni not British?
The Iceni were Welsh.
So, British?
I don't really know what you mean by the ovate word "British".
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
The Iceni with Brythonic Celts. They spoke a language related to Old Welsh.
IANAE but my recollection is that Boudicca's husband was a ruler in Norfolk and that her rebellion was principally in East Anglia. As she was a queen of the Iceni I am struggling to see how that makes them Welsh, as opposed to Britons (many of whom may have spoken a language more related to Welsh than other current languages). Happy to have the error of my ways explained.
But, Boudicca's rebellion was not in "East Anglia" .
The Angles were yet to arrive on the shores of the country we now call "England". There was to be no Kingdom of the East Angles until many hundreds of years later.
Nor was there a Wales. Indeed, arguably there never was, back then.
There was not a Wales (which is an Anglo-Saxon word meaning filthy bastard foreigner scum).
But, there was a Cymry, derived from the Brythonic meaning fellow countrymen.
Boudicca is Cymric.
Actually we don't know. She may have regarded everyone living outside the Iceni kingdom as filthy bastard foreigner scum, whatever language they spoke.
Mackems and Geordies speak related dialects of a Germanic-Frankish-Latin creole. But ...
Starmer is making a mistake. Labour is making a mistake. They are in the same lobby as Steve Baker. Disgusting decision.
Instead of respecting Democracy they are playing political games.
To believe in democracy you have to believe everyone in parliament can vote with their conscience on what they think of the deal, for the country and their constituents, without the weapon of no deal held to their heads.
If then it passes, it passes. That’s democracy saying yes. And, if governments deal can’t pass despite an eighty seat majority over all other parties, democracy is saying no.
Is that all Labour is now, a split between unreconstructed IRA loving Marxists or ambitious New Labour sell outs? If so then it is toast. This is the day history will point to as the day Labour became toast.
Obviously I disagree, but even from an opposition perspective, isn't there a strong argument for playing this with a straight bat? If the deal failed to be ratified by Parliament, we would be in a No deal situation. Yes, with a Tory majority that's unlikely, but I think the public respects voting for the actual preferred outcome, not grandstanding. Nobody blamed Boris for the letter he had to write, and I don't think voters will blame Starmer for the deal he must now support.
Let’s deal with what happens if parliament says no today. And tomorrow.
If parliament says no, Boris can speak to EU to roll on the transition. It is a discussion and agreement that will only take a couple of minutes. No one in power either side the channel creates no deal when alternatives are possible. Simples.
It’s not panto season with anyone saying “oh no he can’t” because, yes he can. It’s exactly the same as with May’s deal when she said it’s this or nothing, but ended up in that third option to re open the in un-reopenable.
it’s is NOT a binary choice about picking the lesser of two evils in the national interest. Starmer is a liar. He needs to be called out on this.
If parliament doesn’t pass it before the 1st it’s not inevitably no deal brexit. That is a lie. That is a lie by scoundrels. It can be more transition, would EU say no to more transition if parliament reject and government asked for hasty transition extension?
Is there anyone on PB this afternoon claiming it’s this deal or no deal, no other options? Come on speak up and say it. We are up for it. We’ll have you. Deals of this magnitude passing the commons because the clocks run down. Yeah that’s democracy.
There is no way any opposition party can whip this. There is not a single reason any MP of any party should feel there is a gun to their head if they don’t like this deal and don’t want to vote for it.
The Government have an EIGHTY SEAT majority, and it’s government alone who have negotiated it, created the deal. If the only way they can get votes for it is they have run the clock down, that goes completely against the better democracy they claim brexit is all about. It goes against all democracy.
If you tolerate having to vote for this because the clock has run down, burning down the parliament will be next.
I don't think there's much I can say to make this feel better for you at the moment. I look forward on your behalf to the many brighter and better things there are on the other side when Brexit subsides as a factor in your life.
Thanks for acknowledging my pain.
But when something is wrong you put it right. Calmly. Patiently. With a focused head on.
Brexit and brexiteers don’t understand sovereignty nor democracy, and this needs to be put right.
If this country is going to take back control from the globalisation, deindustrialisation and the stagnation it’s been suffering from for decades, we build the future on the strong base of waking up from Brexit pipe dreams and protect financial interests better than this deal voted through today.
And what level of effectiveness can we have “every confidence in” ?
Having read the trial documents the efficacy is an odd one to understand and easily compare. In the AZ trial because of the weekly PCR test for participants, anyone who tested positive was then assessed for symptoms and even the most minor ones such as the sniffles or a solitary headache would count towards the total number of symptomatic COVID patients in the vaccine arm. They created a rod for their own back because not a single person out there cares about getting the sniffles or a couple of headaches or other relatively minor symptoms. Symptoms that didn't get recorded in the other trials and didn't count towards their symptomatic COVID patients in the vaccine arm.
I await the full trial data and classification of symptoms in the vaccine arm, that may actually help us to calculate efficacy of it against serious symptoms and mild symptoms rather than what may just be coincidental ones.
And what level of effectiveness can we have “every confidence in” ?
Having read the trial documents the efficacy is an odd one to understand and easily compare. In the AZ trial because of the weekly PCR test for participants, anyone who tested positive was then assessed for symptoms and even the most minor ones such as the sniffles or a solitary headache would count towards the total number of symptomatic COVID patients in the vaccine arm. They created a rod for their own back because not a single person out there cares about getting the sniffles or a couple of headaches or other relatively minor symptoms. Symptoms that didn't get recorded in the other trials and didn't count towards their symptomatic COVID patients in the vaccine arm.
I await the full trial data and classification of symptoms in the vaccine arm, that may actually help us to calculate efficacy of it against serious symptoms and mild symptoms rather than what may just be coincidental ones.
"A new YouGov poll of 1,640 people suggests that 28% of Americans believe that Bill Gates wants to use vaccines to implant microchips in people - with the figure rising to 44% among Republicans."
Christ!
As part of a future trial, double blind checks on the purchases of Microsoft Windows 10/Microsoft Surface devices will disprove this.
Basically the government got the strategy completely wrong and now they're having to try these odd strategies to ensure that hospitals are staffed properly and schools have teachers. Instead we've decided to waste our vaccines on older people who could have stayed indoors for another couple of months.
The US vaccine rollout is much, much better than ours. They've got their priorities right.
If the elderly could just "stay indoors" why have they been filling our hospitals?
The government have the right priorities. Need to cut hospitalisations fast. Care homes are one of the worst superspreaders in the entire nation and a source of a quarter of all deaths and a vast proportion of hospitalisations.
We're running out of doctors and nurses to staff the hospitals. Loads of them are getting isolation notices and wards are running on fumes.
With just 800K jabs we could have made a real dent in keeping the NHS running over the winter period. We really are in a "48h to save the NHS" situation and we've wasted the vaccine doses we do have.
We have done. Second doses only started yesterday.
I'm saying that all doses should be doing to the NHS until all front line staff have been jabbed. No point in hospitals with no doctors and nurses, which according to family in the NHS front line is what's happening.
I don't think any hospitals have 'no doctors and nurses', they may be seeing more patients than those doctors and nurses would like - and preventing a quarter of the patients from arriving in the hospital in the first place will reduce the strain on those doctors and nurses that are there dramatically.
Especially since that quarter of hospitalisations are more likely to get seriously ill, end in ICU and/or die.
Reducing 25% of ambulances call outs and hospitalisations from this will have an immediate impact.
It's not 25%, at 800k first shot to over 80s the reduction is maybe 5%, wards across the country are reporting they are short staffed and people in the front line are taking double shifts to cover it.
We won't get to that 25% figure until the end of January at the earliest, probably mid February at the current roll out rate. The NHS is going to collapse in between.
People are having to do extra shifts due to too many patients coming in, not simply a lack of staff. If there were fewer patients there would be less strain.
25% of hospitalisations come from 1.6 million people. So 800k is half of that group (12.5% of admissions), at 70% efficacy it should reduce admissions by about 9%. Given this group have worse outcomes and longer stays in hospital I believe that could reduce the strain on doctors and nurses by about 10%.
Would giving the vaccine to doctors and nurses increase NHS supply of doctors and nurses by nearly 10%?
On the last point, yes it would. More than that. It's why basically every other country including the US is vaccinating front line medical staff first. The maths works out that short staffed hospitals are worse for public health than over 80s waiting a bit longer. The government got it wrong and now the NHS is going to have very large problems in January and most of February.
Once again we've focussed on the individual rather than the collective good. In a situation akin to wartime individual good goes out of the window. Doctors and nurses are our soldiers in this fight and we're sending them into battle bare handed.
Eliminating a quarter of incoming hospitalisations is in the collective good. The vaccine won't add a quarter to NHS staff, but reducing a quarter of patients being admitted to hospitals is of immediate benefit to the collective.
I'd like to see any data on how many NHS staff are out of action due to the virus who wouldn't be with the vaccine, I doubt it is anything like 10% to 25%.
In my Trust it is 6%, so about 650 staff at any one time.
Many are isolating due to contacts. Unless the vaccinated are made exempt from that, there wouldn't be an enormous benefit. Some of the illness is mental health related rather than physical, or long covid, so may not yet be able to return.
