Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

New Ipsos MORI polling finds nearly half of Brits having favourable view of Biden – politicalbetting

12346»

Comments

  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,626

    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:

    Apparently bustflakes are a thing.

    Has Churchill gone again from the White House?

    He's in and out of there like nobody's business!
    It would be interesting to see what other busts, paintings etc Biden has removed - just as his predecessors did when they entered the White House for the first time. Making a stink out of this or drawing any conclusions about policy from it seems pretty daft to me.

    The world runs on realpolitik. Whether or not there is a particular bust sat in a particular office is not going to affect whatever relationship exists between the US and UK.
    Replaced by Truman apparently. Fair enough, I'd say. He's one of the iconic Democratic presidents. In fact you like him, I seem to recall. Also allays any fears of super wokeness. Nothing woke about Truman. He dropped the A bomb.
    Well even if I did have an issue with moving Churchill (or any other bust) - which of course I don't - I certainly couldn't complain about replacing him with Truman. An excellent choice.
    Truman might almost be considered a great President. He was certainly a very good one, and he made the right decision to use the A-bomb.
    I did make the case yesterday for him being, in my opinion, the best President of the 20th century. I know it is not a view widely held but I am happy to fight my corner on it. :)
    Ending the war in the Pacific, defending South Korea, and desegregating the army were impressive achievements by any measure. Two things I only found out recently were that huge British forces were earmarked for the invasion of Japan, and the Royal Navy fought at Okinawa.
    I would add The Marshall Plan, NATO and the UN as well. Oh and the Berlin Airlift.
    You obviously know much more about Truman than do I, but I’m struck by his lack of ego compared to his predecessor and probably most of his successors. A case for modesty gets the job done, and possibly comparisons with Attlee on a personal level?
    Given his association with Prendergast machin - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Pendergast - it is quite interesting that he turned into an effective campaigner against government corruption. Maybe it was a case of poacher turned game keeper?

    Fun story - As part of his campaign against corruption and dodgy dealings, he came across a strange case of vast amounts of electrical power apparently vanishing into military installations that didn't exist. Various attempts to stop his enquiries failed - he had to be warned off by Marshall himself, IIRC. It was the Manhattan project....
  • Carnyx said:

    DavidL said:

    How does one 'inadvertently' write a 3000 word article?
    I really don't like how independence supporting placemen have filled the offices of Scotland's quangocracy and use their positions to promote their cause.
    https://twitter.com/paulbsinclair/status/1351848554881568770?s=20
    I’m old enough to remember when wee Paul was ranting about face masks.

    https://twitter.com/paulbsinclair/status/1276820688410750976?s=21
    I'm also struck by the implicit suggestion that public sector management jobs should still be given only to No to Indy voters - now a minority. It's not long since the MoD tried to sack someone for believing in Scottish independence, and that wasn't a senior position either.
    The flow of traffic of constitutional ‘experts’ becoming public health ‘experts’ certainly greatly exceeds the flow in the opposite direction. One might even include Sinclair in that category but for the doubt that he’s an expert in anything.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited January 2021
    kle4 said:

    kjh said:

    Scott_xP said:

    While the Biden Presidency will be about returning to sanity in most respects, it is "woke" and will do dumb shit like this

    https://twitter.com/AbigailShrier/status/1352121732723666946

    Trans in sport is an impossible problem.

    I get frustrated with both sides on the issue of men/women/trans. Just treat people as people. I don't give a toss what you are.

    And that works for just about everything, except women's sport.

    Except for a few specific sports the physical difference is important and the solution can't be to just treat everyone as equal as otherwise half the population has been removed from competitive sport. Yet that still leaves the trans issue.

    I don't know what the answer is.
    Treat everyone as equal and with respect. Trans women should be able to understand that they are to be treated in general as women despite being biologically male, but for the purposes of sport biology matters. So they can be recognised as women but in doing so would become ineligible for sport - in the same way someone doping is. Its not doping, but its the same biological effect.

    I don't see why that is unreasonable?
    Seems pretty reasonable. In most walks of life it doesnt and shouldn't matter but it really does there.
    It seems to me where we diverge from somebody making a decision that affects nobody but themselves, to one where it directly affects other people. It makes no difference to me if I am biologically a woman and somebody in the office transitions, it makes a huge difference if I am an female MMA fighter and they are then going to be able to smack me in the face.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,587

    Scott_xP said:
    Dumb post. There's two new circle that needs drawing in that venn diagram, with our trade agreements with the EU and the EFTA. 🙄
    It references Gove's quote about a "free trade zone".
    Our agreements do indeed leave us outside of that.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,769

    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:

    Apparently bustflakes are a thing.

    Has Churchill gone again from the White House?

    He's in and out of there like nobody's business!
    It would be interesting to see what other busts, paintings etc Biden has removed - just as his predecessors did when they entered the White House for the first time. Making a stink out of this or drawing any conclusions about policy from it seems pretty daft to me.

    The world runs on realpolitik. Whether or not there is a particular bust sat in a particular office is not going to affect whatever relationship exists between the US and UK.
    Replaced by Truman apparently. Fair enough, I'd say. He's one of the iconic Democratic presidents. In fact you like him, I seem to recall. Also allays any fears of super wokeness. Nothing woke about Truman. He dropped the A bomb.
    Well even if I did have an issue with moving Churchill (or any other bust) - which of course I don't - I certainly couldn't complain about replacing him with Truman. An excellent choice.
    Truman might almost be considered a great President. He was certainly a very good one, and he made the right decision to use the A-bomb.
    I did make the case yesterday for him being, in my opinion, the best President of the 20th century. I know it is not a view widely held but I am happy to fight my corner on it. :)
    Ending the war in the Pacific, defending South Korea, and desegregating the army were impressive achievements by any measure. Two things I only found out recently were that huge British forces were earmarked for the invasion of Japan, and the Royal Navy fought at Okinawa.
    I would add The Marshall Plan, NATO and the UN as well. Oh and the Berlin Airlift.
    You obviously know much more about Truman than do I, but I’m struck by his lack of ego compared to his predecessor and probably most of his successors. A case for modesty gets the job done, and possibly comparisons with Attlee on a personal level?
    I agree. The fact that really sold me on him was that when he was done as President he went back to Missouri and lived off his army pension, refusing any post or job that would have played on his former position as President. So much so that eventually Congress had to introduce a pension for former Presidents as they were the one branch of Government that was specifically excluded from receiving a pension until then.
    There's an interesting subtext to that pension. The only other living former President was Herbert Hoover, a millionaire who had never previously taken a salary (while a Cabinet officer, he discreetly returned his pay check to the Treasury every month, without telling anybody). Hoover had also become a close friend of Truman's, so in order to make sure Truman felt no qualms about accepting the pension, he took it himself as well. It was the only public money of any sort he ever accepted.

    A somewhat romanticised version of the story is here:

    https://featherfoster.wordpress.com/2013/12/05/the-remarkable-friendship-between-harry-truman-and-herbert-hoover/
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    edited January 2021


    [snip] " Between the first dose and the second dose, 39 cases in the BNT162b2 group and 82 cases in the placebo group were observed, resulting in a vaccine efficacy of 52% (95% CI, 29.5 to 68.4) during this interval and indicating early protection by the vaccine, starting as soon as 12 days after the first dose."

