The dip in Pfizer efficacy against symptomatic disease perhaps foretells where the Hospitalisations curve might follow in a few weeks. It does look like 12 weeks might be a stretch for second Pfizet doses, and I hope the ability to pivot a little and foreshorten that gap specifically for Pfizer is something the vaccination campaign organisers are alive to.
Yes, although the efficacy against hospitalisation is still rising at that point.
IHT is interesting. It is an ultra-focused wealth tax on only 25k estates per year, each of which pays an average of £200k. Even if multiplied up by 30 to allow for the length of a generation, that is only 700k people, or just over 1% of the population.
Yet it is hated.
So why do some think that very narrow Wealth Taxes will work, or be acceptable to the general populus?
The only place afaik that raises genuinely significant amounts through a Wealth Tax is Switzerland, and that does it by application to a significant proportion of the population, and raises about 4% of tax revenue. All the narrow wealth taxes in Europe (France, Spain, Norway iirc) only raise around 1% of tax revenue at best.
IHT raises £5bn a year, which is 0.7% of tax reveue. Ish.
I won't engage with the "Independent Schools can't ever help Equality of Opportunity" bollocks, because it is even more bollocks currently than it has been in the past. Anyone thinking that first needs to move their head out of 1893.
Have a nice evening.
From t'internet. Wealth taxes in Europe:
Net Wealth Taxes Norway levies a net wealth tax of 0.85 percent on individuals’ wealth stocks exceeding NOK1.5 million (€152,000 or US $170,000), with 0.7 percent going to municipalities and 0.15 percent to the central government. Norway’s net wealth tax dates to 1892. Under COVID-19-related measures, individual business owners and shareholders who realize a loss in 2020 are eligible for a one-year deferred payment of the wealth tax.
Spain’s net wealth tax is a progressive tax ranging from 0.2 percent to 3.75 percent on wealth stocks above €700,000 ($784,000; lower in some regions), with rates varying substantially across Spain’s autonomous regions (Madrid offers a 100 percent relief). Spanish residents are subject to the tax on a worldwide basis while nonresidents pay the tax only on assets located in Spain.
Switzerland levies its net wealth tax at the cantonal level and covers worldwide assets (except real estate and permanent establishments located abroad). The tax rates and allowances vary significantly across cantons. The Swiss net wealth tax was first implemented in 1840.
Yes, I never met anyone in Switzerland who thought the wealth tax unreasonable. Come to that, I've never met anyone who hated IHT, though I know there's a widespread belief to that effect. When I inherited from my mother, it was a nice windfall, and paying the tax just made it a smaller windfall, but still very welcome. It never occurred to me to grumble, any more than I mutter about VAT when I buy something - and VAT is far more significant as it hits you every day, rather than a couple of times in your life.
We all extrapolate from our personal feelings and those of oyr friends. But I'm quite sure that people get used to whatever the tax arrangements are. What they really do hate is volatility, the sort of thing you see in populist states where a tax is suddenly doubled.
It's also worth noting how carefully IHT has been fine tuned not to affect approved Tory families and approved Tory voters - sixtysomethings who are children of conventional families. I dealt with the issue when doing the probate of a relative last year and it was quite striking how it has changed since I previously did it - nuclear family, conventionally married couples, direct children, living in SE or in better enclaves elsewhere, were considerably privileged. Tough shite if you are a gay uncle who wants to leave his home to his dearly loved nieces and nephews.
And of course it's not just charities but approved political parties which benefit from tax relief on donations. It's quite clear from demographics which party will benefit most. I think that is outrageous, not because of that, but because nobody should be allowed a voice in politics after death (when one's vote expires, except in Scotland in 1978, but that is another story).
I'm not sure I understand this. If you're married then the IHT threshold is effectively doubled to £650000. Not sure what else you are getting at - although IHT isn't a strong point of mine
It is indeed. But there is also asn extra allowance where the family home goes to direct children. [Edit: Including proceeds from sale thereof etc.]
Iirc the extra allowance can be used to give money to stepchildren....too.....
Yeas, but not nephews etc.
That's unfortunate, my uncle has said he wants to leave me his house!
I think Pfizer will remain the best out of the AZN but I believe they use the same methodology.
I think J&J might turn out to be the best one as it only requires on jab.
Although I fully expect regardless of the brand we'll all require annual jabs.
But I'm glad I got the Pfizer one, I mean has AZN ever come up with a tablet like viagra, that's two humanity altering game changers from one company.
Pfizer, of course, tried to buy AZN back in 2014. Just as well they didn’t succeed.
And what's happened since, coupled with the more hawkish stance towards China, might have wider implications in future. You wonder if the Government might find reasons to block any future attempts to swallow up AstraZeneca? Wouldn't be a complete surprise if the takeover of ARM gets kiboshed as well.
ARM is currently owned by Softbank of Japan. Moving its ownership to Nvidia of the US isn't that big a change.
It is in terms of motivation of their owners.
Softbank: recycling Japanese Yakuza money. nVidia: building ridiculouslty powerful graphics cards.
What about the Reform Party or whatever UKIP 3.0 is called?
Wasn't that pretty much just anti-lockdown stuff and throw in some vague talk of 'reform'? With the government getting a shot in the arm and readying to relax things, they probably wouldn't have a big impact, so little chance of the locals putting pressure on the Tories from that direction at least.
Who's going to break it to poor contrarian?
On the contrary, ahem, if ReformUK do not put up large numbers of candidates we won't have had a proper test of such sentiment, and so whether they would have shown a significant (though still minority) level of support is therefore unknowable. Perfect result.
One of the great unknowables about the next election is what happens to the Brexit party vote, who mostly appear to have been former non-voters or disaffected Labour voters.
Do they
1) Resume the status quo ante, in which case Johnson can kiss most of his new seats goodbye;
2) Vote for the Tories, in which case Starmer can kiss most of the non-metropolitan north and Wales goodbye;
3) Find another minor party to vote for.
A smart politician would be pitching for those voters like their lives depended on it. At the moment, Johnson is making a few admittedly halfarsed attempts to do so. Starmer so far doesn’t seem to have a strategy at all.
The dip in Pfizer efficacy against symptomatic disease perhaps foretells where the Hospitalisations curve might follow in a few weeks. It does look like 12 weeks might be a stretch for second Pfizet doses, and I hope the ability to pivot a little and foreshorten that gap specifically for Pfizer is something the vaccination campaign organisers are alive to.
Yes, although the efficacy against hospitalisation is still rising at that point.
Nowhere near as good as the Israel results with second dose at 3 weeks though.
I think Pfizer will remain the best out of the AZN but I believe they use the same methodology.
I think J&J might turn out to be the best one as it only requires on jab.
Although I fully expect regardless of the brand we'll all require annual jabs.
But I'm glad I got the Pfizer one, I mean has AZN ever come up with a tablet like viagra, that's two humanity altering game changers from one company.
Pfizer, of course, tried to buy AZN back in 2014. Just as well they didn’t succeed.
And what's happened since, coupled with the more hawkish stance towards China, might have wider implications in future. You wonder if the Government might find reasons to block any future attempts to swallow up AstraZeneca? Wouldn't be a complete surprise if the takeover of ARM gets kiboshed as well.
ARM is currently owned by Softbank of Japan. Moving its ownership to Nvidia of the US isn't that big a change.
It is in terms of motivation of their owners.
Softbank: recycling Japanese Yakuza money. nVidia: building ridiculouslty powerful graphics cards.
Hmmmm...
I'd rather have nVidia as my owner personally.
NVIDIA behaviour is often very mafia-esque....
Not that I am bitter or anything that still not got a 3090 or 3080Ti (still isn't released).
More seriously the bigger concern is ARM doing well isn't necessarily a great alignment for Nvidia. Selling chip design licences to their rivals on reasonable terms doesn't seem like a good business move for Nvidia.
I think Pfizer will remain the best out of the AZN but I believe they use the same methodology.
I think J&J might turn out to be the best one as it only requires on jab.
Although I fully expect regardless of the brand we'll all require annual jabs.
But I'm glad I got the Pfizer one, I mean has AZN ever come up with a tablet like viagra, that's two humanity altering game changers from one company.
Pfizer, of course, tried to buy AZN back in 2014. Just as well they didn’t succeed.
And what's happened since, coupled with the more hawkish stance towards China, might have wider implications in future. You wonder if the Government might find reasons to block any future attempts to swallow up AstraZeneca? Wouldn't be a complete surprise if the takeover of ARM gets kiboshed as well.
ARM is currently owned by Softbank of Japan. Moving its ownership to Nvidia of the US isn't that big a change.
It is in terms of motivation of their owners.
Softbank: recycling Japanese Yakuza money. nVidia: building ridiculouslty powerful graphics cards.
Hmmmm...
I'd rather have nVidia as my owner personally.
Hmm, not sure I'd want ARM to be owned by Nvidia. I don't think they'd be particularly good owners.
So The Sunday Times have done a piece on Boris Johnson's finances, he really is a shit negotiator.
Johnson’s biggest likely outlay is the result of what one Old Etonian school friend describes as “his pecker problem”. The friend recalls: “Boris has always had a problem keeping his pecker in his trousers. And that’s what so often has led him into trouble.”
Six children — those are the ones that are known about — by three women, plus two divorces and an imminent third wedding to pay for don’t come cheap.
Johnson is still believed to help support two of his four children with his second wife, Marina Wheeler, who are all now in their twenties after expensive private schools and universities.
Stephanie, aged 11, is Johnson’s fifth child, through his affair with Helen Macintyre, an art consultant, and Wilfred will be one next month.
Johnson’s first divorce, from Allegra Mostyn-Owen in 1993, was not costly and they had no children. But his divorce last year from Wheeler, a human rights QC, after 25 years together, was a different matter. Having separated in the summer of 2018 after Johnson met Symonds, it took them until February 2020 to reach a financial settlement.
Word in legal circles is that Johnson was by then desperate to finalise the divorce, because Symonds was pregnant and he was determined not to announce the pregnancy until Wheeler, and their children, had been placated.
That gave his soon-to-be-ex-wife considerable leverage in the protracted negotiations, leading to what one QC who professes familiarity with the details describes as “one of the most devastatingly one-sided divorces in British legal history”.
It even gave Wheeler a considerable percentage of Johnson’s future lucrative earnings after he leaves office. Might it be no wonder then that Boris needs a leg-up with the home decor?
Was there once a time when journalism aspired to something a little better than rummaging through the PM's dustbins for detritus? Ah well, I suppose they have bills to pay too.
As so often, however, the historical comparisons work out rather nicely in Boris' favour:
Lough uses Churchill’s own most private records, many never researched before, to chronicle his family’s chronic shortage of money, his own extravagance and his recurring losses from gambling or trading in shares and currencies. Churchill tried to keep himself afloat by borrowing to the hilt, putting off bills and writing ‘all over the place’; when all else failed, he had to ask family or friends to come to the rescue. This they did on no fewer than six occasions unearthed by Lough, the last when Churchill became Prime Minister in 1940. Yet within five years he had taken advantage of his worldwide celebrity to transform his private fortunes with the same ruthlessness as he waged war, reaching 1945 with today’s equivalent of £3 million in the bank. His lucrative war memoirs were still to come.
Yeah, but Winston Churchill was a freaking genius.
Boris Johnson? Not so much.
Sheer folly, plus ego the size of Greenland, compels BJ to constantly compare himself against WSC.
For he can NEVER measure up, only down.
Well, Winston is obviously a tough act to follow: he was even better than Boris at showing up Continentals who underestimated him. Not quite so good at elections though.
A fun anecdote about Shaun Bailey - I was once in a strategy meeting with some Bailey campaign staffers talking about local campaign issues in different London boroughs, when Shaun came into the room to listen in. Eventually, he piped up to ask us if we'd heard of the Low Emissions Zone, and spent a few minutes showing us where the M25 was on a big map of London they had in the office.
Cheers Shaun!
My 'favourite' Shaun Bailey story was his recent suggestion that Londoners in temporary accommodation or homeless could benefit from shared ownership schemes as many of them would be able to rustle up a £5K deposit. He did, to his credit, acknowledge that they may struggle a bit more with being granted a mortgage.
