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"
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.
You have worked for some good people.
On one occasion I had to go to bat for a junior, who fucked up. He realised that the fuck up could cause a big problem and reported it to me.
The pressure to punish him from above was intense - and weirdly, some of it sounded like "punish the weakling for owning up. A strong man..."... Not in words, but in tone.
An important point. A lot of places might claim not to have a blame culture, or wish to encourage people to own up to mistakes, that kind of thing.
The reality is rather different. It becomes readily apparent that a lot of bosses and organisations really do not want to know such things, and will react in vindictive fashion if they can.
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?
When I said the idea was insane on here on Monday I lot of people said it was for logistical reasons - i.e. they don't think it's possible to send a box in the direction of the local surgery the van can only go to one central location.
Which means you run 1 place 24 hours a day rather than 3 places say doing 8 hour days.
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"
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.
I once had my boss's boss on the phone screaming about something my boss hadn't told him (I've got too much bad news this week to tell him that). "I'm very sorry, its my fault, I should have told you" took the heat out of the issue immediately, mutterings about lessons learned and don't do it again and that was that. As you write, people don't like mistakes, but they really hate refusal to acknowledge them - because i) its dishonest and ii) suggests more mistakes will follow.
If Trump is removed before his term ends it would lead to the slightly farcical spectacle of Pence being President for a few hours. Would he need to pick a VP?
No. In fact, the office has frequently been vacant for long periods, including nearly a whole four year term in 1841-45.
1 That Gove deliberately made School Commissioner Regions mad, to prevent the influence of local and regional politicians. So London is cut between 3 regions, which then go out to Norfolk or the Isle of Wight. West Yorkshire is lumped in with Lancashire. And so on.
2 The suggestion that Westminster would have run the epidemic even hotter (more cases and deaths) had there been more hospital capacity.
I hadn’t seen them but it doesn’t surprise me. Nothing surprises me about this lot now.
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.
As I understand it, it is a trial. It may be found that demand at 4.00am does not justify having staff there. It may not. If it works then as supply increases no doubt the number of 24 hour facilities can be increased. Seems sensible enough but some people want to make it a U turn or something.
It makes sense if the limiting factor is the availability of suitable premises, rather than supply of vaccine or availability of suitable staff. I can see it being useful for a few big centres where the NHS will have set up a large logistical operation and where it is set up for big throughput, but I doubt if all-night sessions are going to play a big part in this. Even if some recipients are happy to turn up at 3.30am, there are transport problems, staff rota problems, and older people don't like going out at night.
I agree they will probably not play a big part but if someone was offering me a vaccine slot at 4am 20 miles away I would take it in a heart beat. Atm the limiting issue clearly remains supply. Hopefully that will change soon at which point we want to have in place all the capacity we can use.
Surely the Prime Ministers pwerformance at PMQ today was the most embarrassing we have seen. Looks as if he must have been up with the baby last night! The Speaker is clearly getting fed up with him..
Surely the Prime Ministers pwerformance at PMQ today was the most embarrassing we have seen. Looks as if he must have been up with the baby last night! The Speaker is clearly getting fed up with him..
I was too busy watching Williamson implode. What did he say?
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"
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.
So what he claimed was correct after all. And that's even before any of the mass vaccination sites start up.
I believe his statement was that they had reach 205K on the day before the interview (??) - if so, it seems quite likely that is correct.
The previous weeks were 333,224 and before that, 312,494
So last week was literally 4x the previous week.
To hit the target it needs to rise to 400k per day.
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.
Exactly, as some of us don't have cars but are within easy walking distance of our GPs.
Sending thousands of old folk to a sport arena sounds suspiciously like a MAGA superspreader rally.
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.
Why? Because you couldn't be arsed going that far? Whatever is the most efficient and the fastest for me. This remains a race against the virus and the hospitals are running out of time.
The programme requires people and vaccine to be in the same place. It's easier to get the vaccine (and the media) to large centres. But is easier to get the people to their GP. and many of the most vulnerable will find it impossible to get to large centres. The London centre is in docklands - the only practical way of getting there is on public transport. Which is a huge risk for the elderly and vulnerable.
Surely the Prime Ministers pwerformance at PMQ today was the most embarrassing we have seen. Looks as if he must have been up with the baby last night! The Speaker is clearly getting fed up with him..
The speaker actually warned both Boris and Starmer in the same statement
Surely the Prime Ministers pwerformance at PMQ today was the most embarrassing we have seen. Looks as if he must have been up with the baby last night! The Speaker is clearly getting fed up with him..
First time I've caught it in a while. LOTO passionless. PM hopeless. And yet it elicits virtually no comment even on here.
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"
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.
So what he claimed was correct after all. And that's even before any of the mass vaccination sites start up.
I believe his statement was that they had reach 205K on the day before the interview (??) - if so, it seems quite likely that is correct.
The previous weeks were 333,224 and before that, 312,494
So last week was literally 4x the previous week.
To hit the target it needs to rise to 400k per day.
I'm still amazed that people here, and in the media, are unable to grasp the concept of a number going up over time. Of course the rate isn't going to instantly be the highest it can possibly be.
Surely the Prime Ministers pwerformance at PMQ today was the most embarrassing we have seen. Looks as if he must have been up with the baby last night! The Speaker is clearly getting fed up with him..
I was too busy watching Williamson implode. What did he say?
I have no idea why on earth he is still in the cabinet
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.
Why? Because you couldn't be arsed going that far? Whatever is the most efficient and the fastest for me. This remains a race against the virus and the hospitals are running out of time.
The programme requires people and vaccine to be in the same place. It's easier to get the vaccine (and the media) to large centres. But is easier to get the people to their GP. and many of the most vulnerable will find it impossible to get to large centres. The London centre is in docklands - the only practical way of getting there is on public transport. Which is a huge risk for the elderly and vulnerable.
Surely it's easier to transport 1 box of vaccine to a non centralised location than 1000 people to a centralised location.
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.
Why? Because you couldn't be arsed going that far? Whatever is the most efficient and the fastest for me. This remains a race against the virus and the hospitals are running out of time.
The programme requires people and vaccine to be in the same place. It's easier to get the vaccine (and the media) to large centres. But is easier to get the people to their GP. and many of the most vulnerable will find it impossible to get to large centres. The London centre is in docklands - the only practical way of getting there is on public transport. Which is a huge risk for the elderly and vulnerable.
Surely it's easier to transport 1 box of vaccine to a non centralised location than 1000 people to a centralised location.
Yeah, which is why the centralised sites aren't replacing the more local options like at your GP. They are in addition.
Surely the Prime Ministers pwerformance at PMQ today was the most embarrassing we have seen. Looks as if he must have been up with the baby last night! The Speaker is clearly getting fed up with him..
I was too busy watching Williamson implode. What did he say?
I have no idea why on earth he is still in the cabinet
Because getting rid of him means you would also need to look at others in the cabinet who aren't doing that well either.
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"
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?
Nicely worded, but why the trashing of the box idea? Is that Government policy? As far as I'm aware Boris has criticised what he's seen of some of the execution, not the whole box policy. If Hancock said that surely it would set the cat amongst the pigeons?
That wouldn't be trashing it, it would simply suggest that it is not without problems which is now unarguable. What Rashford wanted (other than a bloody goal, yet again) was the kitchens to remain open so that kids could (a) have a decent choice for a hot meal and (b) have some contact with "authority" if that was a good idea. If the kitchens are closed we are in the land of second best. Vouchers seems more sensible to me but IANAE.
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.
As I understand it, it is a trial. It may be found that demand at 4.00am does not justify having staff there. It may not. If it works then as supply increases no doubt the number of 24 hour facilities can be increased. Seems sensible enough but some people want to make it a U turn or something.
