With 98% of the votes counted the Dems looks set to gain both Georgia US Senate seats – politicalbet

TheScreamingEagles said:

another_richard said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

another_richard said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Who could have predicted this?

https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1346741415934619648

The same people who said it was impossible to do 100k tests per day ?

What would you prefer - aim for 14m vaccinations and get 10m or aim for 7m and get 7m ?

He's persistently misleading the country, normality by Christmas etc.

IIRC you were quite enraged by bad forecasts, particularly the Whitty/Vallance projections of 50,000 cases in October without further action.

Turns out they were right.

The 50k forecast was a ridiculous extrapolate to infinity and it was wrong.

And as you've not answered my question I'll ask it again:

What would you prefer - aim for 14m vaccinations and get 10m or aim for 7m and get 7m ?

The issue currently is to get as many people vaccinated as soon as possible.

And its more important that happens than politicians being able to say they reached their targets.

If it is really important to vaccinate as many people as possible why is the government not allowing pharmacists and former docs to join the vaccination rollout, and why are they taking breaks on Sunday?

That's operational management which needs to be sorted out at the appropriate level.

Though I suspect the limiting factor currently is the number of vaccines available rather than their application.

Boris is a bullshitter who likes to promise big but on this occasion that works to the country's advantage.

Leon said:

Brutal but compelling doctor’s account of a day on a Covid ward. Frightening.

https://unherd.com/2021/01/inside-the-covid-ward/

Unherd. LOL. The Spectator for the under 80s.

MarqueeMark said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Who could have predicted this?

https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1346741415934619648

Ambitious is a good thing not a bad thing.

We shouldn't have expectations management, we should have ambition.

Who would the Boris-haters rather have in charge of our vaccine roll-out - Macron?

Why can't we have someone competent and British? As the Tories are in government I would say "and Tory". But almost all of the competent and clever Tories have been booted.

eek said:

Andy_JS said:

Are the armed forces going to be helping to administer the vaccine? I hope so. We need to get these 12 million vaccinations done as quickly as possible.

Well we aren't letting pharmacies do it so why wouldn't we use untrained armed forces to do it instead.

As many have said, I think the issue is simply supply. I can't see the Government sitting on its hands if it had ample supplies.

Is anyone surprised they are going to fuck this up?

https://twitter.com/DrRosemaryL/status/1346719766837395458

Meanwhile...

https://twitter.com/biscuitsgod/status/1346572013457039360

One question I have is we employed a load of people as a vaccine task force to prepare the roll out. The target was September for first vaccine, which got bumped to now.

Why weren't Boots, Lloyds, Tescos, Amazon, everybody who could possibly do jabs etc etc etc all already contacted, everything agreed and individuals accredited as required by the NHS / BMC rules?

Such that as soon as we were ready to go it was just a matter of telling all those already on board to go go go.

We knew at some point 50 million people would need a jab, so why during the past 9 months was the ground not prepared so come the day, there was minimal delays to get from zero to full speed.

The Battle of Rockall.....

http://www.hebrides-news.com/irish-trawler-banished-6121.html

Anabobazina said:

14 million by 14 February is easy to remember and a perfectly reasonable target.

I do hope the government isn’t going to roll back on it, after failing to monitor the supply pipeline and work closely and daily with the supplier to unblock any bottlenecks.

Of course, many on PB seek to absolve the government of any responsibility for supply failure.

It wasn't the Government's fault. It was all that customs paperwork that needed completing that held the vaccines up at Dover!

There, I have my ironic PB Tory excuse in six weeks early!

not_on_fire said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Anyone got a list of the senate seats up in 2022?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_United_States_Senate_elections

The GOP incumbents in NC and PA are retiring so may be pickup opportunities for the Dems. Maybe WI too.

Against that the Dems are vulnerable in NV and NH, plus Arizona and Georgia will be up again with only 2 year Dem senators.

The picture OUGHT to look bright for the Reps - a chance to pick up the senate and house in the mid terms and then potentially a president not seeking re-election in 2024. They just need Trump to shut up and go away. We will all know he's not going to though.

The question is how long Trump can keep up the sore loser act before even the hardcore start to get fed up.

IanB2 said:

another_richard said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Who could have predicted this?

https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1346741415934619648

The same people who said it was impossible to do 100k tests per day ?

What would you prefer - aim for 14m vaccinations and get 10m or aim for 7m and get 7m ?

We have the health service on the edge of collapse and a majority of the population desperate to get vaccinated and resume normal living. I don't think those responsible for the vaccination programme need any additional motivation.

My guess is that the promise was a mix of the clown's usual eagerness to tell people what they want to hear, and a rare flash of self-knowledge; he knows that his own concentration and attention span to anything complicated or detailed is extremely limited, and by going public has thereby forced himself to pay some attention to it. Rather like a school pupil sharing their revision timetable with their parent.

