Vaccines Minister Nadhim Zahawi says a negative test result will no longer be enough to gain access to nightclubs and large indoor events by end of Sept. They must show proof of two jabs.
Govt is still "encouraging" venues to use Covid passes to prove Covid status but reserves right to mandate their use.
____ Happy Freedom day everybody, lets have a laigh at the pointless protests, nobody wants restrictions forever, etc etc
19 July: 39950 cases. So it looks as though the peak of this wave was 54000 to the nearest 1000.
Key concept: expectations management.
Is that 39950 on 'Freedom Day"?
I forecast 40k several weeks ago, so on an error of 0.125% I claim victory and my £5.
This is all FAR too early!
Yep - this is weekend reporting - I would definitely be waiting until Wednesday until announcing anything like "we've passed the peak".
Heck I suspect the peak will be sometime next week but underreported as schools will be closed and the number of tests done is going to plummet.
We are nowhere near the peak
I really don't know - the delta variant really does seem to have a massive spike followed by a fairly rapid downward curve (we saw it in India, and similar in Scotland).
I wonder what its like when SeanT gets banned and has to regenerate.
Is it like Doctor Who - a burst of energy then a new face/username? Is it like Captain Jack when he actually lies there unbreathing for a few minutes until coming back with a big gasp? Is it like one of the Cylons where they awake on the resurrection ship?
What was he banned for this time? I think I will miss his brand of stupidity. Yes he is an idiot, often expressing obnoxious views, but it is fun needling him. He did mange to be reasonably restrained when I suggested SeanT's books were the poor man's Dan Brown lol.
He was one of the half dozen most intelligent posters on the site. You, to put it mildly, are not.
Oh, so you think you are lol! You are the most arrogant plonkers on this site, with nothing to be arrogant about. You are the only nob on here to have made much of your Oxford PhD., which is probably even less believable than one of SeanT's plotlines, particularly as when you quoted it you got the form wrong. What are you going to do next, do a Trump and claim you have "the highest" IQ lol?
I have interviewed and employed lots of genuine Oxbridge PhD's and some of them are wankers like yourself, so I guess it is possible. On the other hand, more likely that you are a Walter Mitty.
SeanT was fun, and lots of people, even those of us with a very different view thought so. If people see your profile they generally think just think "obnoxious contrarian wanker" .
It wasn't an Oxford PhD. There is no such thing as an Oxford PhD. The post was merely a gag anyway. You have not interviewed lots of Oxford PhDs because there aren't any. You cannot put finger to keyboard without embarrassing yourself and boring everybody else. Why are you even here?
I see that my outing you as a Walter Mitty was correct. My bullshitometer always goes to max each time I see any of your posts that no-one else wants to read.
How did you put it, btw? Dr. Ishmael Z Oxon PhD. (sic)? 😂😂😂😂 I bet you haven't even got an 'ology! "The post was merely a gag anyway 😂😂😂😂
Seriously though, I think you maybe are suffering from a severe case of another malaise: psychological projection, where you accuse others of issues that trouble yourself. Boring people is clearly a major issue for yourself, I don't imagine anyone goes "hey, IshmaelZ's post I must read that, it'll be really informative or funny!". I know I should feel sorry for you really, and I know that I really should, as a nice well brought up boy, be nice to twats, but I have to make an exception for you. Keep taking the tablets Walter. Love and kisses xxxx
£10,000 at evens that I have a PhD from an English university. Happy to put the money in escrow with rcs1000 if you think I'm not good for it
Your choices now: Take the bet Retract and apologise for the slur Say nothing and tacitly admit to a chronic and incurable case of micropenis syndrome
Let’s not get excited but 39,950 today as compared to 34,471 reported last Monday comes under the heading “much better than feared”. A 15% or so increase week on week?
Wednesday is the big day - that's when leaps normally happen as that Monday's school cases get counted.
Hopefully, given many schools have now broken up, we won't see such a big jump - or indeed, may see a decline.
Schools don't break up until Wednesday here – assume that's widely the case across England?
I think some broke up on Friday. Ours (Trafford) don't break up until next Friday, but we're late, having had two weeks off in June.
Granddaughter-in-law, a secondary school teacher, finished on Friday. Her husband, Eldest Grandson , in the same county, doesn't finish until Wednesday. Granddaughter Three finished two weeks ago.
But that's the point, you're on the one hand saying your advice to the government is just advice but on the other hand telling us that you should be free to bitch to the media when the government decides that your advice is just advisory.
Simply, you want to pretend that you aren't trying to influence policy decisions outside of your remit by maintaining a pretence that the government is free to ignore your advice but then the first moment this happens you'll bitch to the media that the government is "ignoring the science" or whatever else. It's only been happening for a year.
When you use the phrase "on the one hand [...] on the other hand", you are normally meant to present some sort of contradiction...? I am a scientist employed by a university in a country that believes in free speech and academic freedom. Part of my role as a scientist is to communicate my research to others. 99% of the time, that means talking to other academics, but if policymakers want to listen to me, I'll talk to them. If a radio channel wants to listen to me, I'll talk to them.
So, yes, my advice to govt is just advice. I can't make govt do what I say. (They certainly frequently haven't to date!) And, yes, I should be free to bitch to the media, just like everyone else in the country is free to bitch to the media.
I am absolutely trying to influence policy decisions. I have not said otherwise. Lots of people try to influence policy decisions: MPs do, constituents do when they write to MPs, columnists do when they write columns, PB.com article writers do when they write articles. That's again how democracy works.
Lots of people try to influence policy decisions, the government absorbs all those inputs and comes to a decision. Who is responsible for the decision? Well, the Government is.
If I think the Govt is ignoring the science, I will absolutely bitch about it. I'm a scientist: that's my duty. If the Govt is ignoring fishermen, then the fishing industry bitch about it to the media. I'm not complaining about that. That's how it works.
You keep talking about freedom, but your freedom always seems to mean other people being silenced. That is not what "freedom" means. Freedom means that we are all allowed to say things, to whoever will listen.
You are not free to bitch to the media when you are integral to the government's decision-making process.
Ok, so let's take a different example.
I'm part of a team directly funded by the Department of Health to look at the impact of a government policy. The goverment policy seems to have had no effect (this has happened to me).
Should we be free to publish this - do interviews, whatever - even if the government pushes ahead with the policy anyway and does not want us to publish? (this has not happened to me - we were clear in advance that we could publish anyway and in the event the government then quietly dropped the policy, which was only at pilot stage anyway)
If the answer is yes, we should be free to publish, then it's hard to see how we, actually paid to do this by the government should be able to while SAGE should not.
If the answer is no, then we don't be doing any more of that research. The government can take it in house with actual employees, fine. But they'll either have to maintain a large pool of government-employed experts just in case or use generalists who may lack expertise in niche areas.