It makes sense if the limiting factor is the availability of suitable premises, rather than supply of vaccine or availability of suitable staff. I can see it being useful for a few big centres where the NHS will have set up a large logistical operation and where it is set up for big throughput, but I doubt if all-night sessions are going to play a big part in this. Even if some recipients are happy to turn up at 3.30am, there are transport problems, staff rota problems, and older people don't like going out at night.
I agree they will probably not play a big part but if someone was offering me a vaccine slot at 4am 20 miles away I would take it in a heart beat. Atm the limiting issue clearly remains supply. Hopefully that will change soon at which point we want to have in place all the capacity we can use.
Yes, but young chaps like you aren't even in the frame yet. You won't get your shot until all the 85-year-olds have been done. Does anyone really think it's appropriate to require them to find their way to central Birmingham at 3.30am? Most of them struggle to get to the corner shop at the best of times.
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.
Not only is that concept a sheer fantasy, it ignore the fact that you have many more viruses in your gut than bacteria - and they are absolutely necessary to a stable gut microbiome.
However, not sure what to make of your unsubstantiated 'fantasy' point, beyond the fact that it's weak. We have formulated antiviral washes that are safe to apply to the skin. If science can, with relative ease, ensure something is non-toxic enough to be applied to the outside of the body without harm, it's not much more of a push to create something that can work inside the body. Whatever else it is, it's certainly not 'sheer fantasy'.
Surely the Prime Ministers pwerformance at PMQ today was the most embarrassing we have seen. Looks as if he must have been up with the baby last night! The Speaker is clearly getting fed up with him..
First time I've caught it in a while. LOTO passionless. PM hopeless. And yet it elicits virtually no comment even on here.
I think you have the answer
I expect less people watch it, an increasing waste of 40 minutes at a Wednesday lunchtime
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.
As I understand it, it is a trial. It may be found that demand at 4.00am does not justify having staff there. It may not. If it works then as supply increases no doubt the number of 24 hour facilities can be increased. Seems sensible enough but some people want to make it a U turn or something.
It makes sense if the limiting factor is the availability of suitable premises, rather than supply of vaccine or availability of suitable staff. I can see it being useful for a few big centres where the NHS will have set up a large logistical operation and where it is set up for big throughput, but I doubt if all-night sessions are going to play a big part in this. Even if some recipients are happy to turn up at 3.30am, there are transport problems, staff rota problems, and older people don't like going out at night.
I agree they will probably not play a big part but if someone was offering me a vaccine slot at 4am 20 miles away I would take it in a heart beat. Atm the limiting issue clearly remains supply. Hopefully that will change soon at which point we want to have in place all the capacity we can use.
Yes, but young chaps like you aren't even in the frame yet. You won't get your shot until all the 85-year-olds have been done. Does anyone really think it's appropriate to require them to find their way to central Birmingham at 3.30am? Most of them struggle to get to the corner shop at the best of times.
Its a trial. Let's find the problems now before it is rolled out. And I am not that young...old enough to want the protection of the vaccine soonest.
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.
As I understand it, it is a trial. It may be found that demand at 4.00am does not justify having staff there. It may not. If it works then as supply increases no doubt the number of 24 hour facilities can be increased. Seems sensible enough but some people want to make it a U turn or something.
It makes sense if the limiting factor is the availability of suitable premises, rather than supply of vaccine or availability of suitable staff. I can see it being useful for a few big centres where the NHS will have set up a large logistical operation and where it is set up for big throughput, but I doubt if all-night sessions are going to play a big part in this. Even if some recipients are happy to turn up at 3.30am, there are transport problems, staff rota problems, and older people don't like going out at night.
I agree they will probably not play a big part but if someone was offering me a vaccine slot at 4am 20 miles away I would take it in a heart beat. Atm the limiting issue clearly remains supply. Hopefully that will change soon at which point we want to have in place all the capacity we can use.
Yes, but young chaps like you aren't even in the frame yet. You won't get your shot until all the 85-year-olds have been done. Does anyone really think it's appropriate to require them to find their way to central Birmingham at 3.30am? Most of them struggle to get to the corner shop at the best of times.
It isn't exclusively going to the over 85s even at the moment.
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.
Exactly, as some of us don't have cars but are within easy walking distance of our GPs.
Sending thousands of old folk to a sport arena sounds suspiciously like a MAGA superspreader rally.
Depends where they are. The Centre for Life in Newcastle could not be more central, nor more secure as an existent biotech hub. It's almost as convenient as my GP even without a car.
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"
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?
Nicely worded, but why the trashing of the box idea? Is that Government policy? As far as I'm aware Boris has criticised what he's seen of some of the execution, not the whole box policy. If Hancock said that surely it would set the cat amongst the pigeons?
That wouldn't be trashing it, it would simply suggest that it is not without problems which is now unarguable. What Rashford wanted (other than a bloody goal, yet again) was the kitchens to remain open so that kids could (a) have a decent choice for a hot meal and (b) have some contact with "authority" if that was a good idea. If the kitchens are closed we are in the land of second best. Vouchers seems more sensible to me but IANAE.
The original plan was vouchers but then an MP decided that the vouchers could be traded for drugs - hence the need for a crappier solution...
Surely the Prime Ministers pwerformance at PMQ today was the most embarrassing we have seen. Looks as if he must have been up with the baby last night! The Speaker is clearly getting fed up with him..
I was too busy watching Williamson implode. What did he say?
I have no idea why on earth he is still in the cabinet
Because getting rid of him means you would also need to look at others in the cabinet who aren't doing that well either.
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"
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.
You have worked for some good people.
On one occasion I had to go to bat for a junior, who fucked up. He realised that the fuck up could cause a big problem and reported it to me.
The pressure to punish him from above was intense - and weirdly, some of it sounded like "punish the weakling for owning up. A strong man..."... Not in words, but in tone.
The £20k error I mentioned? A few weeks later my boss emailed me an invite to an HR disciplinary hearing. So I turn up with a trusted colleague alongside me. HR start off discussing the investigation against my error and what it means. I said "excuse me, as this issue was (a) done by me, (b) spotted by me and (c) fixed by me, how can he (the boss) have investigated this without speaking to me?
HR lady turns to the boss - "you haven't taken evidence from him?" which when the boss went red led to the immediate suspension of the hearing and "would you mind stepping out of the room for a minute?". When I came back in the hearing was dropped and a "discussion" was started. At which point I pulled all my evidence out about my usual working practices, proof that this was a one off, and evidence of how I had tightened my own practice as a result.
I then produced evidence of other more senior people making repeated errors costing the company far more and asking how the investigations against them had gone... In essence the director had launched a fatwa against me and had fucked it up properly. I pointed out to my boss that whilst I understand he was likely under her direct instructions that me and him were no longer going to get along. And quit shortly afterwards for something better.
I know employment law and HR practice. Being able to spot when HR go beyond their brief (and the law) is a handy thing to learn.
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.
Why? Because you couldn't be arsed going that far? Whatever is the most efficient and the fastest for me. This remains a race against the virus and the hospitals are running out of time.
The programme requires people and vaccine to be in the same place. It's easier to get the vaccine (and the media) to large centres. But is easier to get the people to their GP. and many of the most vulnerable will find it impossible to get to large centres. The London centre is in docklands - the only practical way of getting there is on public transport. Which is a huge risk for the elderly and vulnerable.
Different strokes, different folks. If we are looking to get vaccination over 500k a day we will need large centres as a part of the mix.
Surely the Prime Ministers pwerformance at PMQ today was the most embarrassing we have seen. Looks as if he must have been up with the baby last night! The Speaker is clearly getting fed up with him..
First time I've caught it in a while. LOTO passionless. PM hopeless. And yet it elicits virtually no comment even on here.
Whats the point in watching it? Johnson clueless about what is happening in the country he runs. Starmer as emotive as a cardboard cutout of Starmer would be.
The only reason to watch would be to listen to the PM say "this will not happen" as a signpost for what is guaranteed to happen.
Surely the Prime Ministers pwerformance at PMQ today was the most embarrassing we have seen. Looks as if he must have been up with the baby last night! The Speaker is clearly getting fed up with him..