    It baffles me why they quote that 52% figure, which has been widely reported (along with similar figures for the other vaccines). It's so misleading as to qualify as pretty much complete garbage, since most of the 39 cases in the BNT162b2 group were infected either before the vaccine had had time to work, or even before they were vaccinated at all. What it definitely does NOT mean is that the efficacy of the first dose was anything like as low as 52% once the vaccine had kicked in.
  • Fantastic news if true. Does match with the Pfizer trial data too.

    An interesting thing that I don't think I've seen anyone mention but from the Pfizer trial data there was no immune response in days 1-7 from initial injection, it takes time between injection happening and the immune response beginning . . . but there was an immediate 90% immune response from days 1-7 after the second injection.

    Now logically either the second injection is having an immediate and dramatic response despite not really having had time to work yet . . . or the 90% protection seen in days 22-28 was from the initial injection having had 21 days to work and the second injection wasn't very relevant in those days.

    If one dose is 90% and the second dose gives an extra 5% then the UK is most definitely doing the right thing and will save tens of thousands of lives from its rollout. Hundreds of thousands globally if it gets copied.
    I don't think I've seen anyone spelling it out in words, but a few graphs have been put on here showing an elbow shape in the detected infections after about a week; the placebo groups continue in a straight line, and the therapeutic groups show a sharp bend towards flat.
    Full paper at

    https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577

    "Figure 3 shows cases of Covid-19 or severe Covid-19 with onset at any time after the first dose (mITT population) (additional data on severe Covid-19 are available in Table S5). Between the first dose and the second dose, 39 cases in the BNT162b2 group and 82 cases in the placebo group were observed, resulting in a vaccine efficacy of 52% (95% CI, 29.5 to 68.4) during this interval and indicating early protection by the vaccine, starting as soon as 12 days after the first dose."

    Figure 3 referred to is

    image
    That is what I was referring to, Day 2 to 7 from second dose > 90% efficacy.

    Either the second dose works miraculously quickly, or that is ~90% efficacy from the first dose having had 21 days to work.

    Obviously we don't know for certain but there is abundant evidence to make a reasoned supposition.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 18,100
    wf1954 said:

    MaxPB said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Dumb post. There's two new circle that needs drawing in that venn diagram, with our trade agreements with the EU and the EFTA. 🙄
    Or the CTA.
    But is the CTA actually relevant when it comes to free trade? Isnt it much more to do with passport-free travel, reciprocal rights to settle, vote ect between GB and ROI?
    Does the CTA not cover people working plus doing business? ie Mobility of labour.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,157
    So, criticism not allowed in the Unionist Weltanschauung, then.
  • Nigelb said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Dumb post. There's two new circle that needs drawing in that venn diagram, with our trade agreements with the EU and the EFTA. 🙄
    It references Gove's quote about a "free trade zone".
    Our agreements do indeed leave us outside of that.
    Or we're inside that via our own unique arrangements, with zero tariffs and zero quotas.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited January 2021
    Another normal day in Portland....

    Federal police use tear gas and flash bangs to disperse some 200 protesters who threw eggs and rocks at ICE building in Portland, Oregon, just hours after Joe Biden is sworn in

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9170237/Protesters-gather-damage-Democratic-headquarters-Oregon.html

    https://twitter.com/Julio_Rosas11/status/1352042522868998144?s=19
  • wf1954 said:

    MaxPB said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Dumb post. There's two new circle that needs drawing in that venn diagram, with our trade agreements with the EU and the EFTA. 🙄
    Or the CTA.
    But is the CTA actually relevant when it comes to free trade? Isnt it much more to do with passport-free travel, reciprocal rights to settle, vote ect between GB and ROI?
    Every bit as relevant as Schengen surely?
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Scott_xP said:

    As @rcs1000 has explained a gazillion times, effective economic unity necessarily requires a degree of political unity. See, for instance, the Singke Market. It simply is not possible to have the sort of trading relationship there was in the Singke Market without some degree of political integration. The amount of such integration is the issue, of course.

    That is why the claim that we want only the trade and not the political stuff was nonsense. And why now - because we have decided against the political stuff - we are realising the cost to our trade.
    I would be interested to know how much political unity - by which we mean actual political attachment via legally binding institutions - you think there is between the EU and the EFTA members?

    There is a trade off between the two. Ie you can integrate to a certain extent on the economic level but the more economic integration you want and a say in how the rules are determined, the more involvement you will need in the bodies making those rules - either by being a member of those bodies or on those bodies in some other capacity.

    This then raises the question of the democratic oversight of the bodies making those rules. Many of the rules in the financial sector, for instance, are made by expert bodies with little or no direct democratic oversight at all.

    We can have quite a lot of economic/trade integration with the EU but at the cost of relatively little say in the decision-making over the rules and/or relatively little democratic oversight. Or not, as the case may be.

    But my - perhaps simplistic - point is that trade, especially the more integrated it becomes necessarily involves political decisions and a degree of surrendering a certain freedom of manoeuvre in order to get other desirable things. Britain - with its history - should surely understand that.
    It is not a lack of understanding on the part of the UK. At least not on this point. Personally I would prefer the EFTA relationship and one of the reasons for that is that it does remove us from the Political integration. To say that you cannot be a member of the Single Market without political unity as you said is simply wrong. The EEA proves that. Which is of course the whole point of it.
    Well I was quoting at @rcs1000. But I would have been ok with EFTA or EEA too.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,857
    edited January 2021

    kinabalu said:

    Scott_xP said:

    While the Biden Presidency will be about returning to sanity in most respects, it is "woke" and will do dumb shit like this

    https://twitter.com/AbigailShrier/status/1352121732723666946

    Thanks Scott. Refreshing to agree with you again on something.
    This is a real issue but to say that Biden has "unilaterally eviscerated womens sports and placed a new glass ceiling on girls" is indicative of someone not too interested in resolving it.
    Good that you acknowledge it's a real issue.

    Tempers and emotions are high on both sides. That was someone retweeting it who feels very strongly about it.

    Of course, language matters. We react to how things are said as well as what is said.

    We need to get beyond the spin into the real substance beneath it - and there there is undoubtedly a problem in dogmatically insisting that black is white, in all instances, out of a genuine (but, at times, misguided) desire to respect everyone's preferred social identity.
    All agreed. So I have a favour to ask. Next time we are looking at how bad and powerful "woke" supposedly is on the Left - taking either Labour here or the Dems over the Pond - let's focus on some specifics. Either some chunky rhetoric by somebody in an influential decision-taking role, or (even better) an actual policy or two. Because all I seem to hear on this most of the time are generalized (albeit often well written) critiques of something that is hard to recognize - kind of like "the blob" - triggered by something a bit questionable that someone like Aaron Bastani has tweeted out.

  • [snip] " Between the first dose and the second dose, 39 cases in the BNT162b2 group and 82 cases in the placebo group were observed, resulting in a vaccine efficacy of 52% (95% CI, 29.5 to 68.4) during this interval and indicating early protection by the vaccine, starting as soon as 12 days after the first dose."

    It baffles me why they quote that 52% figure, which has been widely reported (along with similar figures for the other vaccines). It's so misleading as to qualify as pretty much complete garbage, since most of the 39 cases in the BNT162b2 group were infected either before the vaccine had had time to work, or even before they were vaccinated at all. What is definitely does NOT mean is that the efficacy of the first dose was anything like as low as 52% once the vaccine had kicked in.
    One of the lessons from this will be that whilst efficacy numbers may be very important in scientific understanding, when communicating to the public they are quite misleading. The percentage that should be communicated mostly to the public is the reduction in getting hospitalised once vaccinated imo.

