Leader and government approval ratings and voting intention as a guide to general election results –
Options
Leader and government approval ratings and voting intention as a guide to general election results – politicalbetting.com
Some posters to this site have argued that leader or government approval ratings can be a better guide to general election results than the voting intention question, if not immediately before the vote, then early in the Parliament or in mid-term. I have been meaning for some time to put this to the test. I have used the IPSOS-MORI opinion poll and approval ratings data, which goes back to 1977, covering 11 general elections.
0
Comments
-
UK cases by specimen date
0 -
First - as I suspect the Tories will be in 2023.0
-
UK cases by specimen date and scaled to 100K population
0 -
UK local R
0 -
UK case summary
0 -
UK hospitals
0 -
UK deaths
0 -
UK R
from case data
From hospitalisation data
0 -
Age related data
1 -
UK vaccinations
1 -
Fascinating article thank you.
So gross approval does better than net approval at all intervals bar one?0 -
FPT - for those doubting the seemingly unlikely story from Guido that Sturgeon has instructed the EU flag be flown every day along with the Saltire except when other flags are due to be flown, and the Union flag only to be flown on Remembrance Sunday:
https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/advice-and-guidance/2017/01/flag-flying/documents/flag-flying-guidance/flag-flying-guidance/govscot:document/Scottish+Government+flag+flying+guidance+2021.pdf?forceDownload=true#:~:text=Usually the second Sunday of,Remembrance Sunday is 14th November.&text=Please note that due to,guidance will be updated accordingly.2 -
The over-85 hospitalisation data looks - interesting...Malmesbury said:Age related data
1 -
Hopefully COVID is going out of fashion with the over 85s big time...DougSeal said:
The over-85 hospitalisation data looks - interesting...Malmesbury said:Age related data
3 -
Excellent article, thanks.
That final table is one to cut out and keep, so to speak, because as we are now around three years out from the next GE, over the next months and years an awful lot of bollocks will be posted about what this, that or the other approval rating means and we will be able to refer to your table and dispel the myths.5 -
CarlottaVance said:
FPT - for those doubting the seemingly unlikely story from Guido that Sturgeon has instructed the EU flag be flown every day along with the Saltire except when other flags are due to be flown, and the Union flag only to be flown on Remembrance Sunday:
https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/advice-and-guidance/2017/01/flag-flying/documents/flag-flying-guidance/flag-flying-guidance/govscot:document/Scottish+Government+flag+flying+guidance+2021.pdf?forceDownload=true#:~:text=Usually the second Sunday of,Remembrance Sunday is 14th November.&text=Please note that due to,guidance will be updated accordingly.
Is the document this links to by any chance an elaborate spoof?
0 -
Thank you.Philip_Thompson said:Fascinating article thank you.
So gross approval does better than net approval at all intervals bar one?
Just about, but really on such a small sample size and with R2s below 0.5 for all except the 3-year one, the difference is nugatory.1 -
-
Given the url and serve you access the document from I would suggest that it's accurate as the other options are way worse.algarkirk said:CarlottaVance said:FPT - for those doubting the seemingly unlikely story from Guido that Sturgeon has instructed the EU flag be flown every day along with the Saltire except when other flags are due to be flown, and the Union flag only to be flown on Remembrance Sunday:
https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/advice-and-guidance/2017/01/flag-flying/documents/flag-flying-guidance/flag-flying-guidance/govscot:document/Scottish+Government+flag+flying+guidance+2021.pdf?forceDownload=true#:~:text=Usually the second Sunday of,Remembrance Sunday is 14th November.&text=Please note that due to,guidance will be updated accordingly.
Is the document this links to by any chance an elaborate spoof?3 -
MI5 must have hacked the www.gov.scot website.......algarkirk said:CarlottaVance said:FPT - for those doubting the seemingly unlikely story from Guido that Sturgeon has instructed the EU flag be flown every day along with the Saltire except when other flags are due to be flown, and the Union flag only to be flown on Remembrance Sunday:
https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/advice-and-guidance/2017/01/flag-flying/documents/flag-flying-guidance/flag-flying-guidance/govscot:document/Scottish+Government+flag+flying+guidance+2021.pdf?forceDownload=true#:~:text=Usually the second Sunday of,Remembrance Sunday is 14th November.&text=Please note that due to,guidance will be updated accordingly.
Is the document this links to by any chance an elaborate spoof?1 -
Regarding Sturgeon's flags surely this is a Third Way compromise?
Scotland's out of Europe but can fly the EU Council of Europe flag.
Scotland's in the UK but doesn't need to fly the UK flag.
Scotland can just cosplay as an independent EU nation without needing to bother with a messy referendum.2 -
So the one body that wasn't stuffed with SNP and Green members (an accidental omission one assumes), votes that there is no reason why documents that may be published legally, may not be published legally. Surprise surprise.CarlottaVance said:3 -
Am I the only one who is completely lost with all this?Luckyguy1983 said:
So the one body that wasn't stuffed with SNP and Green members (an accidental omission one assumes), votes that there is no reason why documents that may be published legally, may not be published legally. Surprise surprise.CarlottaVance said:
2 -
Crumblies will soon have dived below the 45-64s too.....DougSeal said:
The over-85 hospitalisation data looks - interesting...Malmesbury said:Age related data
1 -
One rather suspects that's the entire point......rottenborough said:
Am I the only one who is completely lost with all this?Luckyguy1983 said:
So the one body that wasn't stuffed with SNP and Green members (an accidental omission one assumes), votes that there is no reason why documents that may be published legally, may not be published legally. Surprise surprise.CarlottaVance said:3 -
COVID itself doesn't appear to be going out of fashion though.Malmesbury said:
Hopefully COVID is going out of fashion with the over 85s big time...DougSeal said:
The over-85 hospitalisation data looks - interesting...Malmesbury said:Age related data
Definitely a hint of an uptick / levelling off.0 -
-
I wonder if Dom Cummings has managed to get his Cyber apprenticeship yet0
-
Define "success" - I wouldn't count "fewer vaccinated people" as "success"
https://twitter.com/EuroBriefing/status/1362385131164622848?s=201 -
His next job could be in ballet.Gallowgate said:I wonder if Dom Cummings has managed to get his Cyber apprenticeship yet
1 -
-
I, for one, am looking forwards once more to people trying to read a signal from noisy exponential decay.Flatlander said:
COVID itself doesn't appear to be going out of fashion though.Malmesbury said:
Hopefully COVID is going out of fashion with the over 85s big time...DougSeal said:
The over-85 hospitalisation data looks - interesting...Malmesbury said:Age related data
Definitely a hint of an uptick / levelling off.0 -
Isn't Wolfgang's comment meant to be ironic?CarlottaVance said:Define "success" - I wouldn't count "fewer vaccinated people" as "success"
https://twitter.com/EuroBriefing/status/1362385131164622848?s=202 -
Sometime before end of Feb, deaths will be very low indeed.1
-
That's German sarcasm.CarlottaVance said:Define "success" - I wouldn't count "fewer vaccinated people" as "success"
https://twitter.com/EuroBriefing/status/1362385131164622848?s=20
There's been yet more BS in the European press today about AstraZeneca and their contracts with the UK.1 -
-
Interesting header. Seems really weird to me that correlations might be stronger further away from an election.0
-
The new Comical Ali idea is that the EU signed their contract with AZ before the UK did. When the UK did theirs right at the start as part of the AZ/OU tie-up.williamglenn said:
That's German sarcasm.CarlottaVance said:Define "success" - I wouldn't count "fewer vaccinated people" as "success"
https://twitter.com/EuroBriefing/status/1362385131164622848?s=20
There's been yet more BS in the European press today about AstraZeneca and their contracts with the UK.0 -
There's been hints to that in the past. I think the idea is that away from the heat and fury of the election people's truer feelings are revealed.rkrkrk said:Interesting header. Seems really weird to me that correlations might be stronger further away from an election.
