Howdy, Stranger!

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

The case for Labour making an electoral pact – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited May 16 in General
imageThe case for Labour making an electoral pact – politicalbetting.com

There’s a lot of water to flow under the bridge before the next general election. The future of Scotland and potential boundary changes are just two issues that would change the dynamics. Nevertheless, this piece assesses the potential for opposition parties and their voters working together to deny the Conservatives a majority at the next election. The data behind the analysis can be found here. 

Read the full story here

«13456

Comments

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 96,695
    Oh was that a first?

    Turns it was and my first in ages.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,236

    Top piece Tom, an absolute pleasure to publish this.

    Thank you. I should point out I did very little QA of the numbers so there may be some errors in there. I've been inconsistent with how I treat Plaid Cymru - Alyn and Deeside has more Lab/LD/PC votes than Con/BXP, but I think it's fair to be considered a Tory target.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 42,303

    Oh was that a first?

    Turns it was and my first in ages.

    That’s as unconvincing...
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 42,303
    tlg86 said:

    Top piece Tom, an absolute pleasure to publish this.

    Thank you. I should point out I did very little QA of the numbers so there may be some errors in there. I've been inconsistent with how I treat Plaid Cymru - Alyn and Deeside has more Lab/LD/PC votes than Con/BXP, but I think it's fair to be considered a Tory target.
    However, the evidence from the Senedd election is that Brexit voters are generally breaking towards Labour not the Tories.

    Equally, the north east of Wales is trending gradually blue anyway with the large number of English retirees (in particular) wandering into it.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 62,852
    I find it very hubristic to assume that the Lib Dems would automatically vote Labour over Tory. Many would, but others wouldn't.

    Personally speaking I could easily be a Lib Dem voters, especially orange book, but not Labour.

    In 1983 didn't the opinion polls show that most Alliance voters preferred a Thatcher government over a Foot one? So quite possibly the Alliance far from splitting the "anti-Conservative" vote could have split the anti-Foot vote too.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 15,895
    Transparency, accountability, honesty, integrity, standards - these things are not encumbent on a government ***only if it is unpopular***. They are essential features of a healthy democracy.

    That I should even have to point this out to a former minister is shameful.

    https://twitter.com/sturdyAlex/status/1393917412714721280

    https://twitter.com/Edwina_Currie/status/1393661683789406211
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 35,694
    edited May 16

    I find it very hubristic to assume that the Lib Dems would automatically vote Labour over Tory. Many would, but others wouldn't.

    Personally speaking I could easily be a Lib Dem voters, especially orange book, but not Labour.

    In 1983 didn't the opinion polls show that most Alliance voters preferred a Thatcher government over a Foot one? So quite possibly the Alliance far from splitting the "anti-Conservative" vote could have split the anti-Foot vote too.

    You’re right that in electoral terms the centre parties (which includes the Greens, because of their image rather than policies) would be the main electoral gainers, and Labour may not gain many, if any seats as a result of such a pact. Indeed analysis might establish that in some Labour targets they might be better off with a third party also standing to drain off dissatisfied Tory voters who would never vote Labour.

    Labour’s payoff is the chance of putting forward the next Prime Minister, as the largest party from the ‘pact’ in parliament after all the chips have fallen. They get this prize whether they win 200 or 260 seats, provided than enough of the remainder don’t fall to the Tories. That prize is worth a lot more to them than a batch of extra MPs whilst staying in perpetual opposition.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,236

    I find it very hubristic to assume that the Lib Dems would automatically vote Labour over Tory. Many would, but others wouldn't.

    Personally speaking I could easily be a Lib Dem voters, especially orange book, but not Labour.

    In 1983 didn't the opinion polls show that most Alliance voters preferred a Thatcher government over a Foot one? So quite possibly the Alliance far from splitting the "anti-Conservative" vote could have split the anti-Foot vote too.

    Very fair points - my Horsell example (and others in Surrey) show that the Lib Dems might do well in such an arrangement. I'm less sure about the opposite being true.

    On 1983, for sure it's foolish to think that the SDP voters would have preferred Labour to the Conservatives. But it's undoubtedly true that by 1992, voters were very much voting against the Tories.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905

    I find it very hubristic to assume that the Lib Dems would automatically vote Labour over Tory. Many would, but others wouldn't.

    Personally speaking I could easily be a Lib Dem voters, especially orange book, but not Labour.

    In 1983 didn't the opinion polls show that most Alliance voters preferred a Thatcher government over a Foot one? So quite possibly the Alliance far from splitting the "anti-Conservative" vote could have split the anti-Foot vote too.

    A point always worth bearing in mind whenever 'progressive' pacts are discussed. I've flipped back and forth between Tory and Lib Dem over the last few elections, but I wouldn't touch Labour with a ten foot bargepole. I can't be the only one.

    Besides which, it'll never happen because Labour is too dominant. I think that the base assumption is that the party is entitled to office and only has to hang on until the Tories make a sufficient number of mistakes and/or the public gets bored enough of them before it gets back in. So why give your smaller rivals oxygen?
  • BannedinnParisBannedinnParis Posts: 1,522
    FPT

    Fascinating to read the dismantling of David Cameron's reputation.

    The same will happen to Boris Johnson one day ...

    It's odd to see the vilification of Cameron now - at the time, he was considered a political genius and let's not forget not only did he get the Conservatives back into power, he won a majority for the first time in 23 years and smashed the party's principal opponents.

    None of that matters now.


    History has two fates for ex-PMs, they get forgotten or they get rehabilitated. In both cases, it needs for them to be away from the public eye for a while.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 4,260
    Should be noted the LD/Green/PC vote did nobody any favours except the Tories at the last election, turning at least one seat (Ynys Mon) blue, where it turned out, not unexpectedly, that (Anglophone?) LD voters denied an LD candidate preferred the (Anglophone?) Tory to the PC candidate.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 9,209
    Afternoon all :)

    Thanks for the piece, @tlg86.

    At the moment, as an ex-LD member, I would still vote LD and I would rather entrust my crown jewels to a psychopath with a rusty saw than vote for either Johnson or Starmer.

    As far as Woking is concerned, Labour contested the County division of Goldsworth East and Horsell Village (the Greens did not). The LDs won the seat by 200 votes defeating the Deputy Leader of the Council but Labour polled 510 votes. Had Labour not stood, how many of those 510 would have voted LD or not bothered - I can't say.

    You can look across Surrey for all sorts of examples where non-Conservative parties standing against each other helped the Conservatives hold or win a seat and if that's a problem at local level, how much greater a problem would it be at a GE?

    IF you want a pact, it has to be more than an electoral arrangement. It has to be the legislative programme for the first year of a non-Conservative Government (perhaps with electoral reform).

    I can't see that happening at this time. It will only happen when Labour ceases to be the viable alternative Government or when Labour accepts it cannot win a majority under the current conditions. After 1992, Labour thought they could win because they had done remarkably well (even if not well enough and a disappointment in the end) to reduce the Conservative majority from 101 to 21.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,236
    Cookie said:

    Should be noted the LD/Green/PC vote did nobody any favours except the Tories at the last election, turning at least one seat (Ynys Mon) blue, where it turned out, not unexpectedly, that (Anglophone?) LD voters denied an LD candidate preferred the (Anglophone?) Tory to the PC candidate.

    Yes, I'm not sure involving PC in anything like this is a good idea.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 11,514
    Panic buying in Taiwan


    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/16/lockdowns-and-panic-buying-in-taiwan-as-covid-cases-rise


    Quite extraordinary that we are 18 months into this wretched business and it can still do this to us
  • agingjb2agingjb2 Posts: 17
    Since Labour are implacably opposed to electoral reform (as are the Tories), I shall not vote Labour (or Tory).

    Reform (which I doubt will ever happen) would be better than some flaky pact.

  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 2,620
    tlg86 said:

    I find it very hubristic to assume that the Lib Dems would automatically vote Labour over Tory. Many would, but others wouldn't.

    Personally speaking I could easily be a Lib Dem voters, especially orange book, but not Labour.

    In 1983 didn't the opinion polls show that most Alliance voters preferred a Thatcher government over a Foot one? So quite possibly the Alliance far from splitting the "anti-Conservative" vote could have split the anti-Foot vote too.

    Very fair points - my Horsell example (and others in Surrey) show that the Lib Dems might do well in such an arrangement. I'm less sure about the opposite being true.

    On 1983, for sure it's foolish to think that the SDP voters would have preferred Labour to the Conservatives. But it's undoubtedly true that by 1992, voters were very much voting against the Tories.
    Woking Borough Council has long been one of the most incompetent (and so it’s been whispered, corrupt) LA’s in the country. Horsell Tory voters staying at home and / or giving the local Tory councillors a kicking by voting Lib Dem is one thing. It’s quite another to think Woking voters will allow this seat to flip in the name of allowing a Labour government and Prime Minister.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,359

    FPT

    Fascinating to read the dismantling of David Cameron's reputation.

    The same will happen to Boris Johnson one day ...

    It's odd to see the vilification of Cameron now - at the time, he was considered a political genius and let's not forget not only did he get the Conservatives back into power, he won a majority for the first time in 23 years and smashed the party's principal opponents.

    None of that matters now.


    History has two fates for ex-PMs, they get forgotten or they get rehabilitated. In both cases, it needs for them to be away from the public eye for a while.

    Which category is Blair in? The forgotten or the rehabilitated?
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 13,111
    A fab piece. And yes of course there should be an electoral pact. There is a problem though - Labour are an AND party. Unless you follow all aspects of the orthodoxy - this AND this AND this etc you will not be considered anything but a traitor.

    That's inside the Labour party - how is it to form an alliance with other parties when it cannot form alliances with itself?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,333
    Awesome choice by the picture editor!
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,236
    agingjb2 said:

    Since Labour are implacably opposed to electoral reform (as are the Tories), I shall not vote Labour (or Tory).

    Reform (which I doubt will ever happen) would be better than some flaky pact.

    I assume you want electoral reform on principle. It seems to me that first past the post might be the only thing keeping the Lib Dems alive.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,333
    edited May 16
    To any smaller parties thinking of formal pacts, look what has happened to the Liberal Democrats since 2015.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 10,128
    Superb piece - thanks.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 68,919

    I see that Edwin Poots has said that he won't become First Minister of Northern Ireland. Seems odd to me.

    It's an occasional thing political leaders do as it helps them avoid scrutiny for their decisions, by having a frontman.<
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,236
    moonshine said:

    tlg86 said:

    I find it very hubristic to assume that the Lib Dems would automatically vote Labour over Tory. Many would, but others wouldn't.

    Personally speaking I could easily be a Lib Dem voters, especially orange book, but not Labour.

    In 1983 didn't the opinion polls show that most Alliance voters preferred a Thatcher government over a Foot one? So quite possibly the Alliance far from splitting the "anti-Conservative" vote could have split the anti-Foot vote too.

    Very fair points - my Horsell example (and others in Surrey) show that the Lib Dems might do well in such an arrangement. I'm less sure about the opposite being true.