First time I've caught it in a while. LOTO passionless. PM hopeless. And yet it elicits virtually no comment even on here.
Who gives a fuck about it? Its meaningless. Contemporary politics is transacted by vexillological shitposting and fake bookshelves on zoom.
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.
Exactly, as some of us don't have cars but are within easy walking distance of our GPs.
Sending thousands of old folk to a sport arena sounds suspiciously like a MAGA superspreader rally.
It is a balance though. Not all GPs have been terribly good at arranging things during this pandemic. Some have - even going to the extent of setting up tents outdoors to do their flu vaccinations - and some definitely haven't.
Personally, I'd rather drive to somewhere with a big hall and a high roof rather than queueing up in the GP's waiting room (socially distant or not) and getting the injection in a side room that 900 other people have visited that day. I don't care (in fact, it might be better) if it is at 2am.
The diversion seems to have been away from the efficient sites to the less efficient ones. Trying to treat everyone equally might be a mistake in terms of raw numbers of injections, but postcode lotteries aren't a good look.
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.
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"
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.
So what he claimed was correct after all. And that's even before any of the mass vaccination sites start up.
I believe his statement was that they had reach 205K on the day before the interview (??) - if so, it seems quite likely that is correct.
The previous weeks were 333,224 and before that, 312,494
So last week was literally 4x the previous week.
To hit the target it needs to rise to 400k per day.
I'm still amazed that people here, and in the media, are unable to grasp the concept of a number going up over time. Of course the rate isn't going to instantly be the highest it can possibly be.
Sometimes, I wonder if Chris Whitty is tempted to show this at a briefing
We know that most GOP Representatives will not vote to impeach Trump, they all face re election next year and to do so would be political suicide and lead to a primary challenge from a Trump loyalist. The Democratic controlled House overall though will vote to impeach.
The Senate is a different matter as Senators serve 6 year terms and are only elected in thirds so can take a longer term view. It only takes a third of the GOP Senators to join the Democrats in the Senate and Trump could be convicted, if McConnell is stepping down as GOP Senate leader now he is no longer Majority leader and not running for re election again he also has nothing to lose
Surely the Prime Ministers pwerformance at PMQ today was the most embarrassing we have seen. Looks as if he must have been up with the baby last night! The Speaker is clearly getting fed up with him..
First time I've caught it in a while. LOTO passionless. PM hopeless. And yet it elicits virtually no comment even on here.
There was a bit where Starmer said "that's not true" as he stood up. I think he should be more aggressive. Call the PM a liar and then have a bust up with the speaker - "I'll withdraw my remark when the PM takes back his lie" - that sort of thing. It might make the news and get some air time.
But as for the free school meals argument, what a complete turn-off.
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.
Why? Because you couldn't be arsed going that far? Whatever is the most efficient and the fastest for me. This remains a race against the virus and the hospitals are running out of time.
The programme requires people and vaccine to be in the same place. It's easier to get the vaccine (and the media) to large centres. But is easier to get the people to their GP. and many of the most vulnerable will find it impossible to get to large centres. The London centre is in docklands - the only practical way of getting there is on public transport. Which is a huge risk for the elderly and vulnerable.
Different strokes, different folks. If we are looking to get vaccination over 500k a day we will need large centres as a part of the mix.
Send the vaccine to where the people are -- workplaces, universities, places of worship. Rapidly cover the people who are active, the ones most likely to catch or spread the virus. The elderly and housebound can be visited later, at home, by teams of highly-specialised district nurses.
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"
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.
So what he claimed was correct after all. And that's even before any of the mass vaccination sites start up.
I believe his statement was that they had reach 205K on the day before the interview (??) - if so, it seems quite likely that is correct.
The previous weeks were 333,224 and before that, 312,494
So last week was literally 4x the previous week.
To hit the target it needs to rise to 400k per day.
It may be close, but not quite, which mild embarrassment for the given aside would be impressive.
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-
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.
'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.
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?
Such libraries are an awkward public/private mix in terms of funding, concept and administration but until Trump, that hasn't really been a deeply contested matter. It will be now.
It was partly an issue with the Nixon Library I have been to in Yorba Linda which is funded in part by the Nixon foundation
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.
As I understand it, it is a trial. It may be found that demand at 4.00am does not justify having staff there. It may not. If it works then as supply increases no doubt the number of 24 hour facilities can be increased. Seems sensible enough but some people want to make it a U turn or something.
It makes sense if the limiting factor is the availability of suitable premises, rather than supply of vaccine or availability of suitable staff. I can see it being useful for a few big centres where the NHS will have set up a large logistical operation and where it is set up for big throughput, but I doubt if all-night sessions are going to play a big part in this. Even if some recipients are happy to turn up at 3.30am, there are transport problems, staff rota problems, and older people don't like going out at night.
The 24 hour stuff looks very much like "where can we find some more mud to sling?". Has anyone explained where the staff are coming from?
I see some comments about "vulnerable" people therein. AFAICS it may be sensible to have more mobile people from large metro areas, where they seem to be, to the mass centres, to keep GPs clear for others.
Interested that the East Midlands don't have such a centre - but then we do not have any genuinely large cities.
Surely the Prime Ministers pwerformance at PMQ today was the most embarrassing we have seen. Looks as if he must have been up with the baby last night! The Speaker is clearly getting fed up with him..
I was too busy watching Williamson implode. What did he say?
I have no idea why on earth he is still in the cabinet
Because getting rid of him means you would also need to look at others in the cabinet who aren't doing that well either.
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.
Exactly, as some of us don't have cars but are within easy walking distance of our GPs.
Sending thousands of old folk to a sport arena sounds suspiciously like a MAGA superspreader rally.
It is a balance though. Not all GPs have been terribly good at arranging things during this pandemic. Some have - even going to the extent of setting up tents outdoors to do their flu vaccinations - and some definitely haven't.
Personally, I'd rather drive to somewhere with a big hall and a high roof rather than queueing up in the GP's waiting room (socially distant or not) and getting the injection in a side room that 900 other people have visited that day. I don't care (in fact, it might be better) if it is at 2am.
The diversion seems to have been away from the efficient sites to the less efficient ones. Trying to treat everyone equally might be a mistake in terms of raw numbers of injections, but postcode lotteries aren't a good look.
On GPs - yes. My GP (and the GP for a chunk of my extended family) has been incredibly efficient. Rebuilt the surgery (had the builders in over Christmas) to accommodate a distanced setup. Nurses jabbing away at a rate of knots.
GP one practice catchment zone over - he and his team haven't been seen since March. Can't reach them on the phone, apparently. Mail piling up at their shuttered premisses. He has been on local social media to complain about the requirements to do vaccinations, to be fair. Apparently it is very hard & tricky.
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"
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.
So what he claimed was correct after all. And that's even before any of the mass vaccination sites start up.
I believe his statement was that they had reach 205K on the day before the interview (??) - if so, it seems quite likely that is correct.
The previous weeks were 333,224 and before that, 312,494
So last week was literally 4x the previous week.
To hit the target it needs to rise to 400k per day.
I'm still amazed that people here, and in the media, are unable to grasp the concept of a number going up over time. Of course the rate isn't going to instantly be the highest it can possibly be.
I'm amazed that some people don't understand the meaning of "average" If we need 2M a week and we aren't getting it yet, it means we will need a lot more than 2M a week closer to the deadline.
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.
As I understand it, it is a trial. It may be found that demand at 4.00am does not justify having staff there. It may not. If it works then as supply increases no doubt the number of 24 hour facilities can be increased. Seems sensible enough but some people want to make it a U turn or something.
It makes sense if the limiting factor is the availability of suitable premises, rather than supply of vaccine or availability of suitable staff. I can see it being useful for a few big centres where the NHS will have set up a large logistical operation and where it is set up for big throughput, but I doubt if all-night sessions are going to play a big part in this. Even if some recipients are happy to turn up at 3.30am, there are transport problems, staff rota problems, and older people don't like going out at night.
