The speculation mounts that McConnell could support the impeachment move – politicalbetting.com

NerysHughes said:

So Trump incites a riot and the invasion of the Capitol Building and Boris goes for a Sunday afternoon bike ride and they are compared as similar people.

kle4 said:

NerysHughes said:

So Trump incites a riot and the invasion of the Capitol Building and Boris goes for a Sunday afternoon bike ride and they are compared as similar people.

I dismiss most who try to make too much of such comparisons but in fairness I think they compare more than those examples when doing so or are relying on examples made previously.

OldKingCole said:

Does Trump not lose his 'advantages' as a Past President if successfully impeached. Could be disastrous for him and his family.

OldKingCole said:

Does Trump not lose his 'advantages' as a Past President if successfully impeached. Could be disastrous for him and his family.

Mary_Batty said:

kle4 said:

NerysHughes said:

So Trump incites a riot and the invasion of the Capitol Building and Boris goes for a Sunday afternoon bike ride and they are compared as similar people.

I dismiss most who try to make too much of such comparisons but in fairness I think they compare more than those examples when doing so or are relying on examples made previously.

So Johnson publishes newspaper columns that bandy about racial slurs and Boris goes for a Sunday afternoon bike ride and they are compared as similar people.

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Imo McConnell wants this kicked into the long grass past next week's inauguration rather than risk a GOP President being forced out of office.

kjh said:

kle4 said:

kjh said:

RobD said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Scott_xP said:

kjh said:

The point is Philip it is a story. You can't possibly deny that because the media has been droning on about it relentlessly. It really doesn't matter that the media might be very wrong and that Boris may have done absolutely nothing wrong.

non-story...

You actually think it's a 'story' because there's now a cartoon about it?

It shows the story has got "legs". Its not just Johnson or even the Tories that fuel the story - two local ones up here of a similar "do what we say not what we do" ilk-

https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/19000892.council-boss-issues-stay-home-warning-holiday-maldives/
https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/19005450.complaint-made-councillor-living-french-holiday-home/

Those two are a tiny bit different than going on a bike ride, don't you think?

It doesn't matter. What is key is that Boris did not have the common sense to not realise the optics of what he was doing. With all that had gone before how did he not realise this?

It does matter as to whether what he did was a breach or not. Optics is one thing, but whether he actually did something wrong is another and highly relevant.

If people think he broke rules that matters a little l, but whether he actually did matters more. Anyone mad at him for not breaking rules is unreasonable and it distracts from actual failures.

Well yes ok technically, but in reality no.

If I break the rules probably nobody but me and policeman is going to know.

Whereas if Boris does not break the rules, but does something that may appear to some as possibly being on the verge of well you know then the media picks it up and ministers are asked over an over again, and opinion columns write about it, etc, etc and within days several million people think he did break the rules (often just because they want to think that).

Hey presto the Government's message is tarnished.

So this is why it is important:

I break the rules - no impact
Boris doesn't break the rules - all hell breaks loose.

Hence why Boris does need to be more careful in what he does.

BluestBlue said:

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

Labour controlled Exeter council votes to remove statute of General Buller


https://twitter.com/_SaveOurStatues/status/1349137277956591621?s=20

Democratic decision making in action.

'The review said: "The current location is inappropriate because it is outside an educational establishment, which includes young people from diverse backgrounds."'

More like woke idiots having nothing better to do than erase historic monuments in the middle of a pandemic. How could 'young people from diverse backgrounds' possibly gain an education (!) without having their surroundings culturally cleansed?

On a happier side note, despite the Rhodes Must Fall loons getting Oriel to agree to remove the statue by the end of 2020, as of now Rhodes ... has not yet fallen. And All Souls has decided to keep their statue of Christopher Codrington in situ. Little by little, the forces of conservatism are digging in, and pushing back.

DavidL said:

The temptation to back this and get it off the agenda, whilst distancing the party from the disgraceful scenes of the Capitol invasion, must be considerable.

The problem is not so much Trump, who is yesterday's news, but those idiots who argued against democracy in the Chambers at Trump's bidding, even after the invasion.

DavidL said:

The temptation to back this and get it off the agenda, whilst distancing the party from the disgraceful scenes of the Capitol invasion, must be considerable.

The problem is not so much Trump, who is yesterday's news, but those idiots who argued against democracy in the Chambers at Trump's bidding, even after the invasion.

