The Tories biggest challenge at the next general election: Starmer isn’t Corbyn – politicalbetting.c
Options
Comments
-
I was slightly surprised that they went as early as they did on 'schools not back before the 8th March' - if they hadn't done I would have thought that given where we are likely to be in a weeks time we could have considered primary schools going back straight after half term (so going back on the 22nd Feb).RobD said:
The plan has never been for schools to reopen this early, has it?contrarian said:
For us, yes.Sandpit said:
Err, what? Cases can’t possibly fall too fast. None at all would be best, starting tomorrow.contrarian said:
In some respects those cases are falling too fast for Johnson's government.NerysHughes said:12,364 cases, the big downward trend continues
But look at the Johnson government. Look at what it does, not what it says. It doesn;t want to move, really. IF it did, those kids would be in school. They aren't. They can be left to rot. Even though there's a stack of good news around.0 -
Vaxometer
Target 15,000,000
Thru 12,646,486
Required 2,353,514
Days to target 6
Yesterday’s return 352,480
Required rate 392,252 (↑ from 386,571 yesterday)
KEEP ON TARGET... STAY ON TARGET...0 -
Can't we just slip the teller at the BoE a brown envelope and ask them to lop a few zeros off the national debt?Sandpit said:
You think the government are enjoying a pandemic, really?contrarian said:
For us, yes.Sandpit said:
Err, what? Cases can’t possibly fall too fast. None at all would be best, starting tomorrow.contrarian said:
In some respects those cases are falling too fast for Johnson's government.NerysHughes said:12,364 cases, the big downward trend continues
But look at the Johnson government. Look at what it does, not what it says. It doesn;t want to move, really. IF it did, those kids would be in school. They aren't. They can be left to rot. Even though there's a stack of good news around.
They’ve put an awful lot of effort into the vaccine response, for people who like pandemics.
They’re also borrowing tens of billions a month to prop up the economy, money which will have at some point to be paid back with interest.1 -
Not a huge loss tbh, it forces wages up and stops undercutting of the UK workforce.Malmesbury said:
I foresaw this. It's not about asylum seekers - there are not very many of those....RobD said:
People are suggesting asylum seekers should be exempt from quarantine? Perhaps they don't pay, but they should still have to do it.Pulpstar said:Hancock seems to have got pelters from the left over having the temerity to suggest asylum seekers from red zone countries should be quarantineds then sent back and flak from the right over liking lockdown too much.
Personally I think he's doing a good job now.
Quarantine on entry will require
- Control over entry. No more waving people through etc.
- Stopping illegal immigration via all the interesting routes.
- Impose massive costs on entry
So illegal immigration and low skill/wage immigration will be shutdown completely, if the policy enforced.0 -
Genuine question - do you have a link to what he said? All I can find is a Mail article and the quote in there is open to different interpretations - talks about control-release cycles, which could equally refer to the virus spread (i.e. controlled by vaccinations, gets released a bit with vaccine-evading mutations, gets controlled with new vaccine). The article, which is all about your premise of continued restrictions for years doesn't manage to find anyone else who even might be saying that.contrarian said:
I am merely going on what Sir Ian Boyd said today. He's a member of SAGE, last time I looked. Are you saying I should ignore him?Philip_Thompson said:
You're paranoid delusional.contrarian said:NerysHughes said:12,364 cases, the big downward trend continues
In some respects those cases are falling too fast for Johnson's government.
The idea that there is a nefarious cabal of evil scientists cackling at how they can keep you locked up at home; evil scientists determined to punish ordinary Brits by making them be paid to be at home watching Netflix instead of going to work; evil SAGE ...
SAGE really aren't SPECTRE.
Edit: quote is "My suspicion is that we will experience a damped oscillation of control-release for a long time to come — perhaps several years." from https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9239863/Britain-trapped-lockdown-cycles-YEARS-SAGE-scientist-warns.html0 -
Very little blue on this list now. Phew....Malmesbury said:UK Local R
1 -
Indeed.Philip_Thompson said:
I've said for a while I'll be happy once positivity is back under 1%. We are fast approaching that. Looks like it's fallen under 2% today which is a dramatic turnaround from what it was recently.CarlottaVance said:Trends continue:
That testing numbers are holding up while the positives are collapsing is really good news.
@DougSeal posted something yesterday saying that Covid numbers are falling globally –– is this true??0 -
Starmer can't be PM as long as he is keeping Dodds as Shadow C of E.0
-
MarqueeMark said:
Tuesday has always been effectively 3 days of deaths with the lack of them aggregated over the weekend. 7 day average still down 25%. That is the number to focus on.FrancisUrquhart said:
Still sobering that another 1000+ deaths.NerysHughes said:12,364 cases, the big downward trend continues
Yes, absolutely right.
Focusing on absolute numbers rather than trends is the road to insanity – sadly much of the media do it, most of the time.2 -
From the graphic posted yesterday, they have been for the past four weeks.Anabobazina said:
Indeed.Philip_Thompson said:
I've said for a while I'll be happy once positivity is back under 1%. We are fast approaching that. Looks like it's fallen under 2% today which is a dramatic turnaround from what it was recently.CarlottaVance said:Trends continue:
That testing numbers are holding up while the positives are collapsing is really good news.
@DougSeal posted something yesterday saying that Covid numbers are falling globally –– is this true??2 -
It’s not impossible to think that there might well be some sort of international effort to “re-organise” pandemic debts at some point, but it would need everyone to do it to avoid currencies becoming trash. Maybe we end up with something like the war bonds of the 1940s, and policies that encourage a little bit of inflation.RobD said:
Can't we just slip the teller at the BoE a brown envelope and ask them to lop a few zeros off the national debt?Sandpit said:
You think the government are enjoying a pandemic, really?contrarian said:
For us, yes.Sandpit said:
Err, what? Cases can’t possibly fall too fast. None at all would be best, starting tomorrow.contrarian said:
In some respects those cases are falling too fast for Johnson's government.NerysHughes said:12,364 cases, the big downward trend continues
But look at the Johnson government. Look at what it does, not what it says. It doesn;t want to move, really. IF it did, those kids would be in school. They aren't. They can be left to rot. Even though there's a stack of good news around.
They’ve put an awful lot of effort into the vaccine response, for people who like pandemics.
They’re also borrowing tens of billions a month to prop up the economy, money which will have at some point to be paid back with interest.
The numbers as they are, are utterly horrific, with tax revenues on the floor and exceptional support keeping people from being officially unemployed.0 -
I would say Johnson's unfitness for office is visible from outer space, but not necessarily to the bulk of the electorate, as evidenced by opinion polls that show the Conservatives still ahead. So Starmer has work to do, to convince said electorate of the moral case for his government, leaving aside actual policy positions.Mexicanpete said:
The answer to your conundrum according to our Tory friends is to wrap himself in the Union Flag. I would prefer a promotion of UK plc by Starmer instead.FF43 said:
Not sure Starmer needs to lay out the shape of his programme. But I think he needs to make the moral case for a Labour government, as opposed to the Conservative one, better than he is doing.Mexicanpete said:
The question mark over Starmer is not dissimilar to the question marks over lightweight Bambi prior to 1997.FF43 said:Despite question marks over Starmer, I think he has set expectations for a potential Labour government at a completely different level from Corbyn. Now it is being tested as a serious alternative government.