Obviously it May not always apply.0 -
FPT Re flags
merely to answer Doug's question rather than giving any opinion on Sturgeon's claimed instructions.
Yep there are rules - but in good old British tradition they are local planning rules rather than anything more national.DougSeal said:
On what grounds? I am not aware of any formal UK flag code in the sense of the one they have in the States.ydoethur said:
She is losing her marbles then. Why fly the EU flag when you are not a member of it and likely never will be?CarlottaVance said:
See above.ydoethur said:
Well, that’s my default assumption for anything Staines publishes. Apart from anything else, it would seem daft and Sturgeon is many things but not daft.Razedabode said:
See if anyone vaguely sane runs with it.
Will be interesting to see if she is overruled on this.
Basically there are a set of flags that can be flown without needing planning permission - national and regional flags and the flags of organisations the UK is a member of. All other flags count as advertising banners and so need planning permission.
I suspect that now we are no longer a member a strict interpretation would say that flying the EU flag is not allowed with explicit planning permission. Though why anyone should be so exercised by it I don't know.
https://www.theukrules.co.uk/rules/legal/flags/index.html3 -
Incidentally, did we note this from earlier today?
Two Canada-based researchers on Wednesday urged governments to delay administering the second dose of Pfizer Inc’s COVID-19 vaccine, which they said had an efficacy of 92.6% after the first dose, as it was not significantly beneficial in the short term.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-pfizer-idUSKBN2AI0EC1 -
Don't tell Macron.....Richard_Nabavi said:Incidentally, did we note this from earlier today?
The second dose of Pfizer Inc’s COVID-19 vaccine could be delayed in order to cover all priority groups as the first one is highly protective, two Canada-based researchers said in a letter published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-pfizer-idUSKBN2AI0EC1 -
FPT
I have never voted for Farage to be elected to a Parliament.kinabalu said:
The point I'm making is that when I see a person who (i) is prepared to vote - even once - for a Farage party and yet (ii) claims to have been so mortified by the xenophobia showed by Theresa May's "Citizens of Nowhere" speech and her "Go Home" vans that they resign from the Tory Party, I smell a rat. Not accusing you of anything terrible. You're an excellent poster in many ways. But I am deeply skeptical of some of what you proclaim as your "principles". It doesn't entirely scan to me. I think you're driven mainly by EngNat.Philip_Thompson said:
What point are you trying to make?kinabalu said:
I've never eaten chocolate but I once purchased a 99 and with great relish consumed the flake.Philip_Thompson said:
I voted to leave the EU, have the British contingent of the European Parliament abolished and Farage tossed out as an elected politician as a result, yes.kinabalu said:
Apart from voting for a party led by him.Philip_Thompson said:
I am not and never have been a Farage voter.kinabalu said:
Farage voter says that Keir Starmer is "nasty".Philip_Thompson said:
He's also a nasty arsehole careerist.NerysHughes said:
Starmer is awful, dull and clueless, as his actions in 2019 demonstrated.kle4 said:
Plenty of time. But he does need something of his to really catch people's attention and fix an image in peoples' minds. Goodness knows what though.Slackbladder said:
While MPs like Luciana Berger were getting bullied out of the Labour Party he chose to serve in the Shadow Cabinet to further his own career and put forward Corbyn as PM.
Only those who refused to serve under Corbyn should have been considered as possible Labour Party leaders. A Labour led by Yvette Cooper would be a credible threat right now.
Do we have a category prize for this?
I'd do it again. No regrets from voting to evict Farage.
I voted to evict Farage from the European Parliament. If he ever found his way into Westminster and I had a way to evict him from that I'd be quite tempted to take it. Wouldn't you?
I have once voted for Farage to be ejected from a Parliament.
Like a reality TV show when it flips between "vote to evict" and "vote to save".
Do you see the difference?1 -
Maybe.rkrkrk said:Interesting header. Seems really weird to me that correlations might be stronger further away from an election.
Or maybe folk make their minds up earlier than we think. They then waver a bit on and off, before reverting to their earlier position.
Its possible at least.0 -
They're not allowed to fly the EU flag without permission.Richard_Tyndall said:FPT Re flags
merely to answer Doug's question rather than giving any opinion on Sturgeon's claimed instructions.
Yep there are rules - but in good old British tradition they are local planning rules rather than anything more national.DougSeal said:
On what grounds? I am not aware of any formal UK flag code in the sense of the one they have in the States.ydoethur said:
She is losing her marbles then. Why fly the EU flag when you are not a member of it and likely never will be?CarlottaVance said:
See above.ydoethur said:
Well, that’s my default assumption for anything Staines publishes. Apart from anything else, it would seem daft and Sturgeon is many things but not daft.Razedabode said:
See if anyone vaguely sane runs with it.
Will be interesting to see if she is overruled on this.
Basically there are a set of flags that can be flown without needing planning permission - national and regional flags and the flags of organisations the UK is a member of. All other flags count as advertising banners and so need planning permission.
I suspect that now we are no longer a member a strict interpretation would say that flying the EU flag is not allowed with explicit planning permission. Though why anyone should be so exercised by it I don't know.
https://www.theukrules.co.uk/rules/legal/flags/index.html
But they can fly the Council of Europe flag without permission.