Thank you Foxy that makes a lot of sense and is what I expected.
So yes that seems to be data to show that slashing incoming admissions would be in the collective good. Probably better for your colleagues mental health too.
I was at the Metrocentre yesterday and it was wall-to-wall heaving. Almost 100% mask usage but huge groups of teenagers just hanging out in clear contravention of the rules. Felt like a bit of a kick in the teeth.
I can however understand how difficult it must be for a parent to say to their child that they're the only one who can't hang out with their mates. That's if the parents even know of course.
Compliance with the tiers and the regulations has collapsed. It's not helping. With the benefit of hindsight too many rules, far too many changes in them and inconsistent messaging have become a textbook example of how not to do laws.
Some people are bored with covid. Some people don't care about regulations. Some people are young and don't think they are at risk. Some people have had it and don't think they are at risk. Some people think that the vaccines have sorted covid.
This has a real "Cliff Richard" feel to it. You know the one. Have you just been playing it?
Scotland was European before it was British, according to Mr Blackford.
What does he mean? That the first Scots came from Ireland?
No - he is referring to the alliance networks, I imagine, also cultural ones (e.g. universities). Britain as a modern history thingy didn't happen till 1603 and/or 1707.
Britain as an actual placey thingy, rather than a political construct, existed rather longer ago. Were the Iceni not British?
The Iceni were Welsh.
So, British?
I don't really know what you mean by the ovate word "British".
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
The Iceni with Brythonic Celts. They spoke a language related to Old Welsh.
IANAE but my recollection is that Boudicca's husband was a ruler in Norfolk and that her rebellion was principally in East Anglia. As she was a queen of the Iceni I am struggling to see how that makes them Welsh, as opposed to Britons (many of whom may have spoken a language more related to Welsh than other current languages). Happy to have the error of my ways explained.
But, Boudicca's rebellion was not in "East Anglia" .
The Angles were yet to arrive on the shores of the country we now call "England". There was to be no Kingdom of the East Angles until many hundreds of years later.
Nor was there a Wales. Indeed, arguably there never was, back then.
There was not a Wales (which is an Anglo-Saxon word meaning filthy bastard foreigner scum).
But, there was a Cymry, derived from the Brythonic meaning fellow countrymen.
Boudicca is Cymric.
But they were all separate tribes, often at war, making it very easy for the Romans to divide and conquer.
Slapping a label on them all in retrospect, whether ‘Wales’ or ‘Cymric’, would be like going back and telling the Native Americans they were all such.
Of course, any label is an abbreviation because we need crisp, short words to describe things.
And "Boudicca is Welsh" in 3 words gets over the essence of the matter.
I could say more accurately "Boudicca was an Iceni, a member of a Brythonic Celtic tribe living in present day East Anglia during the Roman Occupation of the island of Great Britain. They spoke a language that was a precursor to Old Welsh. They were often at war with other Brythonic and Goidelic Celtic tribes."
Or I could write an entire Rawnsley on the subject, comprising a page of blather.
Whatever, all there are better than the original misleading statement to which I objected.
That was "Boudicca loves Boris and Britain", or something.
Scotland was European before it was British, according to Mr Blackford.
What does he mean? That the first Scots came from Ireland?
No - he is referring to the alliance networks, I imagine, also cultural ones (e.g. universities). Britain as a modern history thingy didn't happen till 1603 and/or 1707.
Britain as an actual placey thingy, rather than a political construct, existed rather longer ago. Were the Iceni not British?
The Iceni were Welsh.
So, British?
I don't really know what you mean by the ovate word "British".
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
The Iceni with Brythonic Celts. They spoke a language related to Old Welsh.
IANAE but my recollection is that Boudicca's husband was a ruler in Norfolk and that her rebellion was principally in East Anglia. As she was a queen of the Iceni I am struggling to see how that makes them Welsh, as opposed to Britons (many of whom may have spoken a language more related to Welsh than other current languages). Happy to have the error of my ways explained.
But, Boudicca's rebellion was not in "East Anglia" .
The Angles were yet to arrive on the shores of the country we now call "England". There was to be no Kingdom of the East Angles until many hundreds of years later.
Nor was there a Wales. Indeed, arguably there never was, back then.
There was not a Wales (which is an Anglo-Saxon word meaning filthy bastard foreigner scum).
But, there was a Cymry, derived from the Brythonic meaning fellow countrymen.
Boudicca is Cymric.
Was, I think!
Still claimed round here. Modern genetics, of course, suggest the situation was much more complex than I at any rate was taught around 1950.
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
Have to say that's utter nonsense. We have General Elections every 4-5 years normally (we had three in four and a half years so there are exceptions).
We do vote "again and again" - that's democracy. Saying everything is cast in stone and can't change "for a generation" us profoundly undemocratic.
It’s the difference between electing a representative body for a short period of time and fundamental change in the constitutional landscape
Like Brexit ?
Yes, it was right that our membership of the EU is tested every 20 years or so
When a party wins an election with that testing of 'our' membership in its manifesto, or are you now saying this should be something to put on the statute book? Perhaps there should be a referendum on it..
There needs to be demand for a change and a reasonable period to time needs to have passed since the last referendum
Surely a dramatic change in the constitution, status, or to a significant argument used on which decisions were made, justifies a referendum no matter how short the period since the last one.
A key argument given for maintaining the Union was the ability for Scotland to stay in the EU so leaving the EU is a fundamental change. It is made more fundamental given that there was a clear vote to stay in the EU by the Scots.
Whether intentional or not, the Scots were badly mislead.
It is apparently a well established constitutional principle that should a referendum be lost, based on what proves subsequently to be a blatant untruth, that precludes another vote for a couple of decades.
I'm sure there's a Latin tag for suck it up, loser.
In fairness Blackford is a pretty easy target and the SNP's position utterly incoherent. I did like his dig at SKS though, as a good former DPP he does not want any of his previous convictions taken into account.
Scotland was European before it was British, according to Mr Blackford.
What does he mean? That the first Scots came from Ireland?
No - he is referring to the alliance networks, I imagine, also cultural ones (e.g. universities). Britain as a modern history thingy didn't happen till 1603 and/or 1707.
Britain as an actual placey thingy, rather than a political construct, existed rather longer ago. Were the Iceni not British?
The Iceni were Welsh.
So, British?
I don't really know what you mean by the ovate word "British".
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
The Iceni with Brythonic Celts. They spoke a language related to Old Welsh.
IANAE but my recollection is that Boudicca's husband was a ruler in Norfolk and that her rebellion was principally in East Anglia. As she was a queen of the Iceni I am struggling to see how that makes them Welsh, as opposed to Britons (many of whom may have spoken a language more related to Welsh than other current languages). Happy to have the error of my ways explained.
But, Boudicca's rebellion was not in "East Anglia" .
The Angles were yet to arrive on the shores of the country we now call "England". There was to be no Kingdom of the East Angles until many hundreds of years later.
Nor was there a Wales. Indeed, arguably there never was, back then.
There was not a Wales (which is an Anglo-Saxon word meaning filthy bastard foreigner scum).
But, there was a Cymry, derived from the Brythonic meaning fellow countrymen.
Boudicca is Cymric.
But they were all separate tribes, often at war, making it very easy for the Romans to divide and conquer.
Slapping a label on them all in retrospect, whether ‘Wales’ or ‘Cymric’, would be like going back and telling the Native Americans they were all such.
Of course, any label is an abbreviation because we need crisp, short words to describe things.
And "Boudicca is Welsh" in 3 words gets over the essence of the matter.
I could say more accurately "Boudicca was an Iceni, a member of a Brythonic Celtic tribe living in present day East Anglia during the Roman Occupation of the island of Great Britain. They spoke a language that was a precursor to Old Welsh. They were often at war with other Brythonic and Goidelic Celtic tribes."
Or I could write an entire Rawnsley on the subject, comprising a page of blather.
Whatever, all there are better than the original misleading statement to which I objected.
That was "Boudicca loves Boris and Britain", or something.
Well they both proved very costly for Londoners, I guess.
Do we have any idea whether x% effectiveness means
(1) "x% of the population become immune with this vaccine, and can meet infected people all the time and never catch it" or (2) "everyone has a reduction of x% in the probability of catching the infection on any one occasion exposed to it"?
If (1) were the case, then if x is high (e.g. Pfizer's 95%), we might start behaving normally. In particular, NHS staff who meet infected people all the time might be well-prrotected. If (2) is the case then we still need to socially distance etc. until the spread drops so far that you rarely meet an infected person (because you'll still catch it if you keep meeting them, just "100-x%" of time you would have caught it before).
Unfortunately, I'm not sure we can answer this?
Very interesting question. Hope others more viro'd up answer but here is my take -
A vax effectiveness of 90% means that if I take it my risk of becoming infected is 10% of what it would be if I did not take it.
So, for example, if my condition and lifestyle means I have a 50% chance of getting Covid in the next 3 months, if I take the vaccine, all else being equal, my chance of getting it drops to 5%.
And then hopefully the vax does 2 other things for me. It reduces the chance of me getting VERY sick if I do get it. And it stops me somehow spreading it despite not having it.