It's not about "motivation". What you do by setting a high target is imply certain things - that you need X number of vaccination centres, Y number of staff, Z number of vans going out with the vaccine and so on. So the people doing the job are procuring on that basis. It isn't about giving them a reason to get out of bed.

Its a good job AZN never did produce those 30 million doses by September, because the government would be in a sorts of trouble if the media abd the public knew all thise life savings treatments were sitting in a warehouse.

CarlottaVance said:

rottenborough said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

another_richard said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

another_richard said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Who could have predicted this?

https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1346741415934619648

The same people who said it was impossible to do 100k tests per day ?

What would you prefer - aim for 14m vaccinations and get 10m or aim for 7m and get 7m ?

He's persistently misleading the country, normality by Christmas etc.

IIRC you were quite enraged by bad forecasts, particularly the Whitty/Vallance projections of 50,000 cases in October without further action.

Turns out they were right.

The 50k forecast was a ridiculous extrapolate to infinity and it was wrong.

And as you've not answered my question I'll ask it again:

What would you prefer - aim for 14m vaccinations and get 10m or aim for 7m and get 7m ?

The issue currently is to get as many people vaccinated as soon as possible.

And its more important that happens than politicians being able to say they reached their targets.

If it is really important to vaccinate as many people as possible why is the government not allowing pharmacists and former docs to join the vaccination rollout, and why are they taking breaks on Sunday?

This was asked on TalkRadio. I am none the wiser, but maybe I am being thick. Just bluster and waffle.

https://twitter.com/talkRADIO/status/1346749410064146433

He wasn't much cop on R4 either. "You are absolutely right to question us on this..." then proceeded to not answer the question.

It wasn’t on his crib sheet, on Sky Thais morning he had to look down for the answer to every question.

Scott_xP said:

Meanwhile...

https://twitter.com/biscuitsgod/status/1346572013457039360

Who needs a job when you can have SOVEREIGNTY!

Philip_Thompson said:

kjh said:

another_richard said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Who could have predicted this?

https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1346741415934619648

The same people who said it was impossible to do 100k tests per day ?

What would you prefer - aim for 14m vaccinations and get 10m or aim for 7m and get 7m ?

There is a balance though. Targets do motivate, but they can also distract and the target becomes the goal even if there is a long term loss by doing so eg by diverting resources from elsewhere that are of a higher priority (difficult to think that possible in this case), producing a substandard or dangerous product, or by loss of reputation.

The 100K target was a classic of that. Matt Hancock and the Govt rubbished their reputation for being honest on the pandemic. Up until then the Govt had done (or appeared to be doing a decent job). The blatant manipulating of the numbers was the start of the population not trusting the Govt over the pandemic. Up to that point they had done ok.

This target should be the goal though. That is not a bad thing.

Getting people vaccinated is the route out of this. If the entire machinery of government gets a bloody minded focus to get this target achieved then that is not a bad thing, it is a good one!

For once I agree with you on a Covid-19 matter. Over the past year, Johnson and his Government's performance on the virus has been utterly inept. But in this case, Johnson deserves credit for sticking his neck out and coming up with a stretching target, something that in terms of pure political calculations was probably a mistake. It will as you say galvanise the machinery of government and the NHS towards maximising the rate of virus roll out, and that is the point. Nor is it obvious how the target could distorting priorities, given that there is very clear prioritisation of recipients in operation and a centralised NHS number-based system in place to deliver that. That's in contrast, say, to the disgraceful freefall in Florida where you have overnight queues of pensioners wrapped in blankets in the street in an effective first come first served free for all for over 65s.

So I see it as a motivational target, and not one to be used as a specific benchmark for measuring success or failure.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

MarqueeMark said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Who could have predicted this?

https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1346741415934619648

Ambitious is a good thing not a bad thing.

We shouldn't have expectations management, we should have ambition.

Who would the Boris-haters rather have in charge of our vaccine roll-out - Macron?

The problem in France is the extreme anti-vaxxer tendency in the population. Only 35% of French people say they would have the vaccine this year, versus 65% in the UK. That is why Macron has moved so slowly - he is trying to build support for the vaccine by not moving too fast. Maybe that is the wrong approach, but I wouldn't assume that the French rollout would be proceeding in the same way if their public opinion on the vaccine were more like ours.

It’s not just that. Macron is now being accused of deliberately slowing the vaccine roll-out so that French pharma company Sanofi can get some vaccine business later in the year, when they’re ready. Hard to believe, but the French vaccination programme has been fantastically slow.

Meanwhile, in Germany:

https://twitter.com/speccoffeehouse/status/1346762335029964801?s=21

Leon said:

Another good, clear article - this time about the transmission of coronavirus. All that hand-washing and surfaces stuff is minor. You catch it by sitting indoors with other people, breathing. That’s it

https://twitter.com/sarahmanavis/status/1346750982844276736?s=21

Fits with the pattern of increased transmission as the summer slipped away and weather forced social life back indoors, around the world. Also an under-commented explanation for why Oz and NZ are looking so good right now. And for air travel - which is basically sitting indoors and breathing - having been key to the initial spread.