The government, if it wants, can abolish the concept of SAGE and instead directly employ more experts and have direct control over what they say. I've no problem with that on any moral level, although I think the current process of advice from truly independent people out in the open is preferable and likely to be more effective. A purely in-house team could tend to be self-selecting for particular biases and liable to groupthink. In the meantime, the independent experts in the field will presumably be allowed (and likely feel more free on a personal level) to explain exactly what the government is doing wrong. The government/interal team of experts may even refer to the indepent experts' evidence in making decisions - they'd be wise to, probably. So what exactly has been achieved?
You should have to resign from your position before doing so and make clear that is the reason you resigned. Didn't the children's tsar just do that? It's called having integrity.
That's really is different - it's an official position, with actual powers.
To be clear - if Chris Whitty goes off to Channel 4 news saying the government has cocked up it's Covid policy, he can't stay as Chief Medical Officer, he has to resign. Likewise Patrick Vallance. They have responsibilities and official positions.
People on SAGE weren't even named before there was a call for more transparency.
It's no different at this time, though. Advising the government on a pandemic during the pandemic means having to accept that decisions go against you sometimes and learning to live with it.
Maybe that's the issue, you see this from a science perspective and I'm looking at it from a public policy perspective. Normally the two aren't aligned but for the last year and a bit they have been and scientific advice must be aligned to policy and the advisers need to be able to go and sell a policy they disagree with or resign if they don't agree.
However, Government does not employ me. Were Govt to pay me my standard consultancy rate, I would keep quiet, as I would for any client. Government has chosen not to do that.
Fark'nell.
So during a national emergency you are not treating giving the government advice similarly to giving a fee-paying client advice and hence give the former a degraded service.
FWIW I was in a supermarket at lunch time, then took a short cut through a bus station. I'd say 75-80%, of all ages, were masked indoors. I didn't wear one and felt quite naughty until I saw other folk not wearing them.
Went in a local boozer on Friday night about half 10 and everyone was maskless and ordering drinks at the bar. So I did the same. Felt good to stand at a bar and order a beer.
Ok! Hats off for mask off. It's the right call.
But I've disappointed myself by still wearing mine. Can't quite seem to break free. Not quite ready.
People can call me an institutionalised pussy whipped libtard cuck and I'd have no real defence.
Why do you need to include, in the list of epithets, the appropriateness of which I wouldn't dream of commenting on, the term "pussy whipped".
Plus "libtard" now that I think about it raises some questions.
Altogether not your best moment.
It was quite a good moment in fact. Piercing satire of all the bad people on the wrong side of history.
As an aside - why are people so down in Independent SAGE?
Everyone (certainly myself included) has made some duff recommendations at one point or another, but the things I've seen from them have generally looked pretty good with hindsight.
Warning about long covid, calling for ventilation in schools, warning of pressure on hospitals, better funding for isolation, India red list etc.
And one thing they've flagged which I'm keeping an eye on is the very fast growth of cases in the North East, which seems hard to explain when looking at vaccination rates/other variables. An early sign of a new variant? Hopefully not...
It's the "Independent SAGE" name that gets me. It gets them on TV where, not infrequently, they are posted as bing the real thing (admittedly Susan Michie and Steven Reicher are on both) when they are not either independent (their comms are by Carole Cadwalladr's organisation) nor SAGE (it's like me setting up a tax advisory service called "Independent HMRC" - that would get shut down quickly)
Several of the more publicity-hungry members are a bit out there too, with their pronouncements, not always in areas they know much about. Not everyone on iSAGE is nutty, for sure.
As for the past calls, well on campuses (at least up and down the country) there were scientists everywhere making those points.
Both were clearly ironic pieces of prose, attempting to mock the mindset of another, rather than stating something offensive in their own voice. Clumsily perhaps but without malice all the same.
I trust this represents a cooling down period rather than permanent ban. Said poster’s prescience early last year allowed me to relocate internationally within a whisker of international lockdowns commencing, and to make a packet from the markets while I was at it.
I am not sure what Leon has done and I accept that the site can basically ban whoever they want, but I do think it is a bit unfortunate. His posts were unmatched in their entertainment value.
Kicking off - bottles being throw at the police anti lockdown protesters and police fighting back with some punches at parliament square, a good 2000 protesters here and a heavy police presence …. In this heat it’s going to be a long day of clashes
They're not. According to the Evening Standard, they are anti the vaccination campaign - or at least against the possible introduction of mandatory vaccination. "No jabs for children, no coercion for adults" reads one banner.
It should seriously be possible for a newspaper to report a demonstration in a more objectively informative way than writing things like this:
"Despite the signs and placards promoting various unfounded conspiracy theories, it is unclear what has prompted an anti-lockdown demonstration on the day lockdown ended in the UK.
However, a number of protestors appear to be registering their opposition to the Covid vaccine, which has saved millions of lives across the globe."
Isn't protesting like illegal now? Priti Patel will be out with the handcuffs.
As an aside - why are people so down in Independent SAGE?
Everyone (certainly myself included) has made some duff recommendations at one point or another, but the things I've seen from them have generally looked pretty good with hindsight.
Warning about long covid, calling for ventilation in schools, warning of pressure on hospitals, better funding for isolation, India red list etc.
And one thing they've flagged which I'm keeping an eye on is the very fast growth of cases in the North East, which seems hard to explain when looking at vaccination rates/other variables. An early sign of a new variant? Hopefully not...
It's the "Independent SAGE" name that gets me. It gets them on TV where, not infrequently, they are posted as bing the real thing (admittedly Susan Michie and Steven Reicher are on both) when they are not either independent (their comms are by Carole Cadwalladr's organisation) nor SAGE (it's like me setting up a tax advisory service called "Independent HMRC" - that would get shut down quickly)
It is not so long ago that to question the standpoint of any scientist on here whatsoever was to invite a sustained and aggressive climb on from poster after poster.
Now, questioning scientists' views and motivations is commonplace.
I’m not questioning their motives. I’m questioning their name. I’ve no doubt they sincerely believe that what they advocate is best for the country. Your schtick was to pretend they are all power hungry super villains stroking cats in a lair under an extinct volcano
FWIW I was in a supermarket at lunch time, then took a short cut through a bus station. I'd say 75-80%, of all ages, were masked indoors. I didn't wear one and felt quite naughty until I saw other folk not wearing them.
Went in a local boozer on Friday night about half 10 and everyone was maskless and ordering drinks at the bar. So I did the same. Felt good to stand at a bar and order a beer.
Ok! Hats off for mask off. It's the right call.
But I've disappointed myself by still wearing mine. Can't quite seem to break free. Not quite ready.
People can call me an institutionalised pussy whipped libtard cuck and I'd have no real defence.
Why do you need to include, in the list of epithets, the appropriateness of which I wouldn't dream of commenting on, the term "pussy whipped".