From the national as opposed to the personal interest it is really the first of these "other things" that is the key. If you are unlucky enough to catch the virus anyway despite your improved chances you are unlikely to need hospital treatment.
Yes, that looms large in my thinking. I'd accept a higher chance of catching it in exchange for a lower chance of getting seriously ill. I'd accept being 21 again, as it were.
I think that is a good way to look at it and a good reason for our current ranking of priorities. This disease is not equal opportunity. The vast majority of 21 year olds who get it will not be ill at all. Many may not even know that they've had it. We all want to get to that stage as fast as possible but especially those who are likely to suffer serious complications as a result.
The point I do not fully get is this one about "does the vaccine stop you spreading it?" This is apparently not proven by the trials but I don't understand why not. We know it reduces the chance of being infected. So the inference here is it might be possible to pass on the virus without being infected yourself? Is that it?
Most of the trials didn't test whether people were infected, only if they were showing symptoms.
So it's possible that the vaccines prevented the symptoms, but not the infection - so a vaccinated person could still spread the virus asymptomatically to a person who hasn't received the vaccine.
Which is another reason the best thing for the NHS is to protect the 1.6 million first before doctors and nurses.
Preventing the symptoms and thus hospitalisations will go a long way to reducing the strain on the NHS. But if a doctor or nurse gets the vaccine, becomes an asymptomatic carrier and then tests positive they'll still have to be removed from the front line even though they're vaccinated.
Maybe. When things were (maybe still are?) very bad in Liege, in Belgium, in the autumn they were asking asymptomatic staff to work in the Covid wards.
If the system is on the verge of collapse it's the sort of decision that becomes necessary.
I don't think the detail of the vaccine rollout will end up making the crucial difference. The critical factor is: Can restrictions in lockdown three reduce the infection rate?
If they can't then the vaccination programme isn't going to have an effect fast enough to prevent collapse of the hospital system.
We'll find out whether the infection rate is coming under control during next week - when they'll only just be starting to use the AZN vaccine.
Something else to think of.
We are well north of 800,000 first doses.
the policy so far has been to aim for
75% over 80s 20% care home staff 5% NHS staff
The earliest numbers suggest that about 70% over 80s is being achieved, with the balance being taken up by NHS staff.
if 5% - 40,000 NHS staff if 10% - 80,000 NHS staff
Assuming these are all frontline staff (not actually the case) - somewhere between 10 and 20% of the NHS medical workforce have received their first jab.
Credit where it is due as he took the SNP comprehensively apart over independence and fishing
I was quite surprised by the numbers. Nicola has been selling the idea in Scotland that some fish varieties are actually going down in catch and getting a lot of coverage for it.
Do we have any idea whether x% effectiveness means
(1) "x% of the population become immune with this vaccine, and can meet infected people all the time and never catch it" or (2) "everyone has a reduction of x% in the probability of catching the infection on any one occasion exposed to it"?
If (1) were the case, then if x is high (e.g. Pfizer's 95%), we might start behaving normally. In particular, NHS staff who meet infected people all the time might be well-prrotected. If (2) is the case then we still need to socially distance etc. until the spread drops so far that you rarely meet an infected person (because you'll still catch it if you keep meeting them, just "100-x%" of time you would have caught it before).
Unfortunately, I'm not sure we can answer this?
Very interesting question. Hope others more viro'd up answer but here is my take -
A vax effectiveness of 90% means that if I take it my risk of becoming infected is 10% of what it would be if I did not take it.
So, for example, if my condition and lifestyle means I have a 50% chance of getting Covid in the next 3 months, if I take the vaccine, all else being equal, my chance of getting it drops to 5%.
And then hopefully the vax does 2 other things for me. It reduces the chance of me getting VERY sick if I do get it. And it stops me somehow spreading it despite not having it.
From the national as opposed to the personal interest it is really the first of these "other things" that is the key. If you are unlucky enough to catch the virus anyway despite your improved chances you are unlikely to need hospital treatment.
Yes, that looms large in my thinking. I'd accept a higher chance of catching it in exchange for a lower chance of getting seriously ill. I'd accept being 21 again, as it were.
I think that is a good way to look at it and a good reason for our current ranking of priorities. This disease is not equal opportunity. The vast majority of 21 year olds who get it will not be ill at all. Many may not even know that they've had it. We all want to get to that stage as fast as possible but especially those who are likely to suffer serious complications as a result.
The point I do not fully get is this one about "does the vaccine stop you spreading it?" This is apparently not proven by the trials but I don't understand why not. We know it reduces the chance of being infected. So the inference here is it might be possible to pass on the virus without being infected yourself? Is that it?
Most of the trials didn't test whether people were infected, only if they were showing symptoms.
So it's possible that the vaccines prevented the symptoms, but not the infection - so a vaccinated person could still spread the virus asymptomatically to a person who hasn't received the vaccine.
Which is another reason the best thing for the NHS is to protect the 1.6 million first before doctors and nurses.
Preventing the symptoms and thus hospitalisations will go a long way to reducing the strain on the NHS. But if a doctor or nurse gets the vaccine, becomes an asymptomatic carrier and then tests positive they'll still have to be removed from the front line even though they're vaccinated.
Maybe. When things were (maybe still are?) very bad in Liege, in Belgium, in the autumn they were asking asymptomatic staff to work in the Covid wards.
If the system is on the verge of collapse it's the sort of decision that becomes necessary.
I don't think the detail of the vaccine rollout will end up making the crucial difference. The critical factor is: Can restrictions in lockdown three reduce the infection rate?
If they can't then the vaccination programme isn't going to have an effect fast enough to prevent collapse of the hospital system.
We'll find out whether the infection rate is coming under control during next week - when they'll only just be starting to use the AZN vaccine.
Something else to think of.
We are well north of 800,000 first doses.
the policy so far has been to aim for
75% over 80s 20% care home staff 5% NHS staff
The earliest numbers suggest that about 70% over 80s is being achieved, with the balance being taken up by NHS staff.
if 5% - 40,000 NHS staff if 10% - 80,000 NHS staff
Assuming these are all frontline staff (not actually the case) - somewhere between 10 and 20% of the NHS medical workforce have received their first jab.
29.6% - reasonably close to the planned 25% especially considering the logistical challenge in getting the vaccine to those who can't travel by themselves safely to hospitals.
In the form of the Twelve Day of Christmas, since the last Scottish Referendum we will have had:
3 General Elections 2 Scottish Elections 1 Brexit Referendum
How much more is needed for a Partridge in a Pear Tree for it to be considered 'a reasonable period of time' since the last one? 1 nationwide election since the last one would be enough for me but 6 nationwide elections in that time period is surely far more than enough to recognise time has changed.
The "time" argument is a red herring imo. There's been a fundamental change of circumstances. If there hadn't been, it would be a bit soon to be having another Ref, but there has, undeniably so, and if on top of that the SNP win a mandate at Holyrood on a Sindy2 platform, the case for it looks pretty solid to me.
The 'significant change' argument goes against having an early indyref as much as it goes for it. If it is such a significant change, how can an indyref be valid when the ramifications of such a significant change as Brexit are not yet known? Surely a period of 5 years to experience life in post-Brexit Britain is sensible and warranted. What could be the harm to the Indy cause? It will win by a landslide if Brexit is half as bad as it's cracked up to be.
You lot have had 4 & 1/2 years to explain how great Brexit is going to be and convince voters of that. You can regurgitate all that good stuff in a referendum campaign.
Meh. There's no argument for making a massive constitutional decision now, in the immediate slipstream of both Brexit and Coronavirus, that stacks up on any practical or moral level. There's just political calculation on the part of 'you lot' that there will never be a better time politically.
There's even an argument to say it does the Indy cause a disservice to hold it now. It is likely that after this referendum, there will not be another for a very long time. Should Scottish voters’ caution win out over their indignation, you might seriously regret not waiting for less troubled times.
Do we have any idea whether x% effectiveness means
(1) "x% of the population become immune with this vaccine, and can meet infected people all the time and never catch it" or (2) "everyone has a reduction of x% in the probability of catching the infection on any one occasion exposed to it"?
If (1) were the case, then if x is high (e.g. Pfizer's 95%), we might start behaving normally. In particular, NHS staff who meet infected people all the time might be well-prrotected. If (2) is the case then we still need to socially distance etc. until the spread drops so far that you rarely meet an infected person (because you'll still catch it if you keep meeting them, just "100-x%" of time you would have caught it before).
Unfortunately, I'm not sure we can answer this?
Very interesting question. Hope others more viro'd up answer but here is my take -
A vax effectiveness of 90% means that if I take it my risk of becoming infected is 10% of what it would be if I did not take it.
So, for example, if my condition and lifestyle means I have a 50% chance of getting Covid in the next 3 months, if I take the vaccine, all else being equal, my chance of getting it drops to 5%.
And then hopefully the vax does 2 other things for me. It reduces the chance of me getting VERY sick if I do get it. And it stops me somehow spreading it despite not having it.
From the national as opposed to the personal interest it is really the first of these "other things" that is the key. If you are unlucky enough to catch the virus anyway despite your improved chances you are unlikely to need hospital treatment.