Scott_xP said:

Meanwhile...

https://twitter.com/biscuitsgod/status/1346572013457039360

Is there any anti-Brexit twatter, however small a following, you don't follow and absolutely trust their unsubstantiated claims?

MarqueeMark said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

RochdalePioneers said:

MarqueeMark said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Who could have predicted this?

https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1346741415934619648

Ambitious is a good thing not a bad thing.

We shouldn't have expectations management, we should have ambition.

Who would the Boris-haters rather have in charge of our vaccine roll-out - Macron?

Why can't we have someone competent and British? As the Tories are in government I would say "and Tory". But almost all of the competent and clever Tories have been booted.

Jeremy Hunt is the obvious candidate. Hunt is everything that Johnson is not. I would have a lot more confidence if he were in charge.

Really? The guy who walked out a disaster simulation because he refused to decide who would live and who die? That Jeremy Hunt? Confidence? Sheeesh.....

Fucking up a simulation is better than fucking up the real thing.

DavidL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

another_richard said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

another_richard said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Who could have predicted this?

https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1346741415934619648

The same people who said it was impossible to do 100k tests per day ?

What would you prefer - aim for 14m vaccinations and get 10m or aim for 7m and get 7m ?

He's persistently misleading the country, normality by Christmas etc.

IIRC you were quite enraged by bad forecasts, particularly the Whitty/Vallance projections of 50,000 cases in October without further action.

Turns out they were right.

The 50k forecast was a ridiculous extrapolate to infinity and it was wrong.

And as you've not answered my question I'll ask it again:

What would you prefer - aim for 14m vaccinations and get 10m or aim for 7m and get 7m ?

The issue currently is to get as many people vaccinated as soon as possible.

And its more important that happens than politicians being able to say they reached their targets.

If it is really important to vaccinate as many people as possible why is the government not allowing pharmacists and former docs to join the vaccination rollout, and why are they taking breaks on Sunday?

Because the problem is not delivery, its supply. Its blindingly obvious. The NHS have structures in place every year which allows it to deliver 2m flu jabs a week. Its not hard. It doesn't require vets or dentists or Tesco's. We don't need more capacity, we need more vaccine.

Why the hell our benighted media are not asking about the supply and availability of vaccine to the exclusion of all else is completely beyond...no wait, they're just stupid aren't they?

They are far more worried about their winter sun break.....

Pro_Rata said:

First!

This claim is disputed!

I shall support your claim to the end!

Luckyguy1983 said:

eek said:

Andy_JS said:

Are the armed forces going to be helping to administer the vaccine? I hope so. We need to get these 12 million vaccinations done as quickly as possible.

Well we aren't letting pharmacies do it so why wouldn't we use untrained armed forces to do it instead.

As many have said, I think the issue is simply supply. I can't see the Government sitting on its hands if it had ample supplies.

You have to love the cult followers , Saint Boris and his donkeys can do no wrong

malcolmg said:

DavidL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

another_richard said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

another_richard said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Who could have predicted this?

https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1346741415934619648

The same people who said it was impossible to do 100k tests per day ?

What would you prefer - aim for 14m vaccinations and get 10m or aim for 7m and get 7m ?

He's persistently misleading the country, normality by Christmas etc.

IIRC you were quite enraged by bad forecasts, particularly the Whitty/Vallance projections of 50,000 cases in October without further action.

Turns out they were right.

The 50k forecast was a ridiculous extrapolate to infinity and it was wrong.

And as you've not answered my question I'll ask it again:

What would you prefer - aim for 14m vaccinations and get 10m or aim for 7m and get 7m ?

The issue currently is to get as many people vaccinated as soon as possible.

And its more important that happens than politicians being able to say they reached their targets.

If it is really important to vaccinate as many people as possible why is the government not allowing pharmacists and former docs to join the vaccination rollout, and why are they taking breaks on Sunday?

Because the problem is not delivery, its supply. Its blindingly obvious. The NHS have structures in place every year which allows it to deliver 2m flu jabs a week. Its not hard. It doesn't require vets or dentists or Tesco's. We don't need more capacity, we need more vaccine.

Why the hell our benighted media are not asking about the supply and availability of vaccine to the exclusion of all else is completely beyond...no wait, they're just stupid aren't they?

It will all be sitting in India as they have decided to use it themselves first and as we have no manufacturing we are stuffed. I wonder what happened to the 40M sitting on the shelf or the 10M of the Pfizer one we were guaranteed. Zahawi is invisible still being trained by Dido on how to be even more useless than he was previously. The Tories will be too busy setting up companies with friends and family to import and sell the vials, needles, syringes etc , need a bit of time to ensure they make a killing out of the vaccine.

Simply wrong. There are three factories producing the Oxford jab. One is in Holland, the other two are here in the UK. The bottling plant is in Wrexham. We can do it.