Plus "libtard" now that I think about it raises some questions.
Altogether not your best moment.
It was quite a good moment in fact. Piercing satire of all the bad people on the wrong side of history.
I think in time you will reflect on your use of the word "libtard".
I'm not expecting you to do so now, in the heat of posting but you will eventually and when you do, you will I'm sure do the right thing.
Britain will threaten this week to deviate from the Brexit deal unless the European Union shows more flexibility over Northern Ireland, one UK and three EU sources told Reuters, a move that could thrust the five-year Brexit divorce into tumult.
I see that those of us expecting yet another example of Boris dithering and avoiding making a sensible choice until it's too late and the damage has already been done, and then being forced into a half-baked U-turn, are not being disappointed by today's new announcements.
Still, two half-baked U-turns in five minutes is a bonus.
Both were clearly ironic pieces of prose, attempting to mock the mindset of another, rather than stating something offensive in their own voice. Clumsily perhaps but without malice all the same.
I trust this represents a cooling down period rather than permanent ban. Said poster’s prescience early last year allowed me to relocate internationally within a whisker of international lockdowns commencing, and to make a packet from the markets while I was at it.
I am not sure what Leon has done and I accept that the site can basically ban whoever they want, but I do think it is a bit unfortunate. His posts were unmatched in their entertainment value.
He made an indefensible comment about the floods in Germany. I’ll miss his prose but not that kind of attitude. Unless he gets the huff about being “cancelled” he’ll be back in yet another guise.
Lifting all restrictions at once is reckless - and doing so when the Johnson Variant is already out of control risks a summer of chaos.
Labour does not support the Government’s plan.
Boris Johnson’s incompetence will have deadly consequences for the British public.
Demeaning? We're back to this morning's upset caused to the Clown Apologists.
Repeat the same line over and over and over until it sticks. They (rightly) want to pin the blame on Delta on the man who kept the border with India open to let it come here and seed itself across the country.
Calling it after him is only objectionable if you are an apologist.
If the apologists can’t counter something, they simply deflect by wittering some spurious reason why the point they can’t answer should be ignored. Eg ‘it’s demeaning’, or ‘it doesn’t advance the debate’ or ‘it’s inappropriate’, etc, etc.
Kicking off - bottles being throw at the police anti lockdown protesters and police fighting back with some punches at parliament square, a good 2000 protesters here and a heavy police presence …. In this heat it’s going to be a long day of clashes
They're not. According to the Evening Standard, they are anti the vaccination campaign - or at least against the possible introduction of mandatory vaccination. "No jabs for children, no coercion for adults" reads one banner.
It should seriously be possible for a newspaper to report a demonstration in a more objectively informative way than writing things like this:
"Despite the signs and placards promoting various unfounded conspiracy theories, it is unclear what has prompted an anti-lockdown demonstration on the day lockdown ended in the UK.
However, a number of protestors appear to be registering their opposition to the Covid vaccine, which has saved millions of lives across the globe."
And the government did just announce the vaccine is now mandatory for everyone unless they want to live a restricted 2nd class life. Rather amazed it is receiving so little comment.
There is a good reason for the 30-year rule. It is to enable governments to weigh up options, some of which might be contemporaneously controversial, and to be able to reach a decision without external pressure when people who glimpse some of the decision-making processes can't see the big picture.
I think with Sage it is similar. ie the govt is making decisions, crucial, life-affecting decisions, with one of its flanks exposed to the public. Hence we might get to hear, often from SAGE, that unlocking will bring such and such a consequence, but we don't get to hear from behavioural psychologists that not unlocking will bring another set of consequences. Or from economists, or...or...
That is the problem with SAGE. It seems only they simultaneously consult with govt, which is fantastic and great and vital, but also give a running commentary about the process.
The 30-year rule applies to Government decision making. It's never applied to the inputs to Government decision making. Government always has to respond to external pressure, because that's how a democracy works. In normal time, it's all done slower and nobody takes as much notice, but scientists, like all other groups, are constantly writing reports, putting forth ideas and so on.
Pre-pandemic, I've done two sorts of work: I've done direct, paid consultancy for Govt, where I delivered the work (to the Home Office) and commented no further on it. More often, I've been funded in other ways, but we have been invited to talk to (usually) the Department of Health, or to various agencies (NHS, PHE etc.), and we've done that, but we've also maintained our academic freedom and written our own outputs for public consumption. I am doing the same now. Were Govt to hire me, I'd shut up as they wished. Govt has not hired me: they sometimes ask my advice (well, mine as part of a wider group), so I give it, and if anyone else is interested, e.g. the media, I'll say the same to them.
Everything is amped up during a pandemic, but I fail to see why certain posters who talk a lot about freedom think that the solution is to remove freedoms and muzzle people.
Also, you say, "but we don't get to hear from behavioural psychologists that not unlocking will bring another set of consequences. Or from economists, or...or..." Yes, you do. Plenty of those people are in the media too. They all get to write academic papers too. They all get to tweet too. Etc.
Let’s not get excited but 39,950 today as compared to 34,471 reported last Monday comes under the heading “much better than feared”. A 15% or so increase week on week?
Wednesday is the big day - that's when leaps normally happen as that Monday's school cases get counted.
Hopefully, given many schools have now broken up, we won't see such a big jump - or indeed, may see a decline.
Schools don't break up until Wednesday here – assume that's widely the case across England?
I think some broke up on Friday. Ours (Trafford) don't break up until next Friday, but we're late, having had two weeks off in June.
Granddaughter-in-law, a secondary school teacher, finished on Friday. Her husband, Eldest Grandson , in the same county, doesn't finish until Wednesday. Granddaughter Three finished two weeks ago.
That's quite a lineage of teachers, well done.
Wife was, too, and my father saw teaching as his way out of the Valleys in the 30's.
Just in case of confusion, Granddaughter Three is still at school
Not really. Imagine the flapping noise if the Govt made a decision to exclude Michie.
Governments are concerned with what people say ("flapping noise", if you like). That's because we live in a democracy, which is a good thing, yes?
The point is that Government decides who to ask for advice and they decide what to do with that advice. Sure, some power rests in those advising on important issues, but it is not an untrammeled power. The fantasy that SAGE rules over us is a delusion. Government rules over us. The circumstances of a global pandemic can be said to rule over us. SAGE is a cog in a complex machine feeding advice into government.
Voice of sanity. We don't half get some lurid tripe on here on this topic.
LNER has said it will ignore Scottish public health advice in Scotland. I have written to the Managing Director, @DavidHorne, urging @LNER to reconsider its ill-advised policy.
Why should LNER be different from the rest of us? There are so few people left listening to Nicola even she is getting embarrassed.
What is he expecting LNER to do. Kick 50% of their passengers off at Berwick?