Yes, that looms large in my thinking. I'd accept a higher chance of catching it in exchange for a lower chance of getting seriously ill. I'd accept being 21 again, as it were.
I think that is a good way to look at it and a good reason for our current ranking of priorities. This disease is not equal opportunity. The vast majority of 21 year olds who get it will not be ill at all. Many may not even know that they've had it. We all want to get to that stage as fast as possible but especially those who are likely to suffer serious complications as a result.
The point I do not fully get is this one about "does the vaccine stop you spreading it?" This is apparently not proven by the trials but I don't understand why not. We know it reduces the chance of being infected. So the inference here is it might be possible to pass on the virus without being infected yourself? Is that it?
We already know the asymptomatic can spread it.
The vaccine might make you an asymptomatic spreader, we don't know that yet it is too early to tell. But the JCVI clearly believe it will reduce spread which is why it is prioritising NHS staff and Care staff.
Yes but if you are infected with no symptoms you are still infected. And I thought the trials proved that the vaccine reduces the chance of being infected.
So, if the trials do NOT prove it also reduces the chance of you spreading the virus, the inference is that people might be able to spread the virus even when not infected by it, symptoms or not.
See what I mean?
You've reached a nonsense conclusion on the basis of a misunderstanding that's already been explained to you. The trials did not show people were not infected. Only that they didn't have symptoms.
The Oxford trial did demonstrate limited evidence of reduction in asymptomatic infection as well as symptomatic.
There's no argument for making a massive constitutional decision now, in the immediate slipstream of both Brexit and Coronavirus, that stacks up on any practical or moral level.
If that was true, Brexit would have been postponed as there was no argument for making a massive constitutional change now, in the immediate slipstream of Coronavirus
Do we have any idea whether x% effectiveness means
(1) "x% of the population become immune with this vaccine, and can meet infected people all the time and never catch it" or (2) "everyone has a reduction of x% in the probability of catching the infection on any one occasion exposed to it"?
If (1) were the case, then if x is high (e.g. Pfizer's 95%), we might start behaving normally. In particular, NHS staff who meet infected people all the time might be well-prrotected. If (2) is the case then we still need to socially distance etc. until the spread drops so far that you rarely meet an infected person (because you'll still catch it if you keep meeting them, just "100-x%" of time you would have caught it before).
Unfortunately, I'm not sure we can answer this?
Very interesting question. Hope others more viro'd up answer but here is my take -
A vax effectiveness of 90% means that if I take it my risk of becoming infected is 10% of what it would be if I did not take it.
So, for example, if my condition and lifestyle means I have a 50% chance of getting Covid in the next 3 months, if I take the vaccine, all else being equal, my chance of getting it drops to 5%.
And then hopefully the vax does 2 other things for me. It reduces the chance of me getting VERY sick if I do get it. And it stops me somehow spreading it despite not having it.
From the national as opposed to the personal interest it is really the first of these "other things" that is the key. If you are unlucky enough to catch the virus anyway despite your improved chances you are unlikely to need hospital treatment.
Yes, that looms large in my thinking. I'd accept a higher chance of catching it in exchange for a lower chance of getting seriously ill. I'd accept being 21 again, as it were.
I think that is a good way to look at it and a good reason for our current ranking of priorities. This disease is not equal opportunity. The vast majority of 21 year olds who get it will not be ill at all. Many may not even know that they've had it. We all want to get to that stage as fast as possible but especially those who are likely to suffer serious complications as a result.
The point I do not fully get is this one about "does the vaccine stop you spreading it?" This is apparently not proven by the trials but I don't understand why not. We know it reduces the chance of being infected. So the inference here is it might be possible to pass on the virus without being infected yourself? Is that it?
We already know the asymptomatic can spread it.
The vaccine might make you an asymptomatic spreader, we don't know that yet it is too early to tell. But the JCVI clearly believe it will reduce spread which is why it is prioritising NHS staff and Care staff.
Yes but if you are infected with no symptoms you are still infected. And I thought the trials proved that the vaccine reduces the chance of being infected.
So, if the trials do NOT prove it also reduces the chance of you spreading the virus, the inference is that people might be able to spread the virus even when not infected by it, symptoms or not.
See what I mean?
You've reached a nonsense conclusion on the basis of a misunderstanding that's already been explained to you. The trials did not show people were not infected. Only that they didn't have symptoms.
Harsh! I posed a logical question based on my misunderstanding of the trials MO and you kindly answered it and in the process cleared up my misunderstanding. But I hadn't seen your answer when I wrote this follow-up.
Do we have any idea whether x% effectiveness means
(1) "x% of the population become immune with this vaccine, and can meet infected people all the time and never catch it" or (2) "everyone has a reduction of x% in the probability of catching the infection on any one occasion exposed to it"?
If (1) were the case, then if x is high (e.g. Pfizer's 95%), we might start behaving normally. In particular, NHS staff who meet infected people all the time might be well-prrotected. If (2) is the case then we still need to socially distance etc. until the spread drops so far that you rarely meet an infected person (because you'll still catch it if you keep meeting them, just "100-x%" of time you would have caught it before).
Unfortunately, I'm not sure we can answer this?
Very interesting question. Hope others more viro'd up answer but here is my take -
A vax effectiveness of 90% means that if I take it my risk of becoming infected is 10% of what it would be if I did not take it.
So, for example, if my condition and lifestyle means I have a 50% chance of getting Covid in the next 3 months, if I take the vaccine, all else being equal, my chance of getting it drops to 5%.
And then hopefully the vax does 2 other things for me. It reduces the chance of me getting VERY sick if I do get it. And it stops me somehow spreading it despite not having it.
From the national as opposed to the personal interest it is really the first of these "other things" that is the key. If you are unlucky enough to catch the virus anyway despite your improved chances you are unlikely to need hospital treatment.
Yes, that looms large in my thinking. I'd accept a higher chance of catching it in exchange for a lower chance of getting seriously ill. I'd accept being 21 again, as it were.
I think that is a good way to look at it and a good reason for our current ranking of priorities. This disease is not equal opportunity. The vast majority of 21 year olds who get it will not be ill at all. Many may not even know that they've had it. We all want to get to that stage as fast as possible but especially those who are likely to suffer serious complications as a result.
The point I do not fully get is this one about "does the vaccine stop you spreading it?" This is apparently not proven by the trials but I don't understand why not. We know it reduces the chance of being infected. So the inference here is it might be possible to pass on the virus without being infected yourself? Is that it?
Most of the trials didn't test whether people were infected, only if they were showing symptoms.
So it's possible that the vaccines prevented the symptoms, but not the infection - so a vaccinated person could still spread the virus asymptomatically to a person who hasn't received the vaccine.
Which is another reason the best thing for the NHS is to protect the 1.6 million first before doctors and nurses.
Preventing the symptoms and thus hospitalisations will go a long way to reducing the strain on the NHS. But if a doctor or nurse gets the vaccine, becomes an asymptomatic carrier and then tests positive they'll still have to be removed from the front line even though they're vaccinated.
Maybe. When things were (maybe still are?) very bad in Liege, in Belgium, in the autumn they were asking asymptomatic staff to work in the Covid wards.
If the system is on the verge of collapse it's the sort of decision that becomes necessary.
I don't think the detail of the vaccine rollout will end up making the crucial difference. The critical factor is: Can restrictions in lockdown three reduce the infection rate?
If they can't then the vaccination programme isn't going to have an effect fast enough to prevent collapse of the hospital system.
We'll find out whether the infection rate is coming under control during next week - when they'll only just be starting to use the AZN vaccine.
Something else to think of.
We are well north of 800,000 first doses.
the policy so far has been to aim for
75% over 80s 20% care home staff 5% NHS staff
The earliest numbers suggest that about 70% over 80s is being achieved, with the balance being taken up by NHS staff.
if 5% - 40,000 NHS staff if 10% - 80,000 NHS staff
Assuming these are all frontline staff (not actually the case) - somewhere between 10 and 20% of the NHS medical workforce have received their first jab.
Starmer is making a mistake. Labour is making a mistake. They are in the same lobby as Steve Baker. Disgusting decision.
Instead of respecting Democracy they are playing political games.
To believe in democracy you have to believe everyone in parliament can vote with their conscience on what they think of the deal, for the country and their constituents, without the weapon of no deal held to their heads.
If then it passes, it passes. That’s democracy saying yes. And, if governments deal can’t pass despite an eighty seat majority over all other parties, democracy is saying no.
Is that all Labour is now, a split between unreconstructed IRA loving Marxists or ambitious New Labour sell outs? If so then it is toast. This is the day history will point to as the day Labour became toast.
Obviously I disagree,
Let’s deal with how history views this.
2016 Labour leadership and front bench do not campaign very hard for Remain. It’s almost like they have always believed in brexit.
2017 Labour stand in GE on slim majority of voters in a flawed direct democracy vote have spoken a brexit means brexit platform.
2019 any chance of a sensible as possible soft brexit slaughtered by Labour. Any chance of a confirmatory vote slaughtered by Labour.
2020 ambitious slimy pole climbing New Labour leadership vote for and ensure hardest of brexit endorsing slimmest of deals.
Conclusion. This is not a Tory Brexit. Labour has the blood of British economy on its hands. As households and government coffers become poorer Labour has that blood on its hands too.