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

TOPPING said:

YBarddCwsc said:

Cicero said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Who could have predicted this?

https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1346741415934619648

Ambitious is a good thing not a bad thing.

We shouldn't have expectations management, we should have ambition.

The problem with this relentless Tory boosterism is that it is not rooted in the practical realities of administration. The facts are not amenable to PR Bullshit or social media barrack room lawyers.

This is what the Tory-media cabal simply don´t get. Not one of them, from Johnson, to Gove, to Kuenssberg has professional experience in getting things done. They are great at propaganda and spin, and lousy managers.

In the private sector (and actually most of the public) Patel would have been fired, Jenrick probably under criminal investigation and most of the other members of the cabinet would have failed to graduate the most basic business degree course.

Thanks for the bulletin from the Tallinn Liberal Democrats.

It is perfectly reasonable to set an ambitious target -- I do it all the time.

Boris' vaccination program will be judged against those in Germany, France, Spain, Italy, etc.

Ambitious targets are useless for planning purposes although make everyone feel good at the time they are set.

Suppose you are a widget firm needing to make forecasts of widget sales this year in order to plan resources, marketing, etc. Those forecasts need to be realistic otherwise you have huge waste on your hands. Plus credibility is lost if you consistently make claims which transparently obviously are unrealistic.

Whatever happened to under promise and over deliver although again, for planning purposes too modest ambition can be destructive.

Realistic is your watchword. I doubt that Boris has spent one minute actually understanding the challenges of the things he is announcing. Do you?

I think that's a bit unfair.

A target is not the same as a forecast. In your example, the company is planning resources to produce X number of widgets, and can flex up or down a little if, after a couple of months, it is clear that they've under or overestimated. They want a realistic central estimate as there is some risk either way - underestimate and you can't meet demand, but overestimate and you've got a warehouse full of widgets sitting there.

Setting a target is different - it's like a company with pretty much unlimited demand for widgets setting goals for their factory managers to make a certain number of widgets which is challengingly high but not ludicrous. We're in a situation where there is effectively unlimited demand (not all of which can be met, clearly) for vaccination this side of Easter.

I've many criticisms of the Government over this crisis, but setting a stretching but not mad target isn't actually one of them, to be fair.

So an internal target at a company, given to people actually responsible for delivering, who will know what's realistic, and if the target is a challenge is just the same?

It might be if the company went on live TV to announce the widget target to a public who are desperate for widgets to save the lives of their loved ones, and secure their own jobs, but who have no control over whether that happens, and have no real idea how the targets are met.

Right now, defending people's mental health is a key outcome for the govt. Sending them on constant rollercoasters is not going to achieve that.

GarethoftheVale2 said:

not_on_fire said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Anyone got a list of the senate seats up in 2022?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_United_States_Senate_elections

The GOP incumbents in NC and PA are retiring so may be pickup opportunities for the Dems. Maybe WI too.

Against that the Dems are vulnerable in NV and NH, plus Arizona and Georgia will be up again with only 2 year Dem senators.

The picture OUGHT to look bright for the Reps - a chance to pick up the senate and house in the mid terms and then potentially a president not seeking re-election in 2024. They just need Trump to shut up and go away. We will all know he's not going to though.

The question is how long Trump can keep up the sore loser act before even the hardcore start to get fed up.

The Senate map is quite poor for the Republicans in 2022. That isn't to say there are no pick-up opportunities - there are. But they are defending quite a lot and attacking a bit less.

That's more relevant for the Senate. The House is likely to go broadly on a national swing (maybe with one or two bucking the trend, but that's statistical noise with 438 members). In the Senate, it would not be at all surprising (and it's very common) to see a Democrat gain here and a Republican gain there. Indeed, 2018 saw four Republican gains and two Democrat gains. So they will very much have to BOTH attack and defend against a not ideal map. It'd not be at all shocking to see two Republican and two Democrat gains in 2022, leaving the balance unchanged.

kle4 said:

Pro_Rata said:

First!

This claim is disputed!

I shall support your claim to the end!

Surely the claim is to the start ?

FrancisUrquhart said:

Scott_xP said:

Meanwhile...

https://twitter.com/biscuitsgod/status/1346572013457039360

Is there any anti-Brexit twatter, however small a following, you don't follow and absolutely trust their anonymous claims?

It's true, it is something we planned for.

It's like when we employ anyone in the UK, we ask to see evidence that they have the right to work in the UK, but this now from the other side.

NerysHughes said:

DavidL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

another_richard said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

another_richard said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Who could have predicted this?

https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1346741415934619648

The same people who said it was impossible to do 100k tests per day ?

What would you prefer - aim for 14m vaccinations and get 10m or aim for 7m and get 7m ?

He's persistently misleading the country, normality by Christmas etc.

IIRC you were quite enraged by bad forecasts, particularly the Whitty/Vallance projections of 50,000 cases in October without further action.