I don't think Starmer needs to flesh out the bones of his programme for Government yet, as demanded by Tories. However the time to at least see some bones rather than just fresh air is already here.0 -
They have a 6pm curfew in France. I assume you'd be happy with that? You wouldn't complain at all, right?contrarian said:
It is not an either or. The evidence shows this.Mexicanpete said:
On 110, 000 and counting fatalities, Johnson is right to be cautious.contrarian said:
Best we leave our children uneducated and rotting then.......???......FFS.....FrancisUrquhart said:
The big unknown is how much we can release the restrictions without R going over 1. Just schools going back could well do it.MaxPB said:
Lockdown works to get cases down. This is not a surprise, hopefully this time with the vaccination programme we won't see them go back up like last time.NerysHughes said:12,364 cases, the big downward trend continues
French children are in school. They do not have the vaccine like we do. They rejected a full lockdown. Their cases are still dropping. Cases are also dropping in US juristictions that do not have lockdowns or in some cases even mask mandates.
What you and Urquhart are presenting is a false choice and a false cause and effect model.3 -
I hadn't seen the graphic, but that is really interesting.MarqueeMark said:
From the graphic posted yesterday, they have been for the past four weeks.Anabobazina said:
Indeed.Philip_Thompson said:
I've said for a while I'll be happy once positivity is back under 1%. We are fast approaching that. Looks like it's fallen under 2% today which is a dramatic turnaround from what it was recently.CarlottaVance said:Trends continue:
That testing numbers are holding up while the positives are collapsing is really good news.
@DougSeal posted something yesterday saying that Covid numbers are falling globally –– is this true??
Anyone want a stab at an explanation? I'm damned if I know!0 -
The Tories went through seven before they made it back to power. Dodds is the sixth for Labour since the 2010 GE:Monkeys said:Starmer can't be PM as long as he is keeping Dodds as Shadow C of E.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_Chancellor_of_the_Exchequer
It's arguably as important to get that post right as it is the leader.0 -
Haven't been keeping up daily, sorry, but IIRC there was a time when the ENglish figure was about 25 percentage points lower - quite a lot. The Scottish figure has been in the present ballpark for some days/weeks now.RobD said:
So after accounting for the uncertainties on the various figures it's likely the English and Scottish ones are actually quite similar? If they got there in roughly the same time it doesn't say much for the effort to focus on them in Scotland, does it?Carnyx said:
What is so odd is finding people getting so excited about that 36K figure when it is clearly stated to be an estimate, and then complaining that the resulting figure is accurate to 3sf when really it's 1sf at best (deduct one accurate figure from one estimate a little larger, and ...).CarlottaVance said:
So, out of 36,000 Care Home residents in Scotland, only 144 have i) not given consent or ii) were not suitable because of current infection?Alistair said:
Absolutely loving the "Scottish government lying about how many Care Home Residents it has vaccinated" thought line at the moment.RobD said:
Not sure why the snark is necessary. It's only Scotland using the stockpile that has been accumulated.Alistair said:Very disappointing to see England's week-on-week decline in vaccination numbers. I think England will need to call in some Scottish experts to help get their vaccination programme back on track.
It's not as if the care homes are all part of the NHS with regular real time central reporting. Indeed, one wonders how accurate the English figure is for that matter.0 -
VacciNation Table (Doses per 100 adults)
England: 25.4 (+0.6)
Wales: 25.1 (+1.0)
N. Ireland: 23.8 (+1.0)
Scotland: 21.2 (+1.4)1 -
VacciNation Table (Doses per 100 adults)
England: 25.4 (+0.6)
Wales: 25.1 (+1.0)
N. Ireland: 23.8 (+1.0)
Scotland: 21.2 (+1.4)0 -
People not meeting each other as much in January as they did in December.Anabobazina said:
I hadn't seen the graphic, but that is really interesting.MarqueeMark said:
From the graphic posted yesterday, they have been for the past four weeks.Anabobazina said:
Indeed.Philip_Thompson said:
I've said for a while I'll be happy once positivity is back under 1%. We are fast approaching that. Looks like it's fallen under 2% today which is a dramatic turnaround from what it was recently.CarlottaVance said:Trends continue:
That testing numbers are holding up while the positives are collapsing is really good news.
@DougSeal posted something yesterday saying that Covid numbers are falling globally –– is this true??
Anyone want a stab at an explanation? I'm damned if I know!
A combination of voluntary and involuntary actions by people and governments.
These things have natural waves, it’s been seen in previous pandemics.1 -
If the economic fallout from Covid only lasts until the next election then we're going to have been very lucky indeed.Brom said:
Absolutely correct. The choice between Sunak and Dodds is stark and the economic fallout from the pandemic could well last until the next election.Monkeys said:Starmer can't be PM as long as he is keeping Dodds as Shadow C of E.
0 -
It's actually going to be quite tight for the UK to hit its target. I'd blame the snow in England but you've had metric tonnes of the stuff up there!Alistair said:Very disappointing to see England's week-on-week decline in vaccination numbers. I think England will need to call in some Scottish experts to help get their vaccination programme back on track.
I do think we'll hit it though. Should probably squeak it by about 200-400k margin.0 -
There's a Friday effect with cases too - see the spikes on the 8th, 15th, 22nd January. It's probably not noticed in the noise as we're dropping now but it's likely still there.Anabobazina said:MarqueeMark said:
Tuesday has always been effectively 3 days of deaths with the lack of them aggregated over the weekend. 7 day average still down 25%. That is the number to focus on.FrancisUrquhart said:
Still sobering that another 1000+ deaths.NerysHughes said:12,364 cases, the big downward trend continues
Yes, absolutely right.
Focusing on absolute numbers rather than trends is the road to insanity – sadly much of the media do it, most of the time.1 -
Got a link?Alistair said:
There aren't 36,000 older care home resident in long term care in Scotland.CarlottaVance said:
So, out of 36,000 Care Home residents in Scotland, only 144 have i) not given consent or ii) were not suitable because of current infection?Alistair said:
Absolutely loving the "Scottish government lying about how many Care Home Residents it has vaccinated" thought line at the moment.RobD said:
Not sure why the snark is necessary. It's only Scotland using the stockpile that has been accumulated.Alistair said:Very disappointing to see England's week-on-week decline in vaccination numbers. I think England will need to call in some Scottish experts to help get their vaccination programme back on track.
As at 8:30am on Tuesday 9 February:
29,908 care home residents (99.7% of residents in older adult care homes and 93% of residents in all care homes)
Do you think they are lying about vaccinating 29,908 care home residents?
This says:
On 31 March 2017, there were 35,989 adults in care homes
https://www.isdscotland.org/Health-Topics/Health-and-Social-Community-Care/Publications/2018-09-11/2018-09-11-CHCensus-Summary.pdf
Perhaps you have more up to date figures?
0.3% refusal does seem very low.....
1 -
-
Indeed. Not to mention that as of yesterday all French children over the age of 6 have to wear Category I masks in school, which I'm sure would delight contrarian no end:Gallowgate said:
They have a 6pm curfew in France. I assume you'd be happy with that? You wouldn't complain at all, right?contrarian said:
It is not an either or. The evidence shows this.Mexicanpete said:
On 110, 000 and counting fatalities, Johnson is right to be cautious.contrarian said:
Best we leave our children uneducated and rotting then.......???......FFS.....FrancisUrquhart said:
The big unknown is how much we can release the restrictions without R going over 1. Just schools going back could well do it.MaxPB said:
Lockdown works to get cases down. This is not a surprise, hopefully this time with the vaccination programme we won't see them go back up like last time.NerysHughes said:12,364 cases, the big downward trend continues
French children are in school. They do not have the vaccine like we do. They rejected a full lockdown. Their cases are still dropping. Cases are also dropping in US juristictions that do not have lockdowns or in some cases even mask mandates.