The referendum was not a "flawed direct democracy vote". You lose your readers by making that point.
there is a difference between direct democracy and representative democracy. And the question of mixing the two. Once people vote in a referendum, what is the role of parliament and representatives?
The word comes from Ancient Greece, Demo = people, Cracy = rule. However the whole point of the democracy in Ancient Greece wasn’t so that 52% ever trumps 48%, actual democracy is about tolerating minority views in the big decisions for a society going forwards, not just as fairest, but to minimise ongoing conflict. So that is a Brexit not just for the 52% (many of which actually did not vote for hard brexit) but the views of the 48% too.
representative democracy is far stronger than direct democracy because it allows for more efficient scrutiny by a sufficiently small number of people with time and skills, who have maturity of judgment and unbiased in opinion to go into forensic depth and come to a more enlightened conclusion on behalf of all people and points of view. key difference between direct and representative forms of democracy is representatives not simply to communicate the wishes of the electorate but to use their own judgment in the exercise of their powers, even if their views are not reflective of those of a majority of voters, but the voters can still remove them. If you don’t agree with me on that then you don’t actually agree with parliamentary democracy.
Democracy is really about what do you do when you disagree. And the time and skills to scrutinise and debate to a strong conclusion.
do you believe democracy is all about tolerating and involving minority view points as far as possible? Those of you saying no are brexiteers? Just like they don’t understand sovereignty, brexiteers haven’t a clue what democracy is either.
Direct democracy relies on the quality of the debate. lets look at how legitimate 2016 is? Did the campaign inform the voters or confuse or mislead them? When people voted were they sure what they would be getting? Were all risks with both options fully appreciated? Was just the two options enough? I’m not saying people don’t have the education or skills to participate in direct democracy, but are we confident each direct democracy event will have a free and strong debate and produce strong decisions?
The actual two months of campaigning in 2016 were utter feckin nonsense. Fact.
How do you think our experiment in one off direct democracy fitted in with our usual system of representative democracy deciding these big complicated questions?
You think it went well?
U.K. dined out on investment due to our long record of stability. One dalliance with direct democracy trashed that record and made ourselves laughing stock of the world. Fact.
Remain voters quite rightly will never accept brexit referendum because it was second rate version of democracy producing an absurd result.
Mwaaaaaaaaaaaaaah........
Mwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah.
Quality of the debate? Remainers were too busy being smug with their lot, to actually go and sell that wide range of EU benefits to their fellow citizens in Hartlepool and Stoke. Remainers were largely absent from the field of battle. Those few who tried were ill-equipped for the task. An "absurd result"? Go look there.
The implementing of that "one off direct democracy" (conveniently forgetting 1975 when you rather liked the outcome) was based on the interventions of the voters in three general elections - 2015 that approved the concept of the Referendum, 2017 that was somewhat inconclusive on how we should proceed with implementing it, and 2019 that delivered an 80 seat majority on how to implement it.
Not that you will accept these points this side of the heat death of the Universe....
Quite fitting 4.5 years after the Referendum than this debate is being bookended by Boris and Gove.
That's one good thing.
Whatever happens next, nobody will be able to say "ah, it would have been different if the right people had been in charge, and it had been done properly."
On their heads be it. Death, mediocrity, or glory.
Basically the government got the strategy completely wrong and now they're having to try these odd strategies to ensure that hospitals are staffed properly and schools have teachers. Instead we've decided to waste our vaccines on older people who could have stayed indoors for another couple of months.
The US vaccine rollout is much, much better than ours. They've got their priorities right.
If the elderly could just "stay indoors" why have they been filling our hospitals?
The government have the right priorities. Need to cut hospitalisations fast. Care homes are one of the worst superspreaders in the entire nation and a source of a quarter of all deaths and a vast proportion of hospitalisations.
We're running out of doctors and nurses to staff the hospitals. Loads of them are getting isolation notices and wards are running on fumes.
With just 800K jabs we could have made a real dent in keeping the NHS running over the winter period. We really are in a "48h to save the NHS" situation and we've wasted the vaccine doses we do have.
We have done. Second doses only started yesterday.
I'm saying that all doses should be doing to the NHS until all front line staff have been jabbed. No point in hospitals with no doctors and nurses, which according to family in the NHS front line is what's happening.
I don't think any hospitals have 'no doctors and nurses', they may be seeing more patients than those doctors and nurses would like - and preventing a quarter of the patients from arriving in the hospital in the first place will reduce the strain on those doctors and nurses that are there dramatically.
Especially since that quarter of hospitalisations are more likely to get seriously ill, end in ICU and/or die.
Reducing 25% of ambulances call outs and hospitalisations from this will have an immediate impact.
It's not 25%, at 800k first shot to over 80s the reduction is maybe 5%, wards across the country are reporting they are short staffed and people in the front line are taking double shifts to cover it.
We won't get to that 25% figure until the end of January at the earliest, probably mid February at the current roll out rate. The NHS is going to collapse in between.
People are having to do extra shifts due to too many patients coming in, not simply a lack of staff. If there were fewer patients there would be less strain.
25% of hospitalisations come from 1.6 million people. So 800k is half of that group (12.5% of admissions), at 70% efficacy it should reduce admissions by about 9%. Given this group have worse outcomes and longer stays in hospital I believe that could reduce the strain on doctors and nurses by about 10%.
Would giving the vaccine to doctors and nurses increase NHS supply of doctors and nurses by nearly 10%?
On the last point, yes it would. More than that. It's why basically every other country including the US is vaccinating front line medical staff first. The maths works out that short staffed hospitals are worse for public health than over 80s waiting a bit longer. The government got it wrong and now the NHS is going to have very large problems in January and most of February.
Once again we've focussed on the individual rather than the collective good. In a situation akin to wartime individual good goes out of the window. Doctors and nurses are our soldiers in this fight and we're sending them into battle bare handed.
Eliminating a quarter of incoming hospitalisations is in the collective good. The vaccine won't add a quarter to NHS staff, but reducing a quarter of patients being admitted to hospitals is of immediate benefit to the collective.
I'd like to see any data on how many NHS staff are out of action due to the virus who wouldn't be with the vaccine, I doubt it is anything like 10% to 25%.
In my Trust it is 6%, so about 650 staff at any one time.
Many are isolating due to contacts. Unless the vaccinated are made exempt from that, there wouldn't be an enormous benefit. Some of the illness is mental health related rather than physical, or long covid, so may not yet be able to return.
Will the vaccinated be exempt from isolating after contacting the infected ?
Its similar to how those who have been infected previously are supposed to isolate because of new contacts.
I don't think so.
Currently NHS staff do not need to isolate for professional contact. While that is a pragmatic solution, it does rather assume PPE and procedures around it are 100% effective.
In the form of the Twelve Day of Christmas, since the last Scottish Referendum we will have had:
3 General Elections 2 Scottish Elections 1 Brexit Referendum
How much more is needed for a Partridge in a Pear Tree for it to be considered 'a reasonable period of time' since the last one? 1 nationwide election since the last one would be enough for me but 6 nationwide elections in that time period is surely far more than enough to recognise time has changed.
The "time" argument is a red herring imo. There's been a fundamental change of circumstances. If there hadn't been, it would be a bit soon to be having another Ref, but there has, undeniably so, and if on top of that the SNP win a mandate at Holyrood on a Sindy2 platform, the case for it looks pretty solid to me.
The 'significant change' argument goes against having an early indyref as much as it goes for it. If it is such a significant change, how can an indyref be valid when the ramifications of such a significant change as Brexit are not yet known? Surely a period of 5 years to experience life in post-Brexit Britain is sensible and warranted. What could be the harm to the Indy cause? It will win by a landslide if Brexit is half as bad as it's cracked up to be.
You lot have had 4 & 1/2 years to explain how great Brexit is going to be and convince voters of that. You can regurgitate all that good stuff in a referendum campaign.
Meh. There's no argument for making a massive constitutional decision now, in the immediate slipstream of both Brexit and Coronavirus, that stacks up on any practical or moral level. There's just political calculation on the part of 'you lot' that there will never be a better time politically.
There's even an argument to say it does the Indy cause a disservice to hold it now. It is likely that after this referendum, there will not be another for a very long time. Should Scottish voters’ caution win out over their indignation, you might seriously regret not waiting for less troubled times.
From someone who I understand was too scrupulous to vote in the first referendum, it's very touching that your now pronouncing on what's the best time to have a vote. Well done for rolling up your sleeves and getting stuck in!
There's no argument for making a massive constitutional decision now, in the immediate slipstream of both Brexit and Coronavirus, that stacks up on any practical or moral level.
If that was true, Brexit would have been postponed as there was no argument for making a massive constitutional change now, in the immediate slipstream of Coronavirus
What massive constitutional change do you object to?
Brexit happened on 31/01/20. This is signing a trade deal.
Do we have any idea whether x% effectiveness means
(1) "x% of the population become immune with this vaccine, and can meet infected people all the time and never catch it" or (2) "everyone has a reduction of x% in the probability of catching the infection on any one occasion exposed to it"?