Philip_Thompson said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Imo McConnell wants this kicked into the long grass past next week's inauguration rather than risk a GOP President being forced out of office.

Agreed.

Much better than 9/1 that Trump will be impeached, but it will be after Biden's inauguration not before it.

It is far easier to stick a knife into a corpse once the deed is already done. Have Biden be inaugurated and then the Senators can bury Trump career without removing a GOP President from office.

It will be like the trial of Pope Formosus.

Mary_Batty said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Not sure if this was posted earlier or not:

ManCock: "I'm really glad that we're able to send out food for those who receive free school meals"
Piers Moron: "If you're that glad, why did you vote against it?"
ManCock: "I'm glad that we were able to put this into place"
Moron: "If you're that glad why did you, as Health Secretary, vote against it"

https://twitter.com/LiamThorpECHO/status/1349310087924477952

It's just so painful to watch. Why can't people just say yup, I got that one wrong? You can even make a virtue out of looking twice at an issue.
People with fragile egos are the worst kind of leader.

kle4 said:

kjh said:

kle4 said:

kjh said:

RobD said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Scott_xP said:

kjh said:

The point is Philip it is a story. You can't possibly deny that because the media has been droning on about it relentlessly. It really doesn't matter that the media might be very wrong and that Boris may have done absolutely nothing wrong.

non-story...

You actually think it's a 'story' because there's now a cartoon about it?

It shows the story has got "legs". Its not just Johnson or even the Tories that fuel the story - two local ones up here of a similar "do what we say not what we do" ilk-

https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/19000892.council-boss-issues-stay-home-warning-holiday-maldives/
https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/19005450.complaint-made-councillor-living-french-holiday-home/

Those two are a tiny bit different than going on a bike ride, don't you think?

It doesn't matter. What is key is that Boris did not have the common sense to not realise the optics of what he was doing. With all that had gone before how did he not realise this?

It does matter as to whether what he did was a breach or not. Optics is one thing, but whether he actually did something wrong is another and highly relevant.

If people think he broke rules that matters a little l, but whether he actually did matters more. Anyone mad at him for not breaking rules is unreasonable and it distracts from actual failures.

Well yes ok technically, but in reality no.

If I break the rules probably nobody but me and policeman is going to know.

Whereas if Boris does not break the rules, but does something that may appear to some as possibly being on the verge of well you know then the media picks it up and ministers are asked over an over again, and opinion columns write about it, etc, etc and within days several million people think he did break the rules (often just because they want to think that).

Hey presto the Government's message is tarnished.

So this is why it is important:

I break the rules - no impact
Boris doesn't break the rules - all hell breaks loose.

Hence why Boris does need to be more careful in what he does.

Perhaps he should be more careful. But the condemnation and outrage is over the top absurd if no rules are broken.

His actions might be inadvisable, but dont justify outrage unless rules are broken.

What appears to be the case is not wholly irrelevant, but what actually is the case is more relevant.

BluestBlue said:

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

Labour controlled Exeter council votes to remove statute of General Buller


https://twitter.com/_SaveOurStatues/status/1349137277956591621?s=20

Democratic decision making in action.

'The review said: "The current location is inappropriate because it is outside an educational establishment, which includes young people from diverse backgrounds."'

More like woke idiots having nothing better to do than erase historic monuments in the middle of a pandemic. How could 'young people from diverse backgrounds' possibly gain an education (!) without having their surroundings culturally cleansed?

On a happier side note, despite the Rhodes Must Fall loons getting Oriel to agree to remove the statue by the end of 2020, as of now Rhodes ... has not yet fallen. And All Souls has decided to keep their statue of Christopher Codrington in situ. Little by little, the forces of conservatism are digging in, and pushing back.

I dont support statues and monuments being removed in most cases. However, though I might disagree in many cases if those democratically responsible take the decision, I accept that it was up to them and done via a process.

kinabalu said:

Trump is politically a ex-parrot, nevertheless if a quick & dirty Senate conviction is on I hope they go for it. This is the leader and love object of the global far right, so in the immortal words of Delia Smith - Let's Be Having Him!

Luckyguy1983 said:

Mary_Batty said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Not sure if this was posted earlier or not:

ManCock: "I'm really glad that we're able to send out food for those who receive free school meals"
Piers Moron: "If you're that glad, why did you vote against it?"
ManCock: "I'm glad that we were able to put this into place"
Moron: "If you're that glad why did you, as Health Secretary, vote against it"

https://twitter.com/LiamThorpECHO/status/1349310087924477952

It's just so painful to watch. Why can't people just say yup, I got that one wrong? You can even make a virtue out of looking twice at an issue.
People with fragile egos are the worst kind of leader.