What you and Urquhart are presenting is a false choice and a false cause and effect model.
https://www.connexionfrance.com/French-news/Covid-19-France-tightens-rules-on-facemasks-in-schools1 -
Lets hope Scotland keeps up this performance:
https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1359180957111234565?s=200 -
The economic shocks of the last recession were still being felt as the current one started, and that was 13 years ago.Foss said:
If the economic fallout from Covid only lasts until the next election then we're going to have been very lucky indeed.Brom said:
Absolutely correct. The choice between Sunak and Dodds is stark and the economic fallout from the pandemic could well last until the next election.Monkeys said:Starmer can't be PM as long as he is keeping Dodds as Shadow C of E.
1 -
Scottish surge klaxon!bigjohnowls said:VacciNation Table (Doses per 100 adults)
England: 25.4 (+0.6)
Wales: 25.1 (+1.0)
N. Ireland: 23.8 (+1.0)
Scotland: 21.2 (+1.4)0 -
Would agree with the 41 40, problem for Starmer is in my lifetime only Corbyn in 2017 has outperformed the opinion polls so chances are Labour will need to be regularly hitting 42-45% prior to the next election to be confident of even a coalition government. A lot can change before 2024 but I can't agree it's a 50% chance Starmer becomes PM given boundary and demographic changes, that seems way too high when faced with an 80 seat majority.Stuartinromford said:
It's simple really.Northern_Al said:I reckon 20% on Starmer being next PM is very generous. I'd put it at around 50%, with the proviso that Covid is over as a health issue, though not an economic one.
Corbyn has gone. Brexit is done - the outcome will still be an issue, but not Brexit itself. The far, far left are either leaving Labour or being marginalised. Because of Covid, neither Starmer nor his team have had a decent hearing yet on anything other than the crisis. Starmer is no fool: policy development is well under way. The Tories' support is flattered by the pandemic and boosted by vaccination; it's not that deep, and once the health crisis is over the nation will be less inclined to give the government the benefit of the doubt. Tories have been in power a long time. And if the Shadow Cabinet has weaknesses, these are no greater, and I would suggest less, than those in the actual Cabinet. Oh, and people like JRM wittering on about 'happy fish' will lose the Tories votes. Oh, and Boris's appeal will wear a bit thin by 2024.
I'm almost persuading myself that Starmer has a better than evens chance of next PM.
The public are responding very rationally to events that affect them. Good on the public.
When the government does something good (lockdown 1, furlough, vaccines) their rating goes up.
When the government makes a bish of things (not sacking Dom, exam results, Christmas) their rating goes down.
If the lead is 43-38, the Conservatives stay in power. If it's 41-40, they don't, because all the other parties hate them.
So the question is this;
Will the government do more good things or bad things in the next three years?
Now look at the cabinet, and ask yourself again.
Will the government do more good things or bad things in the next three years?0 -
DougSeal said:
Crikey. But why??0 -
Correct. Dodds would then be Chancellor, rather than Shadow Chancellor.Monkeys said:Starmer can't be PM as long as he is keeping Dodds as Shadow C of E.
(Sorry)5 -
Yet, every Tuesday/Wednesday......Anabobazina said:MarqueeMark said:
Tuesday has always been effectively 3 days of deaths with the lack of them aggregated over the weekend. 7 day average still down 25%. That is the number to focus on.FrancisUrquhart said:
Still sobering that another 1000+ deaths.NerysHughes said:12,364 cases, the big downward trend continues
Yes, absolutely right.
Focusing on absolute numbers rather than trends is the road to insanity – sadly much of the media do it, most of the time.1 -
Would be interesting to see those reports since I think the first time the numbers were published for England was last week. As for the Scottish figures, they too only reached that figure a week ago. So not much in it, and a very large difference in the fraction vaccinated overall.Carnyx said:
Haven't been keeping up daily, sorry, but IIRC there was a time when the ENglish figure was about 25 percentage points lower - quite a lot. The Scottish figure has been in the present ballpark for some days/weeks now.RobD said:
So after accounting for the uncertainties on the various figures it's likely the English and Scottish ones are actually quite similar? If they got there in roughly the same time it doesn't say much for the effort to focus on them in Scotland, does it?Carnyx said:
What is so odd is finding people getting so excited about that 36K figure when it is clearly stated to be an estimate, and then complaining that the resulting figure is accurate to 3sf when really it's 1sf at best (deduct one accurate figure from one estimate a little larger, and ...).CarlottaVance said:
So, out of 36,000 Care Home residents in Scotland, only 144 have i) not given consent or ii) were not suitable because of current infection?Alistair said:
Absolutely loving the "Scottish government lying about how many Care Home Residents it has vaccinated" thought line at the moment.RobD said:
Not sure why the snark is necessary. It's only Scotland using the stockpile that has been accumulated.Alistair said:Very disappointing to see England's week-on-week decline in vaccination numbers. I think England will need to call in some Scottish experts to help get their vaccination programme back on track.
It's not as if the care homes are all part of the NHS with regular real time central reporting. Indeed, one wonders how accurate the English figure is for that matter.0 -
0
-
That number really is suspicious. 29908/0.997 = 29,998. Almost exactly the 30,000 population estimate given in the document on the Scottish government website.Alistair said:
There aren't 36,000 older care home resident in long term care in Scotland.CarlottaVance said:
So, out of 36,000 Care Home residents in Scotland, only 144 have i) not given consent or ii) were not suitable because of current infection?Alistair said:
Absolutely loving the "Scottish government lying about how many Care Home Residents it has vaccinated" thought line at the moment.RobD said:
Not sure why the snark is necessary. It's only Scotland using the stockpile that has been accumulated.Alistair said:Very disappointing to see England's week-on-week decline in vaccination numbers. I think England will need to call in some Scottish experts to help get their vaccination programme back on track.
As at 8:30am on Tuesday 9 February:
29,908 care home residents (99.7% of residents in older adult care homes and 93% of residents in all care homes)
Do you think they are lying about vaccinating 29,908 care home residents?
https://www.gov.scot/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-vaccinations-data---technical-note/
0 -
CarlottaVance said:
Lets hope Scotland keeps up this performance:
https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1359180957111234565?s=20
If we added France and Italy we'd have a Six Nations tournament.0 -
It's not entirely about lockdown, or herd immunity, or vaccination - those all affect the rate but pandemics throughout history have had a life and rhythm of their own...Anabobazina said:0 -
Apol’s for quoting Marina Hyde yet again, but she does make me laugh...
‘We do get the occasional glimpse of the prime minister, who was wheeled out this week for a visit to Derby, where we were given yet another opportunity to see Boris Johnson dressed up in a white coat. I think he’s supposed to appear medical and scientific, but only ever succeeds in looking like he’s got a lovely bit of pork cheek he can do you for £3.50.’
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/feb/09/covid-travel-rules-borders-boris-johnson-quarantine7 -
I have little doubt that 29,908 residents have been vaccinated.CarlottaVance said:
Got a link?Alistair said:
There aren't 36,000 older care home resident in long term care in Scotland.CarlottaVance said:
So, out of 36,000 Care Home residents in Scotland, only 144 have i) not given consent or ii) were not suitable because of current infection?Alistair said:
Absolutely loving the "Scottish government lying about how many Care Home Residents it has vaccinated" thought line at the moment.RobD said:
Not sure why the snark is necessary. It's only Scotland using the stockpile that has been accumulated.Alistair said:Very disappointing to see England's week-on-week decline in vaccination numbers. I think England will need to call in some Scottish experts to help get their vaccination programme back on track.
As at 8:30am on Tuesday 9 February:
29,908 care home residents (99.7% of residents in older adult care homes and 93% of residents in all care homes)
Do you think they are lying about vaccinating 29,908 care home residents?