The man's a complete idiot, regardless of personal political preference. I'm really surprised the Tories have let him get this far. Even if nobody else would have a chance of winning London, he's a bit damaging to the Tory brand.
I think Pfizer will remain the best out of the AZN but I believe they use the same methodology.
I think J&J might turn out to be the best one as it only requires on jab.
Although I fully expect regardless of the brand we'll all require annual jabs.
But I'm glad I got the Pfizer one, I mean has AZN ever come up with a tablet like viagra, that's two humanity altering game changers from one company.
Pfizer, of course, tried to buy AZN back in 2014. Just as well they didn’t succeed.
And what's happened since, coupled with the more hawkish stance towards China, might have wider implications in future. You wonder if the Government might find reasons to block any future attempts to swallow up AstraZeneca? Wouldn't be a complete surprise if the takeover of ARM gets kiboshed as well.
ARM is currently owned by Softbank of Japan. Moving its ownership to Nvidia of the US isn't that big a change.
It is in terms of motivation of their owners.
Softbank: recycling Japanese Yakuza money. nVidia: building ridiculouslty powerful graphics cards.
Hmmmm...
I'd rather have nVidia as my owner personally.
Hmm, not sure I'd want ARM to be owned by Nvidia. I don't think they'd be particularly good owners.
ARM is a small software company with an oversized influence on the world. The core team in Cambridge is tiny. (I visiting them when their headquarters were a terraced house in Cambridge.)
But the guys at ARM are literally the best in the world. The embedded knowledge in that team is enormous.
If nVidia turned out to be a bad owner, they could decamp down the road and start a new company. nVidia would be mad to mess with that.
IHT is interesting. It is an ultra-focused wealth tax on only 25k estates per year, each of which pays an average of £200k. Even if multiplied up by 30 to allow for the length of a generation, that is only 700k people, or just over 1% of the population.
Yet it is hated.
So why do some think that very narrow Wealth Taxes will work, or be acceptable to the general populus?
The only place afaik that raises genuinely significant amounts through a Wealth Tax is Switzerland, and that does it by application to a significant proportion of the population, and raises about 4% of tax revenue. All the narrow wealth taxes in Europe (France, Spain, Norway iirc) only raise around 1% of tax revenue at best.
IHT raises £5bn a year, which is 0.7% of tax reveue. Ish.
I won't engage with the "Independent Schools can't ever help Equality of Opportunity" bollocks, because it is even more bollocks currently than it has been in the past. Anyone thinking that first needs to move their head out of 1893.
Have a nice evening.
From t'internet. Wealth taxes in Europe:
Net Wealth Taxes Norway levies a net wealth tax of 0.85 percent on individuals’ wealth stocks exceeding NOK1.5 million (€152,000 or US $170,000), with 0.7 percent going to municipalities and 0.15 percent to the central government. Norway’s net wealth tax dates to 1892. Under COVID-19-related measures, individual business owners and shareholders who realize a loss in 2020 are eligible for a one-year deferred payment of the wealth tax.
Spain’s net wealth tax is a progressive tax ranging from 0.2 percent to 3.75 percent on wealth stocks above €700,000 ($784,000; lower in some regions), with rates varying substantially across Spain’s autonomous regions (Madrid offers a 100 percent relief). Spanish residents are subject to the tax on a worldwide basis while nonresidents pay the tax only on assets located in Spain.
Switzerland levies its net wealth tax at the cantonal level and covers worldwide assets (except real estate and permanent establishments located abroad). The tax rates and allowances vary significantly across cantons. The Swiss net wealth tax was first implemented in 1840.
Yes, I never met anyone in Switzerland who thought the wealth tax unreasonable. Come to that, I've never met anyone who hated IHT, though I know there's a widespread belief to that effect. When I inherited from my mother, it was a nice windfall, and paying the tax just made it a smaller windfall, but still very welcome. It never occurred to me to grumble, any more than I mutter about VAT when I buy something - and VAT is far more significant as it hits you every day, rather than a couple of times in your life.
We all extrapolate from our personal feelings and those of oyr friends. But I'm quite sure that people get used to whatever the tax arrangements are. What they really do hate is volatility, the sort of thing you see in populist states where a tax is suddenly doubled.
It's also worth noting how carefully IHT has been fine tuned not to affect approved Tory families and approved Tory voters - sixtysomethings who are children of conventional families. I dealt with the issue when doing the probate of a relative last year and it was quite striking how it has changed since I previously did it - nuclear family, conventionally married couples, direct children, living in SE or in better enclaves elsewhere, were considerably privileged. Tough shite if you are a gay uncle who wants to leave his home to his dearly loved nieces and nephews.
And of course it's not just charities but approved political parties which benefit from tax relief on donations. It's quite clear from demographics which party will benefit most. I think that is outrageous, not because of that, but because nobody should be allowed a voice in politics after death (when one's vote expires, except in Scotland in 1978, but that is another story).
I'm not sure I understand this. If you're married then the IHT threshold is effectively doubled to £650000. Not sure what else you are getting at - although IHT isn't a strong point of mine
It is indeed. But there is also asn extra allowance where the family home goes to direct children. [Edit: Including proceeds from sale thereof etc.]
Iirc the extra allowance can be used to give money to stepchildren....too.....
IHT is interesting. It is an ultra-focused wealth tax on only 25k estates per year, each of which pays an average of £200k. Even if multiplied up by 30 to allow for the length of a generation, that is only 700k people, or just over 1% of the population.
Yet it is hated.
So why do some think that very narrow Wealth Taxes will work, or be acceptable to the general populus?
The only place afaik that raises genuinely significant amounts through a Wealth Tax is Switzerland, and that does it by application to a significant proportion of the population, and raises about 4% of tax revenue. All the narrow wealth taxes in Europe (France, Spain, Norway iirc) only raise around 1% of tax revenue at best.
IHT raises £5bn a year, which is 0.7% of tax reveue. Ish.
I won't engage with the "Independent Schools can't ever help Equality of Opportunity" bollocks, because it is even more bollocks currently than it has been in the past. Anyone thinking that first needs to move their head out of 1893.
Have a nice evening.
From t'internet. Wealth taxes in Europe:
Net Wealth Taxes Norway levies a net wealth tax of 0.85 percent on individuals’ wealth stocks exceeding NOK1.5 million (€152,000 or US $170,000), with 0.7 percent going to municipalities and 0.15 percent to the central government. Norway’s net wealth tax dates to 1892. Under COVID-19-related measures, individual business owners and shareholders who realize a loss in 2020 are eligible for a one-year deferred payment of the wealth tax.
Spain’s net wealth tax is a progressive tax ranging from 0.2 percent to 3.75 percent on wealth stocks above €700,000 ($784,000; lower in some regions), with rates varying substantially across Spain’s autonomous regions (Madrid offers a 100 percent relief). Spanish residents are subject to the tax on a worldwide basis while nonresidents pay the tax only on assets located in Spain.
Switzerland levies its net wealth tax at the cantonal level and covers worldwide assets (except real estate and permanent establishments located abroad). The tax rates and allowances vary significantly across cantons. The Swiss net wealth tax was first implemented in 1840.
Yes, I never met anyone in Switzerland who thought the wealth tax unreasonable. Come to that, I've never met anyone who hated IHT, though I know there's a widespread belief to that effect. When I inherited from my mother, it was a nice windfall, and paying the tax just made it a smaller windfall, but still very welcome. It never occurred to me to grumble, any more than I mutter about VAT when I buy something - and VAT is far more significant as it hits you every day, rather than a couple of times in your life.
We all extrapolate from our personal feelings and those of oyr friends. But I'm quite sure that people get used to whatever the tax arrangements are. What they really do hate is volatility, the sort of thing you see in populist states where a tax is suddenly doubled.
It's also worth noting how carefully IHT has been fine tuned not to affect approved Tory families and approved Tory voters - sixtysomethings who are children of conventional families. I dealt with the issue when doing the probate of a relative last year and it was quite striking how it has changed since I previously did it - nuclear family, conventionally married couples, direct children, living in SE or in better enclaves elsewhere, were considerably privileged. Tough shite if you are a gay uncle who wants to leave his home to his dearly loved nieces and nephews.
And of course it's not just charities but approved political parties which benefit from tax relief on donations. It's quite clear from demographics which party will benefit most. I think that is outrageous, not because of that, but because nobody should be allowed a voice in politics after death (when one's vote expires, except in Scotland in 1978, but that is another story).
I'm not sure I understand this. If you're married then the IHT threshold is effectively doubled to £650000. Not sure what else you are getting at - although IHT isn't a strong point of mine
It is indeed. But there is also asn extra allowance where the family home goes to direct children. [Edit: Including proceeds from sale thereof etc.]
Iirc the extra allowance can be used to give money to stepchildren....too.....
Yeas, but not nephews etc.
Set up a trust for that....
Still have to pay some IHT. Which is more than if the law was equitable (ie absolute flat rate per person never mind recipient).
The dip in Pfizer efficacy against symptomatic disease perhaps foretells where the Hospitalisations curve might follow in a few weeks. It does look like 12 weeks might be a stretch for second Pfizet doses, and I hope the ability to pivot a little and foreshorten that gap specifically for Pfizer is something the vaccination campaign organisers are alive to.
Yes, although the efficacy against hospitalisation is still rising at that point.
Nowhere near as good as the Israel results with second dose at 3 weeks though.
While that's true, you're thinking (as a doctor) in terms of the individual. You are focusing on the local maxima. The optimum outcome for an individual with the Pfizer vaccine is to get the second dose three works after the first.
But the system optima is to crush the prevalance of the virus, and that is best achieved by getting as many jabs in arms as quickly as possible.
So The Sunday Times have done a piece on Boris Johnson's finances, he really is a shit negotiator.
Johnson’s biggest likely outlay is the result of what one Old Etonian school friend describes as “his pecker problem”. The friend recalls: “Boris has always had a problem keeping his pecker in his trousers. And that’s what so often has led him into trouble.”
Six children — those are the ones that are known about — by three women, plus two divorces and an imminent third wedding to pay for don’t come cheap.
Johnson is still believed to help support two of his four children with his second wife, Marina Wheeler, who are all now in their twenties after expensive private schools and universities.
Stephanie, aged 11, is Johnson’s fifth child, through his affair with Helen Macintyre, an art consultant, and Wilfred will be one next month.
Johnson’s first divorce, from Allegra Mostyn-Owen in 1993, was not costly and they had no children. But his divorce last year from Wheeler, a human rights QC, after 25 years together, was a different matter. Having separated in the summer of 2018 after Johnson met Symonds, it took them until February 2020 to reach a financial settlement.
Word in legal circles is that Johnson was by then desperate to finalise the divorce, because Symonds was pregnant and he was determined not to announce the pregnancy until Wheeler, and their children, had been placated.
That gave his soon-to-be-ex-wife considerable leverage in the protracted negotiations, leading to what one QC who professes familiarity with the details describes as “one of the most devastatingly one-sided divorces in British legal history”.
It even gave Wheeler a considerable percentage of Johnson’s future lucrative earnings after he leaves office. Might it be no wonder then that Boris needs a leg-up with the home decor?
Was there once a time when journalism aspired to something a little better than rummaging through the PM's dustbins for detritus? Ah well, I suppose they have bills to pay too.
As so often, however, the historical comparisons work out rather nicely in Boris' favour:
Lough uses Churchill’s own most private records, many never researched before, to chronicle his family’s chronic shortage of money, his own extravagance and his recurring losses from gambling or trading in shares and currencies. Churchill tried to keep himself afloat by borrowing to the hilt, putting off bills and writing ‘all over the place’; when all else failed, he had to ask family or friends to come to the rescue. This they did on no fewer than six occasions unearthed by Lough, the last when Churchill became Prime Minister in 1940. Yet within five years he had taken advantage of his worldwide celebrity to transform his private fortunes with the same ruthlessness as he waged war, reaching 1945 with today’s equivalent of £3 million in the bank. His lucrative war memoirs were still to come.