    40% efficacy but 95% reduction in hospitalisation is a fantastic vaccine, better than a 70% efficacy with 70% reduction in hospitalisation.

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,587

    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:

    Apparently bustflakes are a thing.

    Has Churchill gone again from the White House?

    He's in and out of there like nobody's business!
    It would be interesting to see what other busts, paintings etc Biden has removed - just as his predecessors did when they entered the White House for the first time. Making a stink out of this or drawing any conclusions about policy from it seems pretty daft to me.

    The world runs on realpolitik. Whether or not there is a particular bust sat in a particular office is not going to affect whatever relationship exists between the US and UK.
    Replaced by Truman apparently. Fair enough, I'd say. He's one of the iconic Democratic presidents. In fact you like him, I seem to recall. Also allays any fears of super wokeness. Nothing woke about Truman. He dropped the A bomb.
    Well even if I did have an issue with moving Churchill (or any other bust) - which of course I don't - I certainly couldn't complain about replacing him with Truman. An excellent choice.
    Truman might almost be considered a great President. He was certainly a very good one, and he made the right decision to use the A-bomb.
    I did make the case yesterday for him being, in my opinion, the best President of the 20th century. I know it is not a view widely held but I am happy to fight my corner on it. :)
    Ending the war in the Pacific, defending South Korea, and desegregating the army were impressive achievements by any measure. Two things I only found out recently were that huge British forces were earmarked for the invasion of Japan, and the Royal Navy fought at Okinawa.
    I would add The Marshall Plan, NATO and the UN as well. Oh and the Berlin Airlift.
    You obviously know much more about Truman than do I, but I’m struck by his lack of ego compared to his predecessor and probably most of his successors. A case for modesty gets the job done, and possibly comparisons with Attlee on a personal level?
    In some ways far more modest.
    His adoption as Vice President was a compromise, and he was picked principally for not being Henry Wallace. Had FDR died prior to the 1944 election, he would likely have been an extremely obscure footnote in history.
  • Nigelb said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Dumb post. There's two new circle that needs drawing in that venn diagram, with our trade agreements with the EU and the EFTA. 🙄
    It references Gove's quote about a "free trade zone".
    Our agreements do indeed leave us outside of that.
    Brexit apologists like Philip are so much in denial. Their standard bearers like Gove and Bozo have diminished our trading position and yet they still try and kid their gullible followers that it is a good thing. Eventually they will catch on that it has been a big con on the most gullible of the gullible.
  • Carnyx said:

    So, criticism not allowed in the Unionist Weltanschauung, then.
    Nationalists' idea of Weltanschauung has a very warped and inglorious history.
  • Nigelb said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Dumb post. There's two new circle that needs drawing in that venn diagram, with our trade agreements with the EU and the EFTA. 🙄
    It references Gove's quote about a "free trade zone".
    Our agreements do indeed leave us outside of that.
    Brexit apologists like Philip are so much in denial. Their standard bearers like Gove and Bozo have diminished our trading position and yet they still try and kid their gullible followers that it is a good thing. Eventually they will catch on that it has been a big con on the most gullible of the gullible.
    Cui bono?

    Why has Gove engaged in a con?

    Just because you can't accept defeat doesn't make the other side illegitimate.
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797
    edited January 2021

    Very long time lurker, compelled to post to point out that that you can back Biden as Democratic Nominee in 2024 at prices better than 3. Sure, he's old, but being head of state is very more-ish. Crazy to my mind that Kamla is shorter to be next president than Joe. I'm on.

    Other points:

    1. I am not Sean, but do intend to make drunken late night posts in the future.
    2. I never figured out what OGH stands for?

    Our Good / Gracious Host
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    Scott_xP said:
    It's great delivery, though I don't really get poetry so I cannot really appreciate the good stuff.
  • BBC News - Biden to sign 10 executive orders to tackle Covid
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-55750884
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    Cyclefree said:

    It's quite clear the Democrats have been wholly captured by the Wokeists; this will be the most toe-curlingly Woke and wanky US administration there has ever been.

    It will do nothing to solve America's divisions or heal them, except exacerbate them further. The only question is whether the Republicans can capitalise on it in November 2022, or whether their own fratricidal civil war will consume them, giving more space to the nutters in the Dems.

    Sad.

    I think you've been wholly captured by anti-wokeism. Did you watch yesterday? Lots of humility and decency on show, and a good celebration of modern, diverse USA. Biden will do what he says, and govern for all decent Americans. But yes, he won't pander to the EDL equivalents or neo-fascists of the far right. Because they're not decent.

    Like our government, you're obsessed by symbols/statues. But it's not substance. Let me give you an example. While Jenrick puts forward legislation on statues, he does sweet FA to tackle real issues of substance, For example, tens of thousands of people are trapped in buildings with cladding that needs removing; they can't sell, and many face huge bills. Following Grenfell, how much progress has been made in resolving this? Not a lot.

    Your priorities are all wrong.
    Yes, I watched yesterday. I thought it was an acceptable speech, but not an especially historically memorable one; it just looks like that right now because everyone is so relieved he's not Trump.

    Your comparison is an entirely false one. Opposition to "Wokeism" ≠ support for the EDL or neo-fascists, and it's offensive to say it does. I explored the difference on here last night - you should read what I said.

    Governments, can and do, enact hundreds of policies across dozens of policy areas all at once, and are both capable of doing so and expected to do it. As it happens, I think the Government should make the relief of leaseholders trapped in flats by poor cladding a high priority and get it fixed with a Government guarantee. However, I also think he should address politically-motivated cultural desecration as well. What people mean by "he's got his priorities all wrong" is "we'd prefer if he didn't address this issue" There's no reason Robert Paden Powell, Redvers Buller, Oliver Cromwell, or Admiral Nelson, should be removed without due democratic process just so councillors can signal their virtue and appease their fanatical base. This was a gap in the law and urgently needed addressing before many more irrevocably came down.

    My priorities are not wrong. I also want a united, less divided society. Symbols matter, and rather than negatively tearing things down and dividing people we should be adding to them with new symbols that say things about us today, and celebrate the best of us.

    Your blindness to how both sides are aggravating it at present with their language and action is a huge part of the problem.

    You'd be well-advised to be more reflective and balanced in your posts on the matter, in future.
    @Casino_Royale wrote a very good post yesterday on woke-ism: the difference between being awake to and dealing with oppression and its consequences vs a somewhat narcissistic insistence on symbolic gesture and telling people what to think unaccompanied by any effective action to help people.
    I think that is a very concise summary of the key point in such debates. Symbolic gestures and language can be important, but is not the whole of the thing (that is, helping people/groups), cannot be a substitute for the thing, nor is imperfect adherence to symbolic gestures and language itself proof that people do not care about the thing.
  • sladeslade Posts: 1,921
    rkrkrk said:

    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Omnium said:

    Alistair said:

    Omnium said:

    eek said:
    Not true, but if you like not true things then great.

    Fairly easy to see why.
    Why?
    Well, actually I was just about to post an edit to say that the "If they voted like the majority of their age group" is actually fair enough.

    But suppose you vote randomly and the elections have been 50/50 then it's unlikely that as a 33 year old you'd have managed to not be with the winning side. It's even more unlikely that a 66 year old would have managed to avoid disappointment.