This says:
On 31 March 2017, there were 35,989 adults in care homes
https://www.isdscotland.org/Health-Topics/Health-and-Social-Community-Care/Publications/2018-09-11/2018-09-11-CHCensus-Summary.pdf
Perhaps you have more up to date figures?
0.3% refusal does seem very low.....
I do not believe for one second that only 0.3% of residents have refused consent/been medically unable to be vaccinated etc
There doesn't seem to be any evidence for 30,000 residents in care which makes it a case of GIGO statistics.
29,908/35,989 = 83.1%
Alternatively go in the middle and have 33k residents and it would be just under 91%. Much more plausible.0 -
Eugenie's had a sprog. Maybe it can be sent up to Scotland to sure up the union.0
-
That nice Mr Drakeford about to take the lead from Johnson?Anabobazina said:
Scottish surge klaxon!bigjohnowls said:VacciNation Table (Doses per 100 adults)
England: 25.4 (+0.6)
Wales: 25.1 (+1.0)
N. Ireland: 23.8 (+1.0)
Scotland: 21.2 (+1.4)
0 -
-
As with the Six Nations, I suppose that it's one way of making sure that Scotland doesn't end up with the wooden spoon...Anabobazina said:CarlottaVance said:Lets hope Scotland keeps up this performance:
https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1359180957111234565?s=20
If we added France and Italy we'd have a Six Nations tournament.2 -
0.3% refusal wasn't my biggest worry. A lot of residents (way more than 1 in 300) will have illnesses (such as pneumonia) which should exclude them from getting vaccinated.CarlottaVance said:
Got a link?Alistair said:
There aren't 36,000 older care home resident in long term care in Scotland.CarlottaVance said:
So, out of 36,000 Care Home residents in Scotland, only 144 have i) not given consent or ii) were not suitable because of current infection?Alistair said:
Absolutely loving the "Scottish government lying about how many Care Home Residents it has vaccinated" thought line at the moment.RobD said:
Not sure why the snark is necessary. It's only Scotland using the stockpile that has been accumulated.Alistair said:Very disappointing to see England's week-on-week decline in vaccination numbers. I think England will need to call in some Scottish experts to help get their vaccination programme back on track.
As at 8:30am on Tuesday 9 February:
29,908 care home residents (99.7% of residents in older adult care homes and 93% of residents in all care homes)
Do you think they are lying about vaccinating 29,908 care home residents?
This says:
On 31 March 2017, there were 35,989 adults in care homes
https://www.isdscotland.org/Health-Topics/Health-and-Social-Community-Care/Publications/2018-09-11/2018-09-11-CHCensus-Summary.pdf
Perhaps you have more up to date figures?
0.3% refusal does seem very low.....
So what happened to them?1 -
They're excluded from the 30,000 it seems.eek said:
0.3% refusal wasn't my biggest worry. A lot of residents (way more than 1 in 300) will have illnesses (such as pneumonia) which should exclude them from getting vaccinated.CarlottaVance said:
Got a link?Alistair said:
There aren't 36,000 older care home resident in long term care in Scotland.CarlottaVance said:
So, out of 36,000 Care Home residents in Scotland, only 144 have i) not given consent or ii) were not suitable because of current infection?Alistair said:
Absolutely loving the "Scottish government lying about how many Care Home Residents it has vaccinated" thought line at the moment.RobD said:
Not sure why the snark is necessary. It's only Scotland using the stockpile that has been accumulated.Alistair said:Very disappointing to see England's week-on-week decline in vaccination numbers. I think England will need to call in some Scottish experts to help get their vaccination programme back on track.
As at 8:30am on Tuesday 9 February:
29,908 care home residents (99.7% of residents in older adult care homes and 93% of residents in all care homes)
Do you think they are lying about vaccinating 29,908 care home residents?
This says:
On 31 March 2017, there were 35,989 adults in care homes
https://www.isdscotland.org/Health-Topics/Health-and-Social-Community-Care/Publications/2018-09-11/2018-09-11-CHCensus-Summary.pdf
Perhaps you have more up to date figures?
0.3% refusal does seem very low.....
So what happened to them?
It's patently bullshit. There isn't a slightest chance on earth that fewer than 0.3% are medically excluded from being vaccinated yet, let alone counting refusals.0 -
Typical modern lefty hack, who thinks that snark and sarcasm is a valid substitute for argument and persuasiveness.northern_monkey said:Apol’s for quoting Marina Hyde yet again, but she does make me laugh...
‘We do get the occasional glimpse of the prime minister, who was wheeled out this week for a visit to Derby, where we were given yet another opportunity to see Boris Johnson dressed up in a white coat. I think he’s supposed to appear medical and scientific, but only ever succeeds in looking like he’s got a lovely bit of pork cheek he can do you for £3.50.’
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/feb/09/covid-travel-rules-borders-boris-johnson-quarantine
Gets loads of likes on Twitter, but does nothing to actually advance the debate.2 -
Down to 8th.
Wonder how long it will be before PB Tories decide its a marathon not a sprint
https://ig.ft.com/coronavirus-vaccine-tracker/?areas=gbr&areas=isr&areas=usa&areas=eue&cumulative=1&populationAdjusted=10 -
It seems like the EU have already adjusted to the presence of another 3rd Country. Just wait until Easter when the 3rd Country has to stop playing and start charging tariffs.Anabobazina said:0 -
No idea. These things come in waves but this is, effectively, the first sustained fall since the start of the pandemic - and it is very sustained. There was a noticeable downward blip after Christmas, delayed reporting no doubt, and possibily one earlier in late November that could have also been as a result of delayed reporting because of US Thanksgiving. but nothing like this. Mortality, the one on the right, if the one to watch though as that is a much better, if lagging, indicator.Anabobazina said:
For me the cases drop is striking because of how long it has been going on for. Five weeks or thereabouts. I can hypothesise (behavioural changes in January, bad reporting, some form of herd immunity, mutation into something less noticeable/lethal, all of the above) but I cannot give a reason. Neither can the WHO TBF. As a layman grasping at straws, though, my amateur opinion derives from one aspect of immunity that doesn't much get mentioned, outlined in a Public Health England paper from last Sept (not peer reviewed and, lates face it, as a mere employment lawyer, I am no peer) that concluded -
"About 1/4 of the key worker population studied had high levels of T-cells which recognised SARS-CoV-2 in their blood [...] However, about half the people with high levels of T cells in their blood have not had COVID-19, as far as we could tell - the cells were probably there because of previous infection with coronaviruses other than SARS-CoV-2.’"
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/936461/EDSAB-HOME_study-details-research-protocol-outputs_18-11-20.pdf
The BMH mentions it in this paper -
https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3563
IF that is right, and again I am just a f**king solicitor so what the hell do I know, then the level of herd immunity required is lower than many have posited.
0 -
You're really quite stupid aren't you.bigjohnowls said:Down to 8th.
Wonder how long it will be before PB Tories decide its a marathon not a sprint
https://ig.ft.com/coronavirus-vaccine-tracker/?areas=gbr&areas=isr&areas=usa&areas=eue&cumulative=1&populationAdjusted=12 -
-
Up to 5th but its "due to demographics" nothing to do with breweries
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/0 -
Welsh equivalent target seems very reachable.Anabobazina said:
It's actually going to be quite tight for the UK to hit its target. I'd blame the snow in England but you've had metric tonnes of the stuff up there!Alistair said:Very disappointing to see England's week-on-week decline in vaccination numbers. I think England will need to call in some Scottish experts to help get their vaccination programme back on track.