I wouldn't say that. I'd say something like this:

'As politicians, we don't vote against initiatives like this because we don't like feeding kids. We make tough decisions every day, and at the time, my judgement was that this policy wasn't affordable. The Chancellor has now found the required funding, and obviously I'm as delighted as anyone else that we can now help these families out.'

Mary_Batty said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Not sure if this was posted earlier or not:

ManCock: "I'm really glad that we're able to send out food for those who receive free school meals"
Piers Moron: "If you're that glad, why did you vote against it?"
ManCock: "I'm glad that we were able to put this into place"
Moron: "If you're that glad why did you, as Health Secretary, vote against it"

https://twitter.com/LiamThorpECHO/status/1349310087924477952

It's just so painful to watch. Why can't people just say yup, I got that one wrong? You can even make a virtue out of looking twice at an issue.
People with fragile egos are the worst kind of leader.

Philip_Thompson said:

ydoethur said:

MarqueeMark said:

OldKingCole said:

Does Trump not lose his 'advantages' as a Past President if successfully impeached. Could be disastrous for him and his family.

By law, former presidents are entitled to a pension, staff and office expenses, medical care or health insurance, and Secret Service protection. These entitlements only apply if the former president was not removed from office by impeachment or other Congressional actions.

Sorry Donald, you're going to need that Obamacare.....

But he won't have been. There isn't time for him to be *removed* from office.

That's probably up to Congress to decide.

If Congress were to vote to impeach and vote to bar him, then surely Congress could also vote to say formally that it enacts the provisions to remove the pension, staff and offices etc with a clean bill to do so? Even if technically it didn't?

Philip_Thompson said:

ydoethur said:

MarqueeMark said:

OldKingCole said:

Does Trump not lose his 'advantages' as a Past President if successfully impeached. Could be disastrous for him and his family.

By law, former presidents are entitled to a pension, staff and office expenses, medical care or health insurance, and Secret Service protection. These entitlements only apply if the former president was not removed from office by impeachment or other Congressional actions.

Sorry Donald, you're going to need that Obamacare.....

But he won't have been. There isn't time for him to be *removed* from office.

That's probably up to Congress to decide.

If Congress were to vote to impeach and vote to bar him, then surely Congress could also vote to say formally that it enacts the provisions to remove the pension, staff and offices etc with a clean bill to do so? Even if technically it didn't?

RochdalePioneers said:

kinabalu said:

Trump is politically a ex-parrot, nevertheless if a quick & dirty Senate conviction is on I hope they go for it. This is the leader and love object of the global far right, so in the immortal words of Delia Smith - Let's Be Having Him!

I can see the appeal for the GOP of having him taken out and shot - removes him and his coterie from the stage.

However, Trump has whipped up a seemingly significant portion of the republican electorate so that they are suffering from foaming dog fever. Toppling The King may be a Bad Idea if you want these people to not kill you vote for you in future.

Philip_Thompson said:

One other minor reason for the GOP to vote to impeach (post-inauguration if need be) is that former Presidents typically get a Federal Presidential Library in their name as part of their legacy.

A Trump Library could become a Mecca for QAnon nuts and white supremacists. Do the GOP Senators still want to be associated with that indefinitely into the future after last Wednesday?

DavidL said:

Philip_Thompson said:

ydoethur said:

MarqueeMark said:

OldKingCole said:

Does Trump not lose his 'advantages' as a Past President if successfully impeached. Could be disastrous for him and his family.

By law, former presidents are entitled to a pension, staff and office expenses, medical care or health insurance, and Secret Service protection. These entitlements only apply if the former president was not removed from office by impeachment or other Congressional actions.

Sorry Donald, you're going to need that Obamacare.....

But he won't have been. There isn't time for him to be *removed* from office.

That's probably up to Congress to decide.

If Congress were to vote to impeach and vote to bar him, then surely Congress could also vote to say formally that it enacts the provisions to remove the pension, staff and offices etc with a clean bill to do so? Even if technically it didn't?

The Congress cannot remove him. That requires the Senate to vote for the impeachment by the qualified majority after the trial and after evidence. I just don't see how that is possible whilst he is still in office but it should be done afterwards.