They just so happen to be the same flag.1 -
equallyFrancisUrquhart said:
https://twitter.com/DineshDSouza/status/1362433079885848580
Ted Cruz really is a man who keeps on giving.0 -
Ha! True. But so much depends on it. Though we are hoping for better than exponential decay this time what with the vaccine deployment.BannedinnParis said:
I, for one, am looking forwards once more to people trying to read a signal from noisy exponential decay.Flatlander said:
COVID itself doesn't appear to be going out of fashion though.Malmesbury said:
Hopefully COVID is going out of fashion with the over 85s big time...DougSeal said:
The over-85 hospitalisation data looks - interesting...Malmesbury said:Age related data
Definitely a hint of an uptick / levelling off.
Cases have definitely flatlined here in the flatlands.
0 -
Honestly, N=11 prevents any definitive statements, though one can of course spot any clear yes or no situations. Like the US presidential election trivia about Ohio and so on.0
-
You’re right, I was a bit Keirless there.Stuartinromford said:1 -
One thing none of the initial tests did was identify in any real detail what the best vaccination profile (1 dose or 2 doses, and if 2 how many weeks apart) due to the time constraints.Richard_Nabavi said:Incidentally, did we note this from earlier today?
Two Canada-based researchers on Wednesday urged governments to delay administering the second dose of Pfizer Inc’s COVID-19 vaccine, which they said had an efficacy of 92.6% after the first dose, as it was not significantly beneficial in the short term.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-pfizer-idUSKBN2AI0EC
So I'm not surprised we are only finding out now that other dosage patterns may be better or at least equally efficient.2 -
Have to say the UK has been at the forefront of this and I'm actually very proud of the government and our scientific establishment for holding firm against criticism from Pfizer, the WHO, the BMA and the EU over the last few months about this policy choice. It's very obvious that there is huge potential to save lives using this dosing method as you get double the number of people with a good ebough level of immunity at around 70% vs 95% for half the people.Richard_Nabavi said:Incidentally, did we note this from earlier today?
The second dose of Pfizer Inc’s COVID-19 vaccine could be delayed in order to cover all priority groups as the first one is highly protective, two Canada-based researchers said in a letter published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-pfizer-idUSKBN2AI0EC9 -
Moving in intricate patterns for no obvious reason with a load of cock on display sounds just his line, in fairness.dixiedean said:
His next job could be in ballet.Gallowgate said:I wonder if Dom Cummings has managed to get his Cyber apprenticeship yet
2 -
Problem solved then.Philip_Thompson said:
They're not allowed to fly the EU flag without permission.Richard_Tyndall said:FPT Re flags
merely to answer Doug's question rather than giving any opinion on Sturgeon's claimed instructions.
Yep there are rules - but in good old British tradition they are local planning rules rather than anything more national.DougSeal said:
On what grounds? I am not aware of any formal UK flag code in the sense of the one they have in the States.ydoethur said:
She is losing her marbles then. Why fly the EU flag when you are not a member of it and likely never will be?CarlottaVance said:
See above.ydoethur said:
Well, that’s my default assumption for anything Staines publishes. Apart from anything else, it would seem daft and Sturgeon is many things but not daft.Razedabode said:
See if anyone vaguely sane runs with it.
Will be interesting to see if she is overruled on this.
Basically there are a set of flags that can be flown without needing planning permission - national and regional flags and the flags of organisations the UK is a member of. All other flags count as advertising banners and so need planning permission.
I suspect that now we are no longer a member a strict interpretation would say that flying the EU flag is not allowed with explicit planning permission. Though why anyone should be so exercised by it I don't know.
https://www.theukrules.co.uk/rules/legal/flags/index.html
But they can fly the Council of Europe flag without permission.
They just so happen to be the same flag.
0 -
FPT..
My point in relation to the flag issue is that surely this seems like a weird misstep from Sturgeon that alienates some of the no leaning voters she needs to win over.
Either that or SNP tensions are so great she’s chucking any old red meat out2 -
That’s an absolutely awful attempt at defence. By that logic, everyone who freezes to death or gets cholera or indeed commits suicide is doing everyone else a favour by ceasing to use resources.eek said:
equallyFrancisUrquhart said:
https://twitter.com/DineshDSouza/status/1362433079885848580
Ted Cruz really is a man who keeps on giving.
What Cruz has done is the height of folly on so many levels I struggle to believe even he thought it was a good idea.
Not that I’m terribly sorry he’s destroyed himself like this, because he’s not a good thing, but it is still extraordinarily tin eared.0 -
I like the implicit statement that Cruz is so bloody useless at his job there's nothing he could be doing to make things better for his constituents.ydoethur said:
That’s an absolutely awful attempt at defence. By that logic, everyone who freezes to death or gets cholera or indeed commits suicide is doing everyone else a favour by ceasing to use resources.eek said:
equallyFrancisUrquhart said:
https://twitter.com/DineshDSouza/status/1362433079885848580
Ted Cruz really is a man who keeps on giving.
What Cruz has done is the height of folly on so many levels I struggle to believe even he thought it was a good idea.
Not that I’m terribly sorry he’s destroyed himself like this, because he’s not a good thing, but it is still extraordinarily tin eared.1 -
It's too early for the vaccines to show anything much. The first dose was given to anyone on 8 December. That may seem like an eternity but it was actually only just over 9 weeks ago. The programme only got into its stride at the New Year. If cases kept falling as they were they would have crashed into zero in about three weeks. A normal distribution curve will flatten at the edge. So long as the cases keep dropping until the vaccines really start to have an effect on the working age population then that should suffice.Flatlander said:
Ha! True. But so much depends on it. Though we are hoping for better than exponential decay this time what with the vaccine deployment.BannedinnParis said:
I, for one, am looking forwards once more to people trying to read a signal from noisy exponential decay.Flatlander said:
COVID itself doesn't appear to be going out of fashion though.Malmesbury said:
Hopefully COVID is going out of fashion with the over 85s big time...DougSeal said:
The over-85 hospitalisation data looks - interesting...Malmesbury said:Age related data
Definitely a hint of an uptick / levelling off.
Cases have definitely flatlined here in the flatlands.1 -
Let me try and help.rottenborough said:
Am I the only one who is completely lost with all this?Luckyguy1983 said:
So the one body that wasn't stuffed with SNP and Green members (an accidental omission one assumes), votes that there is no reason why documents that may be published legally, may not be published legally. Surprise surprise.CarlottaVance said:
1. This committee was set up to investigate why the initial complaints procedure (prior to the police case) against Alex Salmond was so mishandled that the Scottish Government ended up having to pay him £500,000 of taxpayers' money. It is lead by an SNP MSP, and has on it an SNP/Green majority of 5 to 4.