If (1) were the case, then if x is high (e.g. Pfizer's 95%), we might start behaving normally. In particular, NHS staff who meet infected people all the time might be well-prrotected. If (2) is the case then we still need to socially distance etc. until the spread drops so far that you rarely meet an infected person (because you'll still catch it if you keep meeting them, just "100-x%" of time you would have caught it before).
Unfortunately, I'm not sure we can answer this?
Very interesting question. Hope others more viro'd up answer but here is my take -
A vax effectiveness of 90% means that if I take it my risk of becoming infected is 10% of what it would be if I did not take it.
So, for example, if my condition and lifestyle means I have a 50% chance of getting Covid in the next 3 months, if I take the vaccine, all else being equal, my chance of getting it drops to 5%.
And then hopefully the vax does 2 other things for me. It reduces the chance of me getting VERY sick if I do get it. And it stops me somehow spreading it despite not having it.
From the national as opposed to the personal interest it is really the first of these "other things" that is the key. If you are unlucky enough to catch the virus anyway despite your improved chances you are unlikely to need hospital treatment.
Yes, that looms large in my thinking. I'd accept a higher chance of catching it in exchange for a lower chance of getting seriously ill. I'd accept being 21 again, as it were.
I think that is a good way to look at it and a good reason for our current ranking of priorities. This disease is not equal opportunity. The vast majority of 21 year olds who get it will not be ill at all. Many may not even know that they've had it. We all want to get to that stage as fast as possible but especially those who are likely to suffer serious complications as a result.
The point I do not fully get is this one about "does the vaccine stop you spreading it?" This is apparently not proven by the trials but I don't understand why not. We know it reduces the chance of being infected. So the inference here is it might be possible to pass on the virus without being infected yourself? Is that it?
Most of the trials didn't test whether people were infected, only if they were showing symptoms.
So it's possible that the vaccines prevented the symptoms, but not the infection - so a vaccinated person could still spread the virus asymptomatically to a person who hasn't received the vaccine.
Which is another reason the best thing for the NHS is to protect the 1.6 million first before doctors and nurses.
Preventing the symptoms and thus hospitalisations will go a long way to reducing the strain on the NHS. But if a doctor or nurse gets the vaccine, becomes an asymptomatic carrier and then tests positive they'll still have to be removed from the front line even though they're vaccinated.
Maybe. When things were (maybe still are?) very bad in Liege, in Belgium, in the autumn they were asking asymptomatic staff to work in the Covid wards.
If the system is on the verge of collapse it's the sort of decision that becomes necessary.
I don't think the detail of the vaccine rollout will end up making the crucial difference. The critical factor is: Can restrictions in lockdown three reduce the infection rate?
If they can't then the vaccination programme isn't going to have an effect fast enough to prevent collapse of the hospital system.
We'll find out whether the infection rate is coming under control during next week - when they'll only just be starting to use the AZN vaccine.
Something else to think of.
We are well north of 800,000 first doses.
the policy so far has been to aim for
75% over 80s 20% care home staff 5% NHS staff
The earliest numbers suggest that about 70% over 80s is being achieved, with the balance being taken up by NHS staff.
if 5% - 40,000 NHS staff if 10% - 80,000 NHS staff
Assuming these are all frontline staff (not actually the case) - somewhere between 10 and 20% of the NHS medical workforce have received their first jab.
29.6% - reasonably close to the planned 25% especially considering the logistical challenge in getting the vaccine to those who can't travel by themselves safely to hospitals.
Those figures came out on Christmas Eve so hopefully we will get another update tomorrow. The UK figures are on the gov.uk dashboard but not broken down by age.
Starmer is making a mistake. Labour is making a mistake. They are in the same lobby as Steve Baker. Disgusting decision.
Instead of respecting Democracy they are playing political games.
To believe in democracy you have to believe everyone in parliament can vote with their conscience on what they think of the deal, for the country and their constituents, without the weapon of no deal held to their heads.
If then it passes, it passes. That’s democracy saying yes. And, if governments deal can’t pass despite an eighty seat majority over all other parties, democracy is saying no.
Is that all Labour is now, a split between unreconstructed IRA loving Marxists or ambitious New Labour sell outs? If so then it is toast. This is the day history will point to as the day Labour became toast.
Obviously I disagree, but even from an opposition perspective, isn't there a strong argument for playing this with a straight bat? If the deal failed to be ratified by Parliament, we would be in a No deal situation. Yes, with a Tory majority that's unlikely, but I think the public respects voting for the actual preferred outcome, not grandstanding. Nobody blamed Boris for the letter he had to write, and I don't think voters will blame Starmer for the deal he must now support.
Let’s deal with what happens if parliament says no today. And tomorrow.
If parliament says no, Boris can speak to EU to roll on the transition. It is a discussion and agreement that will only take a couple of minutes. No one in power either side the channel creates no deal when alternatives are possible. Simples.
It’s not panto season with anyone saying “oh no he can’t” because, yes he can. It’s exactly the same as with May’s deal when she said it’s this or nothing, but ended up in that third option to re open the in un-reopenable.
it’s is NOT a binary choice about picking the lesser of two evils in the national interest. Starmer is a liar. He needs to be called out on this.
If parliament doesn’t pass it before the 1st it’s not inevitably no deal brexit. That is a lie. That is a lie by scoundrels. It can be more transition, would EU say no to more transition if parliament reject and government asked for hasty transition extension?
Is there anyone on PB this afternoon claiming it’s this deal or no deal, no other options? Come on speak up and say it. We are up for it. We’ll have you. Deals of this magnitude passing the commons because the clocks run down. Yeah that’s democracy.
There is no way any opposition party can whip this. There is not a single reason any MP of any party should feel there is a gun to their head if they don’t like this deal and don’t want to vote for it.
The Government have an EIGHTY SEAT majority, and it’s government alone who have negotiated it, created the deal. If the only way they can get votes for it is they have run the clock down, that goes completely against the better democracy they claim brexit is all about. It goes against all democracy.
If you tolerate having to vote for this because the clock has run down, burning down the parliament will be next.
I don't think there's much I can say to make this feel better for you at the moment. I look forward on your behalf to the many brighter and better things there are on the other side when Brexit subsides as a factor in your life.
Thanks for acknowledging my pain.
But when something is wrong you put it right. Calmly. Patiently. With a focused head on.
Brexit and brexiteers don’t understand sovereignty nor democracy, and this needs to be put right.
If this country is going to take back control from the globalisation, deindustrialisation and the stagnation it’s been suffering from for decades, we build the future on the strong base of waking up from Brexit pipe dreams and protect financial interests better than this deal voted through today.
Yes, we can focus on problems as we see them, and try to wrestle them to the ground and beat them dead. But sometimes there's more power in withdrawing our attention from the problems in order to be able to see the opportunities. It's not letting go of our ambitions, but it's acknowledging that they may not happen in precisely the way we envisaged.
In the form of the Twelve Day of Christmas, since the last Scottish Referendum we will have had:
3 General Elections 2 Scottish Elections 1 Brexit Referendum
How much more is needed for a Partridge in a Pear Tree for it to be considered 'a reasonable period of time' since the last one? 1 nationwide election since the last one would be enough for me but 6 nationwide elections in that time period is surely far more than enough to recognise time has changed.
The "time" argument is a red herring imo. There's been a fundamental change of circumstances. If there hadn't been, it would be a bit soon to be having another Ref, but there has, undeniably so, and if on top of that the SNP win a mandate at Holyrood on a Sindy2 platform, the case for it looks pretty solid to me.
The 'significant change' argument goes against having an early indyref as much as it goes for it. If it is such a significant change, how can an indyref be valid when the ramifications of such a significant change as Brexit are not yet known? Surely a period of 5 years to experience life in post-Brexit Britain is sensible and warranted. What could be the harm to the Indy cause? It will win by a landslide if Brexit is half as bad as it's cracked up to be.
Stretching a bit there. A vote for Remain in 2016 was not also a vote for "Brexit might be great. Let's give it a whirl". That was just not on the ballot.
Quite fitting 4.5 years after the Referendum than this debate is being bookended by Boris and Gove.
That's one good thing.
Whatever happens next, nobody will be able to say "ah, it would have been different if the right people had been in charge, and it had been done properly."
On their heads be it. Death, mediocrity, or glory.
In the event of disaster Boris will rediscover his American citizenship and head for Montana. Gove will rediscover his Scottish roots and head for a by then independent Scotland.
Do we have any idea whether x% effectiveness means
(1) "x% of the population become immune with this vaccine, and can meet infected people all the time and never catch it" or (2) "everyone has a reduction of x% in the probability of catching the infection on any one occasion exposed to it"?
If (1) were the case, then if x is high (e.g. Pfizer's 95%), we might start behaving normally. In particular, NHS staff who meet infected people all the time might be well-prrotected. If (2) is the case then we still need to socially distance etc. until the spread drops so far that you rarely meet an infected person (because you'll still catch it if you keep meeting them, just "100-x%" of time you would have caught it before).
Unfortunately, I'm not sure we can answer this?
Very interesting question. Hope others more viro'd up answer but here is my take -
A vax effectiveness of 90% means that if I take it my risk of becoming infected is 10% of what it would be if I did not take it.