Yeah, but Winston Churchill was a freaking genius.
Boris Johnson? Not so much.
Sheer folly, plus ego the size of Greenland, compels BJ to constantly compare himself against WSC.
For he can NEVER measure up, only down.
Well, Winston is obviously a tough act to follow: he was even better than Boris at showing up Continentals who underestimated him. Not quite so good at elections though.
Winston Churchill sucked at elections. From his defeat in Manchester North West in 1908 to the landslide of 1945 his electoral record was dismal. Heck, he barely squeaked home in 1951 with a Trumpite minority mandate.
Partly I think it was simply because he was a rubbish campaigner. He tended to be at his best giving long speeches to selected audiences and political campaigning didn’t work like that after 1885.
But he also did have a rather bad habit of insulting people in crass ways, a bit like Hilary Clinton.
The dip in Pfizer efficacy against symptomatic disease perhaps foretells where the Hospitalisations curve might follow in a few weeks. It does look like 12 weeks might be a stretch for second Pfizet doses, and I hope the ability to pivot a little and foreshorten that gap specifically for Pfizer is something the vaccination campaign organisers are alive to.
Yes, although the efficacy against hospitalisation is still rising at that point.
Nowhere near as good as the Israel results with second dose at 3 weeks though.
While that's true, you're thinking (as a doctor) in terms of the individual. You are focusing on the local maxima. The optimum outcome for an individual with the Pfizer vaccine is to get the second dose three works after the first.
But the system optima is to crush the prevalance of the virus, and that is best achieved by getting as many jabs in arms as quickly as possible.
In which case you want to reduce infections, not just hospitalisations, and looking at the graph in the header, that drops off noticeably without the booster.
So The Sunday Times have done a piece on Boris Johnson's finances, he really is a shit negotiator.
Johnson’s biggest likely outlay is the result of what one Old Etonian school friend describes as “his pecker problem”. The friend recalls: “Boris has always had a problem keeping his pecker in his trousers. And that’s what so often has led him into trouble.”
Six children — those are the ones that are known about — by three women, plus two divorces and an imminent third wedding to pay for don’t come cheap.
Johnson is still believed to help support two of his four children with his second wife, Marina Wheeler, who are all now in their twenties after expensive private schools and universities.
Stephanie, aged 11, is Johnson’s fifth child, through his affair with Helen Macintyre, an art consultant, and Wilfred will be one next month.
Johnson’s first divorce, from Allegra Mostyn-Owen in 1993, was not costly and they had no children. But his divorce last year from Wheeler, a human rights QC, after 25 years together, was a different matter. Having separated in the summer of 2018 after Johnson met Symonds, it took them until February 2020 to reach a financial settlement.
Word in legal circles is that Johnson was by then desperate to finalise the divorce, because Symonds was pregnant and he was determined not to announce the pregnancy until Wheeler, and their children, had been placated.
That gave his soon-to-be-ex-wife considerable leverage in the protracted negotiations, leading to what one QC who professes familiarity with the details describes as “one of the most devastatingly one-sided divorces in British legal history”.
It even gave Wheeler a considerable percentage of Johnson’s future lucrative earnings after he leaves office. Might it be no wonder then that Boris needs a leg-up with the home decor?
Was there once a time when journalism aspired to something a little better than rummaging through the PM's dustbins for detritus? Ah well, I suppose they have bills to pay too.
As so often, however, the historical comparisons work out rather nicely in Boris' favour:
Lough uses Churchill’s own most private records, many never researched before, to chronicle his family’s chronic shortage of money, his own extravagance and his recurring losses from gambling or trading in shares and currencies. Churchill tried to keep himself afloat by borrowing to the hilt, putting off bills and writing ‘all over the place’; when all else failed, he had to ask family or friends to come to the rescue. This they did on no fewer than six occasions unearthed by Lough, the last when Churchill became Prime Minister in 1940. Yet within five years he had taken advantage of his worldwide celebrity to transform his private fortunes with the same ruthlessness as he waged war, reaching 1945 with today’s equivalent of £3 million in the bank. His lucrative war memoirs were still to come.
Yeah, but Winston Churchill was a freaking genius.
Boris Johnson? Not so much.
Sheer folly, plus ego the size of Greenland, compels BJ to constantly compare himself against WSC.
For he can NEVER measure up, only down.
Well, Winston is obviously a tough act to follow: he was even better than Boris at showing up Continentals who underestimated him. Not quite so good at elections though.
But he also did have a rather bad habit of insulting people in crass ways.
A fun anecdote about Shaun Bailey - I was once in a strategy meeting with some Bailey campaign staffers talking about local campaign issues in different London boroughs, when Shaun came into the room to listen in. Eventually, he piped up to ask us if we'd heard of the Low Emissions Zone, and spent a few minutes showing us where the M25 was on a big map of London they had in the office.
Cheers Shaun!
My 'favourite' Shaun Bailey story was his recent suggestion that Londoners in temporary accommodation or homeless could benefit from shared ownership schemes as many of them would be able to rustle up a £5K deposit. He did, to his credit, acknowledge that they may struggle a bit more with being granted a mortgage.
The man's a complete idiot, regardless of personal political preference. I'm really surprised the Tories have let him get this far. Even if nobody else would have a chance of winning London, he's a bit damaging to the Tory brand.
For all it's a complete hospital pass, and obviously was from the start, how did Shaun Bailey get to be the candidate?
A fun anecdote about Shaun Bailey - I was once in a strategy meeting with some Bailey campaign staffers talking about local campaign issues in different London boroughs, when Shaun came into the room to listen in. Eventually, he piped up to ask us if we'd heard of the Low Emissions Zone, and spent a few minutes showing us where the M25 was on a big map of London they had in the office.
Cheers Shaun!
My 'favourite' Shaun Bailey story was his recent suggestion that Londoners in temporary accommodation or homeless could benefit from shared ownership schemes as many of them would be able to rustle up a £5K deposit. He did, to his credit, acknowledge that they may struggle a bit more with being granted a mortgage.
The man's a complete idiot, regardless of personal political preference. I'm really surprised the Tories have let him get this far. Even if nobody else would have a chance of winning London, he's a bit damaging to the Tory brand.
For all it's a complete hospital pass, and obviously was from the start, how did Shaun Bailey get to be the candidate?
CCHQ’s unintentional honesty serves well:
‘Another candidate would have done, but we couldn’t find one.’
People aged 56 to 59 in England are being invited to book their coronavirus vaccine from this week. Letters for people in the age group, offering them the vaccine, started being delivered to homes on Saturday.
So The Sunday Times have done a piece on Boris Johnson's finances, he really is a shit negotiator.
Johnson’s biggest likely outlay is the result of what one Old Etonian school friend describes as “his pecker problem”. The friend recalls: “Boris has always had a problem keeping his pecker in his trousers. And that’s what so often has led him into trouble.”
Six children — those are the ones that are known about — by three women, plus two divorces and an imminent third wedding to pay for don’t come cheap.
Johnson is still believed to help support two of his four children with his second wife, Marina Wheeler, who are all now in their twenties after expensive private schools and universities.
Stephanie, aged 11, is Johnson’s fifth child, through his affair with Helen Macintyre, an art consultant, and Wilfred will be one next month.
Johnson’s first divorce, from Allegra Mostyn-Owen in 1993, was not costly and they had no children. But his divorce last year from Wheeler, a human rights QC, after 25 years together, was a different matter. Having separated in the summer of 2018 after Johnson met Symonds, it took them until February 2020 to reach a financial settlement.
Word in legal circles is that Johnson was by then desperate to finalise the divorce, because Symonds was pregnant and he was determined not to announce the pregnancy until Wheeler, and their children, had been placated.
That gave his soon-to-be-ex-wife considerable leverage in the protracted negotiations, leading to what one QC who professes familiarity with the details describes as “one of the most devastatingly one-sided divorces in British legal history”.
It even gave Wheeler a considerable percentage of Johnson’s future lucrative earnings after he leaves office. Might it be no wonder then that Boris needs a leg-up with the home decor?
Was there once a time when journalism aspired to something a little better than rummaging through the PM's dustbins for detritus? Ah well, I suppose they have bills to pay too.
As so often, however, the historical comparisons work out rather nicely in Boris' favour:
Lough uses Churchill’s own most private records, many never researched before, to chronicle his family’s chronic shortage of money, his own extravagance and his recurring losses from gambling or trading in shares and currencies. Churchill tried to keep himself afloat by borrowing to the hilt, putting off bills and writing ‘all over the place’; when all else failed, he had to ask family or friends to come to the rescue. This they did on no fewer than six occasions unearthed by Lough, the last when Churchill became Prime Minister in 1940. Yet within five years he had taken advantage of his worldwide celebrity to transform his private fortunes with the same ruthlessness as he waged war, reaching 1945 with today’s equivalent of £3 million in the bank. His lucrative war memoirs were still to come.
Yeah, but Winston Churchill was a freaking genius.
Boris Johnson? Not so much.
Sheer folly, plus ego the size of Greenland, compels BJ to constantly compare himself against WSC.
For he can NEVER measure up, only down.
Well, Winston is obviously a tough act to follow: he was even better than Boris at showing up Continentals who underestimated him. Not quite so good at elections though.
Winston Churchill sucked at elections. From his defeat in Manchester North West in 1908 to the landslide of 1945 his electoral record was dismal. Heck, he barely squeaked home in 1951 with a Trumpite minority mandate.
Partly I think it was simply because he was a rubbish campaigner. He tended to be at his best giving long speeches to selected audiences and political campaigning didn’t work like that after 1885.
But he also did have a rather bad habit of insulting people in crass ways, a bit like Hilary Clinton.
But just imagine how good he'd be at tweeting! Maybe slightly less adroit at TikTok...
So The Sunday Times have done a piece on Boris Johnson's finances, he really is a shit negotiator.
Johnson’s biggest likely outlay is the result of what one Old Etonian school friend describes as “his pecker problem”. The friend recalls: “Boris has always had a problem keeping his pecker in his trousers. And that’s what so often has led him into trouble.”
Six children — those are the ones that are known about — by three women, plus two divorces and an imminent third wedding to pay for don’t come cheap.
Johnson is still believed to help support two of his four children with his second wife, Marina Wheeler, who are all now in their twenties after expensive private schools and universities.
Stephanie, aged 11, is Johnson’s fifth child, through his affair with Helen Macintyre, an art consultant, and Wilfred will be one next month.
Johnson’s first divorce, from Allegra Mostyn-Owen in 1993, was not costly and they had no children. But his divorce last year from Wheeler, a human rights QC, after 25 years together, was a different matter. Having separated in the summer of 2018 after Johnson met Symonds, it took them until February 2020 to reach a financial settlement.
Word in legal circles is that Johnson was by then desperate to finalise the divorce, because Symonds was pregnant and he was determined not to announce the pregnancy until Wheeler, and their children, had been placated.
That gave his soon-to-be-ex-wife considerable leverage in the protracted negotiations, leading to what one QC who professes familiarity with the details describes as “one of the most devastatingly one-sided divorces in British legal history”.
It even gave Wheeler a considerable percentage of Johnson’s future lucrative earnings after he leaves office. Might it be no wonder then that Boris needs a leg-up with the home decor?
Was there once a time when journalism aspired to something a little better than rummaging through the PM's dustbins for detritus? Ah well, I suppose they have bills to pay too.
As so often, however, the historical comparisons work out rather nicely in Boris' favour:
Lough uses Churchill’s own most private records, many never researched before, to chronicle his family’s chronic shortage of money, his own extravagance and his recurring losses from gambling or trading in shares and currencies. Churchill tried to keep himself afloat by borrowing to the hilt, putting off bills and writing ‘all over the place’; when all else failed, he had to ask family or friends to come to the rescue. This they did on no fewer than six occasions unearthed by Lough, the last when Churchill became Prime Minister in 1940. Yet within five years he had taken advantage of his worldwide celebrity to transform his private fortunes with the same ruthlessness as he waged war, reaching 1945 with today’s equivalent of £3 million in the bank. His lucrative war memoirs were still to come.