2. Alex Salmond's allegation (made very powerfully it must be said) is that the complaints were deliberately orchestrated, pushed, exaggerated, and to some extent invented, with the intention of destroying his reputation and preventing him ever returning to front-line politics. He also alleges that Nicola Sturgeon misled the SP about the nature of her meetings with him.
3. Salmond has submitted evidence of the above to the enquiry, but they have thus far refused to publish it (not parts of it - all of it), so it cannot form part of their report. They have also warned Salmond that if his verbal evidence strays into proscribed areas, he could be subject to criminal prosecution - without actually telling him what areas to stay clear of. The refusal to publish is based on a court order by Lady Dorrian, trial judge in Salmond's sexual assault case, protecting (I think) the complainants' identities.
4. The Spectator brought a legal case to modify this court order and prove that Salmond's evidence could indeed be published. Heard by Lady Dorrian, who stated that the Scottish Government's interpretation of her order to prevent Salmond's evidence being published was 'absurd'. She amended her court order to allow publication.
5. Despite this, and the evidence being published by the Spectator, the enquiry still refused to publish the evidence, but did agree to hand the issue to the SP procedural committee for adjudication.
6. This committee has now declared it is legal to publish. Salmond will now be able to testify without threat of criminal proceedings against him.
8 -
To be fair to Pfizer, weren't they simply pointing out that their clinical trial did not have the 12 week gap the government has used?MaxPB said:
Have to say the UK has been at the forefront of this and I'm actually very proud of the government and our scientific establishment for holding firm against criticism from Pfizer, the WHO, the BMA and the EU over the last few months about this policy choice. It's very obvious that there is huge potential to save lives using this dosing method as you get double the number of people with a good ebough level of immunity at around 70% vs 95% for half the people.Richard_Nabavi said:Incidentally, did we note this from earlier today?
The second dose of Pfizer Inc’s COVID-19 vaccine could be delayed in order to cover all priority groups as the first one is highly protective, two Canada-based researchers said in a letter published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-pfizer-idUSKBN2AI0EC0 -
Yes, the Prizer pre-approval trials all used a three week gap, whereas normally you’d expect some experimentation at this stage, which is happening now in the ‘wild’.rottenborough said:
To be fair to Pfizer, weren't they simply pointing out that their clinical trial did not have the 12 week gap the government has used?MaxPB said:
Have to say the UK has been at the forefront of this and I'm actually very proud of the government and our scientific establishment for holding firm against criticism from Pfizer, the WHO, the BMA and the EU over the last few months about this policy choice. It's very obvious that there is huge potential to save lives using this dosing method as you get double the number of people with a good ebough level of immunity at around 70% vs 95% for half the people.Richard_Nabavi said:Incidentally, did we note this from earlier today?
The second dose of Pfizer Inc’s COVID-19 vaccine could be delayed in order to cover all priority groups as the first one is highly protective, two Canada-based researchers said in a letter published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-pfizer-idUSKBN2AI0EC
It was a big call by the U.K. authorities to extend the gap, but it does now seem like they called it right.3 -
They threatened him with prosecution over verbal evidence to a parliamentary committee?Luckyguy1983 said:
Let me try and help.rottenborough said:
Am I the only one who is completely lost with all this?Luckyguy1983 said:
So the one body that wasn't stuffed with SNP and Green members (an accidental omission one assumes), votes that there is no reason why documents that may be published legally, may not be published legally. Surprise surprise.CarlottaVance said:
1. This committee was set up to investigate why the initial complaints procedure (prior to the police case) against Alex Salmond was so mishandled that the Scottish Government ended up having to pay him £500,000 of taxpayers' money. It is lead by an SNP MSP, and has on it an SNP/Green majority of 5 to 4.
2. Alex Salmond's allegation (made very powerfully it must be said) is that the complaints were deliberately orchestrated, pushed, exaggerated, and to some extent invented, with the intention of destroying his reputation and preventing him ever returning to front-line politics. He also alleges that Nicola Sturgeon misled the SP about the nature of her meetings with him.
3. Salmond has submitted evidence of the above to the enquiry, but they have thus far refused to publish it (not parts of it - all of it), so it cannot form part of their report. They have also warned Salmond that if his verbal evidence strays into proscribed areas, he could be subject to criminal prosecution - without actually telling him what areas to stay clear of. The refusal to publish is based on a court order by Lady Dorrian, trial judge in Salmond's sexual assault case, protecting (I think) the complainants' identities.
4. The Spectator brought a legal case to modify this court order and prove that Salmond's evidence could indeed be published. Heard by Lady Dorrian, who stated that the Scottish Government's interpretation of her order to prevent Salmond's evidence being published was 'absurd'. She amended her court order to allow publication.
5. Despite this, and the evidence being published by the Spectator, the enquiry still refused to publish the evidence, but did agree to hand the issue to the SP procedural committee for adjudication.
6. This committee has now declared it is legal to publish. Salmond will now be able to testify without threat of criminal proceedings against him.
I thought that in itself would be illegal as such occasions are privileged?
Certainly Westminster has got very hot and bothered when threats are made to witnesses in their inquiries.0 -
Thanks for following this.Luckyguy1983 said:
Let me try and help.rottenborough said:
Am I the only one who is completely lost with all this?Luckyguy1983 said:
So the one body that wasn't stuffed with SNP and Green members (an accidental omission one assumes), votes that there is no reason why documents that may be published legally, may not be published legally. Surprise surprise.CarlottaVance said:
1. This committee was set up to investigate why the initial complaints procedure (prior to the police case) against Alex Salmond was so mishandled that the Scottish Government ended up having to pay him £500,000 of taxpayers' money. It is lead by an SNP MSP, and has on it an SNP/Green majority of 5 to 4.
2. Alex Salmond's allegation (made very powerfully it must be said) is that the complaints were deliberately orchestrated, pushed, exaggerated, and to some extent invented, with the intention of destroying his reputation and preventing him ever returning to front-line politics. He also alleges that Nicola Sturgeon misled the SP about the nature of her meetings with him.