MarqueeMark said:

I say give the turd a good flush before the Biden inauguration.

DavidL said:

Mary_Batty said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Not sure if this was posted earlier or not:

ManCock: "I'm really glad that we're able to send out food for those who receive free school meals"
Piers Moron: "If you're that glad, why did you vote against it?"
ManCock: "I'm glad that we were able to put this into place"
Moron: "If you're that glad why did you, as Health Secretary, vote against it"

https://twitter.com/LiamThorpECHO/status/1349310087924477952

It's just so painful to watch. Why can't people just say yup, I got that one wrong? You can even make a virtue out of looking twice at an issue.
People with fragile egos are the worst kind of leader.

" We were looking at a range of options and had not chosen that one at the time so I voted against it. The alternative was never to do nothing, it was to find the best solution. Recent problems with the boxes show that it was not an ideal solution but within days of the original vote the need to do something quickly overrode those objections so we changed our position."

I mean, this isn't hard. Why do Hancock and Williamson have to make it so?

ydoethur said:

Philip_Thompson said:

ydoethur said:

Philip_Thompson said:

ydoethur said:

MarqueeMark said:

OldKingCole said:

Does Trump not lose his 'advantages' as a Past President if successfully impeached. Could be disastrous for him and his family.

By law, former presidents are entitled to a pension, staff and office expenses, medical care or health insurance, and Secret Service protection. These entitlements only apply if the former president was not removed from office by impeachment or other Congressional actions.

Sorry Donald, you're going to need that Obamacare.....

But he won't have been. There isn't time for him to be *removed* from office.

That's probably up to Congress to decide.

If Congress were to vote to impeach and vote to bar him, then surely Congress could also vote to say formally that it enacts the provisions to remove the pension, staff and offices etc with a clean bill to do so? Even if technically it didn't?

It would have to amend the Former Presidents Act, which states the following:
As used in this section, the term “former President” means a person--

(1) who shall have held the office of President of the United States of America;

(2) whose service in such office shall have terminated other than by removal pursuant to section 4 of article II of the Constitution of the United States of America; and

(3) who does not then currently hold such office.

So that would need changing to 'shall not have suffered impeachment and conviction.'

They could do it but I think probably they won't. THat would look vindictive, fuel his claims of a conspiracy against him and really would set many cats among many Republican pigeons...

Having impeached Trump pursuant to section 4 of article II could they not simply pass a bill to say that for the purposes of that legislation that Trump's term of office shall be deemed terminated pursuant to section 4 of article II?

Essentially backdating the removal.

The fact that the impeachment occurred in the House prior to inauguration could provide enough cover to do that as a grey area even if the Senate haven't convicted in time.

No, because that would mean rewriting the Constitution. His term will have ended before he's convicted (if he is).

They could amend the FPA, however. Whether that would be wise is another question.

CarlottaVance said:

Hoyle so much better than Bercow - telling off both Starmer & Johnson and making it about the Commons and back benchers and not about himself.

OllyT said:

kinabalu said:

Trump is politically a ex-parrot, nevertheless if a quick & dirty Senate conviction is on I hope they go for it. This is the leader and love object of the global far right, so in the immortal words of Delia Smith - Let's Be Having Him!

I'm sure the GOP would love to be rid of Trump but not enough of them have got the guts to do it.

They are living on their knees, shit scared of the QAnon brigade.

Appeasing loonies rarely works out well.

Mary_Batty said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Not sure if this was posted earlier or not:

ManCock: "I'm really glad that we're able to send out food for those who receive free school meals"
Piers Moron: "If you're that glad, why did you vote against it?"
ManCock: "I'm glad that we were able to put this into place"
Moron: "If you're that glad why did you, as Health Secretary, vote against it"

https://twitter.com/LiamThorpECHO/status/1349310087924477952

It's just so painful to watch. Why can't people just say yup, I got that one wrong? You can even make a virtue out of looking twice at an issue.
People with fragile egos are the worst kind of leader.

Nigelb said:

(FPT)

stjohn said:

kle4 said:

stjohn said:

I've been thinking about the vaccine design.

Simple evolutionary theory would suggest that if the virus mutates to a form that is more transmissible, all other things being equal, it will have an evolutionary advantage. The spike protein is the bit of the virus that binds to human cells, the first stage in successful transmission. So mutations in the spike protein that result is greater transmissibility are a predictable development. All the current viruses have been developed to target the virus spike protein. The very bit of the virus that could have been predicted to mutate for evolutionary advantage - and therefore risk vaccine escape?