Turns out they were right.

The 50k forecast was a ridiculous extrapolate to infinity and it was wrong.

And as you've not answered my question I'll ask it again:

What would you prefer - aim for 14m vaccinations and get 10m or aim for 7m and get 7m ?

The issue currently is to get as many people vaccinated as soon as possible.

And its more important that happens than politicians being able to say they reached their targets.

If it is really important to vaccinate as many people as possible why is the government not allowing pharmacists and former docs to join the vaccination rollout, and why are they taking breaks on Sunday?

Because the problem is not delivery, its supply. Its blindingly obvious. The NHS have structures in place every year which allows it to deliver 2m flu jabs a week. Its not hard. It doesn't require vets or dentists or Tesco's. We don't need more capacity, we need more vaccine.

Why the hell our benighted media are not asking about the supply and availability of vaccine to the exclusion of all else is completely beyond...no wait, they're just stupid aren't they?

I think people on here will be surprised in two weeks at the extent of the vaccination prgramme in this country.

Surprisingly low or high?

malcolmg said:

DavidL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

another_richard said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

another_richard said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Who could have predicted this?

https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1346741415934619648

The same people who said it was impossible to do 100k tests per day ?

What would you prefer - aim for 14m vaccinations and get 10m or aim for 7m and get 7m ?

He's persistently misleading the country, normality by Christmas etc.

IIRC you were quite enraged by bad forecasts, particularly the Whitty/Vallance projections of 50,000 cases in October without further action.

Turns out they were right.

The 50k forecast was a ridiculous extrapolate to infinity and it was wrong.

And as you've not answered my question I'll ask it again:

What would you prefer - aim for 14m vaccinations and get 10m or aim for 7m and get 7m ?

The issue currently is to get as many people vaccinated as soon as possible.

And its more important that happens than politicians being able to say they reached their targets.

If it is really important to vaccinate as many people as possible why is the government not allowing pharmacists and former docs to join the vaccination rollout, and why are they taking breaks on Sunday?

Because the problem is not delivery, its supply. Its blindingly obvious. The NHS have structures in place every year which allows it to deliver 2m flu jabs a week. Its not hard. It doesn't require vets or dentists or Tesco's. We don't need more capacity, we need more vaccine.

Why the hell our benighted media are not asking about the supply and availability of vaccine to the exclusion of all else is completely beyond...no wait, they're just stupid aren't they?

It will all be sitting in India as they have decided to use it themselves first and as we have no manufacturing we are stuffed. I wonder what happened to the 40M sitting on the shelf or the 10M of the Pfizer one we were guaranteed. Zahawi is invisible still being trained by Dido on how to be even more useless than he was previously. The Tories will be too busy setting up companies with friends and family to import and sell the vials, needles, syringes etc , need a bit of time to ensure they make a killing out of the vaccine.

The Indian production under licence was never earmarked for Europe. It was for the developing world contracts.

Wulfrun_Phil said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kjh said:

another_richard said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Who could have predicted this?

https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1346741415934619648

The same people who said it was impossible to do 100k tests per day ?

What would you prefer - aim for 14m vaccinations and get 10m or aim for 7m and get 7m ?

There is a balance though. Targets do motivate, but they can also distract and the target becomes the goal even if there is a long term loss by doing so eg by diverting resources from elsewhere that are of a higher priority (difficult to think that possible in this case), producing a substandard or dangerous product, or by loss of reputation.

The 100K target was a classic of that. Matt Hancock and the Govt rubbished their reputation for being honest on the pandemic. Up until then the Govt had done (or appeared to be doing a decent job). The blatant manipulating of the numbers was the start of the population not trusting the Govt over the pandemic. Up to that point they had done ok.

This target should be the goal though. That is not a bad thing.

Getting people vaccinated is the route out of this. If the entire machinery of government gets a bloody minded focus to get this target achieved then that is not a bad thing, it is a good one!

For once I agree with you on a Covid-19 matter. Over the past year, Johnson and his Government's performance on the virus has been utterly inept. But in this case, Johnson deserves credit for sticking his neck out and coming up with a stretching target, something that in terms of pure political calculations was probably a mistake. It will as you say galvanise the machinery of government and the NHS towards maximising the rate of virus roll out, and that is the point. Nor is it obvious how the target could distorting priorities, given that there is very clear prioritisation of recipients in operation and a centralised NHS number-based system in place to deliver that. That's in contrast, say, to the disgraceful freefall in Florida where you have overnight queues of pensioners wrapped in blankets in the street in an effective first come first served free for all for over 65s.

So I see it as a motivational target, and not one to be used as a specific benchmark for measuring success or failure.

One reason for a high level target is the resistance in large organisation to changes in policy.

For example, on testing, there was (and is) a non-trivial part of the medical establishment* that is opposed to anything that smacks of "mass screening".