    On 1983, for sure it's foolish to think that the SDP voters would have preferred Labour to the Conservatives. But it's undoubtedly true that by 1992, voters were very much voting against the Tories.
    Woking Borough Council has long been one of the most incompetent (and so it’s been whispered, corrupt) LA’s in the country. Horsell Tory voters staying at home and / or giving the local Tory councillors a kicking by voting Lib Dem is one thing. It’s quite another to think Woking voters will allow this seat to flip in the name of allowing a Labour government and Prime Minister.
    I haven't voted Tory in a Woking Borough Council election since... I actually can't remember it's been that long!

    In a way, I'm surprised the Tories haven't been given a bigger kicking from the voters of Woking.

    Part of my motivation for writing this piece is that I've spent all my 34 years in a seats considered fairly safe for the Tories. I'd be intrigued to see how things would play out if it was considered to be in play.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 17,177
    edited May 16
    tlg86 said:

    I find it very hubristic to assume that the Lib Dems would automatically vote Labour over Tory. Many would, but others wouldn't.

    Personally speaking I could easily be a Lib Dem voters, especially orange book, but not Labour.

    In 1983 didn't the opinion polls show that most Alliance voters preferred a Thatcher government over a Foot one? So quite possibly the Alliance far from splitting the "anti-Conservative" vote could have split the anti-Foot vote too.

    Very fair points - my Horsell example (and others in Surrey) show that the Lib Dems might do well in such an arrangement. I'm less sure about the opposite being true.

    On 1983, for sure it's foolish to think that the SDP voters would have preferred Labour to the Conservatives. But it's undoubtedly true that by 1992, voters were very much voting against the Tories.
    I can give some evidence on this. In borough elections in my area (next to Guildford) where neither Labour nor Libdems put up a full slate in multi-member wards and there was some effort (a Progress newspaper) urging support for both, my impression is that around 50% of LibDems voted Labour with their second vote and around 5% voted Conservative (the rest didn't use their second vote). My impression is that Labour voters split 66% for LibDems, and virtually 0% for Tories. So it was helpful for both but one should not assume that one can simply move voters en masse from one column to the next.

    The proportions might well be different in a Labour-dominated area, where LibDems might shift more to Tories as the joint opposition (Greens less so, I think). On the other hand, an explicit pact endorsed by both/all leaderships would be stronger than if voters are left to figure it out.

    I'm in favour. But the deal should provide a quid pro quo for the constituency party making the sacrifice - the party that benefits should agree to do their best to help them gain some local council seats in the same area that they wouldn't otherwise have won. It's not realistic to expect constituency party X to stand down in return for a reciprocal concession in Y 100 miles away.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 38,258
    The Progressive Alliance "won" GE2019, getting over 50% of the vote UK-wide.
  • agingjb2agingjb2 Posts: 17
    Yes, I want electoral reform on principle. I've no enthusiasm for any party, and a detestation of some.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 68,919
    I live a wordy header, but sometimes it is also nice to get a data heavy header like this - much appreciated.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 35,694

    I find it very hubristic to assume that the Lib Dems would automatically vote Labour over Tory. Many would, but others wouldn't.

    Personally speaking I could easily be a Lib Dem voters, especially orange book, but not Labour.

    In 1983 didn't the opinion polls show that most Alliance voters preferred a Thatcher government over a Foot one? So quite possibly the Alliance far from splitting the "anti-Conservative" vote could have split the anti-Foot vote too.

    A point always worth bearing in mind whenever 'progressive' pacts are discussed. I've flipped back and forth between Tory and Lib Dem over the last few elections, but I wouldn't touch Labour with a ten foot bargepole. I can't be the only one.

    Besides which, it'll never happen because Labour is too dominant. I think that the base assumption is that the party is entitled to office and only has to hang on until the Tories make a sufficient number of mistakes and/or the public gets bored enough of them before it gets back in. So why give your smaller rivals oxygen?
    That’s why it won’t happen until Labour concludes that co-operative pluralist politics (leading to electoral reform) offers the better prospect than waiting twenty or thirty years or forever for its next buggins turn at power.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 35,694

    tlg86 said:

    I find it very hubristic to assume that the Lib Dems would automatically vote Labour over Tory. Many would, but others wouldn't.

    Personally speaking I could easily be a Lib Dem voters, especially orange book, but not Labour.

    In 1983 didn't the opinion polls show that most Alliance voters preferred a Thatcher government over a Foot one? So quite possibly the Alliance far from splitting the "anti-Conservative" vote could have split the anti-Foot vote too.

    Very fair points - my Horsell example (and others in Surrey) show that the Lib Dems might do well in such an arrangement. I'm less sure about the opposite being true.

    On 1983, for sure it's foolish to think that the SDP voters would have preferred Labour to the Conservatives. But it's undoubtedly true that by 1992, voters were very much voting against the Tories.
    I can give some evidence on this. In borough elections in my area (next to Guildford) where neither Labour nor Libdems put up a full slate in multi-member wards and there was some effort (a Progress newspaper) urging support for both, my impression is that around 50% of LibDems voted Labour with their second vote and around 5% voted Conservative (the rest didn't use their second vote). My impression is that Labour voters split 66% for LibDems, and virtually 0% for Tories. So it was helpful for both but one should not assume that one can simply move voters en masse from one column to the next.

    The proportions might well be different in a Labour-dominated area, where LibDems might shift more to Tories as the joint opposition (Greens less so, I think). On the other hand, an explicit pact endorsed by both/all leaderships would be stronger than if voters are left to figure it out.

    I'm in favour. But the deal should provide a quid pro quo for the constituency party making the sacrifice - the party that benefits should agree to do their best to help them gain some local council seats in the same area that they wouldn't otherwise have won. It's not realistic to expect constituency party X to stand down in return for a reciprocal concession in Y 100 miles away.
    Which is how the LibDems and Greens have worked it, with the Green parties that helped the LibDems in the GE (not that it did them much good) often being given free runs at council level next time around.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 35,694
    Leon said:

    Panic buying in Taiwan


    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/16/lockdowns-and-panic-buying-in-taiwan-as-covid-cases-rise


    Quite extraordinary that we are 18 months into this wretched business and it can still do this to us

    I’m still sitting on my toilet roll pile from first time around ;)
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 17,177
    edited May 16

    A fab piece. And yes of course there should be an electoral pact. There is a problem though - Labour are an AND party. Unless you follow all aspects of the orthodoxy - this AND this AND this etc you will not be considered anything but a traitor.

    That's inside the Labour party - how is it to form an alliance with other parties when it cannot form alliances with itself?

    That's trivially untrue - we see cases every day of Labour MPs disagreeing with each other on all sorts of things, let alone individual members. I'm CLP chair and a Corbynite member of Momentum. Our PPC was and probably will be a Blairite. Do either of us fret about it? Nah, life's too short.

    Without wanting to be rude, you're perhaps biased because IIRC you quit Labour to campaign for the LibDems, then changed your mind and ran into the "hasn't campaigned for another party for 3 years" rule. That's different - parties are fussy about people constantly switching in and out. Perhaps they shouldn't be, but anyway it's not the same as being unwilling to cooperate.
  • MaffewMaffew Posts: 180

    I find it very hubristic to assume that the Lib Dems would automatically vote Labour over Tory. Many would, but others wouldn't.

    Personally speaking I could easily be a Lib Dem voters, especially orange book, but not Labour.

    In 1983 didn't the opinion polls show that most Alliance voters preferred a Thatcher government over a Foot one? So quite possibly the Alliance far from splitting the "anti-Conservative" vote could have split the anti-Foot vote too.

    One of the more irritating things about many Labour supporters is that they almost get offended if Lib Dems don't back them, like it's ok for us to go and have our fun when it doesn't matter, but we're betraying them if we don't vote for them when it does.

    Personally as a Lib Dem party member my preference between the two main parties has varied over time. Right now I strongly prefer Starmer to Johnson, but couldn't have brought myself to vote for either when it was Corbyn v Johnson and would have preferred Cameron to Corbyn.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 42,303
    IanB2 said:

    Leon said:

    Panic buying in Taiwan


    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/16/lockdowns-and-panic-buying-in-taiwan-as-covid-cases-rise


    Quite extraordinary that we are 18 months into this wretched business and it can still do this to us

    I’m still sitting on my toilet roll pile from first time around ;)
    Sounds uncomfortable and potentially unstable. Have you thought of moving to a chair?
  • BannedinnParisBannedinnParis Posts: 1,522
    The Progressive Alliance.
    Stop. Stop. It's already dead.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 10,128
    edited May 16
    IanB2 said:

    Leon said:

    Panic buying in Taiwan


    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/16/lockdowns-and-panic-buying-in-taiwan-as-covid-cases-rise


    Quite extraordinary that we are 18 months into this wretched business and it can still do this to us

    I’m still sitting on my toilet roll pile from first time around ;)
    That sounds as if it requires fairly careful aim to thread the hole in the stack of tubes...

    (Entry for PB tasteless competition)
  • ChameleonChameleon Posts: 3,327
    https://twitter.com/gunnerpunner/status/1393920559243829248

    Horrifying stuff. Quadruply worse because it's on Finchley road, one of the main places of residence for British Jews
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 3,736
    I saw the paranoia on the modelling earlier.
    People do know that when they're demanding answers like "what are they assuming?!?", the models are published on line, with the assumptions up front?eg here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/984533/S1229_Warwick_Road_Map_Scenarios_and_Sensitivity_Steps_3_and_4.pdf )

    And the models aren't firm predictions, but "if it's transmissible to this degree, or that degree, or that degree, this is what happens," "if vaccine rollout speeds are this, or if they are that..." and "If vaccine efficacy is this, or if it is that..."

    ... and they also have "optimistic combination" and "pessimistic combination" answers.

    And I'm a bit sick of the "either the vaccine works or it doesn't" line. It's either 100% or 0%, right? Or maybe it's neither? And the degree to which it is neither is one of the factors in the models (with varying assumptions, most of which are based on published studies).

    And, of course, we have the "everyone vulnerable is already vaccinated" line, ignoring that even a 20-year-old in excellent health has a greater than 1% chance of hospitalisation if infected and unvaccinated, increasing from there (so about a 1% to 2% hospitalisation chance on average of all the 30 million currently left unvaccinated - so even without breakthrough infections, that'd be 300,000-600,000 possible hospitalisations).

    The implications of the assumptions lead me to assume that the chances of things going very wrong are very low, as B1.617.2 is susceptible to vaccination. But the incessant "It's all a conspiracy!", "What are they thinking!?" (go and look?), "Well, the vaccines work or they don't, right?" lines do rather pall after a while.

    I mean, yes, the media are bloody awful in amplifying the most dramatic possible "coulds" and "possiblys" in trying to imply that [INSERT_GROUP] are preacing disaster, but that doesn't mean we need to fall for it every bloody time.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 6,809
    Can somebody explain this "surge vaccination" idea in Bolton - it doesn't obviously make any sense to me and could easily be counter productive?

    Vaccinations aren't supposed to convey much, if any, protection for 2-3 weeks until after the jab, although large numbers of people aren't aware of that. So introducing such a programme specifically in a current "hotspot" area could easily actually be throwing fuel on to the fire. And if the transmissibility is as high as the scientists are said to be "fearing", then it will spread way beyond the immediate area long before any vaccines are likely to have any effect.