Oh FFS. I've just cancelled my plan to go through that book *tonight* and list Churchill being bailed out. Too late to cancel Deliveroo though.
People aged 56 to 59 in England are being invited to book their coronavirus vaccine from this week. Letters for people in the age group, offering them the vaccine, started being delivered to homes on Saturday.
A fun anecdote about Shaun Bailey - I was once in a strategy meeting with some Bailey campaign staffers talking about local campaign issues in different London boroughs, when Shaun came into the room to listen in. Eventually, he piped up to ask us if we'd heard of the Low Emissions Zone, and spent a few minutes showing us where the M25 was on a big map of London they had in the office.
Cheers Shaun!
My 'favourite' Shaun Bailey story was his recent suggestion that Londoners in temporary accommodation or homeless could benefit from shared ownership schemes as many of them would be able to rustle up a £5K deposit. He did, to his credit, acknowledge that they may struggle a bit more with being granted a mortgage.
The man's a complete idiot, regardless of personal political preference. I'm really surprised the Tories have let him get this far. Even if nobody else would have a chance of winning London, he's a bit damaging to the Tory brand.
For all it's a complete hospital pass, and obviously was from the start, how did Shaun Bailey get to be the candidate?
Shaun Bailey seems to have been a permanent Conservative candidate for over a decade.
Does anyone know how much he will have earned from it ?
People aged 56 to 59 in England are being invited to book their coronavirus vaccine from this week. Letters for people in the age group, offering them the vaccine, started being delivered to homes on Saturday.
So The Sunday Times have done a piece on Boris Johnson's finances, he really is a shit negotiator.
Johnson’s biggest likely outlay is the result of what one Old Etonian school friend describes as “his pecker problem”. The friend recalls: “Boris has always had a problem keeping his pecker in his trousers. And that’s what so often has led him into trouble.”
Six children — those are the ones that are known about — by three women, plus two divorces and an imminent third wedding to pay for don’t come cheap.
Johnson is still believed to help support two of his four children with his second wife, Marina Wheeler, who are all now in their twenties after expensive private schools and universities.
Stephanie, aged 11, is Johnson’s fifth child, through his affair with Helen Macintyre, an art consultant, and Wilfred will be one next month.
Johnson’s first divorce, from Allegra Mostyn-Owen in 1993, was not costly and they had no children. But his divorce last year from Wheeler, a human rights QC, after 25 years together, was a different matter. Having separated in the summer of 2018 after Johnson met Symonds, it took them until February 2020 to reach a financial settlement.
Word in legal circles is that Johnson was by then desperate to finalise the divorce, because Symonds was pregnant and he was determined not to announce the pregnancy until Wheeler, and their children, had been placated.
That gave his soon-to-be-ex-wife considerable leverage in the protracted negotiations, leading to what one QC who professes familiarity with the details describes as “one of the most devastatingly one-sided divorces in British legal history”.
It even gave Wheeler a considerable percentage of Johnson’s future lucrative earnings after he leaves office. Might it be no wonder then that Boris needs a leg-up with the home decor?
Was there once a time when journalism aspired to something a little better than rummaging through the PM's dustbins for detritus? Ah well, I suppose they have bills to pay too.
As so often, however, the historical comparisons work out rather nicely in Boris' favour:
Lough uses Churchill’s own most private records, many never researched before, to chronicle his family’s chronic shortage of money, his own extravagance and his recurring losses from gambling or trading in shares and currencies. Churchill tried to keep himself afloat by borrowing to the hilt, putting off bills and writing ‘all over the place’; when all else failed, he had to ask family or friends to come to the rescue. This they did on no fewer than six occasions unearthed by Lough, the last when Churchill became Prime Minister in 1940. Yet within five years he had taken advantage of his worldwide celebrity to transform his private fortunes with the same ruthlessness as he waged war, reaching 1945 with today’s equivalent of £3 million in the bank. His lucrative war memoirs were still to come.
Oh FFS. I've just cancelled my plan to go through that book *tonight* and list Churchill being bailed out. Too late to cancel Deliveroo though.
Lol - you snooze, you, er, get to spend more time with your delicious pineapple pizza.
Lough uses Churchill’s own most private records, many never researched before, to chronicle his family’s chronic shortage of money, his own extravagance and his recurring losses from gambling or trading in shares and currencies. Churchill tried to keep himself afloat by borrowing to the hilt, putting off bills and writing ‘all over the place’; when all else failed, he had to ask family or friends to come to the rescue. This they did on no fewer than six occasions unearthed by Lough, the last when Churchill became Prime Minister in 1940. Yet within five years he had taken advantage of his worldwide celebrity to transform his private fortunes with the same ruthlessness as he waged war, reaching 1945 with today’s equivalent of £3 million in the bank. His lucrative war memoirs were still to come.
Yeah, but Winston Churchill was a freaking genius.
Boris Johnson? Not so much.
Sheer folly, plus ego the size of Greenland, compels BJ to constantly compare himself against WSC.
For he can NEVER measure up, only down.
Ydoethur said : 'Well, Winston is obviously a tough act to follow: he was even better than Boris at showing up Continentals who underestimated him. Not quite so good at elections though.Winston Churchill sucked at elections. From his defeat in Manchester North West in 1908 to the landslide of 1945 his electoral record was dismal. Heck, he barely squeaked home in 1951 with a Trumpite minority mandate.
Partly I think it was simply because he was a rubbish campaigner. He tended to be at his best giving long speeches to selected audiences and political campaigning didn’t work like that after 1885.
But he also did have a rather bad habit of insulting people in crass ways, a bit like Hilary Clinton.'
Churchill also lost his first election as a candidate - at Oldham in the 1899 by election.
People aged 56 to 59 in England are being invited to book their coronavirus vaccine from this week. Letters for people in the age group, offering them the vaccine, started being delivered to homes on Saturday.
The dip in Pfizer efficacy against symptomatic disease perhaps foretells where the Hospitalisations curve might follow in a few weeks. It does look like 12 weeks might be a stretch for second Pfizet doses, and I hope the ability to pivot a little and foreshorten that gap specifically for Pfizer is something the vaccination campaign organisers are alive to.
Yes, although the efficacy against hospitalisation is still rising at that point.
Nowhere near as good as the Israel results with second dose at 3 weeks though.
While that's true, you're thinking (as a doctor) in terms of the individual. You are focusing on the local maxima. The optimum outcome for an individual with the Pfizer vaccine is to get the second dose three works after the first.
But the system optima is to crush the prevalance of the virus, and that is best achieved by getting as many jabs in arms as quickly as possible.
In which case you want to reduce infections, not just hospitalisations, and looking at the graph in the header, that drops off noticeably without the booster.
Yes, but in that time it's dropping off, rather than give a booster, you're vaccinating many more people. So driving down the general prevalence.
The dip in Pfizer efficacy against symptomatic disease perhaps foretells where the Hospitalisations curve might follow in a few weeks. It does look like 12 weeks might be a stretch for second Pfizet doses, and I hope the ability to pivot a little and foreshorten that gap specifically for Pfizer is something the vaccination campaign organisers are alive to.
Yes, although the efficacy against hospitalisation is still rising at that point.
Nowhere near as good as the Israel results with second dose at 3 weeks though.
While that's true, you're thinking (as a doctor) in terms of the individual. You are focusing on the local maxima. The optimum outcome for an individual with the Pfizer vaccine is to get the second dose three works after the first.
But the system optima is to crush the prevalance of the virus, and that is best achieved by getting as many jabs in arms as quickly as possible.
In which case you want to reduce infections, not just hospitalisations, and looking at the graph in the header, that drops off noticeably without the booster.
The dip in Pfizer efficacy against symptomatic disease perhaps foretells where the Hospitalisations curve might follow in a few weeks. It does look like 12 weeks might be a stretch for second Pfizet doses, and I hope the ability to pivot a little and foreshorten that gap specifically for Pfizer is something the vaccination campaign organisers are alive to.
Yes, although the efficacy against hospitalisation is still rising at that point.
Nowhere near as good as the Israel results with second dose at 3 weeks though.
While that's true, you're thinking (as a doctor) in terms of the individual. You are focusing on the local maxima. The optimum outcome for an individual with the Pfizer vaccine is to get the second dose three works after the first.
But the system optima is to crush the prevalance of the virus, and that is best achieved by getting as many jabs in arms as quickly as possible.
In which case you want to reduce infections, not just hospitalisations, and looking at the graph in the header, that drops off noticeably without the booster.
Although I believe there are issues around how much data up is available, so I’d be wary of drawing too many conclusions on a perceived drop, that may vanish with more data.
A fun anecdote about Shaun Bailey - I was once in a strategy meeting with some Bailey campaign staffers talking about local campaign issues in different London boroughs, when Shaun came into the room to listen in. Eventually, he piped up to ask us if we'd heard of the Low Emissions Zone, and spent a few minutes showing us where the M25 was on a big map of London they had in the office.
Cheers Shaun!
My 'favourite' Shaun Bailey story was his recent suggestion that Londoners in temporary accommodation or homeless could benefit from shared ownership schemes as many of them would be able to rustle up a £5K deposit. He did, to his credit, acknowledge that they may struggle a bit more with being granted a mortgage.
The man's a complete idiot, regardless of personal political preference. I'm really surprised the Tories have let him get this far. Even if nobody else would have a chance of winning London, he's a bit damaging to the Tory brand.
For all it's a complete hospital pass, and obviously was from the start, how did Shaun Bailey get to be the candidate?
Shaun Bailey seems to have been a permanent Conservative candidate for over a decade.
Does anyone know how much he will have earned from it ?
Mention of Shaun Bailey brings to mind the 'Tatler Tories' from the peak of Cameroon hubris:
The dip in Pfizer efficacy against symptomatic disease perhaps foretells where the Hospitalisations curve might follow in a few weeks. It does look like 12 weeks might be a stretch for second Pfizet doses, and I hope the ability to pivot a little and foreshorten that gap specifically for Pfizer is something the vaccination campaign organisers are alive to.
Yes, although the efficacy against hospitalisation is still rising at that point.
Nowhere near as good as the Israel results with second dose at 3 weeks though.
While that's true, you're thinking (as a doctor) in terms of the individual. You are focusing on the local maxima. The optimum outcome for an individual with the Pfizer vaccine is to get the second dose three works after the first.
But the system optima is to crush the prevalance of the virus, and that is best achieved by getting as many jabs in arms as quickly as possible.
In which case you want to reduce infections, not just hospitalisations, and looking at the graph in the header, that drops off noticeably without the booster.
If we had 20 million doses available tomorrow, it would make more sense to give them to the people who haven't had a first shot yet than to the people who have. That's the most time critical part.
Lough uses Churchill’s own most private records, many never researched before, to chronicle his family’s chronic shortage of money, his own extravagance and his recurring losses from gambling or trading in shares and currencies. Churchill tried to keep himself afloat by borrowing to the hilt, putting off bills and writing ‘all over the place’; when all else failed, he had to ask family or friends to come to the rescue. This they did on no fewer than six occasions unearthed by Lough, the last when Churchill became Prime Minister in 1940. Yet within five years he had taken advantage of his worldwide celebrity to transform his private fortunes with the same ruthlessness as he waged war, reaching 1945 with today’s equivalent of £3 million in the bank. His lucrative war memoirs were still to come.
Yeah, but Winston Churchill was a freaking genius.
Boris Johnson? Not so much.
Sheer folly, plus ego the size of Greenland, compels BJ to constantly compare himself against WSC.
For he can NEVER measure up, only down.
Ydoethur said : 'Well, Winston is obviously a tough act to follow: he was even better than Boris at showing up Continentals who underestimated him. Not quite so good at elections though.Winston Churchill sucked at elections. From his defeat in Manchester North West in 1908 to the landslide of 1945 his electoral record was dismal. Heck, he barely squeaked home in 1951 with a Trumpite minority mandate.
Partly I think it was simply because he was a rubbish campaigner. He tended to be at his best giving long speeches to selected audiences and political campaigning didn’t work like that after 1885.