You can see the effects of *not doing this* in France etc. Vaccination there seems to be (at least until now) just something that is supposed to happen, by itself.

OllyT said:

edmundintokyo said:

OllyT said:

another_richard said:

So does the GOP fall into civil war or does it reorganise and retake the House in 2022 ?

The GOP have got themselves into a dire position. Many of them know that the Trump core are batshit crazy / QAnon types but there are too many of them to ignore so they keep quiet because they are scared of them.

I don't see an easy path for any moderately sane Republican to win a GOP Primary. That's why we still have 10 GOP Senators about to humiliate themselves by still pretending Trump won the election.

IDK, parties nearly always pick a moderate against an incumbent, not least because if the governing side isn't contested then politics enthusiasts vote in the opposition race, especially where there are open primaries. It's not clear that Trump will be willing and able to run, and if he's not then it's not clear that anybody similar can pull off what he did.

In some cases you may be correct but I believe the GOP will be dancing to Trump's tune for the next 4 years.

Trump is a malign, vindictive and bullying individual who will take great pleasure in trying to destroy any Republican who has displeased him. The right really have taken the US into a very dark place and now the genii is out of the bottle it's not going to be easy to put it back.

Will he be able to do that from jail (wishful thinking)?

IanB2 said:

Leon said:

Another good, clear article - this time about the transmission of coronavirus. All that hand-washing and surfaces stuff is minor. You catch it by sitting indoors with other people, breathing. That’s it

https://twitter.com/sarahmanavis/status/1346750982844276736?s=21

Fits with the pattern of increased transmission as the summer slipped away and weather forced social life back indoors, around the world. Also an under-commented explanation for why Oz and NZ are looking so good right now. And for air travel - which is basically sitting indoors and breathing - having been key to the initial spread.

Yes. I confess I was vaguely and amorally tempted to go do some essential flint-knapping in Dubai this winter. I have friends out there, the lucky bastards. But then I remembered that means sitting in an plane with 200 other people, sharing their air for seven hours. And, if this article is right, even masks aren’t much good at that level of exposure

FrancisUrquhart said:

Scott_xP said:

Meanwhile...

https://twitter.com/biscuitsgod/status/1346572013457039360

Is there any anti-Brexit twatter, however small a following, you don't follow and absolutely trust their unsubstantiated claims?

Is there any source which questions whether Brexit is the land of milk and honey that was promised that you don't indulge in ad-hominem attacks?

OnlyLivingBoy said:

MarqueeMark said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

RochdalePioneers said:

MarqueeMark said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Who could have predicted this?

https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1346741415934619648

Ambitious is a good thing not a bad thing.

We shouldn't have expectations management, we should have ambition.

Who would the Boris-haters rather have in charge of our vaccine roll-out - Macron?

Why can't we have someone competent and British? As the Tories are in government I would say "and Tory". But almost all of the competent and clever Tories have been booted.

Jeremy Hunt is the obvious candidate. Hunt is everything that Johnson is not. I would have a lot more confidence if he were in charge.

Really? The guy who walked out a disaster simulation because he refused to decide who would live and who die? That Jeremy Hunt? Confidence? Sheeesh.....

Fucking up a simulation is better than fucking up the real thing.

Are you really that fucking dumb?

NerysHughes said:

DavidL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

another_richard said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

another_richard said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Who could have predicted this?

https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1346741415934619648

The same people who said it was impossible to do 100k tests per day ?

What would you prefer - aim for 14m vaccinations and get 10m or aim for 7m and get 7m ?

He's persistently misleading the country, normality by Christmas etc.

IIRC you were quite enraged by bad forecasts, particularly the Whitty/Vallance projections of 50,000 cases in October without further action.

Turns out they were right.

The 50k forecast was a ridiculous extrapolate to infinity and it was wrong.

And as you've not answered my question I'll ask it again:

What would you prefer - aim for 14m vaccinations and get 10m or aim for 7m and get 7m ?

The issue currently is to get as many people vaccinated as soon as possible.

And its more important that happens than politicians being able to say they reached their targets.

If it is really important to vaccinate as many people as possible why is the government not allowing pharmacists and former docs to join the vaccination rollout, and why are they taking breaks on Sunday?

Because the problem is not delivery, its supply. Its blindingly obvious. The NHS have structures in place every year which allows it to deliver 2m flu jabs a week. Its not hard. It doesn't require vets or dentists or Tesco's. We don't need more capacity, we need more vaccine.

Why the hell our benighted media are not asking about the supply and availability of vaccine to the exclusion of all else is completely beyond...no wait, they're just stupid aren't they?

I think people on here will be surprised in two weeks at the extent of the vaccination prgramme in this country.

One of the significant suppliers of flu vaccinations ...... pharmacies....... appears to have been turned down. Pharmacies would have had a problem with the Pfizer vaccine's storage requirements, of course, but not with the others.

DavidL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

another_richard said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

another_richard said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Who could have predicted this?

https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1346741415934619648

The same people who said it was impossible to do 100k tests per day ?