I do think we'll hit it though. Should probably squeak it by about 200-400k margin.0 -
If we had a population of five as all of the countries and territories on that list above us have then yes.bigjohnowls said:Down to 8th.
Wonder how long it will be before PB Tories decide its a marathon not a sprint
https://ig.ft.com/coronavirus-vaccine-tracker/?areas=gbr&areas=isr&areas=usa&areas=eue&cumulative=1&populationAdjusted=10 -
Then you discover the pilot has drunk all the gin and there was some mistake because he doesn't know how to fly the plane and doesn't even know where it's going.CarlottaVance said:
1 -
I reckon I could vaccinate Palau in a week on my own.bigjohnowls said:Down to 8th.
Wonder how long it will be before PB Tories decide its a marathon not a sprint
https://ig.ft.com/coronavirus-vaccine-tracker/?areas=gbr&areas=isr&areas=usa&areas=eue&cumulative=1&populationAdjusted=11 -
It sounds like you are pricing Starmers chance of being PM after the next GE, or even his chance of being PM after the next GE vs B Johnson. This is a huge error as the market is next PM.Northern_Al said:I reckon 20% on Starmer being next PM is very generous. I'd put it at around 50%, with the proviso that Covid is over as a health issue, though not an economic one.
Corbyn has gone. Brexit is done - the outcome will still be an issue, but not Brexit itself. The far, far left are either leaving Labour or being marginalised. Because of Covid, neither Starmer nor his team have had a decent hearing yet on anything other than the crisis. Starmer is no fool: policy development is well under way. The Tories' support is flattered by the pandemic and boosted by vaccination; it's not that deep, and once the health crisis is over the nation will be less inclined to give the government the benefit of the doubt. Tories have been in power a long time. And if the Shadow Cabinet has weaknesses, these are no greater, and I would suggest less, than those in the actual Cabinet. Oh, and people like JRM wittering on about 'happy fish' will lose the Tories votes. Oh, and Boris's appeal will wear a bit thin by 2024.
I'm almost persuading myself that Starmer has a better than evens chance of next PM.
If Starmer does spectacularly well, Johnson will likely be replaced by another Tory, well before the election and the bet loses.
If Starmer does moderately well, he will struggle with FPTP.
To win the bet you have either Starmer hits the sweet spot where Johnson can hang on and Starmer can just deny the Tories a majority, or that he does really well only in the campaign itself, once it is too late for the Tories to switch leaders.
20% is about right, if anything a lay for the above reasons.1 -
Straws. Grasped.bigjohnowls said:Down to 8th.
Wonder how long it will be before PB Tories decide its a marathon not a sprint
https://ig.ft.com/coronavirus-vaccine-tracker/?areas=gbr&areas=isr&areas=usa&areas=eue&cumulative=1&populationAdjusted=12 -
Yes, the Betfair Next PM market is really quite simple - it’s the name of the next person to ‘kiss the Queen’s hand’, irrespective of the circumstances.Charles said:
Not if Boris quits before the electionFF43 said:Not clear about the rules for Next PM after Johnson. Would that include a Starmer-led Labour Party winning the next GE? If so odds should be much better than 20%.
Quite different from their Next US President market, which is specifically about the winner of the election, has the incumbent as a runner, and excludes the many ways in which he might leave office early.0 -
Is it really bullshit? When I was a manager I was trained to set targets that were SMART - of which the last three are 'achievable, relevant and targeted'. There is no point in including people who aren't vaccinable as a target in the current programme. The correct thing to do is to note them for another time - but right now they cannot be jabbed and don't count.Philip_Thompson said:
They're excluded from the 30,000 it seems.eek said:
0.3% refusal wasn't my biggest worry. A lot of residents (way more than 1 in 300) will have illnesses (such as pneumonia) which should exclude them from getting vaccinated.CarlottaVance said:
Got a link?Alistair said:
There aren't 36,000 older care home resident in long term care in Scotland.CarlottaVance said:
So, out of 36,000 Care Home residents in Scotland, only 144 have i) not given consent or ii) were not suitable because of current infection?Alistair said:
Absolutely loving the "Scottish government lying about how many Care Home Residents it has vaccinated" thought line at the moment.RobD said:
Not sure why the snark is necessary. It's only Scotland using the stockpile that has been accumulated.Alistair said:Very disappointing to see England's week-on-week decline in vaccination numbers. I think England will need to call in some Scottish experts to help get their vaccination programme back on track.
As at 8:30am on Tuesday 9 February:
29,908 care home residents (99.7% of residents in older adult care homes and 93% of residents in all care homes)
Do you think they are lying about vaccinating 29,908 care home residents?
This says:
On 31 March 2017, there were 35,989 adults in care homes
https://www.isdscotland.org/Health-Topics/Health-and-Social-Community-Care/Publications/2018-09-11/2018-09-11-CHCensus-Summary.pdf
Perhaps you have more up to date figures?
0.3% refusal does seem very low.....
So what happened to them?
It's patently bullshit. There isn't a slightest chance on earth that fewer than 0.3% are medically excluded from being vaccinated yet, let alone counting refusals.0 -
You forget that SKS actually knows the final vaccination league-table already. He's biding his time until revealing then what we should be doing now.BluestBlue said:
Straws. Grasped.bigjohnowls said:Down to 8th.
Wonder how long it will be before PB Tories decide its a marathon not a sprint
https://ig.ft.com/coronavirus-vaccine-tracker/?areas=gbr&areas=isr&areas=usa&areas=eue&cumulative=1&populationAdjusted=13 -
I think the last T stands for timed or timeable, but I agree with the sentiment.Carnyx said:
Is it really bullshit? When I was a manager I was trained to set targets that were SMART - of which the last three are 'achievable, relevant and targeted'. There is no point in including people who aren't vaccinable as a target in the current programme. The correct thing to do is to note them for another time - but right now they cannot be jabbed and don't count.Philip_Thompson said:
They're excluded from the 30,000 it seems.eek said:
0.3% refusal wasn't my biggest worry. A lot of residents (way more than 1 in 300) will have illnesses (such as pneumonia) which should exclude them from getting vaccinated.CarlottaVance said:
Got a link?Alistair said:
There aren't 36,000 older care home resident in long term care in Scotland.CarlottaVance said:
So, out of 36,000 Care Home residents in Scotland, only 144 have i) not given consent or ii) were not suitable because of current infection?Alistair said:
Absolutely loving the "Scottish government lying about how many Care Home Residents it has vaccinated" thought line at the moment.RobD said:
Not sure why the snark is necessary. It's only Scotland using the stockpile that has been accumulated.Alistair said:Very disappointing to see England's week-on-week decline in vaccination numbers. I think England will need to call in some Scottish experts to help get their vaccination programme back on track.
As at 8:30am on Tuesday 9 February:
29,908 care home residents (99.7% of residents in older adult care homes and 93% of residents in all care homes)
Do you think they are lying about vaccinating 29,908 care home residents?
This says:
On 31 March 2017, there were 35,989 adults in care homes
https://www.isdscotland.org/Health-Topics/Health-and-Social-Community-Care/Publications/2018-09-11/2018-09-11-CHCensus-Summary.pdf
Perhaps you have more up to date figures?
0.3% refusal does seem very low.....
So what happened to them?
It's patently bullshit. There isn't a slightest chance on earth that fewer than 0.3% are medically excluded from being vaccinated yet, let alone counting refusals.1 -
Down to 8th I wonder how long before posting Vaccs league tables means "You're really quite stupid."MaxPB said:
You're really quite stupid aren't you.bigjohnowls said:Down to 8th.