    Or have i misunderstood and the "surge vaccinations" are actually 2nd doses which i guess work in a different way and more rapidly?
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 21,702
    alex_ said:

    Can somebody explain this "surge vaccination" idea in Bolton - it doesn't obviously make any sense to me and could easily be counter productive?

    Vaccinations aren't supposed to convey much, if any, protection for 2-3 weeks until after the jab, although large numbers of people aren't aware of that. So introducing such a programme specifically in a current "hotspot" area could easily actually be throwing fuel on to the fire. And if the transmissibility is as high as the scientists are said to be "fearing", then it will spread way beyond the immediate area long before any vaccines are likely to have any effect.

    Or have i misunderstood and the "surge vaccinations" are actually 2nd doses which i guess work in a different way and more rapidly?

    It takes a few weeks for the vaccine to take effect but it also takes weeks for covid to pass through one infection cycle to the next and to the next.

    I do hope that its being emphasised that vaccination does not have an immediate effect.
  • PamelaWPamelaW Posts: 16
    I see Labour not standing for Westminster as impossible at the the next GE as they need to lose again quite comfortably (say no more than 250 seats) and only it that were to happen, would they then realize they cannot win again on their own and consider this course in the subsequent GE.

    That being said, another option for Labour perhaps at next GE, is a "paper candidate" whereby candidates stand in hopeless third or fourth place seats and are nor supported in the campaign.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 21,702

    I saw the paranoia on the modelling earlier.
    People do know that when they're demanding answers like "what are they assuming?!?", the models are published on line, with the assumptions up front?eg here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/984533/S1229_Warwick_Road_Map_Scenarios_and_Sensitivity_Steps_3_and_4.pdf )

    And the models aren't firm predictions, but "if it's transmissible to this degree, or that degree, or that degree, this is what happens," "if vaccine rollout speeds are this, or if they are that..." and "If vaccine efficacy is this, or if it is that..."

    ... and they also have "optimistic combination" and "pessimistic combination" answers.

    And I'm a bit sick of the "either the vaccine works or it doesn't" line. It's either 100% or 0%, right? Or maybe it's neither? And the degree to which it is neither is one of the factors in the models (with varying assumptions, most of which are based on published studies).

    And, of course, we have the "everyone vulnerable is already vaccinated" line, ignoring that even a 20-year-old in excellent health has a greater than 1% chance of hospitalisation if infected and unvaccinated, increasing from there (so about a 1% to 2% hospitalisation chance on average of all the 30 million currently left unvaccinated - so even without breakthrough infections, that'd be 300,000-600,000 possible hospitalisations).

    The implications of the assumptions lead me to assume that the chances of things going very wrong are very low, as B1.617.2 is susceptible to vaccination. But the incessant "It's all a conspiracy!", "What are they thinking!?" (go and look?), "Well, the vaccines work or they don't, right?" lines do rather pall after a while.

    I mean, yes, the media are bloody awful in amplifying the most dramatic possible "coulds" and "possiblys" in trying to imply that [INSERT_GROUP] are preacing disaster, but that doesn't mean we need to fall for it every bloody time.

    The 30 million unvaccinated will be predominantly under 20 so at even less risk.

    Plus millions of them will already have immunity from prior infection.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 11,514
    I am happy to report that the bizarre, unprecedented interlude of so-called "sunshine", a lurid, gaudy form of light which causes some people to take off their scarves - I even saw someone smile - has now been rightly abandoned, and we have returned to 13C, leaden skies, and cold, driving rain
  • ClippPClippP Posts: 860
    IanB2 said:

    tlg86 said:

    I find it very hubristic to assume that the Lib Dems would automatically vote Labour over Tory. Many would, but others wouldn't.

    Personally speaking I could easily be a Lib Dem voters, especially orange book, but not Labour.

    In 1983 didn't the opinion polls show that most Alliance voters preferred a Thatcher government over a Foot one? So quite possibly the Alliance far from splitting the "anti-Conservative" vote could have split the anti-Foot vote too.

    Very fair points - my Horsell example (and others in Surrey) show that the Lib Dems might do well in such an arrangement. I'm less sure about the opposite being true.

    On 1983, for sure it's foolish to think that the SDP voters would have preferred Labour to the Conservatives. But it's undoubtedly true that by 1992, voters were very much voting against the Tories.
    I can give some evidence on this. In borough elections in my area (next to Guildford) where neither Labour nor Libdems put up a full slate in multi-member wards and there was some effort (a Progress newspaper) urging support for both, my impression is that around 50% of LibDems voted Labour with their second vote and around 5% voted Conservative (the rest didn't use their second vote). My impression is that Labour voters split 66% for LibDems, and virtually 0% for Tories. So it was helpful for both but one should not assume that one can simply move voters en masse from one column to the next.

    The proportions might well be different in a Labour-dominated area, where LibDems might shift more to Tories as the joint opposition (Greens less so, I think). On the other hand, an explicit pact endorsed by both/all leaderships would be stronger than if voters are left to figure it out.

    I'm in favour. But the deal should provide a quid pro quo for the constituency party making the sacrifice - the party that benefits should agree to do their best to help them gain some local council seats in the same area that they wouldn't otherwise have won. It's not realistic to expect constituency party X to stand down in return for a reciprocal concession in Y 100 miles away.
    Which is how the LibDems and Greens have worked it, with the Green parties that helped the LibDems in the GE (not that it did them much good) often being given free runs at council level next time around.
    And the spin off from this is that the Green Party gets an incredible write-up here on PB, telling the world that they are on the point of becoming the country's third party.....
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 21,702
    Leon said:

    I am happy to report that the bizarre, unprecedented interlude of so-called "sunshine", a lurid, gaudy form of light which causes some people to take off their scarves - I even saw someone smile - has now been rightly abandoned, and we have returned to 13C, leaden skies, and cold, driving rain

    It seems to be some form of divine personal retribution.

    Have you had a past life in which you were very wicked ?
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 21,702
    PamelaW said:

    I see Labour not standing for Westminster as impossible at the the next GE as they need to lose again quite comfortably (say no more than 250 seats) and only it that were to happen, would they then realize they cannot win again on their own and consider this course in the subsequent GE.

    That being said, another option for Labour perhaps at next GE, is a "paper candidate" whereby candidates stand in hopeless third or fourth place seats and are nor supported in the campaign.

    The last already happens.

    As it does for all parties.
  • TazTaz Posts: 2,082
    PamelaW said:

    I see Labour not standing for Westminster as impossible at the the next GE as they need to lose again quite comfortably (say no more than 250 seats) and only it that were to happen, would they then realize they cannot win again on their own and consider this course in the subsequent GE.

    That being said, another option for Labour perhaps at next GE, is a "paper candidate" whereby candidates stand in hopeless third or fourth place seats and are nor supported in the campaign.

    Already happens.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 96,695
    Looking ahead to ‘22 and ‘24, what do Republicans think the party’s strategy should be?

    53% say the party needs to focus on message and ideas to win over more voters, but 47% say the GOP already has enough voters and should focus on pushing for changes to voting rules instead.


    https://twitter.com/CBSNewsPoll/status/1393938110426275840
  • TazTaz Posts: 2,082
    Chameleon said:

    https://twitter.com/gunnerpunner/status/1393920559243829248

    Horrifying stuff. Quadruply worse because it's on Finchley road, one of the main places of residence for British Jews

    It’s vile, it’s disgusting. You can support the Palestinian cause without resorting to such foul anti Semitic slurs.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 14,642
    edited May 16

    Leon said:

    I am happy to report that the bizarre, unprecedented interlude of so-called "sunshine", a lurid, gaudy form of light which causes some people to take off their scarves - I even saw someone smile - has now been rightly abandoned, and we have returned to 13C, leaden skies, and cold, driving rain

    It seems to be some form of divine personal retribution.

    Have you had a past life in which you were very wicked ?
    Maybe he was tempting fate by going on about shite Scottish weather? It's sunny, blue skies and fluffy clouds like a Smash TV commercial of the 1970s.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 96,695
    Yeah Liverpool aren't qualifying for the champions league this season.

    Jota out for the season thanks to a dirty Manc damaging Jota's foot.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 11,514

    Leon said:

    I am happy to report that the bizarre, unprecedented interlude of so-called "sunshine", a lurid, gaudy form of light which causes some people to take off their scarves - I even saw someone smile - has now been rightly abandoned, and we have returned to 13C, leaden skies, and cold, driving rain

    It seems to be some form of divine personal retribution.

    Have you had a past life in which you were very wicked ?
    It's even WORSE in Ventnor. 12C and rain as against 13C and rain

    And it's shit right across northern Europe, Paris, Berlin, Hamburg, Amsterdam, Stockholm: rain and cold

    Northern Europe is being punished collectively


    Brussels for the next 14 days:


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/2800866
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 41,509
    317 seats where the Conservatives won over 47.5% - that is the mountain. Assuming they retained no others, those seats alone allow them to go into talks and offer the NI Unionists the biggest bribe to retain power. Until that column gets significantly eroded, by The Rest coming up with attractive polices, it matters not whether they do it singly or combined.

    Voters are an ornery bunch. Tell them "Here is the Anti-Tory candidate - vote for them to boot the Tories out!", a significant proportion will say "No. We don't like the result being fixed by your collusion. Go away and give me a positive reason to vote for YOU."
  • ChrisChris Posts: 7,375

    I saw the paranoia on the modelling earlier.
    People do know that when they're demanding answers like "what are they assuming?!?", the models are published on line, with the assumptions up front?eg here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/984533/S1229_Warwick_Road_Map_Scenarios_and_Sensitivity_Steps_3_and_4.pdf )

    And the models aren't firm predictions, but "if it's transmissible to this degree, or that degree, or that degree, this is what happens," "if vaccine rollout speeds are this, or if they are that..." and "If vaccine efficacy is this, or if it is that..."

    ... and they also have "optimistic combination" and "pessimistic combination" answers.

    And I'm a bit sick of the "either the vaccine works or it doesn't" line. It's either 100% or 0%, right? Or maybe it's neither? And the degree to which it is neither is one of the factors in the models (with varying assumptions, most of which are based on published studies).

    And, of course, we have the "everyone vulnerable is already vaccinated" line, ignoring that even a 20-year-old in excellent health has a greater than 1% chance of hospitalisation if infected and unvaccinated, increasing from there (so about a 1% to 2% hospitalisation chance on average of all the 30 million currently left unvaccinated - so even without breakthrough infections, that'd be 300,000-600,000 possible hospitalisations).

    The implications of the assumptions lead me to assume that the chances of things going very wrong are very low, as B1.617.2 is susceptible to vaccination. But the incessant "It's all a conspiracy!", "What are they thinking!?" (go and look?), "Well, the vaccines work or they don't, right?" lines do rather pall after a while.

    I mean, yes, the media are bloody awful in amplifying the most dramatic possible "coulds" and "possiblys" in trying to imply that [INSERT_GROUP] are preacing disaster, but that doesn't mean we need to fall for it every bloody time.

    The 30 million unvaccinated will be predominantly under 20 so at even less risk.