What would you prefer - aim for 14m vaccinations and get 10m or aim for 7m and get 7m ?

He's persistently misleading the country, normality by Christmas etc.

IIRC you were quite enraged by bad forecasts, particularly the Whitty/Vallance projections of 50,000 cases in October without further action.

Turns out they were right.

The 50k forecast was a ridiculous extrapolate to infinity and it was wrong.

And as you've not answered my question I'll ask it again:

What would you prefer - aim for 14m vaccinations and get 10m or aim for 7m and get 7m ?

The issue currently is to get as many people vaccinated as soon as possible.

And its more important that happens than politicians being able to say they reached their targets.

If it is really important to vaccinate as many people as possible why is the government not allowing pharmacists and former docs to join the vaccination rollout, and why are they taking breaks on Sunday?

Because the problem is not delivery, its supply. Its blindingly obvious. The NHS have structures in place every year which allows it to deliver 2m flu jabs a week. Its not hard. It doesn't require vets or dentists or Tesco's. We don't need more capacity, we need more vaccine.

Why the hell our benighted media are not asking about the supply and availability of vaccine to the exclusion of all else is completely beyond...no wait, they're just stupid aren't they?

So why didn't Boris Johnson mention that or factor that in when he made his pronouncements?

Oh wait, it's because he's a former journalist, I understand you know.

malcolmg said:

another_richard said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Who could have predicted this?

https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1346741415934619648

The same people who said it was impossible to do 100k tests per day ?

What would you prefer - aim for 14m vaccinations and get 10m or aim for 7m and get 7m ?

Failed on every single aim he has ever uttered since becoming PM.

Apart from winning an 80 seat majority and delivering a Brexit deal?

Malmesbury said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kjh said:

another_richard said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Who could have predicted this?

https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1346741415934619648

The same people who said it was impossible to do 100k tests per day ?

What would you prefer - aim for 14m vaccinations and get 10m or aim for 7m and get 7m ?

There is a balance though. Targets do motivate, but they can also distract and the target becomes the goal even if there is a long term loss by doing so eg by diverting resources from elsewhere that are of a higher priority (difficult to think that possible in this case), producing a substandard or dangerous product, or by loss of reputation.

The 100K target was a classic of that. Matt Hancock and the Govt rubbished their reputation for being honest on the pandemic. Up until then the Govt had done (or appeared to be doing a decent job). The blatant manipulating of the numbers was the start of the population not trusting the Govt over the pandemic. Up to that point they had done ok.

This target should be the goal though. That is not a bad thing.

Getting people vaccinated is the route out of this. If the entire machinery of government gets a bloody minded focus to get this target achieved then that is not a bad thing, it is a good one!

For once I agree with you on a Covid-19 matter. Over the past year, Johnson and his Government's performance on the virus has been utterly inept. But in this case, Johnson deserves credit for sticking his neck out and coming up with a stretching target, something that in terms of pure political calculations was probably a mistake. It will as you say galvanise the machinery of government and the NHS towards maximising the rate of virus roll out, and that is the point. Nor is it obvious how the target could distorting priorities, given that there is very clear prioritisation of recipients in operation and a centralised NHS number-based system in place to deliver that. That's in contrast, say, to the disgraceful freefall in Florida where you have overnight queues of pensioners wrapped in blankets in the street in an effective first come first served free for all for over 65s.

So I see it as a motivational target, and not one to be used as a specific benchmark for measuring success or failure.

One reason for a high level target is the resistance in large organisation to changes in policy.

For example, on testing, there was (and is) a non-trivial part of the medical establishment* that is opposed to anything that smacks of "mass screening".

You can see the effects of *not doing this* in France etc. Vaccination there seems to be (at least until now) just something that is supposed to happen, by itself.

We're still not doing mass screening.
And the large organisation you're talking about was basically set up from scratch last year.

Andy_JS said:

Boris Johnson: "An end to lockdown before the tulip season is over"

https://thecritic.co.uk/what-boris-johnson-told-the-22/

When the heck is Tulip season?

Dura_Ace said:

Leon said:

Brutal but compelling doctor’s account of a day on a Covid ward. Frightening.

https://unherd.com/2021/01/inside-the-covid-ward/

Unherd. LOL. The Spectator for the under 80s.

Meaning?

A Georgia exit poll by CNN showed that 3 in 4 GOP voters believe the presidential was rigged against Trump. And that's a poll, presumably, of voters who showed up for the run-offs. The percentage among those repubs who didn't is probably higher.

Given the vote suppressing implications of that attitude, a civil war in the party, and add in up to 20 million brand new citizens and the chances of the repubs winning anything in, ever, that's in any way meaningful are remote. In 2022 or 3022.

One of the amusing things is how the media are now latching on to so called moderate slightly pink dem senators, presumably not to frighten the investment horses...??