Wonder how long it will be before PB Tories decide its a marathon not a sprint
https://ig.ft.com/coronavirus-vaccine-tracker/?areas=gbr&areas=isr&areas=usa&areas=eue&cumulative=1&populationAdjusted=10 -
Her entire career is to churn out 800 words of virtual fish wrapping a week, so it's no wonder she's a little envious of people with more substantial jobs: people like the Prime Minister, say, or the local binman.Sandpit said:
Typical modern lefty hack, who thinks that snark and sarcasm is a valid substitute for argument and persuasiveness.northern_monkey said:Apol’s for quoting Marina Hyde yet again, but she does make me laugh...
‘We do get the occasional glimpse of the prime minister, who was wheeled out this week for a visit to Derby, where we were given yet another opportunity to see Boris Johnson dressed up in a white coat. I think he’s supposed to appear medical and scientific, but only ever succeeds in looking like he’s got a lovely bit of pork cheek he can do you for £3.50.’
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/feb/09/covid-travel-rules-borders-boris-johnson-quarantine
Gets loads of likes on Twitter, but does nothing to actually advance the debate.3 -
Point of order. Isn't the T timed?Carnyx said:
Is it really bullshit? When I was a manager I was trained to set targets that were SMART - of which the last three are 'achievable, relevant and targeted'. There is no point in including people who aren't vaccinable as a target in the current programme. The correct thing to do is to note them for another time - but right now they cannot be jabbed and don't count.Philip_Thompson said:
They're excluded from the 30,000 it seems.eek said:
0.3% refusal wasn't my biggest worry. A lot of residents (way more than 1 in 300) will have illnesses (such as pneumonia) which should exclude them from getting vaccinated.CarlottaVance said:
Got a link?Alistair said:
There aren't 36,000 older care home resident in long term care in Scotland.CarlottaVance said:
So, out of 36,000 Care Home residents in Scotland, only 144 have i) not given consent or ii) were not suitable because of current infection?Alistair said:
Absolutely loving the "Scottish government lying about how many Care Home Residents it has vaccinated" thought line at the moment.RobD said:
Not sure why the snark is necessary. It's only Scotland using the stockpile that has been accumulated.Alistair said:Very disappointing to see England's week-on-week decline in vaccination numbers. I think England will need to call in some Scottish experts to help get their vaccination programme back on track.
As at 8:30am on Tuesday 9 February:
29,908 care home residents (99.7% of residents in older adult care homes and 93% of residents in all care homes)
Do you think they are lying about vaccinating 29,908 care home residents?
This says:
On 31 March 2017, there were 35,989 adults in care homes
https://www.isdscotland.org/Health-Topics/Health-and-Social-Community-Care/Publications/2018-09-11/2018-09-11-CHCensus-Summary.pdf
Perhaps you have more up to date figures?
0.3% refusal does seem very low.....
So what happened to them?
It's patently bullshit. There isn't a slightest chance on earth that fewer than 0.3% are medically excluded from being vaccinated yet, let alone counting refusals.3 -
Indeed so. What I was unsure of is how the bet pays out assuming Johnson and Starmer are both still in place at the next election. If Starmer wins then he's next PM according to the rules? If Johnson wins, what happens? Is the bet still live?Charles said:
Not if Boris quits before the electionFF43 said:Not clear about the rules for Next PM after Johnson. Would that include a Starmer-led Labour Party winning the next GE? If so odds should be much better than 20%.
My base case is that both Johnson and Starmer do lead at the next election and that Johnson, as of now, is a bit more likely to win.0 -
Some more perspective on how the UK is faring:
The EU + UK average is 8.4%, UK 3.2%, Italy is on 4.8%, Ireland 6.1%, France 6.6%, Germany 8.5%, Spain 14.1% Portugal 18.1%, Slovakia 20.4%
1 -
Yes in theory it could still be running in 2041.....FF43 said:
Indeed so. What I was unsure of is how the bet pays out assuming Johnson and Starmer are both still in place at the next election. If Starmer wins then he's next PM according to the rules? If Johnson wins, what happens? Is the bet still live?Charles said:
Not if Boris quits before the electionFF43 said:Not clear about the rules for Next PM after Johnson. Would that include a Starmer-led Labour Party winning the next GE? If so odds should be much better than 20%.
My base case is that both Johnson and Starmer do lead at the next election and that Johnson, as of now, is a bit more likely to win.0 -
I think the issue is more Air Traffic Control in France making up yet another excuse for why the plane can't land.FF43 said:
Then you discover the pilot has drunk all the gin and there was some mistake because he doesn't know how to fly the plane and doesn't even know where it's going.CarlottaVance said:2 -
Not heeding SAGE warnings about winter spike (quite stupid)
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-doesnt-regret-ignoring-23464801?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar0 -
Apart from SKS being next PM these below are the runners and riders. Put the chances of at least one of these together and I think SKS needs slightly longer odds than currently.
For a few years now political outcomes have lacked the charm of predictability. Is that going to change?
Boris to win
Other Tory to win
Other Tory to be PM before GE
SKS to be replaced before next election
Labour to have most seats after election but can't do a deal unless SKS isn't leader
Black swan or Foinavon event0 -
I want to know what's happened to Kiribati. Did they ask to opt into the EU scheme?Brom said:
I reckon I could vaccinate Palau in a week on my own.bigjohnowls said:Down to 8th.
Wonder how long it will be before PB Tories decide its a marathon not a sprint
https://ig.ft.com/coronavirus-vaccine-tracker/?areas=gbr&areas=isr&areas=usa&areas=eue&cumulative=1&populationAdjusted=10 -
Oh absolutely it would be SMART to vaccinate those you can but that's not the claim being made. If the claim is 99.7% of eligible residents excluding those who can't be vaccinated or have refused then that would be reasonable. But the claim is being made that it's 99.7% of residents, no exclusions.Carnyx said:
Is it really bullshit? When I was a manager I was trained to set targets that were SMART - of which the last three are 'achievable, relevant and targeted'. There is no point in including people who aren't vaccinable as a target in the current programme. The correct thing to do is to note them for another time - but right now they cannot be jabbed and don't count.Philip_Thompson said:
They're excluded from the 30,000 it seems.eek said:
0.3% refusal wasn't my biggest worry. A lot of residents (way more than 1 in 300) will have illnesses (such as pneumonia) which should exclude them from getting vaccinated.CarlottaVance said:
Got a link?Alistair said:
There aren't 36,000 older care home resident in long term care in Scotland.CarlottaVance said:
So, out of 36,000 Care Home residents in Scotland, only 144 have i) not given consent or ii) were not suitable because of current infection?Alistair said:
Absolutely loving the "Scottish government lying about how many Care Home Residents it has vaccinated" thought line at the moment.RobD said:
Not sure why the snark is necessary. It's only Scotland using the stockpile that has been accumulated.Alistair said:Very disappointing to see England's week-on-week decline in vaccination numbers. I think England will need to call in some Scottish experts to help get their vaccination programme back on track.
As at 8:30am on Tuesday 9 February:
29,908 care home residents (99.7% of residents in older adult care homes and 93% of residents in all care homes)
Do you think they are lying about vaccinating 29,908 care home residents?
This says:
On 31 March 2017, there were 35,989 adults in care homes
https://www.isdscotland.org/Health-Topics/Health-and-Social-Community-Care/Publications/2018-09-11/2018-09-11-CHCensus-Summary.pdf
Perhaps you have more up to date figures?
0.3% refusal does seem very low.....
So what happened to them?
It's patently bullshit. There isn't a slightest chance on earth that fewer than 0.3% are medically excluded from being vaccinated yet, let alone counting refusals.