I think that the spike protein was chosen as the target for vaccines because it was a relatively simple to design vaccines to target this bit of the virus. But was it the best choice or strategy, given the above?

Its beyond my ability, but wasnt there a story that scientists believed they could tweak the relevant element pretty quickly if needed?

Yes. Which is great. But far better to avoid vaccine escape in the first place if that's possible. I don't know if targeting an additional or different part of the virus could have been easily done and effective or not. It just seems logical to me, with what we are seeing, that targeting the spike protein could be problematic for sustained vaccine efficacy.

It could.
But the body produces many different antibodies to the spike protein, so it's not a simple matter at all. And the strong likelihood seems to be that even a virus evolved for vaccine escape won't simply become ineffective, just less effective.

Now we know more about the virus, it's likely that future vaccines will incorporate a mixture targeting several different modifications/evolutions of the spike protein (something relatively simple to do with the mRNA vaccines), which would make vaccine escape very hard.
Manufacturers just didn't have either the knowledge or time to do so last year.

anothernick said:

Mary_Batty said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Not sure if this was posted earlier or not:

ManCock: "I'm really glad that we're able to send out food for those who receive free school meals"
Piers Moron: "If you're that glad, why did you vote against it?"
ManCock: "I'm glad that we were able to put this into place"
Moron: "If you're that glad why did you, as Health Secretary, vote against it"

https://twitter.com/LiamThorpECHO/status/1349310087924477952

It's just so painful to watch. Why can't people just say yup, I got that one wrong? You can even make a virtue out of looking twice at an issue.
People with fragile egos are the worst kind of leader.

Hancock's interview on Today was almost as bad. Couldn't answer the key question of the moment, how many vaccine doses are available now, just kept saying the 13m target would be met by 15 February even though the current numbers - 145k yesterday - are nowhere near enough to get us there (and are also considerably below the 200k per day he claimed at the weekend).

Philip_Thompson said:

One other minor reason for the GOP to vote to impeach (post-inauguration if need be) is that former Presidents typically get a Federal Presidential Library in their name as part of their legacy.

A Trump Library could become a Mecca for QAnon nuts and white supremacists. Do the GOP Senators still want to be associated with that indefinitely into the future after last Wednesday?

YBarddCwsc said:

kjh said:

kle4 said:

kjh said:

kle4 said:

kjh said:

RobD said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Scott_xP said:

kjh said:

The point is Philip it is a story. You can't possibly deny that because the media has been droning on about it relentlessly. It really doesn't matter that the media might be very wrong and that Boris may have done absolutely nothing wrong.

non-story...

You actually think it's a 'story' because there's now a cartoon about it?

It shows the story has got "legs". Its not just Johnson or even the Tories that fuel the story - two local ones up here of a similar "do what we say not what we do" ilk-

https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/19000892.council-boss-issues-stay-home-warning-holiday-maldives/
https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/19005450.complaint-made-councillor-living-french-holiday-home/

Those two are a tiny bit different than going on a bike ride, don't you think?

It doesn't matter. What is key is that Boris did not have the common sense to not realise the optics of what he was doing. With all that had gone before how did he not realise this?

It does matter as to whether what he did was a breach or not. Optics is one thing, but whether he actually did something wrong is another and highly relevant.

If people think he broke rules that matters a little l, but whether he actually did matters more. Anyone mad at him for not breaking rules is unreasonable and it distracts from actual failures.

Well yes ok technically, but in reality no.

If I break the rules probably nobody but me and policeman is going to know.

Whereas if Boris does not break the rules, but does something that may appear to some as possibly being on the verge of well you know then the media picks it up and ministers are asked over an over again, and opinion columns write about it, etc, etc and within days several million people think he did break the rules (often just because they want to think that).

Hey presto the Government's message is tarnished.

So this is why it is important:

I break the rules - no impact
Boris doesn't break the rules - all hell breaks loose.

Hence why Boris does need to be more careful in what he does.

Perhaps he should be more careful. But the condemnation and outrage is over the top absurd if no rules are broken.

His actions might be inadvisable, but dont justify outrage unless rules are broken.

What appears to be the case is not wholly irrelevant, but what actually is the case is more relevant.