    So it's clear that the claim is questionable. Now consider correlations - this raises the chance that a voter might have been on the winning side hugely if they've always voted one way and that side has always won. Now we know that voters pretty much vote one way, but we certainly know that one side hasn't always won.

    So I suspect you will find a lot of 33 year olds that have never voted for the winning side (my guess would be around 40% - just because the Tories have won every election since 2010), but you'll find it quite hard to find 66 year olds that have always been celebrating on election night - I'd be a seller at 5%.
    I think the point is that the cohort overall has been shafted by democracy, not whether any given individual's record exactly matches that of the cohort.
    Of course, this is quite selective. The same is not true for 34-42 year olds.

    I’m 34 and have voted in five GEs and two UK-wide referendums. My record is:

    2005 - Lost
    2010 - Won
    2011 - Won
    2015 - Lost
    2016 - Won
    2017 - Lost
    2019 - Won

    Obviously you can argue that I did win in 2015, but it wasn’t just about Europe it was about Osbrown economics.

    Personally I don’t think my generation and the next one have been shafted by democracy. We’ve been shafted by Gordon Brown, George Osborne and the Bank of England.
    I have voted in 10 General Elections and 2 referendums. In only 3 GE's has the party I voted for won (1997, 2001 and 2010) and neither of the referendums. In my mid fifties, I have only had a government that represents me for a fraction of my life, so yes, I understand how the young feel alienated from politics and how it doesn't represent them.
    I'm about the age mentioned. I actually failed to vote in the 2010 election which would have been my only 'win'. That said - be careful what you wish for - the Lib Dem involvement in 2010 certainly didn't meet my expectations.

    Otherwise a straight string of losses on referenda and general elections. I've never voted for a winning candidate either except I suppose at European elections. Hopefully it will just make the victory sweeter.

    Plus - I get (vicarious?) pleasure from US elections - where the Republican alternative is generally much worse than the Conservative option here. Seeing Obama win in 2008 was great.
    I've voted in 21 General Elections and ,like you, have never won. But I have voted for myself three times.
  • CrabbieCrabbie Posts: 55
    eek said:

    Very long time lurker, compelled to post to point out that that you can back Biden as Democratic Nominee in 2024 at prices better than 3. Sure, he's old, but being head of state is very more-ish. Crazy to my mind that Kamla is shorter to be next president than Joe. I'm on.

    Other points:

    1. I am not Sean, but do intend to make drunken late night posts in the future.
    2. I never figured out what OGH stands for?

    Our Good / Gracious Host
    I thought it was our genial host?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    Nigelb said:

    kamski said:

    I don't have a bust of Churchill. Does that mean I have effectively declared war on Britain?

    You have perhaps merely surrendered to the forces of wokeism.
    He can make up for it by getting a tattoo of churchill on a buttcheek, either is fine.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    Cyclefree said:

    kinabalu said:

    Mr. kinabalu, been more preoccupied with other matters this morning, but there's a reason why men and women are separated in sport. It sounds like Biden's approach is nuts.

    Well if that's the view of what is surely the doughtiest fighter for women's rights on here, perhaps he is on the wrong track. Let me have another think about it.
    Words do not change biological reality
    Dangerous words right there.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    slade said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Omnium said:

    Alistair said:

    Omnium said:

    eek said:
    Not true, but if you like not true things then great.

    Fairly easy to see why.
    Why?
    Well, actually I was just about to post an edit to say that the "If they voted like the majority of their age group" is actually fair enough.

    But suppose you vote randomly and the elections have been 50/50 then it's unlikely that as a 33 year old you'd have managed to not be with the winning side. It's even more unlikely that a 66 year old would have managed to avoid disappointment.

    So it's clear that the claim is questionable. Now consider correlations - this raises the chance that a voter might have been on the winning side hugely if they've always voted one way and that side has always won. Now we know that voters pretty much vote one way, but we certainly know that one side hasn't always won.

    So I suspect you will find a lot of 33 year olds that have never voted for the winning side (my guess would be around 40% - just because the Tories have won every election since 2010), but you'll find it quite hard to find 66 year olds that have always been celebrating on election night - I'd be a seller at 5%.
    I think the point is that the cohort overall has been shafted by democracy, not whether any given individual's record exactly matches that of the cohort.
    Of course, this is quite selective. The same is not true for 34-42 year olds.

    I’m 34 and have voted in five GEs and two UK-wide referendums. My record is:

    2005 - Lost
    2010 - Won
    2011 - Won
    2015 - Lost
    2016 - Won
    2017 - Lost
    2019 - Won

    Obviously you can argue that I did win in 2015, but it wasn’t just about Europe it was about Osbrown economics.

    Personally I don’t think my generation and the next one have been shafted by democracy. We’ve been shafted by Gordon Brown, George Osborne and the Bank of England.
    I have voted in 10 General Elections and 2 referendums. In only 3 GE's has the party I voted for won (1997, 2001 and 2010) and neither of the referendums. In my mid fifties, I have only had a government that represents me for a fraction of my life, so yes, I understand how the young feel alienated from politics and how it doesn't represent them.
    I'm about the age mentioned. I actually failed to vote in the 2010 election which would have been my only 'win'. That said - be careful what you wish for - the Lib Dem involvement in 2010 certainly didn't meet my expectations.

    Otherwise a straight string of losses on referenda and general elections. I've never voted for a winning candidate either except I suppose at European elections. Hopefully it will just make the victory sweeter.

    Plus - I get (vicarious?) pleasure from US elections - where the Republican alternative is generally much worse than the Conservative option here. Seeing Obama win in 2008 was great.
    I've voted in 21 General Elections and ,like you, have never won. But I have voted for myself three times.
    You won by participating, surely that's enough?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    Very long time lurker, compelled to post to point out that that you can back Biden as Democratic Nominee in 2024 at prices better than 3. Sure, he's old, but being head of state is very more-ish. Crazy to my mind that Kamla is shorter to be next president than Joe. I'm on.

    Other points:

    1. I am not Sean, but do intend to make drunken late night posts in the future.
    2. I never figured out what OGH stands for?

    Welcome to PB, and with a betting post too.

    1. I live four time zones ahead of most on here, posting drunk is almost obligatory (when it’s not Dry January)
    2. Our Genial Host = Mike Smithson, editor of this good site.
  • kle4 said:

    Nigelb said:

    kamski said:

    I don't have a bust of Churchill. Does that mean I have effectively declared war on Britain?

    You have perhaps merely surrendered to the forces of wokeism.
    He can make up for it by getting a tattoo of churchill on a buttcheek, either is fine.
    Either. If you go for the left cheek then you are a dangerous extremist.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited January 2021
    And doesn't get us anywhere. Nobody is any the wiser about the issue. But twitter loves it, so that's all good.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,780
    Crabbie said:

    eek said:

    Very long time lurker, compelled to post to point out that that you can back Biden as Democratic Nominee in 2024 at prices better than 3. Sure, he's old, but being head of state is very more-ish. Crazy to my mind that Kamla is shorter to be next president than Joe. I'm on.

    Other points:

    1. I am not Sean, but do intend to make drunken late night posts in the future.
    2. I never figured out what OGH stands for?

    Our Good / Gracious Host
    I thought it was our genial host?
    I thought it was gracious host but whatever.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603
    Williamson is a fucking idiot and deserves it.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    Cyclefree said:

    kinabalu said:

    Cyclefree said:

    kinabalu said:

    Mr. kinabalu, been more preoccupied with other matters this morning, but there's a reason why men and women are separated in sport. It sounds like Biden's approach is nuts.