That's just not believable. It is not credible and it's not SMART since it's not achievable to target 99.7% of all residents with no exclusions within six weeks.0 -
You're legitimately an idiot.bigjohnowls said:
Down to 8th I wonder how long before posting Vaccs league tables means "You're really quite stupid."MaxPB said:
You're really quite stupid aren't you.bigjohnowls said:Down to 8th.
Wonder how long it will be before PB Tories decide its a marathon not a sprint
https://ig.ft.com/coronavirus-vaccine-tracker/?areas=gbr&areas=isr&areas=usa&areas=eue&cumulative=1&populationAdjusted=11 -
If you wish to exclude small nations thats fineBrom said:
I reckon I could vaccinate Palau in a week on my own.bigjohnowls said:Down to 8th.
Wonder how long it will be before PB Tories decide its a marathon not a sprint
https://ig.ft.com/coronavirus-vaccine-tracker/?areas=gbr&areas=isr&areas=usa&areas=eue&cumulative=1&populationAdjusted=1
So we are top of the deaths per Capita not 5th then
IE worst in the whole world of Nations with Populations GT 12M
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
0 -
Try using a real measure like excess deaths. Once everyone else has caught up with the UK statistics.bigjohnowls said:
If you wish to exclude small nations thats fineBrom said:
I reckon I could vaccinate Palau in a week on my own.bigjohnowls said:Down to 8th.
Wonder how long it will be before PB Tories decide its a marathon not a sprint
https://ig.ft.com/coronavirus-vaccine-tracker/?areas=gbr&areas=isr&areas=usa&areas=eue&cumulative=1&populationAdjusted=1
So we are top of the deaths per Capita not 5th then
IE worst in the whole world of Nations with Populations GT 12M
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
Note that so far the UK is the only country where the reported deaths are higher than excess deaths. That should tell you something.2 -
But we should include Gibraltar, the Seychelles, American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands and Palau when doing the vaccine league table?bigjohnowls said:
If you wish to exclude small nations thats fineBrom said:
I reckon I could vaccinate Palau in a week on my own.bigjohnowls said:Down to 8th.
Wonder how long it will be before PB Tories decide its a marathon not a sprint
https://ig.ft.com/coronavirus-vaccine-tracker/?areas=gbr&areas=isr&areas=usa&areas=eue&cumulative=1&populationAdjusted=1
So we are top of the deaths per Capita not 5th then
IE worst in the whole world of Nations with Populations GT 12M
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/0 -
But what it is about to deliver is characteristic of much of its pandemic response: an uneasy compromise between ministers who prioritise health outcomes and others concerned about the impact on the economy, but which risks achieving the objectives of neither.TheScreamingEagles said:
Exactly. They're a bunch of fucktards. I'm astonished that they even managed to get the vaccines right, for all the good it will do if the country ends up swamped with vaccine evading mutant SuperCovid. That is to say, none at all.1 -
"Britain could be trapped in lockdown cycles for years in fight with Covid variants - but tougher measures for longer now will prevent new vaccine-resistant strains, SAGE scientists warn
Prof Sir Ian Boyd said UK could be stuck in 'control and release for long time'
Threw support behind longer lockdown to stop more variants from spawning
Several other SAGE scientists came out in favour of extending current curbs"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9239863/Britain-trapped-lockdown-cycles-YEARS-SAGE-scientist-warns.html0 -
And it is a crate not a plane and it was launched from some kind of space cannon.FF43 said:
Then you discover the pilot has drunk all the gin and there was some mistake because he doesn't know how to fly the plane and doesn't even know where it's going.CarlottaVance said:0 -
Yes, your bet would still be live. This market is unaffected by elections, and is simply who’s the next PM.FF43 said:
Indeed so. What I was unsure of is how the bet pays out assuming Johnson and Starmer are both still in place at the next election. If Starmer wins then he's next PM according to the rules? If Johnson wins, what happens? Is the bet still live?Charles said:
Not if Boris quits before the electionFF43 said:Not clear about the rules for Next PM after Johnson. Would that include a Starmer-led Labour Party winning the next GE? If so odds should be much better than 20%.
My base case is that both Johnson and Starmer do lead at the next election and that Johnson, as of now, is a bit more likely to win.
A bet placed in late 1979 or 1997 would have been live for a decade, which is worth bearing in mind in this market.0 -
Hope it makes you feel betterMaxPB said:
You're legitimately an idiot.bigjohnowls said:
Down to 8th I wonder how long before posting Vaccs league tables means "You're really quite stupid."MaxPB said:
You're really quite stupid aren't you.bigjohnowls said:Down to 8th.
Wonder how long it will be before PB Tories decide its a marathon not a sprint
https://ig.ft.com/coronavirus-vaccine-tracker/?areas=gbr&areas=isr&areas=usa&areas=eue&cumulative=1&populationAdjusted=1
"Idiot" (IQ of 0–25)0 -
Apparently not. They managed to secure better terms than the EU by virtue of their economic and political power. They didn't do as well as Nauru though. They smashed it.Black_Rook said:
I want to know what's happened to Kiribati. Did they ask to opt into the EU scheme?Brom said:
I reckon I could vaccinate Palau in a week on my own.bigjohnowls said:Down to 8th.
Wonder how long it will be before PB Tories decide its a marathon not a sprint
https://ig.ft.com/coronavirus-vaccine-tracker/?areas=gbr&areas=isr&areas=usa&areas=eue&cumulative=1&populationAdjusted=10 -
Are you serious? It's micronations (and dependent territories) and Israel (Edit - and UAE, which has more people in it than I realised).bigjohnowls said:Down to 8th.
Wonder how long it will be before PB Tories decide its a marathon not a sprint
https://ig.ft.com/coronavirus-vaccine-tracker/?areas=gbr&areas=isr&areas=usa&areas=eue&cumulative=1&populationAdjusted=1
And yes, excluding micronations does make the UK's death rate even worse than it already was, which was already terrible. That doesn't make your point about vaccination rate any less silly.
For other people it is not an issue of PB Tories vs others. That's abundantly obvious by how the government gets criticised even by fans for things like not shutting the borders, and gets some praise from people who hate it for the vaccination programme.
There are actual things to criticise the UK response over, you don't need to go searching for stupid comparisons to do it. It's pretty obvious you made the micronation comparison purely so you could spring a 'so the UK death rate is terrible then, eh?' point, except people already accept our death rate has been among the worst in the world.5 -
Is that just what ius in the media sans qualifications, or the press releases, or the primary document? Haven't been looking into it in detail ...Philip_Thompson said:
Oh absolutely it would be SMART to vaccinate those you can but that's not the claim being made. If the claim is 99.7% of eligible residents excluding those who can't be vaccinated or have refused then that would be reasonable. But the claim is being made that it's 99.7% of residents, no exclusions.Carnyx said:
Is it really bullshit? When I was a manager I was trained to set targets that were SMART - of which the last three are 'achievable, relevant and targeted'. There is no point in including people who aren't vaccinable as a target in the current programme. The correct thing to do is to note them for another time - but right now they cannot be jabbed and don't count.Philip_Thompson said:
They're excluded from the 30,000 it seems.eek said:
0.3% refusal wasn't my biggest worry. A lot of residents (way more than 1 in 300) will have illnesses (such as pneumonia) which should exclude them from getting vaccinated.CarlottaVance said:
Got a link?Alistair said:
There aren't 36,000 older care home resident in long term care in Scotland.CarlottaVance said:
So, out of 36,000 Care Home residents in Scotland, only 144 have i) not given consent or ii) were not suitable because of current infection?Alistair said:
Absolutely loving the "Scottish government lying about how many Care Home Residents it has vaccinated" thought line at the moment.RobD said:
Not sure why the snark is necessary. It's only Scotland using the stockpile that has been accumulated.Alistair said:Very disappointing to see England's week-on-week decline in vaccination numbers. I think England will need to call in some Scottish experts to help get their vaccination programme back on track.