3. Salmond has submitted evidence of the above to the enquiry, but they have thus far refused to publish it (not parts of it - all of it), so it cannot form part of their report. They have also warned Salmond that if his verbal evidence strays into proscribed areas, he could be subject to criminal prosecution - without actually telling him what areas to stay clear of. The refusal to publish is based on a court order by Lady Dorrian, trial judge in Salmond's sexual assault case, protecting (I think) the complainants' identities.
4. The Spectator brought a legal case to modify this court order and prove that Salmond's evidence could indeed be published. Heard by Lady Dorrian, who stated that the Scottish Government's interpretation of her order to prevent Salmond's evidence being published was 'absurd'. She amended her court order to allow publication.
5. Despite this, and the evidence being published by the Spectator, the enquiry still refused to publish the evidence, but did agree to hand the issue to the SP procedural committee for adjudication.
6. This committee has now declared it is legal to publish. Salmond will now be able to testify without threat of criminal proceedings against him.
So I don't have to.2 -
Great article btw, love a bit of statistical analysis!1
-
Evidence to a Westminster Parliamentary committee is privileged. Surely that would be the same at Holyrood?ydoethur said:
They threatened him with prosecution over verbal evidence to a parliamentary committee?Luckyguy1983 said:
Let me try and help.rottenborough said:
Am I the only one who is completely lost with all this?Luckyguy1983 said:
So the one body that wasn't stuffed with SNP and Green members (an accidental omission one assumes), votes that there is no reason why documents that may be published legally, may not be published legally. Surprise surprise.CarlottaVance said:
1. This committee was set up to investigate why the initial complaints procedure (prior to the police case) against Alex Salmond was so mishandled that the Scottish Government ended up having to pay him £500,000 of taxpayers' money. It is lead by an SNP MSP, and has on it an SNP/Green majority of 5 to 4.
2. Alex Salmond's allegation (made very powerfully it must be said) is that the complaints were deliberately orchestrated, pushed, exaggerated, and to some extent invented, with the intention of destroying his reputation and preventing him ever returning to front-line politics. He also alleges that Nicola Sturgeon misled the SP about the nature of her meetings with him.
3. Salmond has submitted evidence of the above to the enquiry, but they have thus far refused to publish it (not parts of it - all of it), so it cannot form part of their report. They have also warned Salmond that if his verbal evidence strays into proscribed areas, he could be subject to criminal prosecution - without actually telling him what areas to stay clear of. The refusal to publish is based on a court order by Lady Dorrian, trial judge in Salmond's sexual assault case, protecting (I think) the complainants' identities.
4. The Spectator brought a legal case to modify this court order and prove that Salmond's evidence could indeed be published. Heard by Lady Dorrian, who stated that the Scottish Government's interpretation of her order to prevent Salmond's evidence being published was 'absurd'. She amended her court order to allow publication.
5. Despite this, and the evidence being published by the Spectator, the enquiry still refused to publish the evidence, but did agree to hand the issue to the SP procedural committee for adjudication.
6. This committee has now declared it is legal to publish. Salmond will now be able to testify without threat of criminal proceedings against him.
I thought that in itself would be illegal as such occasions are privileged?
Certainly Westminster has got very hot and bothered when threats are made to witnesses in their inquiries.1 -
It seems to me that she's hoping for some sort of harrumphing, heavy-handed Boris response to try and force her to 'FLY THE BRITISH FLAG', so she can manufacture a spat with the forces of proud Edward.Razedabode said:FPT..
My point in relation to the flag issue is that surely this seems like a weird misstep from Sturgeon that alienates some of the no leaning voters she needs to win over.
Either that or SNP tensions are so great she’s chucking any old red meat out
He should of course do the opposite and let her fly whatever flags she likes.1 -
In the years leading up to the 2015 general election, Ed Miliband was always miles behind David Cameron in approval ratings, even when Labour were slightly ahead or (eventually) level pegging in the polls. Yet no-one was arguing that this meant that the Conservatives were going to win the 2015 election by a landslide (and they didn't). However, there was an argument made that Miliband's ratings were so poor that a minimal Labour lead in the polls might in fact be understating the strength of the Conservative position.
The question is - is looking at leadership polling in combination with raw opinion poll lead likely to give you a better idea of an outcome of a general election than just looking at the raw opinion poll lead alone. I think it does, but Fishing's analysis isn't specified to test this.
It would be interesting to see the result if Fishing repeated the analysis with the gross or net "PM leader over Opp leader approval" margin AVERAGED in combination (either 1:1 or in a different ratio) with the "Gvt opinion poll lead". Would it give an improvement on the R squared than that obtained for the "Gvt opinion poll lead" alone?
3 -
I get the circumstances, yes, and my conclusion is unchanged. I read you as an unusual mix of Market Fundamentalist and English Nationalist who sometimes pops a button or two when attempting to meld all that together in a way that is consistent and avoids its less savoury aspects.Philip_Thompson said:FPT
I have never voted for Farage to be elected to a Parliament.kinabalu said:
The point I'm making is that when I see a person who (i) is prepared to vote - even once - for a Farage party and yet (ii) claims to have been so mortified by the xenophobia showed by Theresa May's "Citizens of Nowhere" speech and her "Go Home" vans that they resign from the Tory Party, I smell a rat. Not accusing you of anything terrible. You're an excellent poster in many ways. But I am deeply skeptical of some of what you proclaim as your "principles". It doesn't entirely scan to me. I think you're driven mainly by EngNat.Philip_Thompson said:
What point are you trying to make?kinabalu said:
I've never eaten chocolate but I once purchased a 99 and with great relish consumed the flake.Philip_Thompson said:
I voted to leave the EU, have the British contingent of the European Parliament abolished and Farage tossed out as an elected politician as a result, yes.kinabalu said:
Apart from voting for a party led by him.Philip_Thompson said:
I am not and never have been a Farage voter.kinabalu said:
Farage voter says that Keir Starmer is "nasty".Philip_Thompson said:
He's also a nasty arsehole careerist.NerysHughes said:
Starmer is awful, dull and clueless, as his actions in 2019 demonstrated.kle4 said:
Plenty of time. But he does need something of his to really catch people's attention and fix an image in peoples' minds. Goodness knows what though.Slackbladder said:
While MPs like Luciana Berger were getting bullied out of the Labour Party he chose to serve in the Shadow Cabinet to further his own career and put forward Corbyn as PM.
Only those who refused to serve under Corbyn should have been considered as possible Labour Party leaders. A Labour led by Yvette Cooper would be a credible threat right now.
Do we have a category prize for this?
I'd do it again. No regrets from voting to evict Farage.
I voted to evict Farage from the European Parliament. If he ever found his way into Westminster and I had a way to evict him from that I'd be quite tempted to take it. Wouldn't you?