    Well if that's the view of what is surely the doughtiest fighter for women's rights on here, perhaps he is on the wrong track. Let me have another think about it.
    You should. It does not matter what anyone calls themselves or thinks of themselves as. Words do not change biological reality. If people who are biologically male compete with women, then they will have a physical advantage which no amount of skill or training by women can overcome.

    Women's sporting competitions will be no more.
    There are 2 extremes here - (i) no trans protections for women's sport or (ii) no trans in women's sport - and I support neither. The first is to disregard genuine concerns for the sake of dogma. The second is to disregard genuine concerns for the sake of dogma.
    It rather depends on what we mean by transwomen.

    A man who has transitioned is a woman and should participate in women's events. There may be an issue re whether they still have a physical advantage in sporting competitions because of their period as a man but that is one for the scientists.

    A man who thinks of himself as a woman but has not transitioned should not participate in women's' sporting events or other events where physical characteristics are relevant. There may need to be special rules for those who are in the process of transitioning.

    Words and self-identification do not change biological reality. People who have penises do not give birth or have a cervix or menstruate etc. It is fake news to suggest otherwise. And it is pathetic to do so just because we don't want to offend peoples' feelings. Telling the truth is more important. In this as in many other things.
    I know it is not the same thing, but the over concern about people's feelings even vs objective reality puts me in mind of some of the loopier problems with things like the police/courts and alleged victims, where sometimes justice and fairness will mean the feelings of those who are potentially or actually victims may not be appropriate to prioritise. Or how whenever there is to be an inquiry into something you get groups who want a particular outcome and also practically a veto over who might chair it, and of course they do, but it doesn't see, like their feelings, even when relevant, can be the overwhelming consideration.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    And doesn't get us anywhere. Nobody is any the wiser about the issue. But twitter loves it, so that's all good.
    Point taken, it doesn't seem a useful use of time, though that tweet is laying it on rather thick and invites ridicule.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited January 2021
    Bit of a change of tune from CNN...its a sodding fireworks show for gods sake...but no, its not any fireworks show, oh no no no. They have got as bad as Fox News.

    https://twitter.com/mdornic/status/1352090555342270466?s=20
  • BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 4,556
    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    While I like the idea of poems being read at important occasions (and unimportant ones, come to that), I thought Amanda Gorman's poem yesterday was drivel. Though kudos to her for her self-possession while reciting it.
    ...

    Interesting. Despite the fact that I'm a fully signed-up old fogey, I thought it was rather good, with some parts very good. It was a bit too long, but there were some truly striking phrases, such as 'a nation that isn’t broken, but simply unfinished'.

    Stylistically, it was clearly based on rap, with soft, falling rhymes and pseudo-rhymes:

    It’s because being American is more than a pride we inherit.
    It’s the past we step into and how we repair it.
    We’ve seen a force that would shatter our nation rather than share it.
    Would destroy our country if it meant delaying democracy.


    OK, it was perhaps a bit on the mawkish side, but no more than so than many celebratory poems written for ceremonial occasions, including the vast bulk of the official output of our own Poet Laureates since time immemorial.
    I listen to and recite poetry to myself quite a lot. It is something I've done since childhood. I listened to it and found it really hard to listen to. It just became words washing over me. It felt like a speech rather than a poem.

    Poems - to me - especially when well spoken force you to really listen, really focus. Whereas this quickly became background noise to me.

    But it's very personal I accept.

    I know you think I'm a philistine on this but I really struggle with most poetry. I usually need to have it explained to me to appreciate it, with some rare exceptions, and even then I'm sometimes a bit meh. Maybe that's because I'm an engineer and deal in logical statements!

    John Betjeman I enjoyed, chiefly because I could relate to the subject matter, and found his poems rather amusing.

    Some of the WW1 poetry has stayed with me too. But it's too dark and disturbing for me to want to re-read regularly.
    I don't think of you as a philistine. It is a shame that's all. There is a musicality and rhythm and muscularity to English which finds some of its best expression in poems, and other writings as well (the King James Bible for instance). At my primary school we learnt a poem each week and learnt to recite it, too. It is a wonderful way of teaching English to children. Think of nursery rhymes as poems and how children respond to them. Poems are words in musical form really. Good speakers have a musical quality to them which listeners respond to, almost without realising it.

    I think maybe if you haven't been exposed to poetry when young it is hard to relate to and poems are thought of as difficult. But there are some that have provided real comfort to me at times. Others express my thoughts better than I can myself.

    If I had one piece of advice for parents of young children it is to read poems to them or get those tapes of people reading them for them to hear at night. It does wonders for their language and memory skills. English is such a beautiful language. It is lovely when it is well spoken (I don't mean accents which are irrelevant). To me, it is like having a nail scratching a blackboard when I hear people making speeches or public statements with a tin ear for the sense or rhythm of their words.
    Nicely put. We started memorizing poetry at the same age, and it's immensely helpful in exposing young minds to all the resources of language and sound. When I was a bit older, I remember impressing a group of adults with my perfect recollection of the final stanza of Tennyson's 'The Lotos-Eaters' - more for the apparent masochism of the feat than anything else, I suspect.

    Come to think of it, 'Like a tale of little meaning tho' the words are strong' might be a little too on the nose if taken as a self-criticism of Tennyson's characteristic manner!
  • Nigelb said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Dumb post. There's two new circle that needs drawing in that venn diagram, with our trade agreements with the EU and the EFTA. 🙄
    It references Gove's quote about a "free trade zone".
    Our agreements do indeed leave us outside of that.
    Brexit apologists like Philip are so much in denial. Their standard bearers like Gove and Bozo have diminished our trading position and yet they still try and kid their gullible followers that it is a good thing. Eventually they will catch on that it has been a big con on the most gullible of the gullible.
    Cui bono?

    Why has Gove engaged in a con?

    Just because you can't accept defeat doesn't make the other side illegitimate.
    If "accepting defeat" means accepting that Brexit has happened, you are wrong (as you are about so much), because I have accepted it, and accept that as we are a democracy we have to sometimes accept stupid decisions if enough people support it That does not change the fact that Brexit is the most stupid fuckwit policy that a British government has ever enacted, but I accept that the fuckwits like you have "won" with respect to enacting the result of the referendum in 2016. Have you won the argument that it is worthwhile. Only in your own very narrow nationalist mind.

    You cannot accept the obvious which is that Brexit is a pointless car crash and is and always will be a con which you were gullible to buy into, but you are not big enough to accept that you have been conned. Don't worry Philip, there are lots like you. Many people like you, with very similar right wing populist political views, voted for Trump and still cannot accept the fact that he was/is shit (and yes we know you pretend not to like him for some strange reason). Trumpists went on how their man "won" the first time round, but it didn't mean he was any good. And then he lost. I am sure if the referendum had gone the other way you would probably claim "widespread voter fraud" lol.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,780

    BBC News - Biden to sign 10 executive orders to tackle Covid
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-55750884

    My son had me read an essay he had done just yesterday about democratic accountability. In the UK one of the problems is the powers given to Ministers to pass subordinate legislation which effectively gives them the power to write laws without effective Parliamentary oversight. In the US the equivalent is Executive Orders which by pass Congress. It is not easy to say which of the 2 is the more pernicious but both are problematical to any democrat. The failures of Trump and his administration in relation to Covid are high on the charge sheet against him but how is this reaching out across the aisle exactly?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited January 2021
    kle4 said:

    And doesn't get us anywhere. Nobody is any the wiser about the issue. But twitter loves it, so that's all good.
    Point taken, it doesn't seem a useful use of time, though that tweet is laying it on rather thick and invites ridicule.
    That isn't to say I don't rate the fireplace salesman about as highly as Jezza, but Piers Moron schtick doesn't actually inform anybody about anything.
  • Glastonbury cancelled.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 10,468
    Just watched Katy Perry and the firework display. As usual with America very understated stuff!