As at 8:30am on Tuesday 9 February:
29,908 care home residents (99.7% of residents in older adult care homes and 93% of residents in all care homes)
Do you think they are lying about vaccinating 29,908 care home residents?
This says:
On 31 March 2017, there were 35,989 adults in care homes
https://www.isdscotland.org/Health-Topics/Health-and-Social-Community-Care/Publications/2018-09-11/2018-09-11-CHCensus-Summary.pdf
Perhaps you have more up to date figures?
0.3% refusal does seem very low.....
So what happened to them?
It's patently bullshit. There isn't a slightest chance on earth that fewer than 0.3% are medically excluded from being vaccinated yet, let alone counting refusals.
That's just not believable. It is not credible and it's not SMART since it's not achievable to target 99.7% of all residents with no exclusions within six weeks.0 -
Johnson is a proven and fabulous campaigner. SKS completely untested, or on another reckoning, a proven dud at campaigning in 2019. Few signs from the gallops that vote winning campaigning is his best distance. And he's behind now, with all the mess the government is in.noneoftheabove said:
Yes in theory it could still be running in 2041.....FF43 said:
Indeed so. What I was unsure of is how the bet pays out assuming Johnson and Starmer are both still in place at the next election. If Starmer wins then he's next PM according to the rules? If Johnson wins, what happens? Is the bet still live?Charles said:
Not if Boris quits before the electionFF43 said:Not clear about the rules for Next PM after Johnson. Would that include a Starmer-led Labour Party winning the next GE? If so odds should be much better than 20%.
My base case is that both Johnson and Starmer do lead at the next election and that Johnson, as of now, is a bit more likely to win.
0 -
It's possible to be saddened and disappointed with the high number of deaths in the UK and also be delighted with our vaccine rollout.bigjohnowls said:
If you wish to exclude small nations thats fineBrom said:
I reckon I could vaccinate Palau in a week on my own.bigjohnowls said:Down to 8th.
Wonder how long it will be before PB Tories decide its a marathon not a sprint
https://ig.ft.com/coronavirus-vaccine-tracker/?areas=gbr&areas=isr&areas=usa&areas=eue&cumulative=1&populationAdjusted=1
So we are top of the deaths per Capita not 5th then
IE worst in the whole world of Nations with Populations GT 12M
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
I'm sure you'll be disgusted with the way San Marino have handled this pandemic - 71 deaths? I mean comparatively the UK have done brilliantly I think we can agree?0 -
The Covid heat map continues to cool. The last four local authorities with cases in excess of 400 per 100,000 are now Rutland, Corby, Sandwell and Walsall (and we know Rutland only looks bad because of that prison.)
How long it will last is anybody's guess, but at least things are moving in the right direction for now.0 -
Politico.com - How George Shultz Escaped Two Scandal-Plagued Administrations Unscathed
As other top aides crumbled around him, he managed to survive the Nixon and Reagan White Houses with his reputation intact.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/02/09/george-shultz-reagan-nixon-reputation-467804
Interesting take on an interesting man who just passed away.
Also a wee bit of a corrective, perhaps, for PBers who like to believe that the Sainted Ronald Reagan was as clean as the driven snow.
As the record shows, not quite. Certainly his administration was one of the most scandalous since Grant and Harding and (dare I say it) Nixon.
Can still remember my own Daddy Dearest, a lifelong Republican, how pissed off he was by the corruption in the top ranks of government, under Reagan's watch - a president he voted for twice.1 -
BBC News - Covid-19: Travellers face £1,750 cost for England quarantine hotels
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55995645
Certainly not cheap.0 -
Although interestingly I reckon that Brown would still have been favourite in late '97.Sandpit said:
Yes, your bet would still be live. This market is unaffected by elections, and is simply who’s the next PM.FF43 said:
Indeed so. What I was unsure of is how the bet pays out assuming Johnson and Starmer are both still in place at the next election. If Starmer wins then he's next PM according to the rules? If Johnson wins, what happens? Is the bet still live?Charles said:
Not if Boris quits before the electionFF43 said:Not clear about the rules for Next PM after Johnson. Would that include a Starmer-led Labour Party winning the next GE? If so odds should be much better than 20%.
My base case is that both Johnson and Starmer do lead at the next election and that Johnson, as of now, is a bit more likely to win.
A bet placed in late 1979 or 1997 would have been live for a decade, which is worth bearing in mind in this market.1 -
Just seen this on Twitter not sure if true
"Which political party, if any, do you think has the best team of leaders to deal with the country’s problems?"
CON: 41%
LAB: 21%
SNP: 5%
LD: 1%
OTH: 2%
Via
@IpsosMORI
, 29 January-4 February2 -
What I think happened is this.Carnyx said:
Is that just what ius in the media sans qualifications, or the press releases, or the primary document? Haven't been looking into it in detail ...Philip_Thompson said:
Oh absolutely it would be SMART to vaccinate those you can but that's not the claim being made. If the claim is 99.7% of eligible residents excluding those who can't be vaccinated or have refused then that would be reasonable. But the claim is being made that it's 99.7% of residents, no exclusions.Carnyx said:
Is it really bullshit? When I was a manager I was trained to set targets that were SMART - of which the last three are 'achievable, relevant and targeted'. There is no point in including people who aren't vaccinable as a target in the current programme. The correct thing to do is to note them for another time - but right now they cannot be jabbed and don't count.Philip_Thompson said:
They're excluded from the 30,000 it seems.eek said:
0.3% refusal wasn't my biggest worry. A lot of residents (way more than 1 in 300) will have illnesses (such as pneumonia) which should exclude them from getting vaccinated.CarlottaVance said:
Got a link?Alistair said:
There aren't 36,000 older care home resident in long term care in Scotland.CarlottaVance said:
So, out of 36,000 Care Home residents in Scotland, only 144 have i) not given consent or ii) were not suitable because of current infection?Alistair said:
Absolutely loving the "Scottish government lying about how many Care Home Residents it has vaccinated" thought line at the moment.RobD said:
Not sure why the snark is necessary. It's only Scotland using the stockpile that has been accumulated.Alistair said:Very disappointing to see England's week-on-week decline in vaccination numbers. I think England will need to call in some Scottish experts to help get their vaccination programme back on track.
As at 8:30am on Tuesday 9 February:
29,908 care home residents (99.7% of residents in older adult care homes and 93% of residents in all care homes)
Do you think they are lying about vaccinating 29,908 care home residents?
This says:
On 31 March 2017, there were 35,989 adults in care homes
https://www.isdscotland.org/Health-Topics/Health-and-Social-Community-Care/Publications/2018-09-11/2018-09-11-CHCensus-Summary.pdf
Perhaps you have more up to date figures?
0.3% refusal does seem very low.....
So what happened to them?
It's patently bullshit. There isn't a slightest chance on earth that fewer than 0.3% are medically excluded from being vaccinated yet, let alone counting refusals.
That's just not believable. It is not credible and it's not SMART since it's not achievable to target 99.7% of all residents with no exclusions within six weeks.
Numbers of nursing homes are relatively invariant. But the number of residents is. Arriving, leaving, dying..... Not to mention temporary residents...
Someone asked - "How many people in nursing homes"
Someone replied - "About 30k"
Fifteen copy and pastas later - 30K is the number.
When the result of the vaccination drive came in to just under 30K, someone divided the 2 numbers and thought - "brilliant success". And passed it on to their boss....2
This discussion has been closed.