So, for example, if my condition and lifestyle means I have a 50% chance of getting Covid in the next 3 months, if I take the vaccine, all else being equal, my chance of getting it drops to 5%.
And then hopefully the vax does 2 other things for me. It reduces the chance of me getting VERY sick if I do get it. And it stops me somehow spreading it despite not having it.
From the national as opposed to the personal interest it is really the first of these "other things" that is the key. If you are unlucky enough to catch the virus anyway despite your improved chances you are unlikely to need hospital treatment.
Yes, that looms large in my thinking. I'd accept a higher chance of catching it in exchange for a lower chance of getting seriously ill. I'd accept being 21 again, as it were.
I think that is a good way to look at it and a good reason for our current ranking of priorities. This disease is not equal opportunity. The vast majority of 21 year olds who get it will not be ill at all. Many may not even know that they've had it. We all want to get to that stage as fast as possible but especially those who are likely to suffer serious complications as a result.
The point I do not fully get is this one about "does the vaccine stop you spreading it?" This is apparently not proven by the trials but I don't understand why not. We know it reduces the chance of being infected. So the inference here is it might be possible to pass on the virus without being infected yourself? Is that it?
We already know the asymptomatic can spread it.
The vaccine might make you an asymptomatic spreader, we don't know that yet it is too early to tell. But the JCVI clearly believe it will reduce spread which is why it is prioritising NHS staff and Care staff.
Yes but if you are infected with no symptoms you are still infected. And I thought the trials proved that the vaccine reduces the chance of being infected.
So, if the trials do NOT prove it also reduces the chance of you spreading the virus, the inference is that people might be able to spread the virus even when not infected by it, symptoms or not.
See what I mean?
No. The trials did not seek to measure onward transmission, so the trials say nothing about onward transmission, period.
So what people are discussing is the theoretical possibility of the vaccine providing protection against the disease and not against infection in some part of the population, not actual data pointing to this in fact being the case.
So there is no inference at all, just a discussion of theoretical possibilities about vaccinated persons becoming infected, asymptomatic and spreaders.
You cannot be a spreader if you are not infected except in the very limited sense of surface contamination and contact transmission - you touch something that is contaminated, then touch someone else and pass the contamination on to that person without ever becoming infected yourself. But that is not an infection chain that I can see contributing in any material way to the path of the pandemic.
Yes, thanks. Totally get it now. What I had not realized is that the trials did not seek to measure the number of participants who got the virus but didn't know it.
Do we have any idea whether x% effectiveness means
(1) "x% of the population become immune with this vaccine, and can meet infected people all the time and never catch it" or (2) "everyone has a reduction of x% in the probability of catching the infection on any one occasion exposed to it"?
If (1) were the case, then if x is high (e.g. Pfizer's 95%), we might start behaving normally. In particular, NHS staff who meet infected people all the time might be well-prrotected. If (2) is the case then we still need to socially distance etc. until the spread drops so far that you rarely meet an infected person (because you'll still catch it if you keep meeting them, just "100-x%" of time you would have caught it before).
Unfortunately, I'm not sure we can answer this?
Very interesting question. Hope others more viro'd up answer but here is my take -
A vax effectiveness of 90% means that if I take it my risk of becoming infected is 10% of what it would be if I did not take it.
So, for example, if my condition and lifestyle means I have a 50% chance of getting Covid in the next 3 months, if I take the vaccine, all else being equal, my chance of getting it drops to 5%.
And then hopefully the vax does 2 other things for me. It reduces the chance of me getting VERY sick if I do get it. And it stops me somehow spreading it despite not having it.
From the national as opposed to the personal interest it is really the first of these "other things" that is the key. If you are unlucky enough to catch the virus anyway despite your improved chances you are unlikely to need hospital treatment.
Yes, that looms large in my thinking. I'd accept a higher chance of catching it in exchange for a lower chance of getting seriously ill. I'd accept being 21 again, as it were.
I think that is a good way to look at it and a good reason for our current ranking of priorities. This disease is not equal opportunity. The vast majority of 21 year olds who get it will not be ill at all. Many may not even know that they've had it. We all want to get to that stage as fast as possible but especially those who are likely to suffer serious complications as a result.
The point I do not fully get is this one about "does the vaccine stop you spreading it?" This is apparently not proven by the trials but I don't understand why not. We know it reduces the chance of being infected. So the inference here is it might be possible to pass on the virus without being infected yourself? Is that it?
Most of the trials didn't test whether people were infected, only if they were showing symptoms.
So it's possible that the vaccines prevented the symptoms, but not the infection - so a vaccinated person could still spread the virus asymptomatically to a person who hasn't received the vaccine.
Which is another reason the best thing for the NHS is to protect the 1.6 million first before doctors and nurses.
Preventing the symptoms and thus hospitalisations will go a long way to reducing the strain on the NHS. But if a doctor or nurse gets the vaccine, becomes an asymptomatic carrier and then tests positive they'll still have to be removed from the front line even though they're vaccinated.
Maybe. When things were (maybe still are?) very bad in Liege, in Belgium, in the autumn they were asking asymptomatic staff to work in the Covid wards.
If the system is on the verge of collapse it's the sort of decision that becomes necessary.
I don't think the detail of the vaccine rollout will end up making the crucial difference. The critical factor is: Can restrictions in lockdown three reduce the infection rate?
If they can't then the vaccination programme isn't going to have an effect fast enough to prevent collapse of the hospital system.
We'll find out whether the infection rate is coming under control during next week - when they'll only just be starting to use the AZN vaccine.
Something else to think of.
We are well north of 800,000 first doses.
the policy so far has been to aim for
75% over 80s 20% care home staff 5% NHS staff
The earliest numbers suggest that about 70% over 80s is being achieved, with the balance being taken up by NHS staff.
if 5% - 40,000 NHS staff if 10% - 80,000 NHS staff
Assuming these are all frontline staff (not actually the case) - somewhere between 10 and 20% of the NHS medical workforce have received their first jab.
The younger group will be mostly care home workers, if the policy was being followed.
It would be nice if they could break it down by entitlement group. However I might hazard a guess there are quite a few hospital staff in there as they will have been on hand and easy to get hold of. And as we seem to be rolling out Priority 1 and 2 simultaneously, have as much entitlement as the over-80s.
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
Have to say that's utter nonsense. We have General Elections every 4-5 years normally (we had three in four and a half years so there are exceptions).
We do vote "again and again" - that's democracy. Saying everything is cast in stone and can't change "for a generation" us profoundly undemocratic.
It’s the difference between electing a representative body for a short period of time and fundamental change in the constitutional landscape
Like Brexit ?
Yes, it was right that our membership of the EU is tested every 20 years or so
When a party wins an election with that testing of 'our' membership in its manifesto, or are you now saying this should be something to put on the statute book? Perhaps there should be a referendum on it..
There needs to be demand for a change and a reasonable period to time needs to have passed since the last referendum
Surely a dramatic change in the constitution, status, or to a significant argument used on which decisions were made, justifies a referendum no matter how short the period since the last one.
A key argument given for maintaining the Union was the ability for Scotland to stay in the EU so leaving the EU is a fundamental change. It is made more fundamental given that there was a clear vote to stay in the EU by the Scots.
Whether intentional or not, the Scots were badly mislead.
It is apparently a well established constitutional principle that should a referendum be lost, based on what proves subsequently to be a blatant untruth, that precludes another vote for a couple of decades.
I'm sure there's a Latin tag for suck it up, loser.
In the form of the Twelve Day of Christmas, since the last Scottish Referendum we will have had:
3 General Elections 2 Scottish Elections 1 Brexit Referendum
How much more is needed for a Partridge in a Pear Tree for it to be considered 'a reasonable period of time' since the last one? 1 nationwide election since the last one would be enough for me but 6 nationwide elections in that time period is surely far more than enough to recognise time has changed.
The "time" argument is a red herring imo. There's been a fundamental change of circumstances. If there hadn't been, it would be a bit soon to be having another Ref, but there has, undeniably so, and if on top of that the SNP win a mandate at Holyrood on a Sindy2 platform, the case for it looks pretty solid to me.
The 'significant change' argument goes against having an early indyref as much as it goes for it. If it is such a significant change, how can an indyref be valid when the ramifications of such a significant change as Brexit are not yet known? Surely a period of 5 years to experience life in post-Brexit Britain is sensible and warranted. What could be the harm to the Indy cause? It will win by a landslide if Brexit is half as bad as it's cracked up to be.
You lot have had 4 & 1/2 years to explain how great Brexit is going to be and convince voters of that. You can regurgitate all that good stuff in a referendum campaign.
Meh. There's no argument for making a massive constitutional decision now, in the immediate slipstream of both Brexit and Coronavirus, that stacks up on any practical or moral level. There's just political calculation on the part of 'you lot' that there will never be a better time politically.
There's even an argument to say it does the Indy cause a disservice to hold it now. It is likely that after this referendum, there will not be another for a very long time. Should Scottish voters’ caution win out over their indignation, you might seriously regret not waiting for less troubled times.
From someone who I understand was too scrupulous to vote in the first referendum, it's very touching that your now pronouncing on what's the best time to have a vote. Well done for rolling up your sleeves and getting stuck in!