BluestBlue said:

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

Labour controlled Exeter council votes to remove statute of General Buller


https://twitter.com/_SaveOurStatues/status/1349137277956591621?s=20

Democratic decision making in action.

'The review said: "The current location is inappropriate because it is outside an educational establishment, which includes young people from diverse backgrounds."'

More like woke idiots having nothing better to do than erase historic monuments in the middle of a pandemic. How could 'young people from diverse backgrounds' possibly gain an education (!) without having their surroundings culturally cleansed?

On a happier side note, despite the Rhodes Must Fall loons getting Oriel to agree to remove the statue by the end of 2020, as of now Rhodes ... has not yet fallen. And All Souls has decided to keep their statue of Christopher Codrington in situ. Little by little, the forces of conservatism are digging in, and pushing back.

I dont support statues and monuments being removed in most cases. However, though I might disagree in many cases if those democratically responsible take the decision, I accept that it was up to them and done via a process.

kle, I agree with your reply to me. I don't think I said anything different. I think some Boris defenders probably read far too much into my posts (because we are far to partisan on here)

I will try again. My only criticism of Boris, on the facts that I am aware of, is that he didn't have the foresight to realise it may cause a problem in the media.

And that lack of foresight came into the category of 'the bleeding obvious'.

Not sure I agree.

On 19 Dec, Mark Drakeford said "Please don’t rush to the shops tonight. As we move to alert level four in Wales most shops must close but supermarkets will remain open, and click and collect will be available."

And, an hour or so later on 19th December, phone footage of Mark Drakeford in Lidl buying his massive Xmas turkey was circulating on Twitter. Mark must have dashed out immediately after telling everyone else in Wales not to.

It is not, though, a big deal and nor is Boris' bike ride.

Smartphones are gradually making it impossible for anyone at the top of politics to have any expectation of privacy at all. In terms of attracting half-way competent people to do these jobs, it is not very healthy.

I don't think the problem here lies with "the lack of foresight" of Boris or Mark, it lies with the relentless 24 hour blame game of the modern media.

FrancisUrquhart said:

Is Boris PMQ announcement of 24/7 vaccination another one of his moonshot promises? Isn't the issue at the moment supply?

We definitely should be doing as longer hours if supply is there, the "people said they don't fancy coming before 8am" was a nonsense argument. But you have to have the infrastructure and supply there to do it.

Carnyx said:

RochdalePioneers said:

kle4 said:

Mary_Batty said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Not sure if this was posted earlier or not:

ManCock: "I'm really glad that we're able to send out food for those who receive free school meals"
Piers Moron: "If you're that glad, why did you vote against it?"
ManCock: "I'm glad that we were able to put this into place"
Moron: "If you're that glad why did you, as Health Secretary, vote against it"

https://twitter.com/LiamThorpECHO/status/1349310087924477952

It's just so painful to watch. Why can't people just say yup, I got that one wrong? You can even make a virtue out of looking twice at an issue.
People with fragile egos are the worst kind of leader.

It's weird, given the popularity of its clips among political nerds, that more do t take on board the one from Yes Prime Minister where Hacker talks about stumping the opposition by admitting to getting something wrong.

Sometimes it's the only way out.

We all fuck things up. An early lesson I was taught in my career from a senior Nestle director was this - if its gone wrong, you own it, and help fix it, you aren't going to get in trouble for it.

So when I've screwed up (a £20k cost the company at one point) I've always been the first to say "this was me, I'm sorry, here's how we can fix it" followed by a volunteered autopsy of what went wrong. Its what I have always drilled into my team - confess early before they have chance to get angry about it.

So yes, a "we got this one wrong, there are so many issues we have to take into account, we're sorry" would have both killed the narrative dead and bought them some sympathy or at least understanding.

And an opportunity to make the pawn sacrifice into a poisoned pawn and wrongfoot the opposition (not always possible, but at least blunt the attack).

Luckyguy1983 said:

Nigelb said:

(FPT)

stjohn said:

kle4 said:

stjohn said:

I've been thinking about the vaccine design.

Simple evolutionary theory would suggest that if the virus mutates to a form that is more transmissible, all other things being equal, it will have an evolutionary advantage. The spike protein is the bit of the virus that binds to human cells, the first stage in successful transmission. So mutations in the spike protein that result is greater transmissibility are a predictable development. All the current viruses have been developed to target the virus spike protein. The very bit of the virus that could have been predicted to mutate for evolutionary advantage - and therefore risk vaccine escape?