I assume he wants them to reinstate social distancing via mandatory reservations. Something that was hugely problematic and dropped as soon as possible.
I see that those of us expecting yet another example of Boris dithering and avoiding making a sensible choice until it's too late and the damage has already been done, and then being forced into a half-baked U-turn, are not being disappointed by today's new announcements.
Still, two half-baked U-turns in five minutes is a bonus.
Earlier this year Nadhim Zahawi told Sky News that ministers ‘have absolutely no plans for vaccine passporting’, branding the concept ‘absolutely wrong’. On BBC, he angrily dismissed talk of a dystopian world of vaccine passports as fantasy. They’d be ‘discriminatory’, he said. https://twitter.com/BenKentish/status/1417150481449771013
But that's the point, you're on the one hand saying your advice to the government is just advice but on the other hand telling us that you should be free to bitch to the media when the government decides that your advice is just advisory.
Simply, you want to pretend that you aren't trying to influence policy decisions outside of your remit by maintaining a pretence that the government is free to ignore your advice but then the first moment this happens you'll bitch to the media that the government is "ignoring the science" or whatever else. It's only been happening for a year.
When you use the phrase "on the one hand [...] on the other hand", you are normally meant to present some sort of contradiction...? I am a scientist employed by a university in a country that believes in free speech and academic freedom. Part of my role as a scientist is to communicate my research to others. 99% of the time, that means talking to other academics, but if policymakers want to listen to me, I'll talk to them. If a radio channel wants to listen to me, I'll talk to them.
So, yes, my advice to govt is just advice. I can't make govt do what I say. (They certainly frequently haven't to date!) And, yes, I should be free to bitch to the media, just like everyone else in the country is free to bitch to the media.
I am absolutely trying to influence policy decisions. I have not said otherwise. Lots of people try to influence policy decisions: MPs do, constituents do when they write to MPs, columnists do when they write columns, PB.com article writers do when they write articles. That's again how democracy works.
Lots of people try to influence policy decisions, the government absorbs all those inputs and comes to a decision. Who is responsible for the decision? Well, the Government is.
If I think the Govt is ignoring the science, I will absolutely bitch about it. I'm a scientist: that's my duty. If the Govt is ignoring fishermen, then the fishing industry bitch about it to the media. I'm not complaining about that. That's how it works.
You keep talking about freedom, but your freedom always seems to mean other people being silenced. That is not what "freedom" means. Freedom means that we are all allowed to say things, to whoever will listen.
You are not free to bitch to the media when you are integral to the government's decision-making process.
Ok, so let's take a different example.
I'm part of a team directly funded by the Department of Health to look at the impact of a government policy. The goverment policy seems to have had no effect (this has happened to me).
Should we be free to publish this - do interviews, whatever - even if the government pushes ahead with the policy anyway and does not want us to publish? (this has not happened to me - we were clear in advance that we could publish anyway and in the event the government then quietly dropped the policy, which was only at pilot stage anyway)
If the answer is yes, we should be free to publish, then it's hard to see how we, actually paid to do this by the government should be able to while SAGE should not.
If the answer is no, then we don't be doing any more of that research. The government can take it in house with actual employees, fine. But they'll either have to maintain a large pool of government-employed experts just in case or use generalists who may lack expertise in niche areas.
The government, if it wants, can abolish the concept of SAGE and instead directly employ more experts and have direct control over what they say. I've no problem with that on any moral level, although I think the current process of advice from truly independent people out in the open is preferable and likely to be more effective. A purely in-house team could tend to be self-selecting for particular biases and liable to groupthink. In the meantime, the independent experts in the field will presumably be allowed (and likely feel more free on a personal level) to explain exactly what the government is doing wrong. The government/interal team of experts may even refer to the indepent experts' evidence in making decisions - they'd be wise to, probably. So what exactly has been achieved?
You should have to resign from your position before doing so and make clear that is the reason you resigned. Didn't the children's tsar just do that? It's called having integrity.
That's really is different - it's an official position, with actual powers.
To be clear - if Chris Whitty goes off to Channel 4 news saying the government has cocked up it's Covid policy, he can't stay as Chief Medical Officer, he has to resign. Likewise Patrick Vallance. They have responsibilities and official positions.
People on SAGE weren't even named before there was a call for more transparency.
It's no different at this time, though. Advising the government on a pandemic during the pandemic means having to accept that decisions go against you sometimes and learning to live with it.
Maybe that's the issue, you see this from a science perspective and I'm looking at it from a public policy perspective. Normally the two aren't aligned but for the last year and a bit they have been and scientific advice must be aligned to policy and the advisers need to be able to go and sell a policy they disagree with or resign if they don't agree.
Given the importance of communicating a clear simple message to the public, and retaining public confidence as a precondition for having the public cooperate, I think it would have been a lot better for the principle of collective responsibility to apply.
Disagree in private and then collectively support the decision made in public.
Often it's better to make sure an imperfect plan is executed as well as possible than to undermine its implementation in search of a perfect plan.
Let’s not get excited but 39,950 today as compared to 34,471 reported last Monday comes under the heading “much better than feared”. A 15% or so increase week on week?
Wednesday is the big day - that's when leaps normally happen as that Monday's school cases get counted.
Hopefully, given many schools have now broken up, we won't see such a big jump - or indeed, may see a decline.
Schools don't break up until Wednesday here – assume that's widely the case across England?
I think some broke up on Friday. Ours (Trafford) don't break up until next Friday, but we're late, having had two weeks off in June.
Granddaughter-in-law, a secondary school teacher, finished on Friday. Her husband, Eldest Grandson , in the same county, doesn't finish until Wednesday. Granddaughter Three finished two weeks ago.
That's quite a lineage of teachers, well done.
Wife was, too, and my father saw teaching as his way out of the Valleys in the 30's.
Just in case of confusion, Granddaughter Three is still at school
My wife was similar. The only way out of Pembs in those days was teacher training college or nursing college! She choose teaching.
There is a good reason for the 30-year rule. It is to enable governments to weigh up options, some of which might be contemporaneously controversial, and to be able to reach a decision without external pressure when people who glimpse some of the decision-making processes can't see the big picture.
I think with Sage it is similar. ie the govt is making decisions, crucial, life-affecting decisions, with one of its flanks exposed to the public. Hence we might get to hear, often from SAGE, that unlocking will bring such and such a consequence, but we don't get to hear from behavioural psychologists that not unlocking will bring another set of consequences. Or from economists, or...or...
That is the problem with SAGE. It seems only they simultaneously consult with govt, which is fantastic and great and vital, but also give a running commentary about the process.
The 30-year rule applies to Government decision making. It's never applied to the inputs to Government decision making. Government always has to respond to external pressure, because that's how a democracy works. In normal time, it's all done slower and nobody takes as much notice, but scientists, like all other groups, are constantly writing reports, putting forth ideas and so on.