I have once voted for Farage to be ejected from a Parliament.
Like a reality TV show when it flips between "vote to evict" and "vote to save".
Do you see the difference?
You should be flattered I'm interested in you. Other posters will be jealous. 0 -
Lammy....0
-
Given at least 20% were getting it in hospital, you'd hope that vaccinating the staff would have had an impact. Though that might well have made a difference before lockdown given it was done quite early in proceedings.DougSeal said:
It's too early for the vaccines to show anything much. The fitst dose was given to anyone on 8 December. That may seem like an eternity but it was actually only just over 9 weeks ago. The programme only got into its stride at the New Year. If cases kep falling as they were they wold ahve crashed into zero in about three weeks. A normal distribution curve will flatten at the edge. So long as the cases keep dropping until the vaccines really start to have an effect on the working age population then that should suffice.Flatlander said:
Ha! True. But so much depends on it. Though we are hoping for better than exponential decay this time what with the vaccine deployment.BannedinnParis said:
I, for one, am looking forwards once more to people trying to read a signal from noisy exponential decay.Flatlander said:
COVID itself doesn't appear to be going out of fashion though.Malmesbury said:
Hopefully COVID is going out of fashion with the over 85s big time...DougSeal said:
The over-85 hospitalisation data looks - interesting...Malmesbury said:Age related data
Definitely a hint of an uptick / levelling off.
Cases have definitely flatlined here in the flatlands.0 -
What's also interesting about this, is that it is not the only case of this kind. A number of commentators, previously sympathetic to the nationalist case, Iain Macwhirter, Mandy Rhodes, et al, are openly expressing horror at the deterioration in the standards of governance in Scotland. It's not clear what, if any, will be the political consequences.Luckyguy1983 said:
Let me try and help.rottenborough said:
Am I the only one who is completely lost with all this?Luckyguy1983 said:
So the one body that wasn't stuffed with SNP and Green members (an accidental omission one assumes), votes that there is no reason why documents that may be published legally, may not be published legally. Surprise surprise.CarlottaVance said:
1. This committee was set up to investigate why the initial complaints procedure (prior to the police case) against Alex Salmond was so mishandled that the Scottish Government ended up having to pay him £500,000 of taxpayers' money. It is lead by an SNP MSP, and has on it an SNP/Green majority of 5 to 4.
2. Alex Salmond's allegation (made very powerfully it must be said) is that the complaints were deliberately orchestrated, pushed, exaggerated, and to some extent invented, with the intention of destroying his reputation and preventing him ever returning to front-line politics. He also alleges that Nicola Sturgeon misled the SP about the nature of her meetings with him.
3. Salmond has submitted evidence of the above to the enquiry, but they have thus far refused to publish it (not parts of it - all of it), so it cannot form part of their report. They have also warned Salmond that if his verbal evidence strays into proscribed areas, he could be subject to criminal prosecution - without actually telling him what areas to stay clear of. The refusal to publish is based on a court order by Lady Dorrian, trial judge in Salmond's sexual assault case, protecting (I think) the complainants' identities.
4. The Spectator brought a legal case to modify this court order and prove that Salmond's evidence could indeed be published. Heard by Lady Dorrian, who stated that the Scottish Government's interpretation of her order to prevent Salmond's evidence being published was 'absurd'. She amended her court order to allow publication.
5. Despite this, and the evidence being published by the Spectator, the enquiry still refused to publish the evidence, but did agree to hand the issue to the SP procedural committee for adjudication.
6. This committee has now declared it is legal to publish. Salmond will now be able to testify without threat of criminal proceedings against him.1 -
Distinct lack of assertion about polling....Gallowgate said:0 -
You're welcome, but you should read Salmond's evidence - it's actually incredibly juicy for a political story. The machinations are worthy of House of Cards - and the stakes! They would have actually sent Salmond, their former leading light, to jail as a sex pest! It really doesn't get much more raw and ragged.dixiedean said:
Thanks for following this.Luckyguy1983 said:
Let me try and help.rottenborough said:
Am I the only one who is completely lost with all this?Luckyguy1983 said:
So the one body that wasn't stuffed with SNP and Green members (an accidental omission one assumes), votes that there is no reason why documents that may be published legally, may not be published legally. Surprise surprise.CarlottaVance said:
1. This committee was set up to investigate why the initial complaints procedure (prior to the police case) against Alex Salmond was so mishandled that the Scottish Government ended up having to pay him £500,000 of taxpayers' money. It is lead by an SNP MSP, and has on it an SNP/Green majority of 5 to 4.
2. Alex Salmond's allegation (made very powerfully it must be said) is that the complaints were deliberately orchestrated, pushed, exaggerated, and to some extent invented, with the intention of destroying his reputation and preventing him ever returning to front-line politics. He also alleges that Nicola Sturgeon misled the SP about the nature of her meetings with him.
3. Salmond has submitted evidence of the above to the enquiry, but they have thus far refused to publish it (not parts of it - all of it), so it cannot form part of their report. They have also warned Salmond that if his verbal evidence strays into proscribed areas, he could be subject to criminal prosecution - without actually telling him what areas to stay clear of. The refusal to publish is based on a court order by Lady Dorrian, trial judge in Salmond's sexual assault case, protecting (I think) the complainants' identities.
4. The Spectator brought a legal case to modify this court order and prove that Salmond's evidence could indeed be published. Heard by Lady Dorrian, who stated that the Scottish Government's interpretation of her order to prevent Salmond's evidence being published was 'absurd'. She amended her court order to allow publication.
5. Despite this, and the evidence being published by the Spectator, the enquiry still refused to publish the evidence, but did agree to hand the issue to the SP procedural committee for adjudication.
6. This committee has now declared it is legal to publish. Salmond will now be able to testify without threat of criminal proceedings against him.