The 24 hour stuff looks very much like "where can we find some more mud to sling?". Has anyone explained where the staff are coming from?
Yup.
24/7 is an absurd goal.
Just get 8am-8pm working properly. That’s all we ask.
The problem is staff & Vaccine, not hours in the day and spare chairs.
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"
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?
Nicely worded, but why the trashing of the box idea? Is that Government policy? As far as I'm aware Boris has criticised what he's seen of some of the execution, not the whole box policy. If Hancock said that surely it would set the cat amongst the pigeons?
That wouldn't be trashing it, it would simply suggest that it is not without problems which is now unarguable. What Rashford wanted (other than a bloody goal, yet again) was the kitchens to remain open so that kids could (a) have a decent choice for a hot meal and (b) have some contact with "authority" if that was a good idea. If the kitchens are closed we are in the land of second best. Vouchers seems more sensible to me but IANAE.
The original plan was vouchers but then an MP decided that the vouchers could be traded for drugs - hence the need for a crappier solution...
It always depresses me how supposedly Conservative politicians find ideas of individual responsibility and respect of the individual so difficult to get their head around.
My brother has been getting these food boxes because he has terminal cancer and is shielding. He has given away most of the contents because it is not what he likes to eat. He has about 50 cans of minestrone though because his daughter doesn't like that every much. My guess would be that vouchers "wasted" on cigarettes and drink< contents wasted because no one wants to eat them, but, as I say, IANAE.
We know that most GOP Representatives will not vote to impeach Trump, they all face re election next year and to do so would be political suicide and lead to a primary challenge from a Trump loyalist. The Democratic controlled House overall though will vote to impeach.
The Senate is a different matter as Senators serve 6 year terms and are only elected in thirds so can take a longer term view. It only takes a third of the GOP Senators to join the Democrats in the Senate and Trump could be convicted, if McConnell is stepping down as GOP Senate leader now he is no longer Majority leader and not running for re election again he also has nothing to lose
I believe that also it's 2/3 of those voting, so some could find an excuse not to vote.
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.
Exactly, as some of us don't have cars but are within easy walking distance of our GPs.
Sending thousands of old folk to a sport arena sounds suspiciously like a MAGA superspreader rally.
Depends where they are. The Centre for Life in Newcastle could not be more central, nor more secure as an existent biotech hub. It's almost as convenient as my GP even without a car.
But not for the people invited there from Teesside who have a 30+ mile drive to get there and then the hassle of finding a parking space.
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"
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.
So what he claimed was correct after all. And that's even before any of the mass vaccination sites start up.
I believe his statement was that they had reach 205K on the day before the interview (??) - if so, it seems quite likely that is correct.
The previous weeks were 333,224 and before that, 312,494
So last week was literally 4x the previous week.
To hit the target it needs to rise to 400k per day.
I'm still amazed that people here, and in the media, are unable to grasp the concept of a number going up over time. Of course the rate isn't going to instantly be the highest it can possibly be.
What I feel may happen is there will be a massive vaccine push but for a number of insignificant reasons or another 15 February comes by and we've done about 1m short of the target but the target is only a few days off being hit.
Now that's still a significant achievement and questions can rightly be asked of why it wasn't to be more as obviously every day longer in lockdown or every delayed vaccination means more damage to health and the economy. I do fear though that the media would portray this as a massive failure and how this incompetence will mean we're never to exit lockdown which would just demoralise us all further.
Surely the Prime Ministers pwerformance at PMQ today was the most embarrassing we have seen. Looks as if he must have been up with the baby last night! The Speaker is clearly getting fed up with him..
First time I've caught it in a while. LOTO passionless. PM hopeless. And yet it elicits virtually no comment even on here.
Whats the point in watching it? Johnson clueless about what is happening in the country he runs. Starmer as emotive as a cardboard cutout of Starmer would be.
The only reason to watch would be to listen to the PM say "this will not happen" as a signpost for what is guaranteed to happen.
It was another clear win though for the passionate buffoon over the empty card board cut out. It’s hard to remember a time when Starmer was said to have won one of these exchanges. So is this some sort of historical record, for a PM always slaughtering LOTO at PMQ? That has to mean something going forward into elections?
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"
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?
Nicely worded, but why the trashing of the box idea? Is that Government policy? As far as I'm aware Boris has criticised what he's seen of some of the execution, not the whole box policy. If Hancock said that surely it would set the cat amongst the pigeons?
That wouldn't be trashing it, it would simply suggest that it is not without problems which is now unarguable. What Rashford wanted (other than a bloody goal, yet again) was the kitchens to remain open so that kids could (a) have a decent choice for a hot meal and (b) have some contact with "authority" if that was a good idea. If the kitchens are closed we are in the land of second best. Vouchers seems more sensible to me but IANAE.
The original plan was vouchers but then an MP decided that the vouchers could be traded for drugs - hence the need for a crappier solution...
It always depresses me how supposedly Conservative politicians find ideas of individual responsibility and respect of the individual so difficult to get their head around.
My brother has been getting these food boxes because he has terminal cancer and is shielding. He has given away most of the contents because it is not what he likes to eat. He has about 50 cans of minestrone though because his daughter doesn't like that every much. My guess would be that vouchers "wasted" on cigarettes and drink< contents wasted because no one wants to eat them, but, as I say, IANAE.
Well indeed. Where is the agency? 5 pieces of fruit I see. What fruit? Kids can be notoriously picky. Also. The vouchers didn't work if there was booze or fags on the order. I suppose you could trade the voucher, but hey.
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"
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.
So what he claimed was correct after all. And that's even before any of the mass vaccination sites start up.
I believe his statement was that they had reach 205K on the day before the interview (??) - if so, it seems quite likely that is correct.
The previous weeks were 333,224 and before that, 312,494
So last week was literally 4x the previous week.
To hit the target it needs to rise to 400k per day.
I'm still amazed that people here, and in the media, are unable to grasp the concept of a number going up over time. Of course the rate isn't going to instantly be the highest it can possibly be.
What I feel may happen is there will be a massive vaccine push but for a number of insignificant reasons or another 15 February comes by and we've done about 1m short of the target but the target is only a few days off being hit.
Now that's still a significant achievement and questions can rightly be asked of why it wasn't to be more as obviously every day longer in lockdown or every delayed vaccination means more damage to health and the economy. I do fear though that the media would portray this as a massive failure and how this incompetence will mean we're never to exit lockdown which would just demoralise us all further.
The problem comes if the government start insisting the target has been met when it hasn't, and start making up all sorts of fake numbers like they did with the testing target last year, which will just undermine confidence.
Surely the Prime Ministers pwerformance at PMQ today was the most embarrassing we have seen. Looks as if he must have been up with the baby last night! The Speaker is clearly getting fed up with him..
I was too busy watching Williamson implode. What did he say?
I have no idea why on earth he is still in the cabinet
Because getting rid of him means you would also need to look at others in the cabinet who aren't doing that well either.
And besides. Gav has faithfully delivered what No 10 has demanded.
It's not his fault that that has led to a clustershambles.
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.
Thanks. Makes sense.
No problem. Slight typo, though. "even a virus evolved for vaccine escape won't simply become ineffective, just less effective." should be: "even a virus evolved for vaccine escape won't simply render a vaccine ineffective, just less effective."
Surely the Prime Ministers pwerformance at PMQ today was the most embarrassing we have seen. Looks as if he must have been up with the baby last night! The Speaker is clearly getting fed up with him..
I was too busy watching Williamson implode. What did he say?
I have no idea why on earth he is still in the cabinet
Because getting rid of him means you would also need to look at others in the cabinet who aren't doing that well either.
I have no problem with a substantial re-shuffle
Boris does; several problems.
The main one appearing to be who the hell does he get to replace the useless idiots he is getting rid of.