Pre-pandemic, I've done two sorts of work: I've done direct, paid consultancy for Govt, where I delivered the work (to the Home Office) and commented no further on it. More often, I've been funded in other ways, but we have been invited to talk to (usually) the Department of Health, or to various agencies (NHS, PHE etc.), and we've done that, but we've also maintained our academic freedom and written our own outputs for public consumption. I am doing the same now. Were Govt to hire me, I'd shut up as they wished. Govt has not hired me: they sometimes ask my advice (well, mine as part of a wider group), so I give it, and if anyone else is interested, e.g. the media, I'll say the same to them.
Everything is amped up during a pandemic, but I fail to see why certain posters who talk a lot about freedom think that the solution is to remove freedoms and muzzle people.
Also, you say, "but we don't get to hear from behavioural psychologists that not unlocking will bring another set of consequences. Or from economists, or...or..." Yes, you do. Plenty of those people are in the media too. They all get to write academic papers too. They all get to tweet too. Etc.
You are wrong on the inputs to the decision making. It is all of a piece. You can't have those providing various inputs blabbing to the press as the danger of disinformation and misinterpretation is huge. The government puts all the inputs into a bucket and comes up with the policy.
Look at my (admittedly tortured) analogy about the Coventry bombing.
But you have slightly given it away - if the government had paid you you would have shut up. So you accept that shutting up is the ideal, just that - in a national emergency, btw - they didn't pay enough for you to have done so. Otherwise why charge for shutting up.
I see that those of us expecting yet another example of Boris dithering and avoiding making a sensible choice until it's too late and the damage has already been done, and then being forced into a half-baked U-turn, are not being disappointed by today's new announcements.
Still, two half-baked U-turns in five minutes is a bonus.
I really am getting confused. What's he done now?
1. Vaccine passports for young'uns wanting to go into nightclubs, with no opportunity of a test as an alternative. But not until end Sept (!!!)
2. Double jabbed plus two weeks 'critical workers' to no longer have to isolate, effective immediately.
Both are U-turns. Both are too late. Both are half-baked. Neither makes much sense because they are so half-baked.
I see that those of us expecting yet another example of Boris dithering and avoiding making a sensible choice until it's too late and the damage has already been done, and then being forced into a half-baked U-turn, are not being disappointed by today's new announcements.
Still, two half-baked U-turns in five minutes is a bonus.
I really am getting confused. What's he done now?
I assume that it's this;
Vaccines Minister Nadhim Zahawi says a negative test result will no longer be enough to gain access to nightclubs and large indoor events by end of Sept. They must show proof of two jabs.
LNER has said it will ignore Scottish public health advice in Scotland. I have written to the Managing Director, @DavidHorne, urging @LNER to reconsider its ill-advised policy.
Why should LNER be different from the rest of us? There are so few people left listening to Nicola even she is getting embarrassed.
What is he expecting LNER to do. Kick 50% of their passengers off at Berwick?
I assume he wants them to reinstate social distancing via mandatory reservations. Something that was hugely problematic and dropped as soon as possible.
Which is why I said Berwick because there is no chance LNER are going to impose social distancing south of the border, they need to earn every penny they possible can.
You are not free to bitch to the media when you are integral to the government's decision-making process.
Fair enough. I am very certain that I am not integral to the Govt's decision-making process. I will now continue to exercise the birthright of all Englishmen to bitch about stuff.
That would be my key point. SAGE does not have this hold over Govt that some fantasise about. Govt is constantly doing things that SAGE participants disagree with. That's why you hear so much of what has been described as bitching to the media! We are providing advice, among many. So I advise on how much people are following advice. I've been in the media recently talking about people's behaviours around using the NHS COVID-19 App. Political decisions, how you make those extremely difficult choices weighing up deaths from the illness, pressures on the NHS, costs to the Treasury, restrictions on people's daily lives, impact on the economy, etc., etc., etc., those are absolutely definitely not being made in SAGE.
I see that those of us expecting yet another example of Boris dithering and avoiding making a sensible choice until it's too late and the damage has already been done, and then being forced into a half-baked U-turn, are not being disappointed by today's new announcements.
Still, two half-baked U-turns in five minutes is a bonus.
I really am getting confused. What's he done now?
1. Vaccine passports for young'uns wanting to go into nightclubs, with no opportunity of a test as an alternative. But not until end Sept (!!!)
2. Double jabbed plus two weeks 'critical workers' to no longer have to isolate, effective immediately.
Both are U-turns. Both are too late. Both are half-baked. Neither makes much sense because they are so half-baked.
Presumably 1 is just a ruse to encourage people to get vaccinated but will never actually happen.
Let’s not get excited but 39,950 today as compared to 34,471 reported last Monday comes under the heading “much better than feared”. A 15% or so increase week on week?
Wednesday is the big day - that's when leaps normally happen as that Monday's school cases get counted.
Hopefully, given many schools have now broken up, we won't see such a big jump - or indeed, may see a decline.
Schools don't break up until Wednesday here – assume that's widely the case across England?
I think some broke up on Friday. Ours (Trafford) don't break up until next Friday, but we're late, having had two weeks off in June.
Granddaughter-in-law, a secondary school teacher, finished on Friday. Her husband, Eldest Grandson , in the same county, doesn't finish until Wednesday. Granddaughter Three finished two weeks ago.
That's quite a lineage of teachers, well done.
Wife was, too, and my father saw teaching as his way out of the Valleys in the 30's.
Just in case of confusion, Granddaughter Three is still at school
My wife was similar. The only way out of Pembs in those days was teacher training college or nursing college! She choose teaching.
You could have staffed a decent sized school in S Essex in the early 50's with South Welsh teachers
Earlier this year Nadhim Zahawi told Sky News that ministers ‘have absolutely no plans for vaccine passporting’, branding the concept ‘absolutely wrong’. On BBC, he angrily dismissed talk of a dystopian world of vaccine passports as fantasy. They’d be ‘discriminatory’, he said. https://twitter.com/BenKentish/status/1417150481449771013
To be fair the discriminatory part of it is mostly gone by end of September. They have said there will be exemptions for those who cant take it medically as well. I would still be against it, but not vehemently so, as I was at the time Zahawi made the original comments.
I see that those of us expecting yet another example of Boris dithering and avoiding making a sensible choice until it's too late and the damage has already been done, and then being forced into a half-baked U-turn, are not being disappointed by today's new announcements.
Still, two half-baked U-turns in five minutes is a bonus.
I really am getting confused. What's he done now?
1. Vaccine passports for young'uns wanting to go into nightclubs, with no opportunity of a test as an alternative. But not until end Sept (!!!)
2. Double jabbed plus two weeks 'critical workers' to no longer have to isolate, effective immediately.
Both are U-turns. Both are too late. Both are half-baked. Neither makes much sense because they are so half-baked.