    Plus millions of them will already have immunity from prior infection.
    I think the answer to the conundrum is undoubtedly that the modelling is more reliable than the people on social media who barely understand the basic scientific concepts and would be severaly arithmetically handicapped even if they did understand the science.

    The questions are: (1) will the vaccination programme take us to herd immunity, (2) if not, how many more people will need to be infected to get us to herd immunity, and (3) what percentage of those people will be hospitalised and what percentage will die?

    We don't really have the information to do more than guess at the answers to those questions. But if the Indian variant really had an R0 of 5-6, and if AstraZeneca were only 50-60% effective against infection (and that is for the original version of the virus), as trials suggest, then the answer to (1) would be "no, nothing like". In that case, the key question would be how much more effective AstraZeneca was against death than against infection. That is even less certain, but probably the answer is more effective but not hugely more effective. In which case it's not at all surprising that the modelling is suggesting the possibility of a lot more deaths.

  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,186
    Taz said:

    Chameleon said:

    https://twitter.com/gunnerpunner/status/1393920559243829248

    Horrifying stuff. Quadruply worse because it's on Finchley road, one of the main places of residence for British Jews

    It’s vile, it’s disgusting. You can support the Palestinian cause without resorting to such foul anti Semitic slurs.
    In marches in the Uk, Belgium, France and Germany yesterday there were chants about death to jews.

  • LeonLeon Posts: 11,514
    Taz said:

    Chameleon said:

    https://twitter.com/gunnerpunner/status/1393920559243829248

    Horrifying stuff. Quadruply worse because it's on Finchley road, one of the main places of residence for British Jews

    It’s vile, it’s disgusting. You can support the Palestinian cause without resorting to such foul anti Semitic slurs.
    It's outrageous. And it is an obvious threat of great violence, with a specific target: so it is surely illegal

    And they have been filmed and the Met Police can identify them by the Car Reg

    Arrest and prosecute, hard
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 68,919

    Looking ahead to ‘22 and ‘24, what do Republicans think the party’s strategy should be?

    53% say the party needs to focus on message and ideas to win over more voters, but 47% say the GOP already has enough voters and should focus on pushing for changes to voting rules instead.


    https://twitter.com/CBSNewsPoll/status/1393938110426275840

    Well sure, if you change the rules you can always have enough voters - you just need them to be voting on the Supreme Court.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 11,514
    Leon said:

    Taz said:

    Chameleon said:

    https://twitter.com/gunnerpunner/status/1393920559243829248

    Horrifying stuff. Quadruply worse because it's on Finchley road, one of the main places of residence for British Jews

    It’s vile, it’s disgusting. You can support the Palestinian cause without resorting to such foul anti Semitic slurs.
    It's outrageous. And it is an obvious threat of great violence, with a specific target: so it is surely illegal

    And they have been filmed and the Met Police can identify them by the Car Reg

    Arrest and prosecute, hard
    Here is a clearer photo. The number plate is entirely visible. No reason not to arrest and prosecute

    https://twitter.com/AAPrager/status/1393926282711347207?s=20
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,186
    Leon said:

    Taz said:

    Chameleon said:

    https://twitter.com/gunnerpunner/status/1393920559243829248

    Horrifying stuff. Quadruply worse because it's on Finchley road, one of the main places of residence for British Jews

    It’s vile, it’s disgusting. You can support the Palestinian cause without resorting to such foul anti Semitic slurs.
    It's outrageous. And it is an obvious threat of great violence, with a specific target: so it is surely illegal

    And they have been filmed and the Met Police can identify them by the Car Reg

    Arrest and prosecute, hard
    If only - mind you plod would be straight round after some 78 year old street preacher quoting from the bible or someone making a "hurtful" (but lawful) tweet
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 10,416
    @TimSpector

    Despite scares of the latest variant of concern running wild - our data show no increases for the last few days and risks at an individual level still very low - all thanks to vaccination which is reducing infections and severity as with all variants so far. Thanks for logging!
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 21,702
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    I am happy to report that the bizarre, unprecedented interlude of so-called "sunshine", a lurid, gaudy form of light which causes some people to take off their scarves - I even saw someone smile - has now been rightly abandoned, and we have returned to 13C, leaden skies, and cold, driving rain

    It seems to be some form of divine personal retribution.

    Have you had a past life in which you were very wicked ?
    It's even WORSE in Ventnor. 12C and rain as against 13C and rain

    And it's shit right across northern Europe, Paris, Berlin, Hamburg, Amsterdam, Stockholm: rain and cold

    Northern Europe is being punished collectively


    Brussels for the next 14 days:


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/2800866
    Yet the obsessive complaining seems to be coming from only one person.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,489
    The best pact Labour could make would be the left and right of the Party. Without that they are screwed for an eternity.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,236
    Interesting piece in the Guardian about Chipping Norton:

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/may/16/the-view-inside-the-peoples-republic-of-chipping-norton

    Labour can count on unionised workers, mostly in the public sector, and increasingly professionals too. “The cottages that used to be for tweed mill workers 100 years ago are now full of university professors and teachers – that’s where I get lots of my votes,” says Saul.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 11,514
    Floater said:

    Leon said:

    Taz said:

    Chameleon said:

    https://twitter.com/gunnerpunner/status/1393920559243829248

    Horrifying stuff. Quadruply worse because it's on Finchley road, one of the main places of residence for British Jews

    It’s vile, it’s disgusting. You can support the Palestinian cause without resorting to such foul anti Semitic slurs.
    It's outrageous. And it is an obvious threat of great violence, with a specific target: so it is surely illegal

    And they have been filmed and the Met Police can identify them by the Car Reg

    Arrest and prosecute, hard
    If only - mind you plod would be straight round after some 78 year old street preacher quoting from the bible or someone making a "hurtful" (but lawful) tweet
    Boils my piss

    Took them all of 5 minutes to arrest the doddery old Christian quoting the Bible. These guys are driving through Jewish districts of London demanding rape and threatening murder. FFS
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 21,702
    Chris said:

    I saw the paranoia on the modelling earlier.
    People do know that when they're demanding answers like "what are they assuming?!?", the models are published on line, with the assumptions up front?eg here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/984533/S1229_Warwick_Road_Map_Scenarios_and_Sensitivity_Steps_3_and_4.pdf )

    And the models aren't firm predictions, but "if it's transmissible to this degree, or that degree, or that degree, this is what happens," "if vaccine rollout speeds are this, or if they are that..." and "If vaccine efficacy is this, or if it is that..."

    ... and they also have "optimistic combination" and "pessimistic combination" answers.

    And I'm a bit sick of the "either the vaccine works or it doesn't" line. It's either 100% or 0%, right? Or maybe it's neither? And the degree to which it is neither is one of the factors in the models (with varying assumptions, most of which are based on published studies).

    And, of course, we have the "everyone vulnerable is already vaccinated" line, ignoring that even a 20-year-old in excellent health has a greater than 1% chance of hospitalisation if infected and unvaccinated, increasing from there (so about a 1% to 2% hospitalisation chance on average of all the 30 million currently left unvaccinated - so even without breakthrough infections, that'd be 300,000-600,000 possible hospitalisations).

    The implications of the assumptions lead me to assume that the chances of things going very wrong are very low, as B1.617.2 is susceptible to vaccination. But the incessant "It's all a conspiracy!", "What are they thinking!?" (go and look?), "Well, the vaccines work or they don't, right?" lines do rather pall after a while.

    I mean, yes, the media are bloody awful in amplifying the most dramatic possible "coulds" and "possiblys" in trying to imply that [INSERT_GROUP] are preacing disaster, but that doesn't mean we need to fall for it every bloody time.

    The 30 million unvaccinated will be predominantly under 20 so at even less risk.

    Plus millions of them will already have immunity from prior infection.
    I think the answer to the conundrum is undoubtedly that the modelling is more reliable than the people on social media who barely understand the basic scientific concepts and would be severaly arithmetically handicapped even if they did understand the science.

    The questions are: (1) will the vaccination programme take us to herd immunity, (2) if not, how many more people will need to be infected to get us to herd immunity, and (3) what percentage of those people will be hospitalised and what percentage will die?

    We don't really have the information to do more than guess at the answers to those questions. But if the Indian variant really had an R0 of 5-6, and if AstraZeneca were only 50-60% effective against infection (and that is for the original version of the virus), as trials suggest, then the answer to (1) would be "no, nothing like". In that case, the key question would be how much more effective AstraZeneca was against death than against infection. That is even less certain, but probably the answer is more effective but not hugely more effective. In which case it's not at all surprising that the modelling is suggesting the possibility of a lot more deaths.

    The vaccines appear to be hugely effective against serious illness.
  • TazTaz Posts: 2,082
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Taz said:

    Chameleon said:

    https://twitter.com/gunnerpunner/status/1393920559243829248

    Horrifying stuff. Quadruply worse because it's on Finchley road, one of the main places of residence for British Jews

    It’s vile, it’s disgusting. You can support the Palestinian cause without resorting to such foul anti Semitic slurs.
    It's outrageous. And it is an obvious threat of great violence, with a specific target: so it is surely illegal

    And they have been filmed and the Met Police can identify them by the Car Reg

    Arrest and prosecute, hard
    Here is a clearer photo. The number plate is entirely visible. No reason not to arrest and prosecute

    https://twitter.com/AAPrager/status/1393926282711347207?s=20

    Or a man flying a Confederate flag, As happened in Norwich.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 17,422
    Taz said:

    Chameleon said:

    https://twitter.com/gunnerpunner/status/1393920559243829248

    Horrifying stuff. Quadruply worse because it's on Finchley road, one of the main places of residence for British Jews

    It’s vile, it’s disgusting. You can support the Palestinian cause without resorting to such foul anti Semitic slurs.
    Those people need arresting
  • LeonLeon Posts: 11,514
    TBF to Boris, he has responded with alacrity. This was just nine minutes ago

    Boris Johnson
    @BorisJohnson
    ·
    9m

    United Kingdom government official
    There is no place for antisemitism in our society. Ahead of Shavuot, I stand with Britain’s Jews who should not have to endure the type of shameful racism we have seen today.


    Those vile fuckwits in the cars are going to get banged up.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 13,481
    Leon said:

    Floater said:

    Leon said:

    Taz said:

    Chameleon said:

    https://twitter.com/gunnerpunner/status/1393920559243829248

    Horrifying stuff. Quadruply worse because it's on Finchley road, one of the main places of residence for British Jews

    It’s vile, it’s disgusting. You can support the Palestinian cause without resorting to such foul anti Semitic slurs.
    It's outrageous. And it is an obvious threat of great violence, with a specific target: so it is surely illegal

    And they have been filmed and the Met Police can identify them by the Car Reg

    Arrest and prosecute, hard
    If only - mind you plod would be straight round after some 78 year old street preacher quoting from the bible or someone making a "hurtful" (but lawful) tweet
    Boils my piss

    Took them all of 5 minutes to arrest the doddery old Christian quoting the Bible. These guys are driving through Jewish districts of London demanding rape and threatening murder. FFS
    This is why the police are not as respected by ordinary people as they used to be.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 21,702
    tlg86 said:

    Interesting piece in the Guardian about Chipping Norton:

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/may/16/the-view-inside-the-peoples-republic-of-chipping-norton

    Labour can count on unionised workers, mostly in the public sector, and increasingly professionals too. “The cottages that used to be for tweed mill workers 100 years ago are now full of university professors and teachers – that’s where I get lots of my votes,” says Saul.

