Categories
Best of three. What of a fresh Scottish independence referendum? – politicalbetting.com
Best of three. What of a fresh Scottish independence referendum? – politicalbetting.com
As Sting once sang, you can’t control an independent heart. Boris Johnson, however, seems set to try. In the face of opinion polls showing that the SNP are heading for an overall majority at Holyrood with a mandate for a fresh referendum on Scottish independence, he is giving every impression of a man who intends not to agree to one being held.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Ambassador Mike you spoil us.
Looking at their paper, the age results aren't shown as far as I can see, but they do tell you that ≈ 10% of the 2nd trance of UK trial were 70+. This cohort had 18 cases out of a N of 3744. But if the vaccine is all but useless for the over 70s then maybe most of those cases were of that older age group and the efficiency (which is give as 73% for this cohort) is much higher for the middle aged?
Or am I being stupid as it late at night?
Breathe, then think about this.
It quotes a specific efficacy estimate of 8% for people over 65.
No efficacy value exists in the published phase 3 trial report for older cohorts (moreover, even within that there is no "over 65" group. Participants are grouped into three age cohorts, 18-55, 56-69 and 70+)
There have been no other published trials of the vaccine.
There has been insufficient time to assess the efficacy of the vaccine in older people during the rollout, because it only began recently, most recipients won't have had time to build immunity based on the first shot let alone had the second, and it will take more time after that to discover how many recipients have subsequently fallen ill, and what degree of efficacy this value implies.
The 8% figure cannot, therefore, have any basis in evidence, and neither can any broader suggestion that low efficacy in older people has been proven. Either the report has been fabricated, the source was telling porkies, or the source grossly misinterpreted data with which he/she/they were presented. At a guess, the latter explanation seems the most likely.
- 0.4% of the population were vaccinated, as of 3 weeks ago.
- 100000 detected cases last week.
- So, on average, if the vaccinated were a representative sample and vaccination had no effect, a baseline of 400 patients would have tasted positive in the last week.
- AZN is a subsample of that (what order did the EU approve in again?))
- The over 65s are a subsample of that
- This isn't polling -and the sample won't be representative. The nature of the sample could raise (student nurses, city dwellers, high incidence areas), or lower (older people) the baseline expectation considerably.
- Adjusting the baseline right is key.
- If 350 student Krankenschwestern from. Berlin got infected, that's a great result for vaccination. If 200 old people got infected, not so.much.
Is there any data from the Ph3 trials on the number of cases in the 70+ cohort (vaccinated versus control group)?
PS I agree the German report seems to be rubbish.
From the UK Government paper on it:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/949772/UKPAR_COVID_19_Vaccine_AstraZeneca_05.01.2021.pdf
P33
“ There is limited information available on efficacy in participants aged 65 or over, although there is nothing to suggest lack of protection. In this subpopulation, there were only two COVID-19 cases in the primary analysis. When considering all cases from dose 1, there were 2 cases on AZD1222 compared to 8 on control (VE=76%), although this result was associated with a wide confidence interval.”
I wouldn’t be surprised if the 95% confidence interval ranged as far down as 8% for that. Someone who can do the stats off the top of their head can tell us.
Reckon that experts must be working at (dare I say) warp speed to answer this, urged on by politicos, pundits, investors, their grannies, etc., etc.
But just how long will - and should - it take to get to the bottom of this?
One minister tells me the plan is for Johnson to announce that he considers the UK’s existing constitutional architecture is not working. Whether these issues are to be remitted to a constitutional commission of some kind, perhaps similar to the one proposed by the Labour leader Keir Starmer in December, will soon be made clear. These discussions are described as “very live”. But the target audience is clear: the voters whom ministers describe as the majority of the electorate in all four parts of the UK who do not have a passion for breaking up Britain.
Until recently, the Johnson government’s policy towards all this was to just say no. But that is changing now. There is panic and realism in the new approach. The SNP is formidable but not unbeatable. Divisions between reformists and ultras – between Sturgeon and Alex Salmond and their respective backers – may change the mood. If Sturgeon or any successor is pushed into calling an illegal referendum, it would trigger a widespread boycott that could open the way for different politics.
It is an enormous risk, and time is running out fast.
Keep calm all.
Spreading your opening comment across several posts is poor show, in any case.
It takes about 2 weeks for vaccination to provide some immunity, then about another fortnight to three weeks to go from getting infected to hospitalisation. So if you're hospitalised within a month of being vaccinated then your vaccination probably came too late to help you. If you're hospitalised over a month after the vaccination then your vaccination didn't prevent it - which we should expect for some cases.
But in realpolitik if Boris and Starmer can come together on this even better
1) AstraZeneca's Phase 2 trials included 200 people over 70, and found their immune response to the vaccine was the same as in younger groups.
2) Phase III trials did include 444 people over 70, although they made up just 4% of the study participants.
@TheLancet
concluded: "from the interim analysis of these trials, we cannot yet infer efficacy in older adults”
3) There is another Phase III trial ongoing in the US, but that is not expected to publish results until April.
By then, the UK will likely have data from the real world application of the vaccine.
https://twitter.com/mattuthompson
I'm sure this whole renewed talk from Sturgeon has to do with the dispute over Salmond, and what she did / not do rightfully.
If the EU are upset - fine. They messed up procurement. But the anger from them today - and this weird story - is just stupid. Dangerous. Reckless.