Thank you.
There are parasites which modify their hosts' brains so as to ensure they are optimally transmitted. Like that cat parasite which is transmitted via other mammals and lodges in their brains; makes humans behave in a more risky way (Which is great when the cat is a lion on the savannah and the hominid Lucy of the footprints, who thereby becomes easier to catch for dinner; not so much when it'[s Pussy and her owner goes out and drives through a red light).
Do you think it is having this effect on Mr Johnson? It all counts in the Darwinian stats ...
Vaccines Minister Nadhim Zahawi says a negative test result will no longer be enough to gain access to nightclubs and large indoor events by end of Sept. They must show proof of two jabs.
Govt is still "encouraging" venues to use Covid passes to prove Covid status but reserves right to mandate their use.
"When you have to shoot, shoot, don't talk!"
Would Sajid Javid who is currently actually infected with SARSCoV2 and suffering Covid symptoms be allowed into an event, because he's double-jabbed? Or is it a negative test result AND double-jabbed status that would be needed?
19 July: 39950 cases. So it looks as though the peak of this wave was 54000 to the nearest 1000.
Key concept: expectations management.
Is that 39950 on 'Freedom Day"?
I forecast 40k several weeks ago, so on an error of 0.125% I claim victory and my £5.
This is all FAR too early!
Yep - this is weekend reporting - I would definitely be waiting until Wednesday until announcing anything like "we've passed the peak".
Heck I suspect the peak will be sometime next week but underreported as schools will be closed and the number of tests done is going to plummet.
Daily changes in the cases figure: * Monday before last: up 12%; * last Monday: up 8%; * today: down 17%.
Increase that would be necessary from today's figure to establish a new peak: 36%.
Cases by Date reported 19/7 39,950 12/7 34,471 5/7 27,334
And I really wouldn't be using that sort of day on day figure for anything as there are too many reasons why figures may be being reported on a different day.
I see that those of us expecting yet another example of Boris dithering and avoiding making a sensible choice until it's too late and the damage has already been done, and then being forced into a half-baked U-turn, are not being disappointed by today's new announcements.
Still, two half-baked U-turns in five minutes is a bonus.
I really am getting confused. What's he done now?
1. Vaccine passports for young'uns wanting to go into nightclubs, with no opportunity of a test as an alternative. But not until end Sept (!!!)
2. Double jabbed plus two weeks 'critical workers' to no longer have to isolate, effective immediately.
Both are U-turns. Both are too late. Both are half-baked. Neither makes much sense because they are so half-baked.
There is one advantage of having vaxports in clubs at the end of September, it means immunity via prior infection will be added to the mix in a club/gig at that point so - presuming cases aren't still going up by then (And God help us if they are) the probability of catching covid in a club in October will be less than if vaxports were in tommorow. I think... So it's good news for anyone who wants to see a gig in October, your Covid odds ratio may well be lower than the counterfactual. A convoluted benefit but I think it's correct...
Until Labour is seen as better, the Tories will continue to lead. But it is undeniable, the Tories and Government are becoming more unpopular
And if they keep getting more unpopular it will be thoroughly deserved. But yes, the toxicity of the Opposition to a critical portion of the electorate is as important as the incompetence of the Government, if not more so.
I see that those of us expecting yet another example of Boris dithering and avoiding making a sensible choice until it's too late and the damage has already been done, and then being forced into a half-baked U-turn, are not being disappointed by today's new announcements.
Still, two half-baked U-turns in five minutes is a bonus.
I really am getting confused. What's he done now?
1. Vaccine passports for young'uns wanting to go into nightclubs, with no opportunity of a test as an alternative. But not until end Sept (!!!)
2. Double jabbed plus two weeks 'critical workers' to no longer have to isolate, effective immediately.
Both are U-turns. Both are too late. Both are half-baked. Neither makes much sense because they are so half-baked.
It's bollocks Richard. 16 and 17yr olds can join the army but not go to a nightclub.
I am increasing suspecting that the latest data is showing lower vaccine efficiency hence the nightclub rules and you just can't get away with having an infected unvaccinated person in a big crowd without infecting a reason number of even vaccinated people.
But that's the point, you're on the one hand saying your advice to the government is just advice but on the other hand telling us that you should be free to bitch to the media when the government decides that your advice is just advisory.
Simply, you want to pretend that you aren't trying to influence policy decisions outside of your remit by maintaining a pretence that the government is free to ignore your advice but then the first moment this happens you'll bitch to the media that the government is "ignoring the science" or whatever else. It's only been happening for a year.
When you use the phrase "on the one hand [...] on the other hand", you are normally meant to present some sort of contradiction...? I am a scientist employed by a university in a country that believes in free speech and academic freedom. Part of my role as a scientist is to communicate my research to others. 99% of the time, that means talking to other academics, but if policymakers want to listen to me, I'll talk to them. If a radio channel wants to listen to me, I'll talk to them.
So, yes, my advice to govt is just advice. I can't make govt do what I say. (They certainly frequently haven't to date!) And, yes, I should be free to bitch to the media, just like everyone else in the country is free to bitch to the media.
I am absolutely trying to influence policy decisions. I have not said otherwise. Lots of people try to influence policy decisions: MPs do, constituents do when they write to MPs, columnists do when they write columns, PB.com article writers do when they write articles. That's again how democracy works.
Lots of people try to influence policy decisions, the government absorbs all those inputs and comes to a decision. Who is responsible for the decision? Well, the Government is.
If I think the Govt is ignoring the science, I will absolutely bitch about it. I'm a scientist: that's my duty. If the Govt is ignoring fishermen, then the fishing industry bitch about it to the media. I'm not complaining about that. That's how it works.
You keep talking about freedom, but your freedom always seems to mean other people being silenced. That is not what "freedom" means. Freedom means that we are all allowed to say things, to whoever will listen.
You are not free to bitch to the media when you are integral to the government's decision-making process.
Ok, so let's take a different example.
I'm part of a team directly funded by the Department of Health to look at the impact of a government policy. The goverment policy seems to have had no effect (this has happened to me).
Should we be free to publish this - do interviews, whatever - even if the government pushes ahead with the policy anyway and does not want us to publish? (this has not happened to me - we were clear in advance that we could publish anyway and in the event the government then quietly dropped the policy, which was only at pilot stage anyway)
If the answer is yes, we should be free to publish, then it's hard to see how we, actually paid to do this by the government should be able to while SAGE should not.
If the answer is no, then we don't be doing any more of that research. The government can take it in house with actual employees, fine. But they'll either have to maintain a large pool of government-employed experts just in case or use generalists who may lack expertise in niche areas.