So I don't have to.0 -
Some kind of outbreak near Potterne in Wilts. No idea where though.Flatlander said:
COVID itself doesn't appear to be going out of fashion though.Malmesbury said:
Hopefully COVID is going out of fashion with the over 85s big time...DougSeal said:
The over-85 hospitalisation data looks - interesting...Malmesbury said:Age related data
Definitely a hint of an uptick / levelling off.0 -
It probably has had an impact given the remarkable drop we've seen in the last few weeks. As I say for that to have continued would have been statistically very improbable indeed.Flatlander said:
Given at least 20% were getting it in hospital, you'd hope that vaccinating the staff would have had an impact. Though that might well have made a difference before lockdown given it was done quite early in proceedings.DougSeal said:
It's too early for the vaccines to show anything much. The fitst dose was given to anyone on 8 December. That may seem like an eternity but it was actually only just over 9 weeks ago. The programme only got into its stride at the New Year. If cases kep falling as they were they wold ahve crashed into zero in about three weeks. A normal distribution curve will flatten at the edge. So long as the cases keep dropping until the vaccines really start to have an effect on the working age population then that should suffice.Flatlander said:
Ha! True. But so much depends on it. Though we are hoping for better than exponential decay this time what with the vaccine deployment.BannedinnParis said:
I, for one, am looking forwards once more to people trying to read a signal from noisy exponential decay.Flatlander said:
COVID itself doesn't appear to be going out of fashion though.Malmesbury said:
Hopefully COVID is going out of fashion with the over 85s big time...DougSeal said:
The over-85 hospitalisation data looks - interesting...Malmesbury said:Age related data
Definitely a hint of an uptick / levelling off.
Cases have definitely flatlined here in the flatlands.0 -
Well, that’s what I would have thought, although I obviously wouldn’t know for definite.DougSeal said:
Evidence to a Westminster Parliamentary committee is privileged. Surely that would be the same at Holyrood?ydoethur said:
They threatened him with prosecution over verbal evidence to a parliamentary committee?Luckyguy1983 said:
Let me try and help.rottenborough said:
Am I the only one who is completely lost with all this?Luckyguy1983 said:
So the one body that wasn't stuffed with SNP and Green members (an accidental omission one assumes), votes that there is no reason why documents that may be published legally, may not be published legally. Surprise surprise.CarlottaVance said:
1. This committee was set up to investigate why the initial complaints procedure (prior to the police case) against Alex Salmond was so mishandled that the Scottish Government ended up having to pay him £500,000 of taxpayers' money. It is lead by an SNP MSP, and has on it an SNP/Green majority of 5 to 4.
2. Alex Salmond's allegation (made very powerfully it must be said) is that the complaints were deliberately orchestrated, pushed, exaggerated, and to some extent invented, with the intention of destroying his reputation and preventing him ever returning to front-line politics. He also alleges that Nicola Sturgeon misled the SP about the nature of her meetings with him.
3. Salmond has submitted evidence of the above to the enquiry, but they have thus far refused to publish it (not parts of it - all of it), so it cannot form part of their report. They have also warned Salmond that if his verbal evidence strays into proscribed areas, he could be subject to criminal prosecution - without actually telling him what areas to stay clear of. The refusal to publish is based on a court order by Lady Dorrian, trial judge in Salmond's sexual assault case, protecting (I think) the complainants' identities.
4. The Spectator brought a legal case to modify this court order and prove that Salmond's evidence could indeed be published. Heard by Lady Dorrian, who stated that the Scottish Government's interpretation of her order to prevent Salmond's evidence being published was 'absurd'. She amended her court order to allow publication.
5. Despite this, and the evidence being published by the Spectator, the enquiry still refused to publish the evidence, but did agree to hand the issue to the SP procedural committee for adjudication.
6. This committee has now declared it is legal to publish. Salmond will now be able to testify without threat of criminal proceedings against him.
I thought that in itself would be illegal as such occasions are privileged?
Certainly Westminster has got very hot and bothered when threats are made to witnesses in their inquiries.
@DavidL are you able to help us here?0 -
It's probably a bad idea and could potentially stoke up racial tensions, but I had a mad idea for a videa to promote BAME take-up of vaccination.
Start with news stories about rich and powerful people jumping the queue (like that casino owner who flew to the Yukon to pretend to be a native American to get the vaccine earlier, or politicians in some countries making sure they get vaccinated first).
Then have BAME people saying:
- "No, let some rich white guy have mine; I'll just go to the back of the queue."
- "No, I've fallen for the propaganda online that's meant to turn me off this, so someone richer can get further up the queue"
- "No, we shouldn't forget those poor white millionaires who want theirs sooner."
- "It's fine, I'll take my chance with slowly choking to death."
Finishing with a trusted BAME celebrity saying: "If you want to fall for it and give up your place in line, that's up to you. Me, well, when it's my turn - without jumping the queue - anyone gets in my way and they'll have footprints on them."
And words written on it: "Take what's yours. Take your shot."0 -
Little Marco is safe, presumably having pledged fealty to the family.
https://thehill.com/homenews/news/539407-ivanka-trump-wont-challenge-rubio-for-his-senate-seat-in-2022-report0 -
The Sunday Times had an article a while back which said Holyrood doesn't enjoy the same protections as Westminster.ydoethur said:
Well, that’s what I would have thought, although I obviously wouldn’t know for definite.DougSeal said:
Evidence to a Westminster Parliamentary committee is privileged. Surely that would be the same at Holyrood?ydoethur said:
They threatened him with prosecution over verbal evidence to a parliamentary committee?Luckyguy1983 said:
Let me try and help.rottenborough said:
Am I the only one who is completely lost with all this?Luckyguy1983 said:
So the one body that wasn't stuffed with SNP and Green members (an accidental omission one assumes), votes that there is no reason why documents that may be published legally, may not be published legally. Surprise surprise.CarlottaVance said:
1. This committee was set up to investigate why the initial complaints procedure (prior to the police case) against Alex Salmond was so mishandled that the Scottish Government ended up having to pay him £500,000 of taxpayers' money. It is lead by an SNP MSP, and has on it an SNP/Green majority of 5 to 4.
2. Alex Salmond's allegation (made very powerfully it must be said) is that the complaints were deliberately orchestrated, pushed, exaggerated, and to some extent invented, with the intention of destroying his reputation and preventing him ever returning to front-line politics. He also alleges that Nicola Sturgeon misled the SP about the nature of her meetings with him.
3. Salmond has submitted evidence of the above to the enquiry, but they have thus far refused to publish it (not parts of it - all of it), so it cannot form part of their report. They have also warned Salmond that if his verbal evidence strays into proscribed areas, he could be subject to criminal prosecution - without actually telling him what areas to stay clear of. The refusal to publish is based on a court order by Lady Dorrian, trial judge in Salmond's sexual assault case, protecting (I think) the complainants' identities.
4. The Spectator brought a legal case to modify this court order and prove that Salmond's evidence could indeed be published. Heard by Lady Dorrian, who stated that the Scottish Government's interpretation of her order to prevent Salmond's evidence being published was 'absurd'. She amended her court order to allow publication.