But he also did have a rather bad habit of insulting people in crass ways, a bit like Hilary Clinton.'
Churchill also lost his first election as a candidate - at Oldham in the 1899 by election.
You could also argue that Abraham Lincoln was "not so good at elections" (like WSC he lost his first election, to the Illinois general assembly). BUT nobody except a psephologist would consider this an argument for comparing Honest Abe unfavorably with, say, George Bush the Younger (who btw also lost HIS first election).
My point, is that it is a BAD idea for a US politico to compare themselves with Abraham Lincoln, for the reason that most thinking people will think you are a pompous ass for making such a comparison in the first place.
Methinks same is true for UK politicos re: comparison with Winston Churchill.
More apparent with Yougov than other pollsters. I don't expect the Greens to exceed 3% in a GE.
They could get 10%. No laughing in the back.
They have the potential to be the Lib Dems or UKIP du jour. There is a significant third party "none of the above" tendency within British politics that went neatly from Lib Dems to UKIP after Clegg's rose garden moment. Since the death of UKIP that is still looking for a home and it hasn't gone back to the Lib Dems; a third party "pox on both your houses" vote could see the Greens surge into double digits potentially.
The dip in Pfizer efficacy against symptomatic disease perhaps foretells where the Hospitalisations curve might follow in a few weeks. It does look like 12 weeks might be a stretch for second Pfizet doses, and I hope the ability to pivot a little and foreshorten that gap specifically for Pfizer is something the vaccination campaign organisers are alive to.
Yes, although the efficacy against hospitalisation is still rising at that point.
Nowhere near as good as the Israel results with second dose at 3 weeks though.
While that's true, you're thinking (as a doctor) in terms of the individual. You are focusing on the local maxima. The optimum outcome for an individual with the Pfizer vaccine is to get the second dose three works after the first.
But the system optima is to crush the prevalance of the virus, and that is best achieved by getting as many jabs in arms as quickly as possible.
In which case you want to reduce infections, not just hospitalisations, and looking at the graph in the header, that drops off noticeably without the booster.
Yes, but in that time it's dropping off, rather than give a booster, you're vaccinating many more people. So driving down the general prevalence.
Not by much. It is 60% in that graph, and the risk to an 80 year old of 60% is more than a 56 year old with 60%.
Worth noting too that the X axis on the hospitalisations graph is different to the infections one, and much smaller numbers as Scotland rather than England.
The dip in Pfizer efficacy against symptomatic disease perhaps foretells where the Hospitalisations curve might follow in a few weeks. It does look like 12 weeks might be a stretch for second Pfizet doses, and I hope the ability to pivot a little and foreshorten that gap specifically for Pfizer is something the vaccination campaign organisers are alive to.
Yes, although the efficacy against hospitalisation is still rising at that point.
Nowhere near as good as the Israel results with second dose at 3 weeks though.
While that's true, you're thinking (as a doctor) in terms of the individual. You are focusing on the local maxima. The optimum outcome for an individual with the Pfizer vaccine is to get the second dose three works after the first.
But the system optima is to crush the prevalance of the virus, and that is best achieved by getting as many jabs in arms as quickly as possible.
In which case you want to reduce infections, not just hospitalisations, and looking at the graph in the header, that drops off noticeably without the booster.
The dip in Pfizer efficacy against symptomatic disease perhaps foretells where the Hospitalisations curve might follow in a few weeks. It does look like 12 weeks might be a stretch for second Pfizet doses, and I hope the ability to pivot a little and foreshorten that gap specifically for Pfizer is something the vaccination campaign organisers are alive to.
Yes, although the efficacy against hospitalisation is still rising at that point.
Nowhere near as good as the Israel results with second dose at 3 weeks though.
While that's true, you're thinking (as a doctor) in terms of the individual. You are focusing on the local maxima. The optimum outcome for an individual with the Pfizer vaccine is to get the second dose three works after the first.
But the system optima is to crush the prevalance of the virus, and that is best achieved by getting as many jabs in arms as quickly as possible.
In which case you want to reduce infections, not just hospitalisations, and looking at the graph in the header, that drops off noticeably without the booster.
Although I believe there are issues around how much data up is available, so I’d be wary of drawing too many conclusions on a perceived drop, that may vanish with more data.
That graph is the English data, but the Scottish data also dropped off after week four.
UK PBers may be interested to know, that yesterday's USA "Daily Mail" tabloid TV show, featured a Brit journo contrasting the hypocrisy of the Palace, in attacking Meghan freely but saying NOTHING critical re: His Foul Lowness aka Prince Andrew.
The dip in Pfizer efficacy against symptomatic disease perhaps foretells where the Hospitalisations curve might follow in a few weeks. It does look like 12 weeks might be a stretch for second Pfizet doses, and I hope the ability to pivot a little and foreshorten that gap specifically for Pfizer is something the vaccination campaign organisers are alive to.
Yes, although the efficacy against hospitalisation is still rising at that point.
Nowhere near as good as the Israel results with second dose at 3 weeks though.
While that's true, you're thinking (as a doctor) in terms of the individual. You are focusing on the local maxima. The optimum outcome for an individual with the Pfizer vaccine is to get the second dose three works after the first.
But the system optima is to crush the prevalance of the virus, and that is best achieved by getting as many jabs in arms as quickly as possible.
In which case you want to reduce infections, not just hospitalisations, and looking at the graph in the header, that drops off noticeably without the booster.
The dip in Pfizer efficacy against symptomatic disease perhaps foretells where the Hospitalisations curve might follow in a few weeks. It does look like 12 weeks might be a stretch for second Pfizet doses, and I hope the ability to pivot a little and foreshorten that gap specifically for Pfizer is something the vaccination campaign organisers are alive to.
Yes, although the efficacy against hospitalisation is still rising at that point.
Nowhere near as good as the Israel results with second dose at 3 weeks though.
While that's true, you're thinking (as a doctor) in terms of the individual. You are focusing on the local maxima. The optimum outcome for an individual with the Pfizer vaccine is to get the second dose three works after the first.
But the system optima is to crush the prevalance of the virus, and that is best achieved by getting as many jabs in arms as quickly as possible.
In which case you want to reduce infections, not just hospitalisations, and looking at the graph in the header, that drops off noticeably without the booster.
Although I believe there are issues around how much data up is available, so I’d be wary of drawing too many conclusions on a perceived drop, that may vanish with more data.
That graph is the English data, but the Scottish data also dropped off after week four.
I think similar issues about quantity of data, but we’ll see. I would be surprised at a significant drop - what would cause it?
UK PBers may be interested to know, that yesterday's USA "Daily Mail" tabloid TV show, featured a Brit journo contrasting the hypocrisy of the Palace, in attacking Meghan freely but saying NOTHING critical re: His Foul Lowness aka Prince Andrew.
Hypocrisy was HIS word, but reckon it is apt.
It's a fair point, as clearly they are leaking against her, though it seems to be what Harry and Meghan want as it seems like they don't get much airtime except on these issues, so feels like if we could get them all to just post allegations against each other on a private message board and pretend everyone else was reading it, everyone would be happy.
Lough uses Churchill’s own most private records, many never researched before, to chronicle his family’s chronic shortage of money, his own extravagance and his recurring losses from gambling or trading in shares and currencies. Churchill tried to keep himself afloat by borrowing to the hilt, putting off bills and writing ‘all over the place’; when all else failed, he had to ask family or friends to come to the rescue. This they did on no fewer than six occasions unearthed by Lough, the last when Churchill became Prime Minister in 1940. Yet within five years he had taken advantage of his worldwide celebrity to transform his private fortunes with the same ruthlessness as he waged war, reaching 1945 with today’s equivalent of £3 million in the bank. His lucrative war memoirs were still to come.
Yeah, but Winston Churchill was a freaking genius.
Boris Johnson? Not so much.
Sheer folly, plus ego the size of Greenland, compels BJ to constantly compare himself against WSC.
For he can NEVER measure up, only down.
Ydoethur said : 'Well, Winston is obviously a tough act to follow: he was even better than Boris at showing up Continentals who underestimated him. Not quite so good at elections though.Winston Churchill sucked at elections. From his defeat in Manchester North West in 1908 to the landslide of 1945 his electoral record was dismal. Heck, he barely squeaked home in 1951 with a Trumpite minority mandate.
Partly I think it was simply because he was a rubbish campaigner. He tended to be at his best giving long speeches to selected audiences and political campaigning didn’t work like that after 1885.
But he also did have a rather bad habit of insulting people in crass ways, a bit like Hilary Clinton.'
Churchill also lost his first election as a candidate - at Oldham in the 1899 by election.
You could also argue that Abraham Lincoln was "not so good at elections" (like WSC he lost his first election, to the Illinois general assembly). BUT nobody except a psephologist would consider this an argument for comparing Honest Abe unfavorably with, say, George Bush the Younger (who btw also lost HIS first election).
My point, is that it is a BAD idea for a US politico to compare themselves with Abraham Lincoln, for the reason that most thinking people will think you are a pompous ass for making such a comparison in the first place.
Methinks same is true for UK politicos re: comparison with Winston Churchill.
I am of the view there should be a moratorium on mention of the man, pro and anti, for at least 10 years.
If it doesn't work I don't why the EU resorted to the same victimhood tactics very recently, indeed that was part of what made their actions inexplicable as they should know it doesn't work.
But despite their best efforts I don't think the UK or EU teams are going to get as much effect out of repeating their same old tactics from before. "The EU is being unreasonable/The UK doesn't know what it wants/we've had constructive discussions but are far apart" bullshit was played out years ago, they need new whinges.
UK PBers may be interested to know, that yesterday's USA "Daily Mail" tabloid TV show, featured a Brit journo contrasting the hypocrisy of the Palace, in attacking Meghan freely but saying NOTHING critical re: His Foul Lowness aka Prince Andrew.
Hypocrisy was HIS word, but reckon it is apt.
It's a fair point, as clearly they are leaking against her, though it seems to be what Harry and Meghan want as it seems like they don't get much airtime except on these issues, so feels like if we could get them all to just post allegations against each other on a private message board and pretend everyone else was reading it, everyone would be happy.
If the Palace had any sense they would shut up. They only stir up the story. It would be better for them to ignore it all.
More apparent with Yougov than other pollsters. I don't expect the Greens to exceed 3% in a GE.
They could get 10%. No laughing in the back.
They have the potential to be the Lib Dems or UKIP du jour. There is a significant third party "none of the above" tendency within British politics that went neatly from Lib Dems to UKIP after Clegg's rose garden moment. Since the death of UKIP that is still looking for a home and it hasn't gone back to the Lib Dems; a third party "pox on both your houses" vote could see the Greens surge into double digits potentially.
Few Left of Centre voters are likely to risk letting Johnson - or any other Tory leader - win by voting Green. They might have the potential to pick up NOTA voters in the way that the Liberals/LDs - and later Ukip/Brexit party - have in the past, but such voters are just as likely to be ex- Tories. At constituency level, I suspect the Greens will be keen to avoid the mistakes of the 2015 GE when their intervention in key marginals was almost certainly decisive in providing Cameron with his small overall majority of 12.Moreover, had that election produced another Hung Parliament , it is far from clear that we would have seen the 2016 Referendum.
UK PBers may be interested to know, that yesterday's USA "Daily Mail" tabloid TV show, featured a Brit journo contrasting the hypocrisy of the Palace, in attacking Meghan freely but saying NOTHING critical re: His Foul Lowness aka Prince Andrew.
Hypocrisy was HIS word, but reckon it is apt.
It's a fair point, as clearly they are leaking against her, though it seems to be what Harry and Meghan want as it seems like they don't get much airtime except on these issues, so feels like if we could get them all to just post allegations against each other on a private message board and pretend everyone else was reading it, everyone would be happy.
If the Palace had any sense they would shut up. They only stir up the story. It would be better for them to ignore it all.