    I'd be tempted to call it a Pound Shop Stroud.

    But with the property prices its not as good value.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 13,481

    317 seats where the Conservatives won over 47.5% - that is the mountain. Assuming they retained no others, those seats alone allow them to go into talks and offer the NI Unionists the biggest bribe to retain power. Until that column gets significantly eroded, by The Rest coming up with attractive polices, it matters not whether they do it singly or combined.

    Voters are an ornery bunch. Tell them "Here is the Anti-Tory candidate - vote for them to boot the Tories out!", a significant proportion will say "No. We don't like the result being fixed by your collusion. Go away and give me a positive reason to vote for YOU."

    The solution would be to run a candidate but do absolutely no campaigning for them.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 10,416
    MaxPB said:

    Chris said:

    I saw the paranoia on the modelling earlier.
    People do know that when they're demanding answers like "what are they assuming?!?", the models are published on line, with the assumptions up front?eg here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/984533/S1229_Warwick_Road_Map_Scenarios_and_Sensitivity_Steps_3_and_4.pdf )

    And the models aren't firm predictions, but "if it's transmissible to this degree, or that degree, or that degree, this is what happens," "if vaccine rollout speeds are this, or if they are that..." and "If vaccine efficacy is this, or if it is that..."

    ... and they also have "optimistic combination" and "pessimistic combination" answers.

    And I'm a bit sick of the "either the vaccine works or it doesn't" line. It's either 100% or 0%, right? Or maybe it's neither? And the degree to which it is neither is one of the factors in the models (with varying assumptions, most of which are based on published studies).

    And, of course, we have the "everyone vulnerable is already vaccinated" line, ignoring that even a 20-year-old in excellent health has a greater than 1% chance of hospitalisation if infected and unvaccinated, increasing from there (so about a 1% to 2% hospitalisation chance on average of all the 30 million currently left unvaccinated - so even without breakthrough infections, that'd be 300,000-600,000 possible hospitalisations).

    The implications of the assumptions lead me to assume that the chances of things going very wrong are very low, as B1.617.2 is susceptible to vaccination. But the incessant "It's all a conspiracy!", "What are they thinking!?" (go and look?), "Well, the vaccines work or they don't, right?" lines do rather pall after a while.

    I mean, yes, the media are bloody awful in amplifying the most dramatic possible "coulds" and "possiblys" in trying to imply that [INSERT_GROUP] are preacing disaster, but that doesn't mean we need to fall for it every bloody time.

    The 30 million unvaccinated will be predominantly under 20 so at even less risk.

    Plus millions of them will already have immunity from prior infection.
    I think the answer to the conundrum is undoubtedly that the modelling is more reliable than the people on social media who barely understand the basic scientific concepts and would be severaly arithmetically handicapped even if they did understand the science.

    The questions are: (1) will the vaccination programme take us to herd immunity, (2) if not, how many more people will need to be infected to get us to herd immunity, and (3) what percentage of those people will be hospitalised and what percentage will die?

    We don't really have the information to do more than guess at the answers to those questions. But if the Indian variant really had an R0 of 5-6, and if AstraZeneca were only 50-60% effective against infection (and that is for the original version of the virus), as trials suggest, then the answer to (1) would be "no, nothing like". In that case, the key question would be how much more effective AstraZeneca was against death than against infection. That is even less certain, but probably the answer is more effective but not hugely more effective. In which case it's not at all surprising that the modelling is suggesting the possibility of a lot more deaths.

    Your numbers are wrong, AZ is around 90% effective against infection of the original strain with a large gap between doses. Efficacy with a single dose is 76% after 4 weeks. Efficacy against severe symptoms is around 95%+ with two doses and with a single dose it reduces spread by around 40% the study for two doses will be out soon but it is expected to come in around 80% reduction in spread.

    Your whole premise is flawed.
    Nate Silver is great on this sort of stuff: the tendency for people to speculate about efficacy when there is hard data on efficacy, and has been for quite some time. It drives him mad, but he puts it into 240 characters in a pleasingly acerbic and concise way!
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,236
    Leon said:

    TBF to Boris, he has responded with alacrity. This was just nine minutes ago

    Boris Johnson
    @BorisJohnson
    ·
    9m

    United Kingdom government official
    There is no place for antisemitism in our society. Ahead of Shavuot, I stand with Britain’s Jews who should not have to endure the type of shameful racism we have seen today.


    Those vile fuckwits in the cars are going to get banged up.

    Will Starmer do likewise?
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 16,544
    The videos from Golders Green are genuinely terrifying. Just awful.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 6,809

    @TimSpector

    Despite scares of the latest variant of concern running wild - our data show no increases for the last few days and risks at an individual level still very low - all thanks to vaccination which is reducing infections and severity as with all variants so far. Thanks for logging!

    I do wonder how much of the scares about the "indian variant" amount to

    Lots of people are dying in India (although any serious outbreak in India is always going to result in lots of people dying - it's got 1.4billion people!), this variant was first identified in India, ergo we need to worry about it.

    And then produce models which, like all models, have inputs which can be tweaked at will - surrounding transmissibility of variant, effectiveness of vaccine etc etc, and use them to generate "reasonable worse case scenarios" to justify caution. The reasonable worst case scenarios being defined almost entirely by the initial guesswork on variable system inputs lacking substantial evidence to justify them.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 7,375

    Chris said:

    I saw the paranoia on the modelling earlier.
    People do know that when they're demanding answers like "what are they assuming?!?", the models are published on line, with the assumptions up front?eg here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/984533/S1229_Warwick_Road_Map_Scenarios_and_Sensitivity_Steps_3_and_4.pdf )

    And the models aren't firm predictions, but "if it's transmissible to this degree, or that degree, or that degree, this is what happens," "if vaccine rollout speeds are this, or if they are that..." and "If vaccine efficacy is this, or if it is that..."

    ... and they also have "optimistic combination" and "pessimistic combination" answers.

    And I'm a bit sick of the "either the vaccine works or it doesn't" line. It's either 100% or 0%, right? Or maybe it's neither? And the degree to which it is neither is one of the factors in the models (with varying assumptions, most of which are based on published studies).

    And, of course, we have the "everyone vulnerable is already vaccinated" line, ignoring that even a 20-year-old in excellent health has a greater than 1% chance of hospitalisation if infected and unvaccinated, increasing from there (so about a 1% to 2% hospitalisation chance on average of all the 30 million currently left unvaccinated - so even without breakthrough infections, that'd be 300,000-600,000 possible hospitalisations).

    The implications of the assumptions lead me to assume that the chances of things going very wrong are very low, as B1.617.2 is susceptible to vaccination. But the incessant "It's all a conspiracy!", "What are they thinking!?" (go and look?), "Well, the vaccines work or they don't, right?" lines do rather pall after a while.

    I mean, yes, the media are bloody awful in amplifying the most dramatic possible "coulds" and "possiblys" in trying to imply that [INSERT_GROUP] are preacing disaster, but that doesn't mean we need to fall for it every bloody time.

    The 30 million unvaccinated will be predominantly under 20 so at even less risk.

    Plus millions of them will already have immunity from prior infection.
    I think the answer to the conundrum is undoubtedly that the modelling is more reliable than the people on social media who barely understand the basic scientific concepts and would be severaly arithmetically handicapped even if they did understand the science.

    The questions are: (1) will the vaccination programme take us to herd immunity, (2) if not, how many more people will need to be infected to get us to herd immunity, and (3) what percentage of those people will be hospitalised and what percentage will die?

    We don't really have the information to do more than guess at the answers to those questions. But if the Indian variant really had an R0 of 5-6, and if AstraZeneca were only 50-60% effective against infection (and that is for the original version of the virus), as trials suggest, then the answer to (1) would be "no, nothing like". In that case, the key question would be how much more effective AstraZeneca was against death than against infection. That is even less certain, but probably the answer is more effective but not hugely more effective. In which case it's not at all surprising that the modelling is suggesting the possibility of a lot more deaths.

    The vaccines appear to be hugely effective against serious illness.
    You illustrate my point perfectly. The point is that the modellers will have looked at actual numbers backed up by scientific reasoning. And if they are respectable scientists they will have explained their reasoning and cited their evidence. People on social media just make assertions.
  • pingping Posts: 1,305
    edited May 16

    The videos from Golders Green are genuinely terrifying. Just awful.

    Agreed
  • NorthofStokeNorthofStoke Posts: 1,064

    The best pact Labour could make would be the left and right of the Party. Without that they are screwed for an eternity.

    True but the problem is that although they share an emotional dislike (putting it mildly) of the Tories and some have a tribal attachment to the LP brand there is a huge gulf between them. The "right" of labour is objectively closer to the LDs and left of the Tories than the left of their own party. The emergent strains of what can be loosely described as left wing thinking will tear labour apart where previous ideological divisions did not. That is because of recent cultural changes, hyper aggressive on-line discourse and so on.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 41,509
    Leon said:

    TBF to Boris, he has responded with alacrity. This was just nine minutes ago

    Boris Johnson
    @BorisJohnson
    ·
    9m

    United Kingdom government official
    There is no place for antisemitism in our society. Ahead of Shavuot, I stand with Britain’s Jews who should not have to endure the type of shameful racism we have seen today.


    Those vile fuckwits in the cars are going to get banged up.

    Alternatively, they are all going to be found hogtied in a field somewhere, possibly a pig farm, with those flags shoved very far and very painfully up their arses.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 11,514
    tlg86 said:

    Leon said:

    TBF to Boris, he has responded with alacrity. This was just nine minutes ago

    Boris Johnson
    @BorisJohnson
    ·
    9m

    United Kingdom government official
    There is no place for antisemitism in our society. Ahead of Shavuot, I stand with Britain’s Jews who should not have to endure the type of shameful racism we have seen today.


    Those vile fuckwits in the cars are going to get banged up.

    Will Starmer do likewise?
    Priti also on the case. Good for her

    Priti Patel
    @pritipatel
    ·
    10m
    This is disgusting antisemitism.

    There is no place for this hatred in the UK.