The government, if it wants, can abolish the concept of SAGE and instead directly employ more experts and have direct control over what they say. I've no problem with that on any moral level, although I think the current process of advice from truly independent people out in the open is preferable and likely to be more effective. A purely in-house team could tend to be self-selecting for particular biases and liable to groupthink. In the meantime, the independent experts in the field will presumably be allowed (and likely feel more free on a personal level) to explain exactly what the government is doing wrong. The government/interal team of experts may even refer to the indepent experts' evidence in making decisions - they'd be wise to, probably. So what exactly has been achieved?
You should have to resign from your position before doing so and make clear that is the reason you resigned. Didn't the children's tsar just do that? It's called having integrity.
That's really is different - it's an official position, with actual powers.
To be clear - if Chris Whitty goes off to Channel 4 news saying the government has cocked up it's Covid policy, he can't stay as Chief Medical Officer, he has to resign. Likewise Patrick Vallance. They have responsibilities and official positions.
People on SAGE weren't even named before there was a call for more transparency.
It's no different at this time, though. Advising the government on a pandemic during the pandemic means having to accept that decisions go against you sometimes and learning to live with it.
Maybe that's the issue, you see this from a science perspective and I'm looking at it from a public policy perspective. Normally the two aren't aligned but for the last year and a bit they have been and scientific advice must be aligned to policy and the advisers need to be able to go and sell a policy they disagree with or resign if they don't agree.
Yep, it's probably partly perspective. You say scientific advice has to be aligned to policy. There can only be one policy, but there can be multiple and conflicting scientific advice (there are some things we know, with a high degree of certainty, but Covid is new and there's lots of uncertainty - scientific advice early on said handwashing, it said likely no aerosol spread - it was wrong, as science often is and, as science always does, gathered new evidence and updated the scientific advice). I'd much rather than was all out in the open.
When there's a public enquiry into a disaster, it comes to a single conclusion, but it publishes all the conflicting evidence received. This is different, I accept, as it's happening now, not reviewing the past. But it doesn't bother me in the slightest if the government is going against the collective advice of SAGE (I don't know really whether they are) in what's happened today, certainly not if they've gone against the advice of some members. SAGE provides advice. The government decides. That's how it must be, otherwise we we would be in a tyranny of scientists and democracy would be gone.
I wonder what its like when SeanT gets banned and has to regenerate.
Is it like Doctor Who - a burst of energy then a new face/username? Is it like Captain Jack when he actually lies there unbreathing for a few minutes until coming back with a big gasp? Is it like one of the Cylons where they awake on the resurrection ship?
What was he banned for this time? I think I will miss his brand of stupidity. Yes he is an idiot, often expressing obnoxious views, but it is fun needling him. He did mange to be reasonably restrained when I suggested SeanT's books were the poor man's Dan Brown lol.
He was one of the half dozen most intelligent posters on the site. You, to put it mildly, are not.
Oh, so you think you are lol! You are the most arrogant plonkers on this site, with nothing to be arrogant about. You are the only nob on here to have made much of your Oxford PhD., which is probably even less believable than one of SeanT's plotlines, particularly as when you quoted it you got the form wrong. What are you going to do next, do a Trump and claim you have "the highest" IQ lol?
I have interviewed and employed lots of genuine Oxbridge PhD's and some of them are wankers like yourself, so I guess it is possible. On the other hand, more likely that you are a Walter Mitty.
SeanT was fun, and lots of people, even those of us with a very different view thought so. If people see your profile they generally think just think "obnoxious contrarian wanker" .
It wasn't an Oxford PhD. There is no such thing as an Oxford PhD. The post was merely a gag anyway. You have not interviewed lots of Oxford PhDs because there aren't any. You cannot put finger to keyboard without embarrassing yourself and boring everybody else. Why are you even here?
I see that my outing you as a Walter Mitty was correct. My bullshitometer always goes to max each time I see any of your posts that no-one else wants to read.
How did you put it, btw? Dr. Ishmael Z Oxon PhD. (sic)? 😂😂😂😂 I bet you haven't even got an 'ology! "The post was merely a gag anyway 😂😂😂😂
Seriously though, I think you maybe are suffering from a severe case of another malaise: psychological projection, where you accuse others of issues that trouble yourself. Boring people is clearly a major issue for yourself, I don't imagine anyone goes "hey, IshmaelZ's post I must read that, it'll be really informative or funny!". I know I should feel sorry for you really, and I know that I really should, as a nice well brought up boy, be nice to twats, but I have to make an exception for you. Keep taking the tablets Walter. Love and kisses xxxx
£10,000 at evens that I have a PhD from an English university. Happy to put the money in escrow with rcs1000 if you think I'm not good for it
Your choices now: Take the bet Retract and apologise for the slur Say nothing and tacitly admit to a chronic and incurable case of micropenis syndrome
Watcha gonna do?
You really aren't very bright.
You are a really very unpleasant person. You have a lot of issues and I see you are also worried about your penis size. Not a PhD from an Oxford college then? That was "a gag". 😂. Classic Walter Mitty stuff. Pretending to be what you wish you were. We should all feel sorry for you.
I am sure you have probably seen my previous posts, Walter, where I have said I don't bet, I come on here for the politics. I don't need to bet with you, but I feel a little guilty that I am amused I obviously got under your skin.
I have no problem with my level of intelligence, but based upon your posts I guess both my IQ, and definitely my EQ are considerably higher than yours and my level of material success off the scale compared to an angry little saddo such as yourself. I have no need to prove any of it, unlike yourself. Your desire to boast and prove yourself demonstrates your immaturity and general underachievement.
I see that those of us expecting yet another example of Boris dithering and avoiding making a sensible choice until it's too late and the damage has already been done, and then being forced into a half-baked U-turn, are not being disappointed by today's new announcements.
Still, two half-baked U-turns in five minutes is a bonus.
I really am getting confused. What's he done now?
1. Vaccine passports for young'uns wanting to go into nightclubs, with no opportunity of a test as an alternative. But not until end Sept (!!!)
2. Double jabbed plus two weeks 'critical workers' to no longer have to isolate, effective immediately.
Both are U-turns. Both are too late. Both are half-baked. Neither makes much sense because they are so half-baked.
Presumably 1 is just a ruse to encourage people to get vaccinated but will never actually happen.
That would suggest there is a sentient being deciding policy. It's an interesting hypothesis, but seems a bit far-fetched.
PCR positivity rate continues to increase - up to almost 10% (9.7%).
Suggests to me the lower case numbers a function of reporting cycles rather than anything to be optimistic about.
I am interested in how high certain stats can go before this burns out (or, and it's a depressing thought, the government loses its nerve and re-introduces restrictions).
For example, the new ONS antibody survey out on Wednesday will be interesting. The last one two weeks prior suggested 90% of adults in England had antibodies... how high can that go before herd immunity kicks in?
However, Government does not employ me. Were Govt to pay me my standard consultancy rate, I would keep quiet, as I would for any client. Government has chosen not to do that.