We could play a great drinking game by downing our tipple of choice every time you respond to an argument by attacking the arguer for making 'pronouncements' (aka having views that disagree with yours). Bonus two fingers if you use the words 'lofty' or 'Scotch experts'. One might almost think you didn't have a retort worth making.
I suppose we have to take the rush toward Indyref 2 as something of a vote of confidence in Brexit and the Union. I'm glad you're so optimistic that you feel the likelihood of a win receding so fast.
Comments
Doesn't stop people (yesterday on R5 some kind of doctors' pressure group for example) saying it does.
Being Covid-positive is not the only reason for NHS staff to be off, nor do we know yet what reduction in being Covid-positive (as opposed to symptomatic) the vaccine gives, since the NHS staff even the vaccinated quite rightly need to be removed from the front line if positive.
So given you know what is happening in the ground in London what percentage of NHS staff are off specifically due to being Covid positive as opposed to other reasons? What percentage reduction would the vaccination impact on that?
But, there was a Cymry, derived from the Brythonic meaning fellow countrymen.
Boudicca is Cymric.
Edit. I can only hope that the bit on mute was the best bit.
So, if the trials do NOT prove it also reduces the chance of you spreading the virus, the inference is that people might be able to spread the virus even when not infected by it, symptoms or not.
See what I mean?
https://tinyurl.com/y98dbafm
If the system is on the verge of collapse it's the sort of decision that becomes necessary.
I don't think the detail of the vaccine rollout will end up making the crucial difference. The critical factor is: Can restrictions in lockdown three reduce the infection rate?
If they can't then the vaccination programme isn't going to have an effect fast enough to prevent collapse of the hospital system.
We'll find out whether the infection rate is coming under control during next week - when they'll only just be starting to use the AZN vaccine.
Christ!
But both trials and populations showed similar immune system effects, and a similar relationship between the number of infections in the placebo and vaccine groups.
Bottom line would seem to be that the vaccine works, whether the precise efficacy is 60, 70 or even 80% (for the delayed booster protocol). Even the lowest of those figures is sufficient for it to be useful, and for the foreseeable future, and for most of us, there isn't an alternative.
Slapping a label on them all in retrospect, whether ‘Wales’ or ‘Cymric’, would be like going back and telling the Native Americans they were all such.
https://twitter.com/GillianMSP/status/1344280027446312961?s=20
I would offer 20x what you pay in annual rent. First and final. Keep it simple.
Unlike the Brexit talks, No Deal is a perfectly viable option for you.
I had assumed that the participants were regularly tested.
Alles Klar.
The word comes from Ancient Greece, Demo = people, Cracy = rule. However the whole point of the democracy in Ancient Greece wasn’t so that 52% ever trumps 48%, actual democracy is about tolerating minority views in the big decisions for a society going forwards, not just as fairest, but to minimise ongoing conflict. So that is a Brexit not just for the 52% (many of which actually did not vote for hard brexit) but the views of the 48% too.
representative democracy is far stronger than direct democracy because it allows for more efficient scrutiny by a sufficiently small number of people with time and skills, who have maturity of judgment and unbiased in opinion to go into forensic depth and come to a more enlightened conclusion on behalf of all people and points of view. key difference between direct and representative forms of democracy is representatives not simply to communicate the wishes of the electorate but to use their own judgment in the exercise of their powers, even if their views are not reflective of those of a majority of voters, but the voters can still remove them. If you don’t agree with me on that then you don’t actually agree with parliamentary democracy.
Democracy is really about what do you do when you disagree. And the time and skills to scrutinise and debate to a strong conclusion.
do you believe democracy is all about tolerating and involving minority view points as far as possible? Those of you saying no are brexiteers? Just like they don’t understand sovereignty, brexiteers haven’t a clue what democracy is either.
Direct democracy relies on the quality of the debate. lets look at how legitimate 2016 is? Did the campaign inform the voters or confuse or mislead them? When people voted were they sure what they would be getting? Were all risks with both options fully appreciated? Was just the two options enough? I’m not saying people don’t have the education or skills to participate in direct democracy, but are we confident each direct democracy event will have a free and strong debate and produce strong decisions?
The actual two months of campaigning in 2016 were utter feckin nonsense. Fact.
How do you think our experiment in one off direct democracy fitted in with our usual system of representative democracy deciding these big complicated questions?
You think it went well?
U.K. dined out on investment due to our long record of stability. One dalliance with direct democracy trashed that record and made ourselves laughing stock of the world. Fact.
Remain voters quite rightly will never accept brexit referendum because it was second rate version of democracy producing an absurd result.
Many are isolating due to contacts. Unless the vaccinated are made exempt from that, there wouldn't be an enormous benefit. Some of the illness is mental health related rather than physical, or long covid, so may not yet be able to return.
So what people are discussing is the theoretical possibility of the vaccine providing protection against the disease and not against infection in some part of the population, not actual data pointing to this in fact being the case.
So there is no inference at all, just a discussion of theoretical possibilities about vaccinated persons becoming infected, asymptomatic and spreaders.
You cannot be a spreader if you are not infected except in the very limited sense of surface contamination and contact transmission - you touch something that is contaminated, then touch someone else and pass the contamination on to that person without ever becoming infected yourself. But that is not an infection chain that I can see contributing in any material way to the path of the pandemic.
Even at current interest rates 25x seems completely excessive. As I say they have the risk that you or any subsequent owner of your house would not want the land and they are stuck with a bit of ground that you say is of no use to them. They therefore do not have the equivalent of a gilt with a guaranteed return. That is why I would have thought a discount was applicable. As @Gallowgate said you could seek advice from a surveyor but I think that the real question is how much it is worth to you. If its less than the estate wants then you may not have a deal.
Its similar to how those who have been infected previously are supposed to isolate because of new contacts.
We are well north of 800,000 first doses.
the policy so far has been to aim for
75% over 80s
20% care home staff
5% NHS staff
The earliest numbers suggest that about 70% over 80s is being achieved, with the balance being taken up by NHS staff.
if 5% - 40,000 NHS staff
if 10% - 80,000 NHS staff
There are, apparently 295,620 nurses in the NHS and 121,256 doctors -
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/nhs-nurse-numbers-continue-rising-with-13840-more-than-last-year
Assuming these are all frontline staff (not actually the case) - somewhere between 10 and 20% of the NHS medical workforce have received their first jab.
But when something is wrong you put it right. Calmly. Patiently. With a focused head on.
Brexit and brexiteers don’t understand sovereignty nor democracy, and this needs to be put right.
If this country is going to take back control from the globalisation, deindustrialisation and the stagnation it’s been suffering from for decades, we build the future on the strong base of waking up from Brexit pipe dreams and protect financial interests better than this deal voted through today.
https://media.whatcar.com/wc-image/2019-06/28-cap.jpg
So yes that seems to be data to show that slashing incoming admissions would be in the collective good. Probably better for your colleagues mental health too.
And "Boudicca is Welsh" in 3 words gets over the essence of the matter.
I could say more accurately "Boudicca was an Iceni, a member of a Brythonic Celtic tribe living in present day East Anglia during the Roman Occupation of the island of Great Britain. They spoke a language that was a precursor to Old Welsh. They were often at war with other Brythonic and Goidelic Celtic tribes."
Or I could write an entire Rawnsley on the subject, comprising a page of blather.
Whatever, all there are better than the original misleading statement to which I objected.
That was "Boudicca loves Boris and Britain", or something.
Still claimed round here. Modern genetics, of course, suggest the situation was much more complex than I at any rate was taught around 1950.
I'm sure there's a Latin tag for suck it up, loser.
There's even an argument to say it does the Indy cause a disservice to hold it now. It is likely that after this referendum, there will not be another for a very long time. Should Scottish voters’ caution win out over their indignation, you might seriously regret not waiting for less troubled times.
Mwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah.
Quality of the debate? Remainers were too busy being smug with their lot, to actually go and sell that wide range of EU benefits to their fellow citizens in Hartlepool and Stoke. Remainers were largely absent from the field of battle. Those few who tried were ill-equipped for the task. An "absurd result"? Go look there.
The implementing of that "one off direct democracy" (conveniently forgetting 1975 when you rather liked the outcome) was based on the interventions of the voters in three general elections - 2015 that approved the concept of the Referendum, 2017 that was somewhat inconclusive on how we should proceed with implementing it, and 2019 that delivered an 80 seat majority on how to implement it.
Not that you will accept these points this side of the heat death of the Universe....
Whatever happens next, nobody will be able to say "ah, it would have been different if the right people had been in charge, and it had been done properly."
On their heads be it. Death, mediocrity, or glory.
Currently NHS staff do not need to isolate for professional contact. While that is a pragmatic solution, it does rather assume PPE and procedures around it are 100% effective.
Brexit happened on 31/01/20. This is signing a trade deal.
Is there an echo.in here?
A historic mistake, I think.
Q1 is going to be a bloodbath of FTF retail and hospitality.
Abandon the league and let the league table stand as it is now.
I suppose we have to take the rush toward Indyref 2 as something of a vote of confidence in Brexit and the Union. I'm glad you're so optimistic that you feel the likelihood of a win receding so fast.