5. Despite this, and the evidence being published by the Spectator, the enquiry still refused to publish the evidence, but did agree to hand the issue to the SP procedural committee for adjudication.
6. This committee has now declared it is legal to publish. Salmond will now be able to testify without threat of criminal proceedings against him.
I thought that in itself would be illegal as such occasions are privileged?
Certainly Westminster has got very hot and bothered when threats are made to witnesses in their inquiries.
@DavidL are you able to help us here?0 -
Interesting work Fishing.2
-
Yes, the midterm slump is no illusion, but not necessarily a guide to the main event.Philip_Thompson said:
There's been hints to that in the past. I think the idea is that away from the heat and fury of the election people's truer feelings are revealed.rkrkrk said:Interesting header. Seems really weird to me that correlations might be stronger further away from an election.
0 -
I am a free marketeer and liberal. I am very libertarian. Disappointed in you that you completely omitted social liberalism in any sense.kinabalu said:
I get the circumstances, yes, and my conclusion is unchanged. I read you as an unusual mix of Market Fundamentalist and English Nationalist who sometimes pops a button or two when attempting to meld all that together in a way that is consistent and avoids its less savoury aspects.Philip_Thompson said:FPT
I have never voted for Farage to be elected to a Parliament.kinabalu said:
The point I'm making is that when I see a person who (i) is prepared to vote - even once - for a Farage party and yet (ii) claims to have been so mortified by the xenophobia showed by Theresa May's "Citizens of Nowhere" speech and her "Go Home" vans that they resign from the Tory Party, I smell a rat. Not accusing you of anything terrible. You're an excellent poster in many ways. But I am deeply skeptical of some of what you proclaim as your "principles". It doesn't entirely scan to me. I think you're driven mainly by EngNat.Philip_Thompson said:
What point are you trying to make?kinabalu said:
I've never eaten chocolate but I once purchased a 99 and with great relish consumed the flake.Philip_Thompson said:
I voted to leave the EU, have the British contingent of the European Parliament abolished and Farage tossed out as an elected politician as a result, yes.kinabalu said:
Apart from voting for a party led by him.Philip_Thompson said:
I am not and never have been a Farage voter.kinabalu said:
Farage voter says that Keir Starmer is "nasty".Philip_Thompson said:
He's also a nasty arsehole careerist.NerysHughes said:
Starmer is awful, dull and clueless, as his actions in 2019 demonstrated.kle4 said:
Plenty of time. But he does need something of his to really catch people's attention and fix an image in peoples' minds. Goodness knows what though.Slackbladder said:
While MPs like Luciana Berger were getting bullied out of the Labour Party he chose to serve in the Shadow Cabinet to further his own career and put forward Corbyn as PM.
Only those who refused to serve under Corbyn should have been considered as possible Labour Party leaders. A Labour led by Yvette Cooper would be a credible threat right now.
Do we have a category prize for this?
I'd do it again. No regrets from voting to evict Farage.
I voted to evict Farage from the European Parliament. If he ever found his way into Westminster and I had a way to evict him from that I'd be quite tempted to take it. Wouldn't you?
I have once voted for Farage to be ejected from a Parliament.
Like a reality TV show when it flips between "vote to evict" and "vote to save".
Do you see the difference?
You should be flattered I'm interested in you. Other posters will be jealous.
But yes I am an English nationalist, I don't hide that nor is there a contradiction.
Everyone is a nationalist to some degree. The only question is where you put the nation. There is absolutely nothing wrong with nationalism whatsoever and most "sins" supposedly to do with nationalism are actually about imperialism, I am not an imperialist.0 -
I've got a joke about Oedipus and Midas to tell you all.
It is motherfucking gold.
(Sorry for the potty mouth.)2 -
See the local area case data...turbotubbs said:
Some kind of outbreak near Potterne in Wilts. No idea where though.Flatlander said:
COVID itself doesn't appear to be going out of fashion though.Malmesbury said:
Hopefully COVID is going out of fashion with the over 85s big time...DougSeal said:
The over-85 hospitalisation data looks - interesting...Malmesbury said:Age related data
Definitely a hint of an uptick / levelling off.
0 -
Very true. That's why I used the 0.7 threshold rather than 0.5 that people sometimes use for noisier data. I wanted to be reasonably sure of any relationships observed. Also, though I didn't have space to go into this in the header, I looked at the t- and p-stats and so on to try to spot spurious correlations.EPG said:Honestly, N=11 prevents any definitive statements, though one can of course spot any clear yes or no situations. Like the US presidential election trivia about Ohio and so on.
I think the 0.9 correlation for the pre-election opinion poll is pretty clear, though. Without knowing anything else, that's the one you'd expect to have the closest correlation, and a very good one, and that's what we get.0 -
My 18 year old son just been invited for his vaccine shot.......
We can only assume it is because he has Asperger's
He is delighted by this news
His Mum wants to know when its her turn
6 -
Fishing - when you cut the number of observations three years out, did that affect all categories (e.g. six months before) or just the 3 year category?0
-
Not because the system thinks he's 6cm tall?Floater said:My 18 year old son just been invited for his vaccine shot.......
We can only assume it is because he has Asperger's
He is delighted by this news
His Mum wants to know when its her turn1 -
Any prisons round there?turbotubbs said:
See the local area case data...turbotubbs said:
Some kind of outbreak near Potterne in Wilts. No idea where though.Flatlander said:
COVID itself doesn't appear to be going out of fashion though.Malmesbury said:
Hopefully COVID is going out of fashion with the over 85s big time...DougSeal said:
The over-85 hospitalisation data looks - interesting...Malmesbury said:Age related data
Definitely a hint of an uptick / levelling off.0 -
Came from local surgery - so they should know him ....TheWhiteRabbit said:
Not because the system thinks he's 6cm tall?Floater said:My 18 year old son just been invited for his vaccine shot.......
We can only assume it is because he has Asperger's
He is delighted by this news
His Mum wants to know when its her turn
0 -
Just the three year one. For the rest, n=11.TheWhiteRabbit said:Fishing - when you cut the number of observations three years out, did that affect all categories (e.g. six months before) or just the 3 year category?
1 -
Is there perhaps an argument for scrapping the second Pfizer dose altogether ?Richard_Nabavi said:Incidentally, did we note this from earlier today?
Two Canada-based researchers on Wednesday urged governments to delay administering the second dose of Pfizer Inc’s COVID-19 vaccine, which they said had an efficacy of 92.6% after the first dose, as it was not significantly beneficial in the short term.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-pfizer-idUSKBN2AI0EC1
This discussion has been closed.