Referenda are not reserved explicitly.
The matter will end, maybe after years, with the SCOTUK, which will surely rule in favour of Westminster having reserved powers to allow a binding referendum,
Sturgeon will then have the dilemma of calling a wildcat "advisory" vote (and risking a definite boycott and a Catalan outcome, where support for Catindy has now fallen), or biding her time, and waiting for a parliament more amenable in 2024.
Will this attitude from London provoke increased support for indy? Yes, quite possibly. But then, if London looks likely to lose a vote in 2022-2023, then it has nothing to lose and everything to gain by holding firm, and hoping for a change of mood.
https://www.joe.co.uk/news/astrazeneca-vaccine-efficacy-8-percent-262368
And we’ve got the rest of the generation beyond that.
The NHS rollout of the vaccine began 21 days ago. So one would imagine that, if it's anything like useless, evidence from illness in those already vaccinated should make this apparent within the next few weeks. We have to assume that instances of vaccinated individuals ending up in hospital are being looked out for very carefully.
Yes it may have no force, but so too did the 2016 referendum. In this country referenda don't typically have force by directly changing the law.
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1353818633093472257?s=19
For me, the fact a reckless article spreads so quickly is reason enough to support some form of regulation / law around misinformation and social media
The government has a majority of 80.
It can do what it likes.
Which is why it keeps abstaining on votes where it gets challenged to defend its policies and its authority.
Boris is Frit. And when it comes to politics, Boris is Shit. Whatever the issue you can pretty much guarantee that whatever he says his government will quickly do the opposite.
Some on here too quick to pretend everything from the other side of the Channel must be the fault of the EU.
One of the deutsche tweeter twats called the vaccine the AstraZenecaMurks, and it seems Murks means botch-up
So HandelsMurks for me
But the law and the politics of this are different. In my view the politics of refusing the Scottish people a referendum that a majority has voted for (if this happens) are horrendous and very possibly fatal to the Union.
Nope. Some of us weren't fooled by it.
(Since everyone ignored it on the last thread's discussion of data!
The EU Referendum wasn't "binding".
The question before SCOTUK will surely be whether they can lawfully hold a referendum - since under previous SCOTUK ruling all referenda are advisory, that element is moot.
If the SCOTUK rules in favour of the Scottish Parliament that they can legally hold a referendum then that is a game changer. It would be better not to go to Court than to lose that Court case because then the SCOTUK has essentially ruled it is a legal vote, not a wildcat one.
If the UK government agrees another legal referendum now not only is there a large risk of losing Scotland, though no certainty with 49% Yes including DKs on the latest poll but also they would be showing no willingness to stand up to the SNP who even if they lose indyref2 will demand indyref3 the next day exactly as many nationalists refused to accept the result of the 2014 referendum. The 2014 referendum must be respected as a once in a generation vote.
Even if a referendum was held by Sturgeon without UK government approval Boris could ignore it exactly as Rajoy ignored the unconstitutional 2017 Catalan referendum even though 92% of Catalan voters voted for independence on a 43% turnout, Unionists boycotting the poll.
That was the right decision by the Spanish PM to uphold the Spanish constitution and the supremacy of the Spanish government and 4 years later Catalonia remains part of Spain
I'm not so sure Boris will turn down the request flat but might just string out negotiations on a referendum in the hope the nationalist tide will start to ebb post-pandemic as the economy recovers and Brexit related disruption is ironed out.
I know Ian Blackford isn't exactly popular in Westminster but does the permanent outrage go down well in Scotland?
What does that achieve? Is the union worth more to you than the fact people don't want it? Isn't it better for the union to survive because people want it to survive?
https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1353809414571089920?s=19
In fact I think the lower end for that hypothetical calculation is about -25% effective (yes, negative effectiveness) which goes to show that a sample of 10 cases is really very few! (Just done on the back of an envelope, don't take it seriously.)
--AS
It is all very specifically about Acts. what if the Parliament makes a resolution to have a referendum, rather than passing an Act saying there is to be one?
The main movement from 2019 to now remains LD to Starmer Labour with the Tories only down 1% on what they got at the last GE.
This will take a few years, and take the subject off the boil. It is, also, by the by, surely the sensible thing to do. If there is one thing everyone has learned from Brexit, it is that a wildly important referendum with a simple Yes/No on a hugely complex subject is not always wise, and if it is done, it needs to be done with the public as informed as possible as to what will happen after.
I voted Leave. I am still, just about, persuaded that I made the right choice, but it is exceptionally marginal. If I had properly thought about the Irish border problem I might have changed my mind, it just never occurred to me (as it barely occurred to others, to be fair).
Scots and Brits need to be better educated next time. And there should be a next time, Scots deserve another vote once they see how Brexit has worked, or not. Late 2020s is when I expect it to happen, and when it should happen.
Despite some breathless reporting in the press, all my D2C customers in the EU are merrily paying the TVA on arrival, just as they would books from the US/Canada.
Nats desperately want Indyref 2 now, I think because they lack confidence in the accuracy of their dire predictions, and they calculate that there will never be an angrier time than now, or a better opponent than Boris. I am less certain of why you want it now so desperately, you who believes that Brexit is going to be a success. I think five or six years is plenty of time to gage that. Within the context of a 300 year Union, it doesn't seem much? Your haste seems not to be about giving the Scottish people choice, but booting them out the door as quickly as possible. Why? Do you just plain not like them?