To be honest the best advice is to ignore both sides and get on with the real world
UK PBers may be interested to know, that yesterday's USA "Daily Mail" tabloid TV show, featured a Brit journo contrasting the hypocrisy of the Palace, in attacking Meghan freely but saying NOTHING critical re: His Foul Lowness aka Prince Andrew.
Hypocrisy was HIS word, but reckon it is apt.
It's a fair point, as clearly they are leaking against her, though it seems to be what Harry and Meghan want as it seems like they don't get much airtime except on these issues, so feels like if we could get them all to just post allegations against each other on a private message board and pretend everyone else was reading it, everyone would be happy.
If the Palace had any sense they would shut up. They only stir up the story. It would be better for them to ignore it all.
Indeed. Harry and Meghan's popularity has, I believe, gotten worse, and if they had some smoking gun about the palace I feel like they'd have mentioned it before now (else it cannot be very important), so it is surely mostly petty stuff or general pointing out the weirdness of modern royalty and its demands on those within it. That'll get attention, sure, but unless it turns out the Queen slaps servants or something it'll fade, so no need to leak stories to retaliate.
More apparent with Yougov than other pollsters. I don't expect the Greens to exceed 3% in a GE.
They could get 10%. No laughing in the back.
They have the potential to be the Lib Dems or UKIP du jour. There is a significant third party "none of the above" tendency within British politics that went neatly from Lib Dems to UKIP after Clegg's rose garden moment. Since the death of UKIP that is still looking for a home and it hasn't gone back to the Lib Dems; a third party "pox on both your houses" vote could see the Greens surge into double digits potentially.
Few Left of Centre voters are likely to risk letting Johnson - or any other Tory leader - win by voting Green. They might have the potential to pick up NOTA voters in the way that the Liberals/LDs - and later Ukip/Brexit party - have in the past, but such voters are just as likely to be ex- Tories. At constituency level, I suspect the Greens will be keen to avoid the mistakes of the 2015 GE when their intervention in key marginals was almost certainly decisive in providing Cameron with his small overall majority of 12.Moreover, had that election produced another Hung Parliament , it is far from clear that we would have seen the 2016 Referendum.
Agreed, the days when the Lib Dems got 20%+ were also the days when people were saying (to exaggerate) you couldn't put a cigarette paper between the two main parties. Things have got more polarised since then.
Leicester City just shithoused a win, even scored from a corner for the first time in living memory. Second place, putting pressure on ManU for tommorows Derby.
Time for another glass of my pleasant North Macedonian red...
UK PBers may be interested to know, that yesterday's USA "Daily Mail" tabloid TV show, featured a Brit journo contrasting the hypocrisy of the Palace, in attacking Meghan freely but saying NOTHING critical re: His Foul Lowness aka Prince Andrew.
Hypocrisy was HIS word, but reckon it is apt.
It's a fair point, as clearly they are leaking against her, though it seems to be what Harry and Meghan want as it seems like they don't get much airtime except on these issues, so feels like if we could get them all to just post allegations against each other on a private message board and pretend everyone else was reading it, everyone would be happy.
If the Palace had any sense they would shut up. They only stir up the story. It would be better for them to ignore it all.
Indeed. Harry and Meghan's popularity has, I believe, gotten worse, and if they had some smoking gun about the palace I feel like they'd have mentioned it before now (else it cannot be very important), so it is surely mostly petty stuff or general pointing out the weirdness of modern royalty and its demands on those within it. That'll get attention, sure, but unless it turns out the Queen slaps servants or something it'll fade, so no need to leak stories to retaliate.
No, H and M are more popular than last year. There is a sharp age divide too with the under 24s favouring H and M over HM, and it being pretty even with the under 40s. It is only the oldies that are anti Meghan.
The dip in Pfizer efficacy against symptomatic disease perhaps foretells where the Hospitalisations curve might follow in a few weeks. It does look like 12 weeks might be a stretch for second Pfizet doses, and I hope the ability to pivot a little and foreshorten that gap specifically for Pfizer is something the vaccination campaign organisers are alive to.
Some family members have just been informed they're going to have a second Pfizer vaccine 9 weeks after the first one.
More apparent with Yougov than other pollsters. I don't expect the Greens to exceed 3% in a GE.
They could get 10%. No laughing in the back.
They have the potential to be the Lib Dems or UKIP du jour. There is a significant third party "none of the above" tendency within British politics that went neatly from Lib Dems to UKIP after Clegg's rose garden moment. Since the death of UKIP that is still looking for a home and it hasn't gone back to the Lib Dems; a third party "pox on both your houses" vote could see the Greens surge into double digits potentially.
Few Left of Centre voters are likely to risk letting Johnson - or any other Tory leader - win by voting Green. They might have the potential to pick up NOTA voters in the way that the Liberals/LDs - and later Ukip/Brexit party - have in the past, but such voters are just as likely to be ex- Tories. At constituency level, I suspect the Greens will be keen to avoid the mistakes of the 2015 GE when their intervention in key marginals was almost certainly decisive in providing Cameron with his small overall majority of 12.Moreover, had that election produced another Hung Parliament , it is far from clear that we would have seen the 2016 Referendum.
Agreed, the days when the Lib Dems got 20%+ were also the days when people were saying (to exaggerate) you couldn't put a cigarette paper between the two main parties. Things have got more polarised since then.
I don't believe voters felt that way in 1983 and 1987 when the Alliance polled well above 20%!
More apparent with Yougov than other pollsters. I don't expect the Greens to exceed 3% in a GE.
They could get 10%. No laughing in the back.
They have the potential to be the Lib Dems or UKIP du jour. There is a significant third party "none of the above" tendency within British politics that went neatly from Lib Dems to UKIP after Clegg's rose garden moment. Since the death of UKIP that is still looking for a home and it hasn't gone back to the Lib Dems; a third party "pox on both your houses" vote could see the Greens surge into double digits potentially.
Few Left of Centre voters are likely to risk letting Johnson - or any other Tory leader - win by voting Green. They might have the potential to pick up NOTA voters in the way that the Liberals/LDs - and later Ukip/Brexit party - have in the past, but such voters are just as likely to be ex- Tories. At constituency level, I suspect the Greens will be keen to avoid the mistakes of the 2015 GE when their intervention in key marginals was almost certainly decisive in providing Cameron with his small overall majority of 12.Moreover, had that election produced another Hung Parliament , it is far from clear that we would have seen the 2016 Referendum.
Agreed, the days when the Lib Dems got 20%+ were also the days when people were saying (to exaggerate) you couldn't put a cigarette paper between the two main parties. Things have got more polarised since then.
Well. They were right. The 2 big issues of the noughties, Iraq and GFC, they both had exactly the same policies. Easy to see how NOTA was widely popular then. Especially on the former.
More apparent with Yougov than other pollsters. I don't expect the Greens to exceed 3% in a GE.
They could get 10%. No laughing in the back.
They have the potential to be the Lib Dems or UKIP du jour. There is a significant third party "none of the above" tendency within British politics that went neatly from Lib Dems to UKIP after Clegg's rose garden moment. Since the death of UKIP that is still looking for a home and it hasn't gone back to the Lib Dems; a third party "pox on both your houses" vote could see the Greens surge into double digits potentially.
Few Left of Centre voters are likely to risk letting Johnson - or any other Tory leader - win by voting Green. They might have the potential to pick up NOTA voters in the way that the Liberals/LDs - and later Ukip/Brexit party - have in the past, but such voters are just as likely to be ex- Tories. At constituency level, I suspect the Greens will be keen to avoid the mistakes of the 2015 GE when their intervention in key marginals was almost certainly decisive in providing Cameron with his small overall majority of 12.Moreover, had that election produced another Hung Parliament , it is far from clear that we would have seen the 2016 Referendum.
I think in Lab Con marginals the LD and Green vote will be squeezed, though that will never be complete.
In safe seats though, I can see them building a base, particularly in seats with a big youth vote. I think they will do well in the London elections, and perhaps a few other cities.
UK PBers may be interested to know, that yesterday's USA "Daily Mail" tabloid TV show, featured a Brit journo contrasting the hypocrisy of the Palace, in attacking Meghan freely but saying NOTHING critical re: His Foul Lowness aka Prince Andrew.
Hypocrisy was HIS word, but reckon it is apt.
It's a fair point, as clearly they are leaking against her, though it seems to be what Harry and Meghan want as it seems like they don't get much airtime except on these issues, so feels like if we could get them all to just post allegations against each other on a private message board and pretend everyone else was reading it, everyone would be happy.
If the Palace had any sense they would shut up. They only stir up the story. It would be better for them to ignore it all.
Indeed. Harry and Meghan's popularity has, I believe, gotten worse, and if they had some smoking gun about the palace I feel like they'd have mentioned it before now (else it cannot be very important), so it is surely mostly petty stuff or general pointing out the weirdness of modern royalty and its demands on those within it. That'll get attention, sure, but unless it turns out the Queen slaps servants or something it'll fade, so no need to leak stories to retaliate.
No, H and M are more popular than last year. There is a sharp age divide too with the under 24s favouring H and M over HM, and it being pretty even with the under 40s. It is only the oldies that are anti Meghan.
It's crystal clear to me what Labour's line should be. Balance the books, yes, but this time the broadest shoulders really should bear the burden. Tax the arse off those who can afford to pay. Details tbc.
The problem here is the media narrative would be Tories give you free stuff, Labour just take away your hard earned. It's a difficult conundrum to beat.
It's difficult for Labour because they don't know what the Tory theme will be. But whatever it is, I think Labour should be positioning to the fiscal left of it. This sounds obvious but it's less so in these days of cross dressing economic populism.
But first of all, mirror the Tories on "sound money". If the Tories are abandoning that principle, Labour should too. It would be an electoral own goal to embrace hairshirt voluntarily. And if the Tories are sticking to it, to sound money, Labour should too, and to the same extent. Goal is to remove that "Labour equals feckless deficits, Tories are the grown ups" talking point.
Then within that framework Labour should be offering higher spending and higher tax to fund it, compared with the Tories. And make a virtue of this. Make sure the spending is on wildly popular things, and the tax is hitting the better off, personal and corporate, hard. I think the time is right for this. I know there's a danger, "Labour's tax bombshell bla bla" but I think it's a risk worth taking.
TLDR: Fight right populism with left populism.
The trouble with that theory is voters instinctively know it doesn't make sense and that the extra tax will have of necessity have to be levied on the basic rate payers too.
Giving you an example 50 billion extra spending in the budget Top 10% of earners is about 5 million people To balance the extra spending you need to take an average of 10,000 pounds of extra tax off each one every year. Bear in mind that the income for the top decile doesn't cross 100,000 until about you being in the top 2 to 3% and to make that average of 10000 you will need to be taking eye watering sums off about 500,000 people
Labour budgets that propose such a paltry sum as a mere 50billion are as rare as rocking horse poo.Hell that wouldn't even cover the waspi women from the 2019 manifesto
Yes, it's dishonest to pretend everything can be funded by taxing the affluent. But you can skew it heavily in that direction. There's plenty of scope.
A wealth tax should imo be part of this if we were being purely rational but the politics of that is toxic. The one we have now - IHT - is as popular as a cup of sick even with people who will not in a million years be subject to it.
The peculiar attachment to privilege we have developed these days (also see private schools) is a great handicap to any party of the left here. This is why a GE win for Labour in a sense counts more than one for the Cons. It's a greater achievement.
I think "the left" has a problem with voters with these issues because a lot of people recognise that a large amount of lefties motivation is so often hypocritical and/or based on envy and sometimes complete irrationality. I am obviously a little more to the right of you, but I see no difference between wanting the best advantage for your children (private schooling) and choosing a holiday to the Maldives, or an expensive dinner out that average person can't afford. A lot of people who do not choose private schools understand this. Left wingers froth about it though, often while they are booking their green offset holiday to the said Maldives!
That's not a great comparison. The schooling feeds through to prospects in a way that fancy holidays etc don't.