    They are very good at this stuff aren't they? Many decades ago I went to an airshow at Mildenhall. Blew my socks off. Nothing subtle about it at all. Never to be forgotten though.
  • BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 4,556
    edited January 2021
    kle4 said:

    Nigelb said:

    kamski said:

    I don't have a bust of Churchill. Does that mean I have effectively declared war on Britain?

    You have perhaps merely surrendered to the forces of wokeism.
    He can make up for it by getting a tattoo of churchill on a buttcheek, either is fine.
    Very patriotic. Did not the great man himself once say (allegedly) to a French audience, 'Quand je regarde mon derrière, je vois qu’il est divisé en deux parties égales'?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    Even when restrictions lift domestically, there may continue to be rules on those entering from abroad. The view is that testing and tighter procedures at the border will be needed to protect the UK from the danger of any vaccine-resistant strain. One figure in government tells me that ‘the advantage the vaccine has given us is so huge that we have to protect that’. The government is particularly interested in how Australia has used tough border measures to keep Covid out. There is a feeling that Australia is a ‘parallel democracy’ and so the restrictions used there could be replicable here.

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/could-the-australian-approach-to-covid-work-in-britain
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,739
    Brexiteers continually amazed at what Brexit entails. Part 89035 in an ongoing series...

    https://twitter.com/pkelso/status/1352229816720879618
  • Even when restrictions lift domestically, there may continue to be rules on those entering from abroad. The view is that testing and tighter procedures at the border will be needed to protect the UK from the danger of any vaccine-resistant strain. One figure in government tells me that ‘the advantage the vaccine has given us is so huge that we have to protect that’. The government is particularly interested in how Australia has used tough border measures to keep Covid out. There is a feeling that Australia is a ‘parallel democracy’ and so the restrictions used there could be replicable here.

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/could-the-australian-approach-to-covid-work-in-britain

    Only taken 9 months to work this out?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    kle4 said:

    Nigelb said:

    kamski said:

    I don't have a bust of Churchill. Does that mean I have effectively declared war on Britain?

    You have perhaps merely surrendered to the forces of wokeism.
    He can make up for it by getting a tattoo of churchill on a buttcheek, either is fine.
    Just one? That would be almost as commie as only having one union fleg.
  • Morning, all!

    Hopefully, we've seen the last of Trump. But who knows, he may go back to being a reality TV "personality"!

    In other news, Mum got her first dose of the AZ vaccine last night, though the GP surgery only gave her five hours' notice. Anyway, it was all over in about 5 minutes. Three months' wait for the second dose though.

    Great news.

    Do you happen to know if she was on the short notice standby? I've a friend who has put herself down for it i.e. a call up if someone can't make their appointment slot. Or was the short notice just lack of planning by the surgery?
    She's over-70, so I guess she was just called in as part of this week's roll-out. But they weren't too sure about if and when she could go if she didn't go in last last night. I think she was the last person they jabbed yesterday, at 8.30pm or so.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited January 2021
    Typical Graurdian...

    Amazon wins 49% of new TV streaming customers in run-up to Christmas

    This article was corrected on 21 January 2021. The Mandalorian is on Disney+, not Netflix as an earlier version stated.

    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/jan/21/amazon-wins-49-of-new-tv-streaming-customers-in-run-up-to-christmas

  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    The dour wee free folk aren't messing about. 12% of the Western Isles have had their first dose.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,626
    Seems a bit rude - implies the Biden is just starring out of the window, waiting for someone else to clear up the mess....
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    Bit of a change of tune from CNN...its a sodding fireworks show for gods sake...but no, its not any fireworks show, oh no no no. They have got as bad as Fox News.

    https://twitter.com/mdornic/status/1352090555342270466?s=20

    Hopefully just a triumphant phase. Though I remember back from watching the Daily Show years ago that even they would joke about how pro Obama for instance some of the networks were, like watching presidential speeches with their pants off.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,157

    Carnyx said:

    So, criticism not allowed in the Unionist Weltanschauung, then.
    Nationalists' idea of Weltanschauung has a very warped and inglorious history.
    British ones, yes. Which is the problem here.
  • DavidL said:

    Crabbie said:

    eek said:

    Very long time lurker, compelled to post to point out that that you can back Biden as Democratic Nominee in 2024 at prices better than 3. Sure, he's old, but being head of state is very more-ish. Crazy to my mind that Kamla is shorter to be next president than Joe. I'm on.

    Other points:

    1. I am not Sean, but do intend to make drunken late night posts in the future.
    2. I never figured out what OGH stands for?

    Our Good / Gracious Host
    I thought it was our genial host?
    I thought it was gracious host but whatever.
    I thought it was our generous host?
    Christ, the foundations of my world are quivering.
  • Even when restrictions lift domestically, there may continue to be rules on those entering from abroad. The view is that testing and tighter procedures at the border will be needed to protect the UK from the danger of any vaccine-resistant strain. One figure in government tells me that ‘the advantage the vaccine has given us is so huge that we have to protect that’. The government is particularly interested in how Australia has used tough border measures to keep Covid out. There is a feeling that Australia is a ‘parallel democracy’ and so the restrictions used there could be replicable here.

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/could-the-australian-approach-to-covid-work-in-britain

    We have about a month lead on vaccination in comparison to most and are in a good position for the next steps, that is all. By the summer there is no guarantee that will still be the case, in a pandemic things can and probably will go wrong at some point. We should be approaching it with a stoical approach, recognising good work so far, but knowing there is much to do and many challenges to be faced, not pretending we are in some exceptional position.
  • More Cruz is thick as well as nasty news.

    https://twitter.com/BraidenGB/status/1352231526805737472?s=20
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,587

    Very long time lurker, compelled to post to point out that that you can back Biden as Democratic Nominee in 2024 at prices better than 3. Sure, he's old, but being head of state is very more-ish. Crazy to my mind that Kamla is shorter to be next president than Joe. I'm on.

    Other points:

    1. I am not Sean, but do intend to make drunken late night posts in the future.
    2. I never figured out what OGH stands for?

    Our grand hegemon.
    Or genial host, or something.
  • Alistair said:

    The dour wee free folk aren't messing about. 12% of the Western Isles have had their first dose.

    There'll singing and dancing in the pews.
    Or not as the case may be.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789
    Scott_xP said:

    Brexiteers continually amazed at what Brexit entails. Part 89035 in an ongoing series...

    https://twitter.com/pkelso/status/1352229816720879618

    Brexiteers are in a time warp where it’s forever 2017 and the EU is about to capitulate because of the German carmakers.
    https://twitter.com/pkelso/status/1352230829464956928?s=21
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,857
    kle4 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    It's quite clear the Democrats have been wholly captured by the Wokeists; this will be the most toe-curlingly Woke and wanky US administration there has ever been.

    It will do nothing to solve America's divisions or heal them, except exacerbate them further. The only question is whether the Republicans can capitalise on it in November 2022, or whether their own fratricidal civil war will consume them, giving more space to the nutters in the Dems.