I think that the spike protein was chosen as the target for vaccines because it was a relatively simple to design vaccines to target this bit of the virus. But was it the best choice or strategy, given the above?

Its beyond my ability, but wasnt there a story that scientists believed they could tweak the relevant element pretty quickly if needed?

Yes. Which is great. But far better to avoid vaccine escape in the first place if that's possible. I don't know if targeting an additional or different part of the virus could have been easily done and effective or not. It just seems logical to me, with what we are seeing, that targeting the spike protein could be problematic for sustained vaccine efficacy.

It could.
But the body produces many different antibodies to the spike protein, so it's not a simple matter at all. And the strong likelihood seems to be that even a virus evolved for vaccine escape won't simply become ineffective, just less effective.

Now we know more about the virus, it's likely that future vaccines will incorporate a mixture targeting several different modifications/evolutions of the spike protein (something relatively simple to do with the mRNA vaccines), which would make vaccine escape very hard.
Manufacturers just didn't have either the knowledge or time to do so last year.

I say again, we actually need Trump bleach. We need an all-purpose anti-viral cleanser that can be safely ingested, injected, or introduced by some other means. Viruses are not always harmful, but they are also not necessary to the body's ecosystem, so no danger of 'killing beneficial viruses' as there is with antibiotics killing beneficial flora. It's a silly anachronism that this doesn't exist in the marketplace.

anothernick said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Is Boris PMQ announcement of 24/7 vaccination another one of his moonshot promises? Isn't the issue at the moment supply?

We definitely should be doing as longer hours if supply is there, the "people said they don't fancy coming before 8am" was a nonsense argument. But you have to have the infrastructure and supply there to do it.

Whole idea of huge centralised vaccination centres smacks of a decision taken with headlines rather than practicality in mind. We want to vaccinate the elderly and the vulnerable who often can't drive, find travel difficult and rarely leave their local area, even in normal times. So we will ask them to get themselves to a huge centre many miles away, potentially at 3am. And how is all this being fed into patient records held by GPs?

Malmesbury said:

anothernick said:

Mary_Batty said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Not sure if this was posted earlier or not:

ManCock: "I'm really glad that we're able to send out food for those who receive free school meals"
Piers Moron: "If you're that glad, why did you vote against it?"
ManCock: "I'm glad that we were able to put this into place"
Moron: "If you're that glad why did you, as Health Secretary, vote against it"

https://twitter.com/LiamThorpECHO/status/1349310087924477952

It's just so painful to watch. Why can't people just say yup, I got that one wrong? You can even make a virtue out of looking twice at an issue.
People with fragile egos are the worst kind of leader.

Hancock's interview on Today was almost as bad. Couldn't answer the key question of the moment, how many vaccine doses are available now, just kept saying the 13m target would be met by 15 February even though the current numbers - 145k yesterday - are nowhere near enough to get us there (and are also considerably below the 200k per day he claimed at the weekend).

Between Jan 3rd and jan 10th there were

2,677,971- 1,296,432 = 1,381,539 vaccinations (both 1st and 2nd)

Which comes out to 197,362 per day averaged over a 7 day week.

The rate per day will vary over the week, just as the rate for testing does. The patterns in this will become apparent as we get more data.

ydoethur said:

Williamson now falling to pieces over OFSTED.

This is a train crash. A 150 minute, high speed, broken rail with 747 putting down on the ruins train crash.

rottenborough said:

anothernick said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Is Boris PMQ announcement of 24/7 vaccination another one of his moonshot promises? Isn't the issue at the moment supply?

We definitely should be doing as longer hours if supply is there, the "people said they don't fancy coming before 8am" was a nonsense argument. But you have to have the infrastructure and supply there to do it.

Whole idea of huge centralised vaccination centres smacks of a decision taken with headlines rather than practicality in mind. We want to vaccinate the elderly and the vulnerable who often can't drive, find travel difficult and rarely leave their local area, even in normal times. So we will ask them to get themselves to a huge centre many miles away, potentially at 3am. And how is all this being fed into patient records held by GPs?

And it seems diverting supply away from GPs (see Telegraph).

Looks like centralised stuff for photo opps rather than sense, but above my pay grade.

I better not find out I can't go and get vaccine at my local GPs because it is all being handled at a sports arena 20 miles away.