Oh and given he can probably only give MI5 about 48 hours, is he willing to bet that Williamson will actually break under torture in that time and reveal where he has hidden the photos and tapes.
Surely the Prime Ministers pwerformance at PMQ today was the most embarrassing we have seen. Looks as if he must have been up with the baby last night! The Speaker is clearly getting fed up with him..
I was too busy watching Williamson implode. What did he say?
I have no idea why on earth he is still in the cabinet
Because getting rid of him means you would also need to look at others in the cabinet who aren't doing that well either.
I have no problem with a substantial re-shuffle
Boris does; several problems.
The main one appearing to be who the hell does he get to replace the useless idiots he is getting rid of.
Oh and given he can probably only give MI5 about 48 hours, is he willing to bet that Williamson will actually break under torture in that time and reveal where he has hidden the photos and tapes.
Microchips on his spider. Obvious. Why else would he have shown it off so much? It was a threat.
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"
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?
Nicely worded, but why the trashing of the box idea? Is that Government policy? As far as I'm aware Boris has criticised what he's seen of some of the execution, not the whole box policy. If Hancock said that surely it would set the cat amongst the pigeons?
That wouldn't be trashing it, it would simply suggest that it is not without problems which is now unarguable. What Rashford wanted (other than a bloody goal, yet again) was the kitchens to remain open so that kids could (a) have a decent choice for a hot meal and (b) have some contact with "authority" if that was a good idea. If the kitchens are closed we are in the land of second best. Vouchers seems more sensible to me but IANAE.
The original plan was vouchers but then an MP decided that the vouchers could be traded for drugs - hence the need for a crappier solution...
It always depresses me how supposedly Conservative politicians find ideas of individual responsibility and respect of the individual so difficult to get their head around.
My brother has been getting these food boxes because he has terminal cancer and is shielding. He has given away most of the contents because it is not what he likes to eat. He has about 50 cans of minestrone though because his daughter doesn't like that every much. My guess would be that vouchers "wasted" on cigarettes and drink< contents wasted because no one wants to eat them, but, as I say, IANAE.
Vouchers exchanged for items other than food doesn't help kids, having food around the house does. I'm sure it's a baffler to nice, sensible people, but substance abuse issues clearly affect some people who are being helped by these boxes, and this is one way around it.
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.
As I understand it, it is a trial. It may be found that demand at 4.00am does not justify having staff there. It may not. If it works then as supply increases no doubt the number of 24 hour facilities can be increased. Seems sensible enough but some people want to make it a U turn or something.
It makes sense if the limiting factor is the availability of suitable premises, rather than supply of vaccine or availability of suitable staff. I can see it being useful for a few big centres where the NHS will have set up a large logistical operation and where it is set up for big throughput, but I doubt if all-night sessions are going to play a big part in this. Even if some recipients are happy to turn up at 3.30am, there are transport problems, staff rota problems, and older people don't like going out at night.
The 24 hour stuff looks very much like "where can we find some more mud to sling?". Has anyone explained where the staff are coming from?
Yup.
24/7 is an absurd goal.
Just get 8am-8pm working properly. That’s all we ask.
The problem is staff & Vaccine, not hours in the day and spare chairs.
Which old dear gets done at 0320 in the morning? And how does she get to the stadium without a bus?
Surely the Prime Ministers pwerformance at PMQ today was the most embarrassing we have seen. Looks as if he must have been up with the baby last night! The Speaker is clearly getting fed up with him..
First time I've caught it in a while. LOTO passionless. PM hopeless. And yet it elicits virtually no comment even on here.
Who gives a fuck about it? Its meaningless. Contemporary politics is transacted by vexillological shitposting...
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.
Why? Because you couldn't be arsed going that far? Whatever is the most efficient and the fastest for me. This remains a race against the virus and the hospitals are running out of time.
The programme requires people and vaccine to be in the same place. It's easier to get the vaccine (and the media) to large centres. But is easier to get the people to their GP. and many of the most vulnerable will find it impossible to get to large centres. The London centre is in docklands - the only practical way of getting there is on public transport. Which is a huge risk for the elderly and vulnerable.
Different strokes, different folks. If we are looking to get vaccination over 500k a day we will need large centres as a part of the mix.
Send the vaccine to where the people are -- workplace, universities, places of worship. Rapidly cover the people who are active, the ones most likely to catch or spread the virus. The elderly and housebound can be visited later, at home, by teams of highly-specialised district nurses.
Apparently where I live, they have already been round all the care homes. Although for two of the three surgeries people will have to go to neighbouring towns (with no public transport in one case, and limited in the other) which seems to fly in the face of reality - although they do have a plan for the genuinely housebound.
Surely the Prime Ministers pwerformance at PMQ today was the most embarrassing we have seen. Looks as if he must have been up with the baby last night! The Speaker is clearly getting fed up with him..
I was too busy watching Williamson implode. What did he say?
I have no idea why on earth he is still in the cabinet
Because getting rid of him means you would also need to look at others in the cabinet who aren't doing that well either.
And besides. Gav has faithfully delivered what No 10 has demanded.
It's not his fault that that has led to a clustershambles.
He has merely followed Boris's playbook of leaving everything until you have no choice but to announce the one option that is still possible.
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.
As I understand it, it is a trial. It may be found that demand at 4.00am does not justify having staff there. It may not. If it works then as supply increases no doubt the number of 24 hour facilities can be increased. Seems sensible enough but some people want to make it a U turn or something.
It makes sense if the limiting factor is the availability of suitable premises, rather than supply of vaccine or availability of suitable staff. I can see it being useful for a few big centres where the NHS will have set up a large logistical operation and where it is set up for big throughput, but I doubt if all-night sessions are going to play a big part in this. Even if some recipients are happy to turn up at 3.30am, there are transport problems, staff rota problems, and older people don't like going out at night.
The 24 hour stuff looks very much like "where can we find some more mud to sling?". Has anyone explained where the staff are coming from?
Yup.
24/7 is an absurd goal.
Just get 8am-8pm working properly. That’s all we ask.
The problem is staff & Vaccine, not hours in the day and spare chairs.
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"
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?
Nicely worded, but why the trashing of the box idea? Is that Government policy? As far as I'm aware Boris has criticised what he's seen of some of the execution, not the whole box policy. If Hancock said that surely it would set the cat amongst the pigeons?
That wouldn't be trashing it, it would simply suggest that it is not without problems which is now unarguable. What Rashford wanted (other than a bloody goal, yet again) was the kitchens to remain open so that kids could (a) have a decent choice for a hot meal and (b) have some contact with "authority" if that was a good idea. If the kitchens are closed we are in the land of second best. Vouchers seems more sensible to me but IANAE.
The original plan was vouchers but then an MP decided that the vouchers could be traded for drugs - hence the need for a crappier solution...
It always depresses me how supposedly Conservative politicians find ideas of individual responsibility and respect of the individual so difficult to get their head around.
My brother has been getting these food boxes because he has terminal cancer and is shielding. He has given away most of the contents because it is not what he likes to eat. He has about 50 cans of minestrone though because his daughter doesn't like that every much. My guess would be that vouchers "wasted" on cigarettes and drink< contents wasted because no one wants to eat them, but, as I say, IANAE.
Well indeed. Where is the agency? 5 pieces of fruit I see. What fruit? Kids can be notoriously picky. Also. The vouchers didn't work if there was booze or fags on the order. I suppose you could trade the voucher, but hey.
Poor people spend money on Crack Cocaine instead of food for their kids. Thats what Tory MPs say when presented with the need to hand out money to poor people.
Which is why we are here have dick-measuring contents about two tins of regulation minestrone soup instead of three.
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"
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?
Nicely worded, but why the trashing of the box idea? Is that Government policy? As far as I'm aware Boris has criticised what he's seen of some of the execution, not the whole box policy. If Hancock said that surely it would set the cat amongst the pigeons?