It is an illustration of how people should be allowed to spend (or waste if that is your view) their money how they choose. And why is wanting better prospects for your own kids a bad thing? Many well off left wingers just do it differently. They simply buy a house in the right catchment or buy private tuition. In many respects these virtue signallers (particularly the very well off ones) are simply denying places in the best schools to people who cant compete with them for housing. The left's obsession with private schooling is one of their worst hypocrisies
Yawn. People always reduce and personalize like that on this issue because they can't make the macro argument that private schools are compatible with any semblance of equal opportunities. They can't make that argument because it is palpably ludicrous.
There is an honest case for private schools and it goes like this -
Yes, they violate in grievous fashion the principle of equal opportunities and allow the affluent to purchase further and significant advantage for their already advantaged offspring. And yes, this hard codes and propagates inequality down the generations.
BUT, it's a fundamental right of people to spend their own money how they choose. And it's intrinsic to human nature, and a good thing on the micro level, for people to want to give their kids the best start in life they can. Which is what they are doing when they fork out for school fees.
And the second outweighs the first. The contribution of the private opt out in education to inequality is not sufficient to justify the serious infringement of personal liberty involved in removing it.
That is a powerful argument.
But all of this "lefty hypocrisy" and "but you'd still have selection by house price" and "we should make state schools so good that nobody wants to go private" bla bla bla is just a way of avoiding the issue or trying to nitpick out of addressing it.
It's all utter hogwash, Nigel, is my point. So please don't torture me with it.
Actually I don't think private schools are incompatible with equality of oportunity PROVIDED that the government establishes a decent number of scholarships so that poor but gifted children can get into them. That was grammar-school-educated Mrs Thatcher's policy - the Assisted Places Scheme - that public schoolbody Blair abolished in a huge victory for elitism.
So some poor kids get into an elite public school by being very bright and beating off loads of competition but rich kids take the majority of places through parental wealth?
That may be a benign bit of tinkering but it hardly transforms things.
There's no point in the taxpayer paying for a first rate academic education to children who can't benefit from it, whether they are rich or poor. If parents want to do it that's their business. But providing poor kids can pass the entrance exams, the government should pay their fees.
Ok. But you offered it as a transformational change that would make our elite private schools compatible with equal opportunities. It hardly does that,
As one that grew up poor I will try and put it simply..,
The biggest bar to social mobility is people with your attitude. People telling us constantly "Don't bother, it won't make a difference. The system is rigged against you. It isnt your fault". Too many believe you and do give up which makes it self fulfilling. This is why I have so much bile against that sort of thinking
I also grew up poor. And, yes, I get that point but - deep breath and one more time - that is NOT what I think or am saying! WTF are you imputing that to me?
I would never say to a child "don't bother, the system is rigged against you." Of course I wouldn't. The desire to see a system that is not so rigged against poor children does not mean you are right now wanting to give them carte blanche to not try because the system is rigged.
Surely you can see how absurd that inference is? If you can't, I give up.
Look, rather than talking to me, you seem to be talking to some generic "leftist bogeyman" onto which you wish to unload some stuff. It's kind of fascinating in a way but I've had enough now. Catch you another time.
One thing I have observed is that credentialism works against those who have started out at a disadvantage.
You can't get a job as an office junior without a degree now. No more barrow boys in the City....
And it is ranked credentialism - for many places, Russell Group 2.1 or 1st will get you in. Other degrees, not so much.
It's a weird situation because the jobs we're recruiting don't require a degree as we have the "or equivalent experience" but in reality to get the "or equivalent experience" you will have needed a degree to get into the industry in the first place.
Definitely think people don't need a degree to do my job. I mean I did a chemistry degree which has been virtually worthless ever since I graduated except to meet the "degree or equivalent experience required" at the very start of my career.
When I was at Goldman Sachs in the late 90s, the average age of someone who came in at graduate training level (i.e. pre-MBA) was 27 or 28. Almost no-one joined straight from University, usually spending three or four years working elsewhere.
I mention this because - by and large - what a lot of firms want is someone who's had a couple of years to mature and get into working habits, and have something other than their degree to talk about.
My educational and working-life career has always been about Tier 1B to be honest.
I went Red Brick, rather than Oxbridge - I wanted 10 week terms, more fun as well as a very good degree - and I went Big4/niche consultancy, rather than McKinsey or US investment banking route because I didn't want to work all hours God sends. My wife is the same with niche mid-size law firms rather than the large US ones.
Basically, I want a good career and a good salary but I really can't be arsed with the very very top. I like my downtime.
Interestingly, the most common route into Goldman was probably red brick followed by accounting, a tech company, law or something else, followed by the GS graduate training program.
I, with my Cambridge philosophy degree, was definitely the outlier.
But, it must have been quite hardcore working for Goldman, right?
I don't think I'd have enjoyed it.
Like many large organisations, it depended on who you worked for. Goldman was, in many ways, a bunch of small independent units. My unit was technology equity research, and when I started there were two Executive Directors, one secretary and me. My job was update models and serve as an intelligent Super Assistant to my bosses.
In many teams, the junior analyst (i.e, me) was abused. They were tied to their desk basically doing all the grunt work for their bosses.
My bosses - by contrast - gave a shit about my professional development and from day one took me to meet investors and company management, and helped me along. I remain good friends with them both to this day.
So while most junior analysts left after two years to go and do an MBA, I was promoted to Associate, and then left with one of my bosses to start a business with him a few years later.
Was it hard work? Yes, sure. I worked until 7 or 8 most days, and was often in on Sundays.
But it was also fun, and I got to meet lots of interesting people and do interesting things.
The dip in Pfizer efficacy against symptomatic disease perhaps foretells where the Hospitalisations curve might follow in a few weeks. It does look like 12 weeks might be a stretch for second Pfizet doses, and I hope the ability to pivot a little and foreshorten that gap specifically for Pfizer is something the vaccination campaign organisers are alive to.
Some family members have just been informed they're going to have a second Pfizer vaccine 9 weeks after the first one.
My wife and I, 81 and 77, have our second Pfizer tomorrow (six weeks and a day since the first)
UK PBers may be interested to know, that yesterday's USA "Daily Mail" tabloid TV show, featured a Brit journo contrasting the hypocrisy of the Palace, in attacking Meghan freely but saying NOTHING critical re: His Foul Lowness aka Prince Andrew.
Hypocrisy was HIS word, but reckon it is apt.
It's a fair point, as clearly they are leaking against her, though it seems to be what Harry and Meghan want as it seems like they don't get much airtime except on these issues, so feels like if we could get them all to just post allegations against each other on a private message board and pretend everyone else was reading it, everyone would be happy.
If the Palace had any sense they would shut up. They only stir up the story. It would be better for them to ignore it all.
Indeed. Harry and Meghan's popularity has, I believe, gotten worse, and if they had some smoking gun about the palace I feel like they'd have mentioned it before now (else it cannot be very important), so it is surely mostly petty stuff or general pointing out the weirdness of modern royalty and its demands on those within it. That'll get attention, sure, but unless it turns out the Queen slaps servants or something it'll fade, so no need to leak stories to retaliate.
No, H and M are more popular than last year. There is a sharp age divide too with the under 24s favouring H and M over HM, and it being pretty even with the under 40s. It is only the oldies that are anti Meghan.
The dip in Pfizer efficacy against symptomatic disease perhaps foretells where the Hospitalisations curve might follow in a few weeks. It does look like 12 weeks might be a stretch for second Pfizet doses, and I hope the ability to pivot a little and foreshorten that gap specifically for Pfizer is something the vaccination campaign organisers are alive to.
Some family members have just been informed they're going to have a second Pfizer vaccine 9 weeks after the first one.
My wife and I, 81 and 77, have our second Pfizer tomorrow (six weeks and a day since the first)
Great news...another 3-4 weeks and watch out world, Big G will be out to come and get you....
UK PBers may be interested to know, that yesterday's USA "Daily Mail" tabloid TV show, featured a Brit journo contrasting the hypocrisy of the Palace, in attacking Meghan freely but saying NOTHING critical re: His Foul Lowness aka Prince Andrew.
Hypocrisy was HIS word, but reckon it is apt.
It's a fair point, as clearly they are leaking against her, though it seems to be what Harry and Meghan want as it seems like they don't get much airtime except on these issues, so feels like if we could get them all to just post allegations against each other on a private message board and pretend everyone else was reading it, everyone would be happy.
If the Palace had any sense they would shut up. They only stir up the story. It would be better for them to ignore it all.
Indeed. Harry and Meghan's popularity has, I believe, gotten worse, and if they had some smoking gun about the palace I feel like they'd have mentioned it before now (else it cannot be very important), so it is surely mostly petty stuff or general pointing out the weirdness of modern royalty and its demands on those within it. That'll get attention, sure, but unless it turns out the Queen slaps servants or something it'll fade, so no need to leak stories to retaliate.
No, H and M are more popular than last year. There is a sharp age divide too with the under 24s favouring H and M over HM, and it being pretty even with the under 40s. It is only the oldies that are anti Meghan.
UK PBers may be interested to know, that yesterday's USA "Daily Mail" tabloid TV show, featured a Brit journo contrasting the hypocrisy of the Palace, in attacking Meghan freely but saying NOTHING critical re: His Foul Lowness aka Prince Andrew.
Hypocrisy was HIS word, but reckon it is apt.
It's a fair point, as clearly they are leaking against her, though it seems to be what Harry and Meghan want as it seems like they don't get much airtime except on these issues, so feels like if we could get them all to just post allegations against each other on a private message board and pretend everyone else was reading it, everyone would be happy.
If the Palace had any sense they would shut up. They only stir up the story. It would be better for them to ignore it all.
Indeed. Harry and Meghan's popularity has, I believe, gotten worse, and if they had some smoking gun about the palace I feel like they'd have mentioned it before now (else it cannot be very important), so it is surely mostly petty stuff or general pointing out the weirdness of modern royalty and its demands on those within it. That'll get attention, sure, but unless it turns out the Queen slaps servants or something it'll fade, so no need to leak stories to retaliate.
No, H and M are more popular than last year. There is a sharp age divide too with the under 24s favouring H and M over HM, and it being pretty even with the under 40s. It is only the oldies that are anti Meghan.
What will be interesting is what happens to Scottish polls now. With respect to people's opinion on independence, that is not a voting intention in May - if "Stop Sturgeon" becomes a thing then people may perhaps decide to vote against incompetence and corruption by voting Tory. If not, then what becomes the thing driving voting intent for Holyrood? Independence? Or everything else?
UK PBers may be interested to know, that yesterday's USA "Daily Mail" tabloid TV show, featured a Brit journo contrasting the hypocrisy of the Palace, in attacking Meghan freely but saying NOTHING critical re: His Foul Lowness aka Prince Andrew.
Hypocrisy was HIS word, but reckon it is apt.
It's a fair point, as clearly they are leaking against her, though it seems to be what Harry and Meghan want as it seems like they don't get much airtime except on these issues, so feels like if we could get them all to just post allegations against each other on a private message board and pretend everyone else was reading it, everyone would be happy.
If the Palace had any sense they would shut up. They only stir up the story. It would be better for them to ignore it all.
Indeed. Harry and Meghan's popularity has, I believe, gotten worse, and if they had some smoking gun about the palace I feel like they'd have mentioned it before now (else it cannot be very important), so it is surely mostly petty stuff or general pointing out the weirdness of modern royalty and its demands on those within it. That'll get attention, sure, but unless it turns out the Queen slaps servants or something it'll fade, so no need to leak stories to retaliate.
No, H and M are more popular than last year. There is a sharp age divide too with the under 24s favouring H and M over HM, and it being pretty even with the under 40s. It is only the oldies that are anti Meghan.
Right, so they are down a lot (and still less popular than last year according to that), but have had an uptick. If it has gone up after a quiet period and then confirming departure, seems like no reason they cannot just start talking about all the issues they say they care about and see what that takes them.
I don't know how anybody can afford 6 kids in this day and age.....the little monsters are more costly than my betting on Ryder Cups...
He should have put a sock on it or had the snip years ago.
My friend has five kids, he says the money isn't the issue, it's constant worrying about them.
Or the fact he's never had any peace and quiet since 2004.