    I expect
    @metpoliceuk
    to be taking this seriously.

    https://twitter.com/pritipatel/status/1393946139632840705?s=20


    The coppers will on it already

  • isamisam Posts: 38,131
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Taz said:

    Chameleon said:

    https://twitter.com/gunnerpunner/status/1393920559243829248

    Horrifying stuff. Quadruply worse because it's on Finchley road, one of the main places of residence for British Jews

    It’s vile, it’s disgusting. You can support the Palestinian cause without resorting to such foul anti Semitic slurs.
    It's outrageous. And it is an obvious threat of great violence, with a specific target: so it is surely illegal

    And they have been filmed and the Met Police can identify them by the Car Reg

    Arrest and prosecute, hard
    Here is a clearer photo. The number plate is entirely visible. No reason not to arrest and prosecute

    https://twitter.com/AAPrager/status/1393926282711347207?s=20
    The similar posts beneath are unreal - the megaphone shouting "F the Jews" and talking of rape, the three young boys, one with the Israeli flag on the sole of his shoes, saying "Israel is not real"

    https://twitter.com/Elad_Si/status/1393634620663640064?s=20

    Incredible scenes, one of the major unthought of down sides of multiculturalism. The people who introduced the concept - Roy Jenkins, Lord Lester etc - arrogantly thought that the commonwealth immigrants and their descendants would be so happy to be called British they'd forget their roots

  • ChrisChris Posts: 7,375
    MaxPB said:

    Chris said:

    I saw the paranoia on the modelling earlier.
    People do know that when they're demanding answers like "what are they assuming?!?", the models are published on line, with the assumptions up front?eg here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/984533/S1229_Warwick_Road_Map_Scenarios_and_Sensitivity_Steps_3_and_4.pdf )

    And the models aren't firm predictions, but "if it's transmissible to this degree, or that degree, or that degree, this is what happens," "if vaccine rollout speeds are this, or if they are that..." and "If vaccine efficacy is this, or if it is that..."

    ... and they also have "optimistic combination" and "pessimistic combination" answers.

    And I'm a bit sick of the "either the vaccine works or it doesn't" line. It's either 100% or 0%, right? Or maybe it's neither? And the degree to which it is neither is one of the factors in the models (with varying assumptions, most of which are based on published studies).

    And, of course, we have the "everyone vulnerable is already vaccinated" line, ignoring that even a 20-year-old in excellent health has a greater than 1% chance of hospitalisation if infected and unvaccinated, increasing from there (so about a 1% to 2% hospitalisation chance on average of all the 30 million currently left unvaccinated - so even without breakthrough infections, that'd be 300,000-600,000 possible hospitalisations).

    The implications of the assumptions lead me to assume that the chances of things going very wrong are very low, as B1.617.2 is susceptible to vaccination. But the incessant "It's all a conspiracy!", "What are they thinking!?" (go and look?), "Well, the vaccines work or they don't, right?" lines do rather pall after a while.

    I mean, yes, the media are bloody awful in amplifying the most dramatic possible "coulds" and "possiblys" in trying to imply that [INSERT_GROUP] are preacing disaster, but that doesn't mean we need to fall for it every bloody time.

    The 30 million unvaccinated will be predominantly under 20 so at even less risk.

    Plus millions of them will already have immunity from prior infection.
    I think the answer to the conundrum is undoubtedly that the modelling is more reliable than the people on social media who barely understand the basic scientific concepts and would be severaly arithmetically handicapped even if they did understand the science.

    The questions are: (1) will the vaccination programme take us to herd immunity, (2) if not, how many more people will need to be infected to get us to herd immunity, and (3) what percentage of those people will be hospitalised and what percentage will die?

    We don't really have the information to do more than guess at the answers to those questions. But if the Indian variant really had an R0 of 5-6, and if AstraZeneca were only 50-60% effective against infection (and that is for the original version of the virus), as trials suggest, then the answer to (1) would be "no, nothing like". In that case, the key question would be how much more effective AstraZeneca was against death than against infection. That is even less certain, but probably the answer is more effective but not hugely more effective. In which case it's not at all surprising that the modelling is suggesting the possibility of a lot more deaths.

    Your numbers are wrong, AZ is around 90% effective against infection of the original strain with a large gap between doses. Efficacy with a single dose is 76% after 4 weeks. Efficacy against severe symptoms is around 95%+ with two doses and with a single dose it reduces spread by around 40% the study for two doses will be out soon but it is expected to come in around 80% reduction in spread.

    Your whole premise is flawed.
    So you assert, but you cite no evidence.

    My numbers came from the AstraZeneca Phase III trial. Where did yours come from?
  • TazTaz Posts: 2,082

    The videos from Golders Green are genuinely terrifying. Just awful.

    Utterly disgusting.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 6,809
    ping said:

    The videos from Golders Green are genuinely terrifying. Just awful.

    Agreed
    When people use the actions of the Israeli government to attack protest/target/attack Jewish sites in this country or others they clearly completely undermine their well honed arguments that they are "anti-Zionist, not anti-semitic".
  • ChrisChris Posts: 7,375
    Chris said:

    MaxPB said:

    Chris said:

    I saw the paranoia on the modelling earlier.
    People do know that when they're demanding answers like "what are they assuming?!?", the models are published on line, with the assumptions up front?eg here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/984533/S1229_Warwick_Road_Map_Scenarios_and_Sensitivity_Steps_3_and_4.pdf )

    And the models aren't firm predictions, but "if it's transmissible to this degree, or that degree, or that degree, this is what happens," "if vaccine rollout speeds are this, or if they are that..." and "If vaccine efficacy is this, or if it is that..."

    ... and they also have "optimistic combination" and "pessimistic combination" answers.

    And I'm a bit sick of the "either the vaccine works or it doesn't" line. It's either 100% or 0%, right? Or maybe it's neither? And the degree to which it is neither is one of the factors in the models (with varying assumptions, most of which are based on published studies).

    And, of course, we have the "everyone vulnerable is already vaccinated" line, ignoring that even a 20-year-old in excellent health has a greater than 1% chance of hospitalisation if infected and unvaccinated, increasing from there (so about a 1% to 2% hospitalisation chance on average of all the 30 million currently left unvaccinated - so even without breakthrough infections, that'd be 300,000-600,000 possible hospitalisations).

    The implications of the assumptions lead me to assume that the chances of things going very wrong are very low, as B1.617.2 is susceptible to vaccination. But the incessant "It's all a conspiracy!", "What are they thinking!?" (go and look?), "Well, the vaccines work or they don't, right?" lines do rather pall after a while.

    I mean, yes, the media are bloody awful in amplifying the most dramatic possible "coulds" and "possiblys" in trying to imply that [INSERT_GROUP] are preacing disaster, but that doesn't mean we need to fall for it every bloody time.

    The 30 million unvaccinated will be predominantly under 20 so at even less risk.

    Plus millions of them will already have immunity from prior infection.
    I think the answer to the conundrum is undoubtedly that the modelling is more reliable than the people on social media who barely understand the basic scientific concepts and would be severaly arithmetically handicapped even if they did understand the science.

    The questions are: (1) will the vaccination programme take us to herd immunity, (2) if not, how many more people will need to be infected to get us to herd immunity, and (3) what percentage of those people will be hospitalised and what percentage will die?

    We don't really have the information to do more than guess at the answers to those questions. But if the Indian variant really had an R0 of 5-6, and if AstraZeneca were only 50-60% effective against infection (and that is for the original version of the virus), as trials suggest, then the answer to (1) would be "no, nothing like". In that case, the key question would be how much more effective AstraZeneca was against death than against infection. That is even less certain, but probably the answer is more effective but not hugely more effective. In which case it's not at all surprising that the modelling is suggesting the possibility of a lot more deaths.

    Your numbers are wrong, AZ is around 90% effective against infection of the original strain with a large gap between doses. Efficacy with a single dose is 76% after 4 weeks. Efficacy against severe symptoms is around 95%+ with two doses and with a single dose it reduces spread by around 40% the study for two doses will be out soon but it is expected to come in around 80% reduction in spread.

    Your whole premise is flawed.
    So you assert, but you cite no evidence.

    My numbers came from the AstraZeneca Phase III trial. Where did yours come from?
    Probably you're talking about symptomatic infections only, but really who knows?
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,096
    MaxPB said:

    Chris said:

    I saw the paranoia on the modelling earlier.
    People do know that when they're demanding answers like "what are they assuming?!?", the models are published on line, with the assumptions up front?eg here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/984533/S1229_Warwick_Road_Map_Scenarios_and_Sensitivity_Steps_3_and_4.pdf )

    And the models aren't firm predictions, but "if it's transmissible to this degree, or that degree, or that degree, this is what happens," "if vaccine rollout speeds are this, or if they are that..." and "If vaccine efficacy is this, or if it is that..."

    ... and they also have "optimistic combination" and "pessimistic combination" answers.

    And I'm a bit sick of the "either the vaccine works or it doesn't" line. It's either 100% or 0%, right? Or maybe it's neither? And the degree to which it is neither is one of the factors in the models (with varying assumptions, most of which are based on published studies).

    And, of course, we have the "everyone vulnerable is already vaccinated" line, ignoring that even a 20-year-old in excellent health has a greater than 1% chance of hospitalisation if infected and unvaccinated, increasing from there (so about a 1% to 2% hospitalisation chance on average of all the 30 million currently left unvaccinated - so even without breakthrough infections, that'd be 300,000-600,000 possible hospitalisations).

    The implications of the assumptions lead me to assume that the chances of things going very wrong are very low, as B1.617.2 is susceptible to vaccination. But the incessant "It's all a conspiracy!", "What are they thinking!?" (go and look?), "Well, the vaccines work or they don't, right?" lines do rather pall after a while.

    I mean, yes, the media are bloody awful in amplifying the most dramatic possible "coulds" and "possiblys" in trying to imply that [INSERT_GROUP] are preacing disaster, but that doesn't mean we need to fall for it every bloody time.

    The 30 million unvaccinated will be predominantly under 20 so at even less risk.

    Plus millions of them will already have immunity from prior infection.
    I think the answer to the conundrum is undoubtedly that the modelling is more reliable than the people on social media who barely understand the basic scientific concepts and would be severaly arithmetically handicapped even if they did understand the science.

    The questions are: (1) will the vaccination programme take us to herd immunity, (2) if not, how many more people will need to be infected to get us to herd immunity, and (3) what percentage of those people will be hospitalised and what percentage will die?

    We don't really have the information to do more than guess at the answers to those questions. But if the Indian variant really had an R0 of 5-6, and if AstraZeneca were only 50-60% effective against infection (and that is for the original version of the virus), as trials suggest, then the answer to (1) would be "no, nothing like". In that case, the key question would be how much more effective AstraZeneca was against death than against infection. That is even less certain, but probably the answer is more effective but not hugely more effective. In which case it's not at all surprising that the modelling is suggesting the possibility of a lot more deaths.

    Your numbers are wrong, AZ is around 90% effective against infection of the original strain with a large gap between doses. Efficacy with a single dose is 76% after 4 weeks. Efficacy against severe symptoms is around 95%+ with two doses and with a single dose it reduces spread by around 40% the study for two doses will be out soon but it is expected to come in around 80% reduction in spread.

    Your whole premise is flawed.
    Not quire sure why @Chris keeps peddling this nonsense. Wanton scaremongering.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 21,702
    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    I saw the paranoia on the modelling earlier.
    People do know that when they're demanding answers like "what are they assuming?!?", the models are published on line, with the assumptions up front?eg here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/984533/S1229_Warwick_Road_Map_Scenarios_and_Sensitivity_Steps_3_and_4.pdf )

    And the models aren't firm predictions, but "if it's transmissible to this degree, or that degree, or that degree, this is what happens," "if vaccine rollout speeds are this, or if they are that..." and "If vaccine efficacy is this, or if it is that..."

    ... and they also have "optimistic combination" and "pessimistic combination" answers.