That wouldn't be trashing it, it would simply suggest that it is not without problems which is now unarguable. What Rashford wanted (other than a bloody goal, yet again) was the kitchens to remain open so that kids could (a) have a decent choice for a hot meal and (b) have some contact with "authority" if that was a good idea. If the kitchens are closed we are in the land of second best. Vouchers seems more sensible to me but IANAE.
The original plan was vouchers but then an MP decided that the vouchers could be traded for drugs - hence the need for a crappier solution...
It always depresses me how supposedly Conservative politicians find ideas of individual responsibility and respect of the individual so difficult to get their head around.
My brother has been getting these food boxes because he has terminal cancer and is shielding. He has given away most of the contents because it is not what he likes to eat. He has about 50 cans of minestrone though because his daughter doesn't like that every much. My guess would be that vouchers "wasted" on cigarettes and drink< contents wasted because no one wants to eat them, but, as I say, IANAE.
Vouchers exchanged for items other than food doesn't help kids, having food around the house does. I'm sure it's a baffler to nice, sensible people, but substance abuse issues clearly affect some people who are being helped by these boxes, and this is one way around it.
Vouchers cannot be exchanged for fags, booze and lottery tickets. As the handful of stores who did redeem them will find out when they try to recover the cash value for them.
All that was needed was to remind retailers that weans don't drink Vodka.
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"
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?
Nicely worded, but why the trashing of the box idea? Is that Government policy? As far as I'm aware Boris has criticised what he's seen of some of the execution, not the whole box policy. If Hancock said that surely it would set the cat amongst the pigeons?
That wouldn't be trashing it, it would simply suggest that it is not without problems which is now unarguable. What Rashford wanted (other than a bloody goal, yet again) was the kitchens to remain open so that kids could (a) have a decent choice for a hot meal and (b) have some contact with "authority" if that was a good idea. If the kitchens are closed we are in the land of second best. Vouchers seems more sensible to me but IANAE.
The original plan was vouchers but then an MP decided that the vouchers could be traded for drugs - hence the need for a crappier solution...
It always depresses me how supposedly Conservative politicians find ideas of individual responsibility and respect of the individual so difficult to get their head around.
My brother has been getting these food boxes because he has terminal cancer and is shielding. He has given away most of the contents because it is not what he likes to eat. He has about 50 cans of minestrone though because his daughter doesn't like that every much. My guess would be that vouchers "wasted" on cigarettes and drink< contents wasted because no one wants to eat them, but, as I say, IANAE.
Well indeed. Where is the agency? 5 pieces of fruit I see. What fruit? Kids can be notoriously picky. Also. The vouchers didn't work if there was booze or fags on the order. I suppose you could trade the voucher, but hey.
Trading the vouchers is the issue.
The boxes shown on social media were crap - a stink was raised, Ministers can rip the contractor a new one, the boxes can be improved (to be extremely good), and any money skimmed off (beyond reasonable costs) should be reimbursed. I see this as the system working, not proof of its unfitness for purpose.
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"
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?
Nicely worded, but why the trashing of the box idea? Is that Government policy? As far as I'm aware Boris has criticised what he's seen of some of the execution, not the whole box policy. If Hancock said that surely it would set the cat amongst the pigeons?
That wouldn't be trashing it, it would simply suggest that it is not without problems which is now unarguable. What Rashford wanted (other than a bloody goal, yet again) was the kitchens to remain open so that kids could (a) have a decent choice for a hot meal and (b) have some contact with "authority" if that was a good idea. If the kitchens are closed we are in the land of second best. Vouchers seems more sensible to me but IANAE.
The original plan was vouchers but then an MP decided that the vouchers could be traded for drugs - hence the need for a crappier solution...
It always depresses me how supposedly Conservative politicians find ideas of individual responsibility and respect of the individual so difficult to get their head around.
My brother has been getting these food boxes because he has terminal cancer and is shielding. He has given away most of the contents because it is not what he likes to eat. He has about 50 cans of minestrone though because his daughter doesn't like that every much. My guess would be that vouchers "wasted" on cigarettes and drink< contents wasted because no one wants to eat them, but, as I say, IANAE.
Well indeed. Where is the agency? 5 pieces of fruit I see. What fruit? Kids can be notoriously picky. Also. The vouchers didn't work if there was booze or fags on the order. I suppose you could trade the voucher, but hey.
Trading the vouchers is the issue.
The boxes shown on social media were crap - a stink was raised, Ministers can rip the contractor a new one, the boxes can be improved (to be extremely good), and any money skimmed off (beyond reasonable costs) should be reimbursed. I see this as the system working, not proof of its unfitness for purpose.
The boxes failed to meet minimum standards and also failed to meet what was specified in the advertising.
So the question becomes one of - where would you like the fraud to occur and for the Government the issue is that it's their cronies committing the fraud.
If a parent trades a voucher than the parent would be at fault. The issue is now that it's the PM's mates at fault (remember Compass give the tories money).
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-
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.
'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.
I do agree with your last 2 sentences/paragraphs.
However how anyone on here (I'm talking to you Philip) can possibly argue it isn't a story when everyone is bloody well talking about it (including us!!!).
I am gobsmacked by those claiming it is not a story while adding to it.
Really people are getting confused between the argument as to whether Boris did anything wrong (I have never suggested that he did) and whether it is a bloody story. It bloody well is. It is self bloody evident it is.
I believe there were several hundred chaps from the Indian Army at Dunkirk.
Mind you, later in the war, the Germans did become quite multi-cultural.
Were they in the film, though? If not, perhaps that backs up the original point? The criticism as I understand it is of Dunkirk the film not Dunkirk the historical event, an important distinction no doubt lost in Harry Cole's Culture War (now that does sound like a boring film - white boys waiting for bantz). I've not seen the film (or the historical event) although I do remember the Dunkirk scenes in Atonement dragging on a bit.
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.
As I understand it, it is a trial. It may be found that demand at 4.00am does not justify having staff there. It may not. If it works then as supply increases no doubt the number of 24 hour facilities can be increased. Seems sensible enough but some people want to make it a U turn or something.
It makes sense if the limiting factor is the availability of suitable premises, rather than supply of vaccine or availability of suitable staff. I can see it being useful for a few big centres where the NHS will have set up a large logistical operation and where it is set up for big throughput, but I doubt if all-night sessions are going to play a big part in this. Even if some recipients are happy to turn up at 3.30am, there are transport problems, staff rota problems, and older people don't like going out at night.
The 24 hour stuff looks very much like "where can we find some more mud to sling?". Has anyone explained where the staff are coming from?
Yup.
24/7 is an absurd goal.
Just get 8am-8pm working properly. That’s all we ask.
The problem is staff & Vaccine, not hours in the day and spare chairs.
Which old dear gets done at 0320 in the morning? And how does she get to the stadium without a bus?
One reason I believe the idea of 24 hour vaccines has appeared from is people in their 40-50s thinking - if we have 24hr appointments chances are we will get our vaccinations earlier as no-one else will turn up at 3:30am.
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.
As I understand it, it is a trial. It may be found that demand at 4.00am does not justify having staff there. It may not. If it works then as supply increases no doubt the number of 24 hour facilities can be increased. Seems sensible enough but some people want to make it a U turn or something.
It makes sense if the limiting factor is the availability of suitable premises, rather than supply of vaccine or availability of suitable staff. I can see it being useful for a few big centres where the NHS will have set up a large logistical operation and where it is set up for big throughput, but I doubt if all-night sessions are going to play a big part in this. Even if some recipients are happy to turn up at 3.30am, there are transport problems, staff rota problems, and older people don't like going out at night.
The 24 hour stuff looks very much like "where can we find some more mud to sling?". Has anyone explained where the staff are coming from?
Yup.
24/7 is an absurd goal.
Just get 8am-8pm working properly. That’s all we ask.
The problem is staff & Vaccine, not hours in the day and spare chairs.
Which old dear gets done at 0320 in the morning? And how does she get to the stadium without a bus?