I have two kids. If I add together all the abortions and miscarriages, I would have 10, maybe more
I am not proud of this, at all. It often grieves me, deeply. Tho I am also thankful I do not have 10 kids
I should add, before I am barred, that the majority of these almost-kids came from women saying "I'm on The Pill", or "I'm not fertile" which turned out to be untrue
Regardless, the likelihood of a Unionist majority in the May election is still very remote, and any other result means Sturgeon back as First Minister and loud, continuous demands for a second referendum. One poll does not a Union save.
UK PBers may be interested to know, that yesterday's USA "Daily Mail" tabloid TV show, featured a Brit journo contrasting the hypocrisy of the Palace, in attacking Meghan freely but saying NOTHING critical re: His Foul Lowness aka Prince Andrew.
Hypocrisy was HIS word, but reckon it is apt.
It's a fair point, as clearly they are leaking against her, though it seems to be what Harry and Meghan want as it seems like they don't get much airtime except on these issues, so feels like if we could get them all to just post allegations against each other on a private message board and pretend everyone else was reading it, everyone would be happy.
If the Palace had any sense they would shut up. They only stir up the story. It would be better for them to ignore it all.
Indeed. Harry and Meghan's popularity has, I believe, gotten worse, and if they had some smoking gun about the palace I feel like they'd have mentioned it before now (else it cannot be very important), so it is surely mostly petty stuff or general pointing out the weirdness of modern royalty and its demands on those within it. That'll get attention, sure, but unless it turns out the Queen slaps servants or something it'll fade, so no need to leak stories to retaliate.
No, H and M are more popular than last year. There is a sharp age divide too with the under 24s favouring H and M over HM, and it being pretty even with the under 40s. It is only the oldies that are anti Meghan.
I don't know how anybody can afford 6 kids in this day and age.....the little monsters are more costly than my betting on Ryder Cups...
He should have put a sock on it or had the snip years ago.
My friend has five kids, he says the money isn't the issue, it's constant worrying about them.
Or the fact he's never had any peace and quiet since 2004.
I have two kids. If I add together all the abortions and miscarriages, I would have 10, maybe more
I am not proud of this, at all. It often grieves me, deeply. Tho I am also thankful I do not have 10 kids
I should add, before I am barred, that the majority of these almost-kids came from women saying "I'm on The Pill", or "I'm not fertile" which turned out to be untrue
Regardless, the likelihood of a Unionist majority in the May election is still very remote, and any other result means Sturgeon back as First Minister and loud, continuous demands for a second referendum. One poll does not a Union save.
Give us five minutes to dream at least!
But it is true, that after trumpeting the importance of parliamentary institutions not polling, the still likely SNP dominance in May remains problematic even if the latest poll as borne out in party terms.
Comments
Though the tough issue may be who has to take the dog. You touched him last...
nVidia: building ridiculouslty powerful graphics cards.
Hmmmm...
I'd rather have nVidia as my owner personally.
Do they
1) Resume the status quo ante, in which case Johnson can kiss most of his new seats goodbye;
2) Vote for the Tories, in which case Starmer can kiss most of the non-metropolitan north and Wales goodbye;
3) Find another minor party to vote for.
A smart politician would be pitching for those voters like their lives depended on it. At the moment, Johnson is making a few admittedly halfarsed attempts to do so. Starmer so far doesn’t seem to have a strategy at all.
Not that I am bitter or anything that still not got a 3090 or 3080Ti (still isn't released).
More seriously the bigger concern is ARM doing well isn't necessarily a great alignment for Nvidia. Selling chip design licences to their rivals on reasonable terms doesn't seem like a good business move for Nvidia.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/jan/13/tory-london-mayor-candidate-homeless-can-save-up-for-house-deposit
The man's a complete idiot, regardless of personal political preference. I'm really surprised the Tories have let him get this far. Even if nobody else would have a chance of winning London, he's a bit damaging to the Tory brand.
But the guys at ARM are literally the best in the world. The embedded knowledge in that team is enormous.
If nVidia turned out to be a bad owner, they could decamp down the road and start a new company. nVidia would be mad to mess with that.
But the system optima is to crush the prevalance of the virus, and that is best achieved by getting as many jabs in arms as quickly as possible.
Partly I think it was simply because he was a rubbish campaigner. He tended to be at his best giving long speeches to selected audiences and political campaigning didn’t work like that after 1885.
But he also did have a rather bad habit of insulting people in crass ways, a bit like Hilary Clinton.
‘Another candidate would have done, but we couldn’t find one.’
Good night,
Vaccine offers for those aged 56 or over
People aged 56 to 59 in England are being invited to book their coronavirus vaccine from this week. Letters for people in the age group, offering them the vaccine, started being delivered to homes on Saturday.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-56309198
www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYY-TrhrP3o
Does anyone know how much he will have earned from it ?
Lough uses Churchill’s own most private records, many never researched before, to chronicle his family’s chronic shortage of money, his own extravagance and his recurring losses from gambling or trading in shares and currencies. Churchill tried to keep himself afloat by borrowing to the hilt, putting off bills and writing ‘all over the place’; when all else failed, he had to ask family or friends to come to the rescue. This they did on no fewer than six occasions unearthed by Lough, the last when Churchill became Prime Minister in 1940. Yet within five years he had taken advantage of his worldwide celebrity to transform his private fortunes with the same ruthlessness as he waged war, reaching 1945 with today’s equivalent of £3 million in the bank. His lucrative war memoirs were still to come.
Yeah, but Winston Churchill was a freaking genius.
Boris Johnson? Not so much.
Sheer folly, plus ego the size of Greenland, compels BJ to constantly compare himself against WSC.
For he can NEVER measure up, only down.
Ydoethur said :
'Well, Winston is obviously a tough act to follow: he was even better than Boris at showing up Continentals who underestimated him. Not quite so good at elections though.Winston Churchill sucked at elections. From his defeat in Manchester North West in 1908 to the landslide of 1945 his electoral record was dismal. Heck, he barely squeaked home in 1951 with a Trumpite minority mandate.
Partly I think it was simply because he was a rubbish campaigner. He tended to be at his best giving long speeches to selected audiences and political campaigning didn’t work like that after 1885.
But he also did have a rather bad habit of insulting people in crass ways, a bit like Hilary Clinton.'
Churchill also lost his first election as a candidate - at Oldham in the 1899 by election.
She's got a slightly sore arm but is otherwise fine.
Foxy said:
'The shift from Labour to Green is mostly those disaffected by Starmer. They might be squeezable in a GE, or they might not.'
More apparent with Yougov than other pollsters. I don't expect the Greens to exceed 3% in a GE.
https://www.standard.co.uk/hp/front/a-future-tory-cabinet-at-least-according-to-tatler-6898834.html
Amusingly the constituencies these future Conservative cabinet ministers were expected to win were:
Hammersmith
Tooting
Westminster North
Somerton
Perth
Bristol NW
Luton N
Oxford W
Kingston
Not good predictors of the future were they.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9333795/Joanna-Lumley-accuses-Harry-Meghan-upsetting-everybody-divisive-Oprah-interview.html
Boris Johnson? Not so much.
Sheer folly, plus ego the size of Greenland, compels BJ to constantly compare himself against WSC.
For he can NEVER measure up, only down.
Ydoethur said :
'Well, Winston is obviously a tough act to follow: he was even better than Boris at showing up Continentals who underestimated him. Not quite so good at elections though.Winston Churchill sucked at elections. From his defeat in Manchester North West in 1908 to the landslide of 1945 his electoral record was dismal. Heck, he barely squeaked home in 1951 with a Trumpite minority mandate.
Partly I think it was simply because he was a rubbish campaigner. He tended to be at his best giving long speeches to selected audiences and political campaigning didn’t work like that after 1885.
But he also did have a rather bad habit of insulting people in crass ways, a bit like Hilary Clinton.'
Churchill also lost his first election as a candidate - at Oldham in the 1899 by election.
You could also argue that Abraham Lincoln was "not so good at elections" (like WSC he lost his first election, to the Illinois general assembly). BUT nobody except a psephologist would consider this an argument for comparing Honest Abe unfavorably with, say, George Bush the Younger (who btw also lost HIS first election).
My point, is that it is a BAD idea for a US politico to compare themselves with Abraham Lincoln, for the reason that most thinking people will think you are a pompous ass for making such a comparison in the first place.
Methinks same is true for UK politicos re: comparison with Winston Churchill.
They have the potential to be the Lib Dems or UKIP du jour. There is a significant third party "none of the above" tendency within British politics that went neatly from Lib Dems to UKIP after Clegg's rose garden moment. Since the death of UKIP that is still looking for a home and it hasn't gone back to the Lib Dems; a third party "pox on both your houses" vote could see the Greens surge into double digits potentially.
Worth noting too that the X axis on the hospitalisations graph is different to the infections one, and much smaller numbers as Scotland rather than England.
https://twitter.com/MartyMakary/status/1368292956638175235
Hypocrisy was HIS word, but reckon it is apt.
'Well, Winston is obviously a tough act to follow: he was even better than Boris at showing up Continentals who underestimated him. Not quite so good at elections though.Winston Churchill sucked at elections. From his defeat in Manchester North West in 1908 to the landslide of 1945 his electoral record was dismal. Heck, he barely squeaked home in 1951 with a Trumpite minority mandate.
Partly I think it was simply because he was a rubbish campaigner. He tended to be at his best giving long speeches to selected audiences and political campaigning didn’t work like that after 1885.
But he also did have a rather bad habit of insulting people in crass ways, a bit like Hilary Clinton.'
Churchill also lost his first election as a candidate - at Oldham in the 1899 by election.
You could also argue that Abraham Lincoln was "not so good at elections" (like WSC he lost his first election, to the Illinois general assembly). BUT nobody except a psephologist would consider this an argument for comparing Honest Abe unfavorably with, say, George Bush the Younger (who btw also lost HIS first election).
My point, is that it is a BAD idea for a US politico to compare themselves with Abraham Lincoln, for the reason that most thinking people will think you are a pompous ass for making such a comparison in the first place.
Methinks same is true for UK politicos re: comparison with Winston Churchill.
I am of the view there should be a moratorium on mention of the man, pro and anti, for at least 10 years.
But despite their best efforts I don't think the UK or EU teams are going to get as much effect out of repeating their same old tactics from before. "The EU is being unreasonable/The UK doesn't know what it wants/we've had constructive discussions but are far apart" bullshit was played out years ago, they need new whinges.
At constituency level, I suspect the Greens will be keen to avoid the mistakes of the 2015 GE when their intervention in key marginals was almost certainly decisive in providing Cameron with his small overall majority of 12.Moreover, had that election produced another Hung Parliament , it is far from clear that we would have seen the 2016 Referendum.
https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1367886079907540995?s=20
https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1367886081195118602?s=20
Time for another glass of my pleasant North Macedonian red...
Yes - the stay at home order is due to expire on March 29th.
Easy to see how NOTA was widely popular then. Especially on the former.
In safe seats though, I can see them building a base, particularly in seats with a big youth vote. I think they will do well in the London elections, and perhaps a few other cities.
Good to hear you had a positive experience.
https://twitter.com/PoliticsForAlI/status/1368321752921743362
https://twitter.com/PoliticsForAlI/status/1368322555694751755
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1367537517969424392?s=19
The age breakdown is here:
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2021/03/04/d9d4d/1?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=daily_questions&utm_campaign=question_1
Ah, my coat?
Actively harming the cause now
Its a glorious piece of political soap opera!
https://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/
I am not proud of this, at all. It often grieves me, deeply. Tho I am also thankful I do not have 10 kids
I should add, before I am barred, that the majority of these almost-kids came from women saying "I'm on The Pill", or "I'm not fertile" which turned out to be untrue
Regardless, the likelihood of a Unionist majority in the May election is still very remote, and any other result means Sturgeon back as First Minister and loud, continuous demands for a second referendum. One poll does not a Union save.
https://twitter.com/FatEmperor/status/1368323483906752516
But it is true, that after trumpeting the importance of parliamentary institutions not polling, the still likely SNP dominance in May remains problematic even if the latest poll as borne out in party terms.