    And I'm a bit sick of the "either the vaccine works or it doesn't" line. It's either 100% or 0%, right? Or maybe it's neither? And the degree to which it is neither is one of the factors in the models (with varying assumptions, most of which are based on published studies).

    And, of course, we have the "everyone vulnerable is already vaccinated" line, ignoring that even a 20-year-old in excellent health has a greater than 1% chance of hospitalisation if infected and unvaccinated, increasing from there (so about a 1% to 2% hospitalisation chance on average of all the 30 million currently left unvaccinated - so even without breakthrough infections, that'd be 300,000-600,000 possible hospitalisations).

    The implications of the assumptions lead me to assume that the chances of things going very wrong are very low, as B1.617.2 is susceptible to vaccination. But the incessant "It's all a conspiracy!", "What are they thinking!?" (go and look?), "Well, the vaccines work or they don't, right?" lines do rather pall after a while.

    I mean, yes, the media are bloody awful in amplifying the most dramatic possible "coulds" and "possiblys" in trying to imply that [INSERT_GROUP] are preacing disaster, but that doesn't mean we need to fall for it every bloody time.

    The 30 million unvaccinated will be predominantly under 20 so at even less risk.

    Plus millions of them will already have immunity from prior infection.
    I think the answer to the conundrum is undoubtedly that the modelling is more reliable than the people on social media who barely understand the basic scientific concepts and would be severaly arithmetically handicapped even if they did understand the science.

    The questions are: (1) will the vaccination programme take us to herd immunity, (2) if not, how many more people will need to be infected to get us to herd immunity, and (3) what percentage of those people will be hospitalised and what percentage will die?

    We don't really have the information to do more than guess at the answers to those questions. But if the Indian variant really had an R0 of 5-6, and if AstraZeneca were only 50-60% effective against infection (and that is for the original version of the virus), as trials suggest, then the answer to (1) would be "no, nothing like". In that case, the key question would be how much more effective AstraZeneca was against death than against infection. That is even less certain, but probably the answer is more effective but not hugely more effective. In which case it's not at all surprising that the modelling is suggesting the possibility of a lot more deaths.

    The vaccines appear to be hugely effective against serious illness.
    You illustrate my point perfectly. The point is that the modellers will have looked at actual numbers backed up by scientific reasoning. And if they are respectable scientists they will have explained their reasoning and cited their evidence. People on social media just make assertions.
    People on social media just make assertions

    You mean like this:

    probably the answer is more effective but not hugely more effective

    Perhaps you can provide some data showing that the vaccines are 'not hugely more effective' against death than against infection.
  • pingping Posts: 1,305
    edited May 16
    alex_ said:

    ping said:

    The videos from Golders Green are genuinely terrifying. Just awful.

    Agreed
    When people use the actions of the Israeli government to attack protest/target/attack Jewish sites in this country or others they clearly completely undermine their well honed arguments that they are "anti-Zionist, not anti-semitic".
    Exactly.

    The situation is so bloody depressing for the moderates who simply believe in not treating other people like shit.

    Those people in the videos are the reason I’ve never joined or actively supported pro-Palestinian rallies.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 3,989
    Chris said:

    MaxPB said:

    Chris said:

    I saw the paranoia on the modelling earlier.
    People do know that when they're demanding answers like "what are they assuming?!?", the models are published on line, with the assumptions up front?eg here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/984533/S1229_Warwick_Road_Map_Scenarios_and_Sensitivity_Steps_3_and_4.pdf )

    And the models aren't firm predictions, but "if it's transmissible to this degree, or that degree, or that degree, this is what happens," "if vaccine rollout speeds are this, or if they are that..." and "If vaccine efficacy is this, or if it is that..."

    ... and they also have "optimistic combination" and "pessimistic combination" answers.

    And I'm a bit sick of the "either the vaccine works or it doesn't" line. It's either 100% or 0%, right? Or maybe it's neither? And the degree to which it is neither is one of the factors in the models (with varying assumptions, most of which are based on published studies).

    And, of course, we have the "everyone vulnerable is already vaccinated" line, ignoring that even a 20-year-old in excellent health has a greater than 1% chance of hospitalisation if infected and unvaccinated, increasing from there (so about a 1% to 2% hospitalisation chance on average of all the 30 million currently left unvaccinated - so even without breakthrough infections, that'd be 300,000-600,000 possible hospitalisations).

    The implications of the assumptions lead me to assume that the chances of things going very wrong are very low, as B1.617.2 is susceptible to vaccination. But the incessant "It's all a conspiracy!", "What are they thinking!?" (go and look?), "Well, the vaccines work or they don't, right?" lines do rather pall after a while.

    I mean, yes, the media are bloody awful in amplifying the most dramatic possible "coulds" and "possiblys" in trying to imply that [INSERT_GROUP] are preacing disaster, but that doesn't mean we need to fall for it every bloody time.

    The 30 million unvaccinated will be predominantly under 20 so at even less risk.

    Plus millions of them will already have immunity from prior infection.
    I think the answer to the conundrum is undoubtedly that the modelling is more reliable than the people on social media who barely understand the basic scientific concepts and would be severaly arithmetically handicapped even if they did understand the science.

    The questions are: (1) will the vaccination programme take us to herd immunity, (2) if not, how many more people will need to be infected to get us to herd immunity, and (3) what percentage of those people will be hospitalised and what percentage will die?

    We don't really have the information to do more than guess at the answers to those questions. But if the Indian variant really had an R0 of 5-6, and if AstraZeneca were only 50-60% effective against infection (and that is for the original version of the virus), as trials suggest, then the answer to (1) would be "no, nothing like". In that case, the key question would be how much more effective AstraZeneca was against death than against infection. That is even less certain, but probably the answer is more effective but not hugely more effective. In which case it's not at all surprising that the modelling is suggesting the possibility of a lot more deaths.

    Your numbers are wrong, AZ is around 90% effective against infection of the original strain with a large gap between doses. Efficacy with a single dose is 76% after 4 weeks. Efficacy against severe symptoms is around 95%+ with two doses and with a single dose it reduces spread by around 40% the study for two doses will be out soon but it is expected to come in around 80% reduction in spread.

    Your whole premise is flawed.
    So you assert, but you cite no evidence.

    My numbers came from the AstraZeneca Phase III trial. Where did yours come from?
    Chris said:

    MaxPB said:

    Chris said:

    I saw the paranoia on the modelling earlier.
    People do know that when they're demanding answers like "what are they assuming?!?", the models are published on line, with the assumptions up front?eg here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/984533/S1229_Warwick_Road_Map_Scenarios_and_Sensitivity_Steps_3_and_4.pdf )

    And the models aren't firm predictions, but "if it's transmissible to this degree, or that degree, or that degree, this is what happens," "if vaccine rollout speeds are this, or if they are that..." and "If vaccine efficacy is this, or if it is that..."

    ... and they also have "optimistic combination" and "pessimistic combination" answers.

    And I'm a bit sick of the "either the vaccine works or it doesn't" line. It's either 100% or 0%, right? Or maybe it's neither? And the degree to which it is neither is one of the factors in the models (with varying assumptions, most of which are based on published studies).

    And, of course, we have the "everyone vulnerable is already vaccinated" line, ignoring that even a 20-year-old in excellent health has a greater than 1% chance of hospitalisation if infected and unvaccinated, increasing from there (so about a 1% to 2% hospitalisation chance on average of all the 30 million currently left unvaccinated - so even without breakthrough infections, that'd be 300,000-600,000 possible hospitalisations).

    The implications of the assumptions lead me to assume that the chances of things going very wrong are very low, as B1.617.2 is susceptible to vaccination. But the incessant "It's all a conspiracy!", "What are they thinking!?" (go and look?), "Well, the vaccines work or they don't, right?" lines do rather pall after a while.

    I mean, yes, the media are bloody awful in amplifying the most dramatic possible "coulds" and "possiblys" in trying to imply that [INSERT_GROUP] are preacing disaster, but that doesn't mean we need to fall for it every bloody time.

    The 30 million unvaccinated will be predominantly under 20 so at even less risk.

    Plus millions of them will already have immunity from prior infection.
    I think the answer to the conundrum is undoubtedly that the modelling is more reliable than the people on social media who barely understand the basic scientific concepts and would be severaly arithmetically handicapped even if they did understand the science.

    The questions are: (1) will the vaccination programme take us to herd immunity, (2) if not, how many more people will need to be infected to get us to herd immunity, and (3) what percentage of those people will be hospitalised and what percentage will die?

    We don't really have the information to do more than guess at the answers to those questions. But if the Indian variant really had an R0 of 5-6, and if AstraZeneca were only 50-60% effective against infection (and that is for the original version of the virus), as trials suggest, then the answer to (1) would be "no, nothing like". In that case, the key question would be how much more effective AstraZeneca was against death than against infection. That is even less certain, but probably the answer is more effective but not hugely more effective. In which case it's not at all surprising that the modelling is suggesting the possibility of a lot more deaths.

    Your numbers are wrong, AZ is around 90% effective against infection of the original strain with a large gap between doses. Efficacy with a single dose is 76% after 4 weeks. Efficacy against severe symptoms is around 95%+ with two doses and with a single dose it reduces spread by around 40% the study for two doses will be out soon but it is expected to come in around 80% reduction in spread.

    Your whole premise is flawed.
    So you assert, but you cite no evidence.

    My numbers came from the AstraZeneca Phase III trial. Where did yours come from?
    You seem obsessed with the phase III trial data, and not with the huge test in millions of people in the real world. There is now much more evidence of real world protection against disease and against spread. Why not update your knowledge?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 11,514
    Taz said:

    The videos from Golders Green are genuinely terrifying. Just awful.

    Utterly disgusting.
    I'm pretty sure they are going to jail. Slam dunk. Filmed without masks and with reg plates visible.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 51,594
    Scottish "Groat" (sic) would fall 20% vs pound:

    https://twitter.com/kevverage/status/1393944920419938307?s=20

    I hope Malc's got his mortgage paid off.....
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 7,115
    isam said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Taz said:

    Chameleon said:

    https://twitter.com/gunnerpunner/status/1393920559243829248

    Horrifying stuff. Quadruply worse because it's on Finchley road, one of the main places of residence for British Jews

    It’s vile, it’s disgusting. You can support the Palestinian cause without resorting to such foul anti Semitic slurs.
    It's outrageous. And it is an obvious threat of great violence, with a specific target: so it is surely illegal

    And they have been filmed and the Met Police can identify them by the Car Reg

    Arrest and prosecute, hard
    Here is a clearer photo. The number plate is entirely visible. No reason not to arrest and prosecute

    https://twitter.com/AAPrager/status/1393926282711347207?s=20
    The similar posts beneath are unreal - the megaphone shouting "F the Jews" and talking of rape, the three young boys, one with the Israeli flag on the sole of his shoes, saying "Israel is not real"

    https://twitter.com/Elad_Si/status/1393634620663640064?s=20

    Incredible scenes, one of the major unthought of down sides of multiculturalism. The people who introduced the concept - Roy Jenkins, Lord Lester etc - arrogantly thought that the commonwealth immigrants and their descendants would be so happy to be called British they'd forget their roots

    I dare say a few hearty white Englishmen who can trace their ancestry back to Ethelred aren't wholly immune from such bigotry.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 6,809
    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    I saw the paranoia on the modelling earlier.
    People do know that when they're demanding answers like "what are they assuming?!?", the models are published on line, with the assumptions up front?eg here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/984533/S1229_Warwick_Road_Map_Scenarios_and_Sensitivity_Steps_3_and_4.pdf )

    And the models aren't firm predictions, but "if it's transmissible to this degree, or that degree, or that degree, this is what happens," "if vaccine rollout speeds are this, or if they are that..." and "If vaccine efficacy is this, or if it is that..."