    Sad.

    I think you've been wholly captured by anti-wokeism. Did you watch yesterday? Lots of humility and decency on show, and a good celebration of modern, diverse USA. Biden will do what he says, and govern for all decent Americans. But yes, he won't pander to the EDL equivalents or neo-fascists of the far right. Because they're not decent.

    Like our government, you're obsessed by symbols/statues. But it's not substance. Let me give you an example. While Jenrick puts forward legislation on statues, he does sweet FA to tackle real issues of substance, For example, tens of thousands of people are trapped in buildings with cladding that needs removing; they can't sell, and many face huge bills. Following Grenfell, how much progress has been made in resolving this? Not a lot.

    Your priorities are all wrong.
    Yes, I watched yesterday. I thought it was an acceptable speech, but not an especially historically memorable one; it just looks like that right now because everyone is so relieved he's not Trump.

    Your comparison is an entirely false one. Opposition to "Wokeism" ≠ support for the EDL or neo-fascists, and it's offensive to say it does. I explored the difference on here last night - you should read what I said.

    Governments, can and do, enact hundreds of policies across dozens of policy areas all at once, and are both capable of doing so and expected to do it. As it happens, I think the Government should make the relief of leaseholders trapped in flats by poor cladding a high priority and get it fixed with a Government guarantee. However, I also think he should address politically-motivated cultural desecration as well. What people mean by "he's got his priorities all wrong" is "we'd prefer if he didn't address this issue" There's no reason Robert Paden Powell, Redvers Buller, Oliver Cromwell, or Admiral Nelson, should be removed without due democratic process just so councillors can signal their virtue and appease their fanatical base. This was a gap in the law and urgently needed addressing before many more irrevocably came down.

    My priorities are not wrong. I also want a united, less divided society. Symbols matter, and rather than negatively tearing things down and dividing people we should be adding to them with new symbols that say things about us today, and celebrate the best of us.

    Your blindness to how both sides are aggravating it at present with their language and action is a huge part of the problem.

    You'd be well-advised to be more reflective and balanced in your posts on the matter, in future.
    @Casino_Royale wrote a very good post yesterday on woke-ism: the difference between being awake to and dealing with oppression and its consequences vs a somewhat narcissistic insistence on symbolic gesture and telling people what to think unaccompanied by any effective action to help people.
    I think that is a very concise summary of the key point in such debates. Symbolic gestures and language can be important, but is not the whole of the thing (that is, helping people/groups), cannot be a substitute for the thing, nor is imperfect adherence to symbolic gestures and language itself proof that people do not care about the thing.
    To which I (while agreeing) would add -

    If all you do is embrace the symbolism and the language it is better than nothing. For example, doing absolutely sweet FA to advance racial equality other than being careful not to use dated stereotypes, and calling out those you come across, should not be denigrated as virtue-signalling. It is preferable to just (not) doing the first and forgetting all about the second. If your sole contribution to racial equality is to call out virtue-signalling (as falsely defined above) you are contributing a negative. The "virtue signaller" with their small positive contribution is your superior in the field.
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 4,793
    From the REACT-1 study:

    "However, we found evidence for non-constant growth within round 8a; a logistic regression model with a smooth term gave ΔAIC > 6 compared with one using only a constant term. Fitting a p-spline to the data across all rounds suggested prevalence may have been declining at start of round 8a, from an unobserved earlier peak."

    and

    "In the initial period of the third national lockdown in England, we did not observe a continued decline in the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2, as was seen in the routine surveillance data for a similar period [8]. Rather, we observed a slight initial decline followed by a plateau or possible increase, but with a weighted average prevalence substantially lower than that reported for end December and beginning of January by the Office for National Statistics Coronavirus (COVID-19) Infection Survey [5]. It is therefore possible that prevalence may have dropped substantially just prior to the start of REACT-1 round 8a. "


    Basically, they reckon that there was a peak that we were coming off of and they didn't get the chance to pick up because it was just before the period of the samples - but they can't say that they saw that peak because, well, they didn't. It was in the blind spot.

    Most reporting on it seems to be glossing over this.

    The other takeaway is that increased numbers of people going in to work above the first lockdown seem to be pointing to a plateauing, with it barely creeping up or down in prevalence extrapolated from the end of the reporting period. But this is very regionally variable, from the South West (prevalence plummetting) through the East of England (gently trending down), London and the South East (pretty much bang on level), the North (probably trending very slowly upwards, but very unclear) to both East and West Midlands (trending slowly upwards, probably), and Yorkshire (climbing worryingly).

    And that this plateau is at a worryingly high level - which we already knew.

    That's really about it.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,857
    Sandpit said:

    Very long time lurker, compelled to post to point out that that you can back Biden as Democratic Nominee in 2024 at prices better than 3. Sure, he's old, but being head of state is very more-ish. Crazy to my mind that Kamla is shorter to be next president than Joe. I'm on.

    Other points:

    1. I am not Sean, but do intend to make drunken late night posts in the future.
    2. I never figured out what OGH stands for?

    Welcome to PB, and with a betting post too.

    1. I live four time zones ahead of most on here, posting drunk is almost obligatory (when it’s not Dry January)
    2. Our Genial Host = Mike Smithson, editor of this good site.
    Most of your posts are written when half cut, Sandpit, aren't they?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,094

    Morning, all!

    Hopefully, we've seen the last of Trump. But who knows, he may go back to being a reality TV "personality"!

    In other news, Mum got her first dose of the AZ vaccine last night, though the GP surgery only gave her five hours' notice. Anyway, it was all over in about 5 minutes. Three months' wait for the second dose though.

    Great news.

    Do you happen to know if she was on the short notice standby? I've a friend who has put herself down for it i.e. a call up if someone can't make their appointment slot. Or was the short notice just lack of planning by the surgery?
    She's over-70, so I guess she was just called in as part of this week's roll-out. But they weren't too sure about if and when she could go if she didn't go in last last night. I think she was the last person they jabbed yesterday, at 8.30pm or so.
    Someone I know who is a recovered cancer patient has now been offered the vaccine twice this week, once by her GP and once by her treating hospital. While this is good news for her, it does imply a degree of confusion if different providers are working from the same names.
  • Do you think it's possible that Andy has got his Chavezs mixed up?

    https://twitter.com/toryboypierce/status/1352224626810773507?s=20
  • RazedabodeRazedabode Posts: 2,973
    Hauliers gathering at Dublin Port's Terminal 11 this morning - en route to European Commission HQ and Dept of Taosieach - calling for easing of new Brexit requirements and warning of shortages to come.

    Interesting to see/ hear the view from the other side..
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,857
    Cyclefree said:

    kinabalu said:

    Cyclefree said:

    kinabalu said:

    Mr. kinabalu, been more preoccupied with other matters this morning, but there's a reason why men and women are separated in sport. It sounds like Biden's approach is nuts.

    Well if that's the view of what is surely the doughtiest fighter for women's rights on here, perhaps he is on the wrong track. Let me have another think about it.
    You should. It does not matter what anyone calls themselves or thinks of themselves as. Words do not change biological reality. If people who are biologically male compete with women, then they will have a physical advantage which no amount of skill or training by women can overcome.

    Women's sporting competitions will be no more.
    There are 2 extremes here - (i) no trans protections for women's sport or (ii) no trans in women's sport - and I support neither. The first is to disregard genuine concerns for the sake of dogma. The second is to disregard genuine concerns for the sake of dogma.
    It rather depends on what we mean by transwomen.