They are running a pilot program, as I understand it.
Later in the vaccine program, when we are at the stage of getting the take up as high as possible, tailoring the vaccination delivery to match peoples behaviour may help.
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.
As I understand it, it is a trial. It may be found that demand at 4.00am does not justify having staff there. It may not. If it works then as supply increases no doubt the number of 24 hour facilities can be increased. Seems sensible enough but some people want to make it a U turn or something.
It makes sense if the limiting factor is the availability of suitable premises, rather than supply of vaccine or availability of suitable staff. I can see it being useful for a few big centres where the NHS will have set up a large logistical operation and where it is set up for big throughput, but I doubt if all-night sessions are going to play a big part in this. Even if some recipients are happy to turn up at 3.30am, there are transport problems, staff rota problems, and older people don't like going out at night.
The 24 hour stuff looks very much like "where can we find some more mud to sling?". Has anyone explained where the staff are coming from?
Yup.
24/7 is an absurd goal.
Just get 8am-8pm working properly. That’s all we ask.
The problem is staff & Vaccine, not hours in the day and spare chairs.
Which old dear gets done at 0320 in the morning? And how does she get to the stadium without a bus?
One reason I believe the idea of 24 hour vaccines has appeared from is people in their 40-50s thinking - if we have 24hr appointments chances are we will get our vaccinations earlier as no-one else will turn up at 3:30am.
Yup, it means every week a few hundred thousand people between 18 and 50 can be vaccinated, over the next 10 weeks that will add ip to 5-7m people that would otherwise have been waiting around for ages.
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-
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.
'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.
I do agree with your last 2 sentences/paragraphs.
However how anyone on here (I'm talking to you Philip) can possibly argue it isn't a story when everyone is bloody well talking about it (including us!!!).
I am gobsmacked by those claiming it is not a story while adding to it.
Really people are getting confused between the argument as to whether Boris did anything wrong (I have never suggested that he did) and whether it is a bloody story. It bloody well is. It is self bloody evident it is.
Surely the way to quash it is to say that it is within the rules and that anyone else found cycling 7 miles from home would equally be within the rules.
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.
As I understand it, it is a trial. It may be found that demand at 4.00am does not justify having staff there. It may not. If it works then as supply increases no doubt the number of 24 hour facilities can be increased. Seems sensible enough but some people want to make it a U turn or something.
It makes sense if the limiting factor is the availability of suitable premises, rather than supply of vaccine or availability of suitable staff. I can see it being useful for a few big centres where the NHS will have set up a large logistical operation and where it is set up for big throughput, but I doubt if all-night sessions are going to play a big part in this. Even if some recipients are happy to turn up at 3.30am, there are transport problems, staff rota problems, and older people don't like going out at night.
The 24 hour stuff looks very much like "where can we find some more mud to sling?". Has anyone explained where the staff are coming from?
Yup.
24/7 is an absurd goal.
Just get 8am-8pm working properly. That’s all we ask.
The problem is staff & Vaccine, not hours in the day and spare chairs.
Which old dear gets done at 0320 in the morning? And how does she get to the stadium without a bus?
One reason I believe the idea of 24 hour vaccines has appeared from is people in their 40-50s thinking - if we have 24hr appointments chances are we will get our vaccinations earlier as no-one else will turn up at 3:30am.
Yup, it means every week a few hundred thousand people between 18 and 50 can be vaccinated, over the next 10 weeks that will add ip to 5-7m people that would otherwise have been waiting around for ages.
Bollocks does it - the limiting factor is going to be vaccine supply.
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"
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?
Nicely worded, but why the trashing of the box idea? Is that Government policy? As far as I'm aware Boris has criticised what he's seen of some of the execution, not the whole box policy. If Hancock said that surely it would set the cat amongst the pigeons?
That wouldn't be trashing it, it would simply suggest that it is not without problems which is now unarguable. What Rashford wanted (other than a bloody goal, yet again) was the kitchens to remain open so that kids could (a) have a decent choice for a hot meal and (b) have some contact with "authority" if that was a good idea. If the kitchens are closed we are in the land of second best. Vouchers seems more sensible to me but IANAE.
The original plan was vouchers but then an MP decided that the vouchers could be traded for drugs - hence the need for a crappier solution...
It always depresses me how supposedly Conservative politicians find ideas of individual responsibility and respect of the individual so difficult to get their head around.
My brother has been getting these food boxes because he has terminal cancer and is shielding. He has given away most of the contents because it is not what he likes to eat. He has about 50 cans of minestrone though because his daughter doesn't like that every much. My guess would be that vouchers "wasted" on cigarettes and drink< contents wasted because no one wants to eat them, but, as I say, IANAE.
Vouchers exchanged for items other than food doesn't help kids, having food around the house does. I'm sure it's a baffler to nice, sensible people, but substance abuse issues clearly affect some people who are being helped by these boxes, and this is one way around it.
Vouchers cannot be exchanged for fags, booze and lottery tickets. As the handful of stores who did redeem them will find out when they try to recover the cash value for them.
All that was needed was to remind retailers that weans don't drink Vodka.
"weans don't drink vodka"... Kids are getting soft.
I believe there were several hundred chaps from the Indian Army at Dunkirk.
Mind you, later in the war, the Germans did become quite multi-cultural.
Were they in the film, though? If not, perhaps that backs up the original point? The criticism as I understand it is of Dunkirk the film not Dunkirk the historical event, an important distinction no doubt lost in Harry Cole's Culture War (now that does sound like a boring film - white boys waiting for bantz). I've not seen the film (or the historical event) although I do remember the Dunkirk scenes in Atonement dragging on a bit.
Maybe you should watch it before commenting on it.
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.
As I understand it, it is a trial. It may be found that demand at 4.00am does not justify having staff there. It may not. If it works then as supply increases no doubt the number of 24 hour facilities can be increased. Seems sensible enough but some people want to make it a U turn or something.
It makes sense if the limiting factor is the availability of suitable premises, rather than supply of vaccine or availability of suitable staff. I can see it being useful for a few big centres where the NHS will have set up a large logistical operation and where it is set up for big throughput, but I doubt if all-night sessions are going to play a big part in this. Even if some recipients are happy to turn up at 3.30am, there are transport problems, staff rota problems, and older people don't like going out at night.
The 24 hour stuff looks very much like "where can we find some more mud to sling?". Has anyone explained where the staff are coming from?
Yup.
24/7 is an absurd goal.
Just get 8am-8pm working properly. That’s all we ask.
The problem is staff & Vaccine, not hours in the day and spare chairs.
Which old dear gets done at 0320 in the morning? And how does she get to the stadium without a bus?
One reason I believe the idea of 24 hour vaccines has appeared from is people in their 40-50s thinking - if we have 24hr appointments chances are we will get our vaccinations earlier as no-one else will turn up at 3:30am.
Yup, it means every week a few hundred thousand people between 18 and 50 can be vaccinated, over the next 10 weeks that will add ip to 5-7m people that would otherwise have been waiting around for ages.
Bollocks does it - the limiting factor is going to be vaccine supply.
Maybe for another two or three weeks. After that it's going to be logistics.
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"
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?
Nicely worded, but why the trashing of the box idea? Is that Government policy? As far as I'm aware Boris has criticised what he's seen of some of the execution, not the whole box policy. If Hancock said that surely it would set the cat amongst the pigeons?
That wouldn't be trashing it, it would simply suggest that it is not without problems which is now unarguable. What Rashford wanted (other than a bloody goal, yet again) was the kitchens to remain open so that kids could (a) have a decent choice for a hot meal and (b) have some contact with "authority" if that was a good idea. If the kitchens are closed we are in the land of second best. Vouchers seems more sensible to me but IANAE.
The original plan was vouchers but then an MP decided that the vouchers could be traded for drugs - hence the need for a crappier solution...
It always depresses me how supposedly Conservative politicians find ideas of individual responsibility and respect of the individual so difficult to get their head around.