    ... and they also have "optimistic combination" and "pessimistic combination" answers.

    And I'm a bit sick of the "either the vaccine works or it doesn't" line. It's either 100% or 0%, right? Or maybe it's neither? And the degree to which it is neither is one of the factors in the models (with varying assumptions, most of which are based on published studies).

    And, of course, we have the "everyone vulnerable is already vaccinated" line, ignoring that even a 20-year-old in excellent health has a greater than 1% chance of hospitalisation if infected and unvaccinated, increasing from there (so about a 1% to 2% hospitalisation chance on average of all the 30 million currently left unvaccinated - so even without breakthrough infections, that'd be 300,000-600,000 possible hospitalisations).

    The implications of the assumptions lead me to assume that the chances of things going very wrong are very low, as B1.617.2 is susceptible to vaccination. But the incessant "It's all a conspiracy!", "What are they thinking!?" (go and look?), "Well, the vaccines work or they don't, right?" lines do rather pall after a while.

    I mean, yes, the media are bloody awful in amplifying the most dramatic possible "coulds" and "possiblys" in trying to imply that [INSERT_GROUP] are preacing disaster, but that doesn't mean we need to fall for it every bloody time.

    The 30 million unvaccinated will be predominantly under 20 so at even less risk.

    Plus millions of them will already have immunity from prior infection.
    I think the answer to the conundrum is undoubtedly that the modelling is more reliable than the people on social media who barely understand the basic scientific concepts and would be severaly arithmetically handicapped even if they did understand the science.

    The questions are: (1) will the vaccination programme take us to herd immunity, (2) if not, how many more people will need to be infected to get us to herd immunity, and (3) what percentage of those people will be hospitalised and what percentage will die?

    We don't really have the information to do more than guess at the answers to those questions. But if the Indian variant really had an R0 of 5-6, and if AstraZeneca were only 50-60% effective against infection (and that is for the original version of the virus), as trials suggest, then the answer to (1) would be "no, nothing like". In that case, the key question would be how much more effective AstraZeneca was against death than against infection. That is even less certain, but probably the answer is more effective but not hugely more effective. In which case it's not at all surprising that the modelling is suggesting the possibility of a lot more deaths.

    The vaccines appear to be hugely effective against serious illness.
    You illustrate my point perfectly. The point is that the modellers will have looked at actual numbers backed up by scientific reasoning. And if they are respectable scientists they will have explained their reasoning and cited their evidence. People on social media just make assertions.
    It is not true to say that modellers always look at actual numbers backed up by scientific reasoning. In fact most modelling usually starts off with very little numbers. It starts off with assumptions/variables which are plugged in to generate a range of scenarios. It is only over time when the initial wide range of projections can be overlaid with real numbers that the models can be refined, and the range of possible outcomes narrowed.

    Most of the scientific comment i've seen on this Indian variant is still clearly at the initial stages - particularly where it comes to things like transmissibility. They have a wide range of possibilities but are not, as yet, ruling out the worse case scenarios. And for those who prefer caution they are arguing for this until that can be done.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 31,134

    Chris said:

    MaxPB said:

    Chris said:

    I saw the paranoia on the modelling earlier.
    People do know that when they're demanding answers like "what are they assuming?!?", the models are published on line, with the assumptions up front?eg here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/984533/S1229_Warwick_Road_Map_Scenarios_and_Sensitivity_Steps_3_and_4.pdf )

    And the models aren't firm predictions, but "if it's transmissible to this degree, or that degree, or that degree, this is what happens," "if vaccine rollout speeds are this, or if they are that..." and "If vaccine efficacy is this, or if it is that..."

    ... and they also have "optimistic combination" and "pessimistic combination" answers.

    And I'm a bit sick of the "either the vaccine works or it doesn't" line. It's either 100% or 0%, right? Or maybe it's neither? And the degree to which it is neither is one of the factors in the models (with varying assumptions, most of which are based on published studies).

    And, of course, we have the "everyone vulnerable is already vaccinated" line, ignoring that even a 20-year-old in excellent health has a greater than 1% chance of hospitalisation if infected and unvaccinated, increasing from there (so about a 1% to 2% hospitalisation chance on average of all the 30 million currently left unvaccinated - so even without breakthrough infections, that'd be 300,000-600,000 possible hospitalisations).

    The implications of the assumptions lead me to assume that the chances of things going very wrong are very low, as B1.617.2 is susceptible to vaccination. But the incessant "It's all a conspiracy!", "What are they thinking!?" (go and look?), "Well, the vaccines work or they don't, right?" lines do rather pall after a while.

    I mean, yes, the media are bloody awful in amplifying the most dramatic possible "coulds" and "possiblys" in trying to imply that [INSERT_GROUP] are preacing disaster, but that doesn't mean we need to fall for it every bloody time.

    The 30 million unvaccinated will be predominantly under 20 so at even less risk.

    Plus millions of them will already have immunity from prior infection.
    I think the answer to the conundrum is undoubtedly that the modelling is more reliable than the people on social media who barely understand the basic scientific concepts and would be severaly arithmetically handicapped even if they did understand the science.

    The questions are: (1) will the vaccination programme take us to herd immunity, (2) if not, how many more people will need to be infected to get us to herd immunity, and (3) what percentage of those people will be hospitalised and what percentage will die?

    We don't really have the information to do more than guess at the answers to those questions. But if the Indian variant really had an R0 of 5-6, and if AstraZeneca were only 50-60% effective against infection (and that is for the original version of the virus), as trials suggest, then the answer to (1) would be "no, nothing like". In that case, the key question would be how much more effective AstraZeneca was against death than against infection. That is even less certain, but probably the answer is more effective but not hugely more effective. In which case it's not at all surprising that the modelling is suggesting the possibility of a lot more deaths.

    Your numbers are wrong, AZ is around 90% effective against infection of the original strain with a large gap between doses. Efficacy with a single dose is 76% after 4 weeks. Efficacy against severe symptoms is around 95%+ with two doses and with a single dose it reduces spread by around 40% the study for two doses will be out soon but it is expected to come in around 80% reduction in spread.

    Your whole premise is flawed.
    So you assert, but you cite no evidence.

    My numbers came from the AstraZeneca Phase III trial. Where did yours come from?
    Chris said:

    MaxPB said:

    Chris said:

    I saw the paranoia on the modelling earlier.
    People do know that when they're demanding answers like "what are they assuming?!?", the models are published on line, with the assumptions up front?eg here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/984533/S1229_Warwick_Road_Map_Scenarios_and_Sensitivity_Steps_3_and_4.pdf )

    And the models aren't firm predictions, but "if it's transmissible to this degree, or that degree, or that degree, this is what happens," "if vaccine rollout speeds are this, or if they are that..." and "If vaccine efficacy is this, or if it is that..."

    ... and they also have "optimistic combination" and "pessimistic combination" answers.

    And I'm a bit sick of the "either the vaccine works or it doesn't" line. It's either 100% or 0%, right? Or maybe it's neither? And the degree to which it is neither is one of the factors in the models (with varying assumptions, most of which are based on published studies).

    And, of course, we have the "everyone vulnerable is already vaccinated" line, ignoring that even a 20-year-old in excellent health has a greater than 1% chance of hospitalisation if infected and unvaccinated, increasing from there (so about a 1% to 2% hospitalisation chance on average of all the 30 million currently left unvaccinated - so even without breakthrough infections, that'd be 300,000-600,000 possible hospitalisations).

    The implications of the assumptions lead me to assume that the chances of things going very wrong are very low, as B1.617.2 is susceptible to vaccination. But the incessant "It's all a conspiracy!", "What are they thinking!?" (go and look?), "Well, the vaccines work or they don't, right?" lines do rather pall after a while.

    I mean, yes, the media are bloody awful in amplifying the most dramatic possible "coulds" and "possiblys" in trying to imply that [INSERT_GROUP] are preacing disaster, but that doesn't mean we need to fall for it every bloody time.

    The 30 million unvaccinated will be predominantly under 20 so at even less risk.

    Plus millions of them will already have immunity from prior infection.
    I think the answer to the conundrum is undoubtedly that the modelling is more reliable than the people on social media who barely understand the basic scientific concepts and would be severaly arithmetically handicapped even if they did understand the science.

    The questions are: (1) will the vaccination programme take us to herd immunity, (2) if not, how many more people will need to be infected to get us to herd immunity, and (3) what percentage of those people will be hospitalised and what percentage will die?

    We don't really have the information to do more than guess at the answers to those questions. But if the Indian variant really had an R0 of 5-6, and if AstraZeneca were only 50-60% effective against infection (and that is for the original version of the virus), as trials suggest, then the answer to (1) would be "no, nothing like". In that case, the key question would be how much more effective AstraZeneca was against death than against infection. That is even less certain, but probably the answer is more effective but not hugely more effective. In which case it's not at all surprising that the modelling is suggesting the possibility of a lot more deaths.

    Your numbers are wrong, AZ is around 90% effective against infection of the original strain with a large gap between doses. Efficacy with a single dose is 76% after 4 weeks. Efficacy against severe symptoms is around 95%+ with two doses and with a single dose it reduces spread by around 40% the study for two doses will be out soon but it is expected to come in around 80% reduction in spread.

    Your whole premise is flawed.
    So you assert, but you cite no evidence.

    My numbers came from the AstraZeneca Phase III trial. Where did yours come from?
    You seem obsessed with the phase III trial data, and not with the huge test in millions of people in the real world. There is now much more evidence of real world protection against disease and against spread. Why not update your knowledge?
    Because he's a zero COVID zealot.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 35,694
    Leon said:

    I am happy to report that the bizarre, unprecedented interlude of so-called "sunshine", a lurid, gaudy form of light which causes some people to take off their scarves - I even saw someone smile - has now been rightly abandoned, and we have returned to 13C, leaden skies, and cold, driving rain

    We wanted it back here, where it belongs ;)

    Although TBF it’s struggling somewhat down here, coming and going in between showers.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 21,702
    Any PB experts of the detailed demographics of Asian populations in Britain ?

    AIUI in Bolton and Blackburn the Asian population is predominantly Muslim and I would assume of Pakistani heritage.

    Yet both have had outbreaks of the Indian variant.

    Whereas places associated with Asians of Indian heritage - Leicester, Harrow, Brent, Hounslow - have only seen increases of at most marginal levels.

    Would the Asians in Bolton be possibly more Muslims of Indian heritage rather than Pakistani heritage compared with other northern mill towns ?

    Or perhaps the Indian heritage population in Bolton would be more likely to live in multi generational homes than those in London and Leicester ?

    Or maybe its just been 'the luck of the draw'.
This discussion has been closed.