Senator no-mark, of no-marksburg, now a crucial power broker, blah blah blah. Thompson et al and the other Boris rampers on here swallowing it whole of course.

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Karma.

https://twitter.com/LindseyGrahamSC/status/727604522156228608?s=19

Yes. Except Graham is still a Senator.

Is there a word for that thing that exists in the realm beyond shame and beyond hypocrisy?

A politician.

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I've always liked Lord Patten, I wonder if he might have become Tory leader in 1997 (or earlier) if he hadn't have lost his seat.

https://twitter.com/patrickwintour/status/1346758784602005504

He's one of my heroes. Man of immense courage.

Needless to say we don't see eye-to-eye on Europe. I suspect that would have let him down, as it did for Ken Clarke.

It is a sad fact of life that some of the best politicians are in marginal seats as you need that real ability and hard work to hold on. There are/were some real donkeys in safe seats. Obviously that is a generalization.

TheScreamingEagles said:

DavidL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

another_richard said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

another_richard said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Who could have predicted this?

https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1346741415934619648

The same people who said it was impossible to do 100k tests per day ?

What would you prefer - aim for 14m vaccinations and get 10m or aim for 7m and get 7m ?

He's persistently misleading the country, normality by Christmas etc.

IIRC you were quite enraged by bad forecasts, particularly the Whitty/Vallance projections of 50,000 cases in October without further action.

Turns out they were right.

The 50k forecast was a ridiculous extrapolate to infinity and it was wrong.

And as you've not answered my question I'll ask it again:

What would you prefer - aim for 14m vaccinations and get 10m or aim for 7m and get 7m ?

The issue currently is to get as many people vaccinated as soon as possible.

And its more important that happens than politicians being able to say they reached their targets.

If it is really important to vaccinate as many people as possible why is the government not allowing pharmacists and former docs to join the vaccination rollout, and why are they taking breaks on Sunday?

Because the problem is not delivery, its supply. Its blindingly obvious. The NHS have structures in place every year which allows it to deliver 2m flu jabs a week. Its not hard. It doesn't require vets or dentists or Tesco's. We don't need more capacity, we need more vaccine.

Why the hell our benighted media are not asking about the supply and availability of vaccine to the exclusion of all else is completely beyond...no wait, they're just stupid aren't they?

So why didn't Boris Johnson mention that or factor that in when he made his pronouncements?

Oh wait, it's because he's a former journalist, I understand you know.

Presumably there is nothing government can do about supply of vaccine at this stage?

Whereas organizing who gets to do the stabbings and where is their responsibility.

malcolmg said:

DavidL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

another_richard said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

another_richard said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Who could have predicted this?

https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1346741415934619648

The same people who said it was impossible to do 100k tests per day ?

What would you prefer - aim for 14m vaccinations and get 10m or aim for 7m and get 7m ?

He's persistently misleading the country, normality by Christmas etc.

IIRC you were quite enraged by bad forecasts, particularly the Whitty/Vallance projections of 50,000 cases in October without further action.

Turns out they were right.

The 50k forecast was a ridiculous extrapolate to infinity and it was wrong.

And as you've not answered my question I'll ask it again:

What would you prefer - aim for 14m vaccinations and get 10m or aim for 7m and get 7m ?

The issue currently is to get as many people vaccinated as soon as possible.

And its more important that happens than politicians being able to say they reached their targets.

If it is really important to vaccinate as many people as possible why is the government not allowing pharmacists and former docs to join the vaccination rollout, and why are they taking breaks on Sunday?

Because the problem is not delivery, its supply. Its blindingly obvious. The NHS have structures in place every year which allows it to deliver 2m flu jabs a week. Its not hard. It doesn't require vets or dentists or Tesco's. We don't need more capacity, we need more vaccine.

Why the hell our benighted media are not asking about the supply and availability of vaccine to the exclusion of all else is completely beyond...no wait, they're just stupid aren't they?

It will all be sitting in India as they have decided to use it themselves first and as we have no manufacturing we are stuffed. I wonder what happened to the 40M sitting on the shelf or the 10M of the Pfizer one we were guaranteed. Zahawi is invisible still being trained by Dido on how to be even more useless than he was previously. The Tories will be too busy setting up companies with friends and family to import and sell the vials, needles, syringes etc , need a bit of time to ensure they make a killing out of the vaccine.

Clueless. Like everything else that you write.

Can't see this being too popular but we should do it so we can go further up the medal table.

Olympics official says prioritise athletes for coronavirus jab so Tokyo Games can go ahead

Sky News understands conversations underway between government and British Olympic Association about securing athletes a Covid-19 vaccination; IOC member Dick Pound is confident the Olympics can still go ahead as long as athletes can be vaccinated beforehand

https://www.skysports.com/olympics/news/15234/12180389/olympics-official-says-prioritise-athletes-for-coronavirus-jab-so-tokyo-games-can-go-ahead

There seems to be some confusion this morning if the elections are going ahead or not in May.