My brother has been getting these food boxes because he has terminal cancer and is shielding. He has given away most of the contents because it is not what he likes to eat. He has about 50 cans of minestrone though because his daughter doesn't like that every much. My guess would be that vouchers "wasted" on cigarettes and drink< contents wasted because no one wants to eat them, but, as I say, IANAE.
Well indeed. Where is the agency? 5 pieces of fruit I see. What fruit? Kids can be notoriously picky. Also. The vouchers didn't work if there was booze or fags on the order. I suppose you could trade the voucher, but hey.
Trading the vouchers is the issue.
The boxes shown on social media were crap - a stink was raised, Ministers can rip the contractor a new one, the boxes can be improved (to be extremely good), and any money skimmed off (beyond reasonable costs) should be reimbursed. I see this as the system working, not proof of its unfitness for purpose.
The boxes failed to meet minimum standards and also failed to meet what was specified in the advertising.
So the question becomes one of - where would you like the fraud to occur and for the Government the issue is that it's their cronies committing the fraud.
If a parent trades a voucher than the parent would be at fault. The issue is now that it's the PM's mates at fault (remember Compass give the tories money).
I'm not defending the choice of contractor.
As to where the fault should occur, I would prefer no faults, but if there are faults, I would like them to be highly visible, for blame to be easy to pinpoint, and for them to solvable. In the case of vouchers being abused, none of these are the case.
Minister Chloe Smith tells the Commons the Government's view is local elections should go ahead in May but the decision will be kept under review with a high bar needed for delay, extended proxy voting will be available
Comments
The reality is rather different. It becomes readily apparent that a lot of bosses and organisations really do not want to know such things, and will react in vindictive fashion if they can.
Which means you run 1 place 24 hours a day rather than 3 places say doing 8 hour days.
The previous weeks were 333,224 and before that, 312,494
So last week was literally 4x the previous week.
To hit the target it needs to rise to 400k per day.
And yet it elicits virtually no comment even on here.
However, not sure what to make of your unsubstantiated 'fantasy' point, beyond the fact that it's weak. We have formulated antiviral washes that are safe to apply to the skin. If science can, with relative ease, ensure something is non-toxic enough to be applied to the outside of the body without harm, it's not much more of a push to create something that can work inside the body. Whatever else it is, it's certainly not 'sheer fantasy'.
I expect less people watch it, an increasing waste of 40 minutes at a Wednesday lunchtime
It's almost as convenient as my GP even without a car.
HR lady turns to the boss - "you haven't taken evidence from him?" which when the boss went red led to the immediate suspension of the hearing and "would you mind stepping out of the room for a minute?". When I came back in the hearing was dropped and a "discussion" was started. At which point I pulled all my evidence out about my usual working practices, proof that this was a one off, and evidence of how I had tightened my own practice as a result.
I then produced evidence of other more senior people making repeated errors costing the company far more and asking how the investigations against them had gone... In essence the director had launched a fatwa against me and had fucked it up properly. I pointed out to my boss that whilst I understand he was likely under her direct instructions that me and him were no longer going to get along. And quit shortly afterwards for something better.
I know employment law and HR practice. Being able to spot when HR go beyond their brief (and the law) is a handy thing to learn.
The only reason to watch would be to listen to the PM say "this will not happen" as a signpost for what is guaranteed to happen.
Personally, I'd rather drive to somewhere with a big hall and a high roof rather than queueing up in the GP's waiting room (socially distant or not) and getting the injection in a side room that 900 other people have visited that day. I don't care (in fact, it might be better) if it is at 2am.
The diversion seems to have been away from the efficient sites to the less efficient ones. Trying to treat everyone equally might be a mistake in terms of raw numbers of injections, but postcode lotteries aren't a good look.
https://www.youtube.com/watch/MMiKyfd6hA0
The Senate is a different matter as Senators serve 6 year terms and are only elected in thirds so can take a longer term view. It only takes a third of the GOP Senators to join the Democrats in the Senate and Trump could be convicted, if McConnell is stepping down as GOP Senate leader now he is no longer Majority leader and not running for re election again he also has nothing to lose
But as for the free school meals argument, what a complete turn-off.
Their grandparents must have been Democrats. The horror!
I see some comments about "vulnerable" people therein. AFAICS it may be sensible to have more mobile people from large metro areas, where they seem to be, to the mass centres, to keep GPs clear for others.
Interested that the East Midlands don't have such a centre - but then we do not have any genuinely large cities.
My understanding is there is no wording to prove that. Nor no precedent. It’s about removal from office, not disbarment.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/01/thoroughly-respectable-rioters/617644/
GP one practice catchment zone over - he and his team haven't been seen since March. Can't reach them on the phone, apparently. Mail piling up at their shuttered premisses. He has been on local social media to complain about the requirements to do vaccinations, to be fair. Apparently it is very hard & tricky.
If we need 2M a week and we aren't getting it yet, it means we will need a lot more than 2M a week closer to the deadline.
24/7 is an absurd goal.
Just get 8am-8pm working properly. That’s all we ask.
The problem is staff & Vaccine, not hours in the day and spare chairs.
My brother has been getting these food boxes because he has terminal cancer and is shielding. He has given away most of the contents because it is not what he likes to eat. He has about 50 cans of minestrone though because his daughter doesn't like that every much. My guess would be that vouchers "wasted" on cigarettes and drink< contents wasted because no one wants to eat them, but, as I say, IANAE.
Now that's still a significant achievement and questions can rightly be asked of why it wasn't to be more as obviously every day longer in lockdown or every delayed vaccination means more damage to health and the economy. I do fear though that the media would portray this as a massive failure and how this incompetence will mean we're never to exit lockdown which would just demoralise us all further.
Mind you, later in the war, the Germans did become quite multi-cultural.
5 pieces of fruit I see. What fruit? Kids can be notoriously picky.
Also. The vouchers didn't work if there was booze or fags on the order.
I suppose you could trade the voucher, but hey.
It's not his fault that that has led to a clustershambles.
Slight typo, though.
"even a virus evolved for vaccine escape won't simply become ineffective, just less effective."
should be:
"even a virus evolved for vaccine escape won't simply render a vaccine ineffective, just less effective."
Oh and given he can probably only give MI5 about 48 hours, is he willing to bet that Williamson will actually break under torture in that time and reveal where he has hidden the photos and tapes.
https://twitter.com/Lee_E_Collins/status/1349014874521808899?s=20
The stunned silence from the teacher went on for some time...

Which is why we are here have dick-measuring contents about two tins of regulation minestrone soup instead of three.
All that was needed was to remind retailers that weans don't drink Vodka.
The boxes shown on social media were crap - a stink was raised, Ministers can rip the contractor a new one, the boxes can be improved (to be extremely good), and any money skimmed off (beyond reasonable costs) should be reimbursed. I see this as the system working, not proof of its unfitness for purpose.
First half of Saving Private Ryan....
"Multi cultural army tries to stop invading white people"
So the question becomes one of - where would you like the fraud to occur and for the Government the issue is that it's their cronies committing the fraud.
If a parent trades a voucher than the parent would be at fault. The issue is now that it's the PM's mates at fault (remember Compass give the tories money).
However how anyone on here (I'm talking to you Philip) can possibly argue it isn't a story when everyone is bloody well talking about it (including us!!!).
I am gobsmacked by those claiming it is not a story while adding to it.
Really people are getting confused between the argument as to whether Boris did anything wrong (I have never suggested that he did) and whether it is a bloody story. It bloody well is. It is self bloody evident it is.
Later in the vaccine program, when we are at the stage of getting the take up as high as possible, tailoring the vaccination delivery to match peoples behaviour may help.
As to where the fault should occur, I would prefer no faults, but if there are faults, I would like them to be highly visible, for blame to be easy to pinpoint, and for them to solvable. In the case of vouchers being abused, none of these are the case.