    A man who has transitioned is a woman and should participate in women's events. There may be an issue re whether they still have a physical advantage in sporting competitions because of their period as a man but that is one for the scientists.

    A man who thinks of himself as a woman but has not transitioned should not participate in women's' sporting events or other events where physical characteristics are relevant. There may need to be special rules for those who are in the process of transitioning.

    Words and self-identification do not change biological reality. People who have penises do not give birth or have a cervix or menstruate etc. It is fake news to suggest otherwise. And it is pathetic to do so just because we don't want to offend peoples' feelings. Telling the truth is more important. In this as in many other things.
    Yes, fair enough. It's about designing workable rules which protect women's sport but don't effectively blanket-ban transwomen from partaking. Thought you were maybe taking the ultra-trad "born with a penis, you're a man, end of" position. I see you're not. Re physical transitioning, if you insist on this it is not imo right to at the same time make it very very difficult to do so.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    kinabalu said:

    Sandpit said:

    Very long time lurker, compelled to post to point out that that you can back Biden as Democratic Nominee in 2024 at prices better than 3. Sure, he's old, but being head of state is very more-ish. Crazy to my mind that Kamla is shorter to be next president than Joe. I'm on.

    Other points:

    1. I am not Sean, but do intend to make drunken late night posts in the future.
    2. I never figured out what OGH stands for?

    Welcome to PB, and with a betting post too.

    1. I live four time zones ahead of most on here, posting drunk is almost obligatory (when it’s not Dry January)
    2. Our Genial Host = Mike Smithson, editor of this good site.
    Most of your posts are written when half cut, Sandpit, aren't they?
    Not today.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,094

    DavidL said:

    Crabbie said:

    eek said:

    Very long time lurker, compelled to post to point out that that you can back Biden as Democratic Nominee in 2024 at prices better than 3. Sure, he's old, but being head of state is very more-ish. Crazy to my mind that Kamla is shorter to be next president than Joe. I'm on.

    Other points:

    1. I am not Sean, but do intend to make drunken late night posts in the future.
    2. I never figured out what OGH stands for?

    Our Good / Gracious Host
    I thought it was our genial host?
    I thought it was gracious host but whatever.
    I thought it was our generous host?

    At least it isn’t our grizzled host.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    Even when restrictions lift domestically, there may continue to be rules on those entering from abroad. The view is that testing and tighter procedures at the border will be needed to protect the UK from the danger of any vaccine-resistant strain. One figure in government tells me that ‘the advantage the vaccine has given us is so huge that we have to protect that’. The government is particularly interested in how Australia has used tough border measures to keep Covid out. There is a feeling that Australia is a ‘parallel democracy’ and so the restrictions used there could be replicable here.

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/could-the-australian-approach-to-covid-work-in-britain

    Err, yes.

    Get everyone vaccinated, then stop unvaccinated people coming in, and eventually the damn thing will go away.
  • IanB2 said:

    DavidL said:

    Crabbie said:

    eek said:

    Very long time lurker, compelled to post to point out that that you can back Biden as Democratic Nominee in 2024 at prices better than 3. Sure, he's old, but being head of state is very more-ish. Crazy to my mind that Kamla is shorter to be next president than Joe. I'm on.

    Other points:

    1. I am not Sean, but do intend to make drunken late night posts in the future.
    2. I never figured out what OGH stands for?

    Our Good / Gracious Host
    I thought it was our genial host?
    I thought it was gracious host but whatever.
    I thought it was our generous host?

    At least it isn’t our grizzled host.
    I was going to suggest glabrous but that might be a lifetime ban.

    Shit, I've only gorn and done it!
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,725
    kinabalu said:

    Sandpit said:

    Very long time lurker, compelled to post to point out that that you can back Biden as Democratic Nominee in 2024 at prices better than 3. Sure, he's old, but being head of state is very more-ish. Crazy to my mind that Kamla is shorter to be next president than Joe. I'm on.

    Other points:

    1. I am not Sean, but do intend to make drunken late night posts in the future.
    2. I never figured out what OGH stands for?

    Welcome to PB, and with a betting post too.

    1. I live four time zones ahead of most on here, posting drunk is almost obligatory (when it’s not Dry January)
    2. Our Genial Host = Mike Smithson, editor of this good site.
    Most of your posts are written when half cut, Sandpit, aren't they?
    I never post on PB from the barbers.

    He could have my ear off
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 3,853

    Do you think it's possible that Andy has got his Chavezs mixed up?

    https://twitter.com/toryboypierce/status/1352224626810773507?s=20

    Didn't this Chavez want to build a wall to keep the Mexicans out?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,587

    Do you think it's possible that Andy has got his Chavezs mixed up?

    https://twitter.com/toryboypierce/status/1352224626810773507?s=20

    How is it even possible that he's a journalist ?
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 19,620
    MaxPB said:

    NHS workers are getting the second dose, my wife has had hers and my daughter is having hers next week. I know of numerous other GP Surgeries whose staff have had both injections.
    Very wise

    Yes, a lot of the 4-5k daily leftovers are going on second jabs for NHS staff aiui, one of my cousins was able to get his done last night along with other front line staff working, there were around 100 or so leftovers that needed to be used to chucked so they just lined up all of the staff and got through them after closing time.
    Cyclefree said:

    kinabalu said:

    Cyclefree said:

    kinabalu said:

    Mr. kinabalu, been more preoccupied with other matters this morning, but there's a reason why men and women are separated in sport. It sounds like Biden's approach is nuts.

    Well if that's the view of what is surely the doughtiest fighter for women's rights on here, perhaps he is on the wrong track. Let me have another think about it.
    You should. It does not matter what anyone calls themselves or thinks of themselves as. Words do not change biological reality. If people who are biologically male compete with women, then they will have a physical advantage which no amount of skill or training by women can overcome.

    Women's sporting competitions will be no more.
    There are 2 extremes here - (i) no trans protections for women's sport or (ii) no trans in women's sport - and I support neither. The first is to disregard genuine concerns for the sake of dogma. The second is to disregard genuine concerns for the sake of dogma.
    It rather depends on what we mean by transwomen.

    A man who has transitioned is a woman and should participate in women's events. There may be an issue re whether they still have a physical advantage in sporting competitions because of their period as a man but that is one for the scientists.

    A man who thinks of himself as a woman but has not transitioned should not participate in women's' sporting events or other events where physical characteristics are relevant. There may need to be special rules for those who are in the process of transitioning.

    Words and self-identification do not change biological reality. People who have penises do not give birth or have a cervix or menstruate etc. It is fake news to suggest otherwise. And it is pathetic to do so just because we don't want to offend peoples' feelings. Telling the truth is more important. In this as in many other things.
    The difficulty comes insofar as men who have transitioned still command a great advantage. See my post earlier about Martina Navratilova's documentary. Even after prolonged hormone treatment their testosterone levels are stratospheric compared to even the most testosterone -rich birth-women.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    So, criticism not allowed in the Unionist Weltanschauung, then.
    Nationalists' idea of Weltanschauung has a very warped and inglorious history.
    British ones, yes. Which is the problem here.
    UK government anchors new development and opens office with 3,000 jobs = problem
    AUOBALBA has a demonstration (presumably with flegs, crowds and shouting) in a pandemic = not a problem

    Motes & beams spring into view....
This discussion has been closed.