Fark'nell.
So during a national emergency you are not treating giving the government advice similarly to giving a fee-paying client advice and hence give the former a degraded service.
All about the $$$.
Amazing.
During an international emergency, Pfizer are treating pricing* for life-saving vaccines similarly to how they would treat pricing for any other vaccination/pharmaceutical - i.e. looking at the market and pricing of competitors.
All about the $$$
And they've created an amazing vaccine that is saving lives the world over. Better in some ways than AZN, preferable, it seems, in the young, faster acting.
Amazing (in a good way)
*I think? Or have they added an altruistic discount?
I see that those of us expecting yet another example of Boris dithering and avoiding making a sensible choice until it's too late and the damage has already been done, and then being forced into a half-baked U-turn, are not being disappointed by today's new announcements.
Still, two half-baked U-turns in five minutes is a bonus.
I really am getting confused. What's he done now?
1. Vaccine passports for young'uns wanting to go into nightclubs, with no opportunity of a test as an alternative. But not until end Sept (!!!)
2. Double jabbed plus two weeks 'critical workers' to no longer have to isolate, effective immediately.
Both are U-turns. Both are too late. Both are half-baked. Neither makes much sense because they are so half-baked.
Considering the numbers of my double jabbed colleagues who are testing positive, I would only let critical workers contacts back in FFP3 masks, in order to protect patients. Indeed there is a good case for FFP3 masks being the default for HCW.
I see that those of us expecting yet another example of Boris dithering and avoiding making a sensible choice until it's too late and the damage has already been done, and then being forced into a half-baked U-turn, are not being disappointed by today's new announcements.
Still, two half-baked U-turns in five minutes is a bonus.
I really am getting confused. What's he done now?
1. Vaccine passports for young'uns wanting to go into nightclubs, with no opportunity of a test as an alternative. But not until end Sept (!!!)
2. Double jabbed plus two weeks 'critical workers' to no longer have to isolate, effective immediately.
Both are U-turns. Both are too late. Both are half-baked. Neither makes much sense because they are so half-baked.
Presumably 1 is just a ruse to encourage people to get vaccinated but will never actually happen.
Indeed, 30 Sep is the end of the summer (actually astronomical Autumn!) and is psychologically an eternity away when the schools are still in.
A massive nudge to get young guns to get their jabs: many won’t be arsed or won’t turn up (late out, forgot, got a better offer). So this is just to incentivise it IMO.
But that's the point, you're on the one hand saying your advice to the government is just advice but on the other hand telling us that you should be free to bitch to the media when the government decides that your advice is just advisory.
Simply, you want to pretend that you aren't trying to influence policy decisions outside of your remit by maintaining a pretence that the government is free to ignore your advice but then the first moment this happens you'll bitch to the media that the government is "ignoring the science" or whatever else. It's only been happening for a year.
When you use the phrase "on the one hand [...] on the other hand", you are normally meant to present some sort of contradiction...? I am a scientist employed by a university in a country that believes in free speech and academic freedom. Part of my role as a scientist is to communicate my research to others. 99% of the time, that means talking to other academics, but if policymakers want to listen to me, I'll talk to them. If a radio channel wants to listen to me, I'll talk to them.
So, yes, my advice to govt is just advice. I can't make govt do what I say. (They certainly frequently haven't to date!) And, yes, I should be free to bitch to the media, just like everyone else in the country is free to bitch to the media.
I am absolutely trying to influence policy decisions. I have not said otherwise. Lots of people try to influence policy decisions: MPs do, constituents do when they write to MPs, columnists do when they write columns, PB.com article writers do when they write articles. That's again how democracy works.
Lots of people try to influence policy decisions, the government absorbs all those inputs and comes to a decision. Who is responsible for the decision? Well, the Government is.
If I think the Govt is ignoring the science, I will absolutely bitch about it. I'm a scientist: that's my duty. If the Govt is ignoring fishermen, then the fishing industry bitch about it to the media. I'm not complaining about that. That's how it works.
You keep talking about freedom, but your freedom always seems to mean other people being silenced. That is not what "freedom" means. Freedom means that we are all allowed to say things, to whoever will listen.
None of those people are official government advisors. You are. The government has taken a decision, deal with it. You should have made a better argument rather than presenting 100k cases per day by June 21st that was completely incredulous.
Lots and lots and lots of people are official government advisors and none of them are censored. Here's a list: https://www.gov.uk/government/groups Look how many groups there are. The 4G/TV Co-existence Oversight Board, the Abstraction Reform Advisory Group, the Academy for Social Justice Commissioning learning groups, the Accelerated Capability Environment (ACE), the Action Group on Cross Border Remittances, and on, and on, and on.
So, Inge Hansen is on the 4G/TV Co-existence Oversight Board and here's Inge Hansen talking at the 7th Annual European Spectrum Management Conference, https://eu-ems.com/speakers.asp?event_id=112&page_id=854 Because Inge Hansen, like everyone else who ever sits on a govt advisory board, is free to go about her work and talk to anyone else who will listen.
This is entirely normal and how it has always worked. The only difference is that you don't care what Inge Hansen said on the 4G/TV Co-existence Oversight Board, but you do care what is said on SAGE. The problem is not people who advise govt talking in other forums, the problem is you wanting to censor voices you don't want to hear.
Well, tough. We live in a free society. I can talk to who I want (barring my choice to enter into a contractual relationship that prohibits that). You can talk to who you want (ditto). Freedom -- it's great!
18,186 new first doses in the whole of the UK? What on earth is going on?
No one left to vaccinate. vaccination centres are everywhere but are quite, there was even a walk in vaccination centre at the Golf.
There is not much more the Government can do.
There are plenty of people left to vaccinate. Get them booked in quicker as was done before. There is absolutely no reason to slow down, they can fill the vaccination centres with the unvaccinated as they have done from the start.
Either the organisation has fallen down, or we are desperately short of vaccines, or the remaining millions who haven't had both jabs are refusing.
There are thousands of vaccination centres around the Country which you can just walk in whenever and get a vaccine, no need to book.
The Government are continually advertising this.
What more do you want them to do?
Two things they could do to incres the rate of vaccination and therefore slow the spread quicker:
1) Allow under 18s that what to get vaccinated, to have the Jab,
2) Bring down the wait for the second Jab,
and 2 more radical policy's that could also be implemented:
1) Acquire a border range of vaccines, including the Johnson and Johnson, the Russian and even a few of the Chines vaccines, and then give the people who have sead no to vaccines so far a chose of which vaccine. this will not get everybody but there will be some who when empowered to make a chose about which vaccine will feel more willing to take part in the overall program.
2) Empower/enable company's that wish to have a 'you must be vaccinated to work/do business here' policy to implement that. AIUI nursing homes will be able to implement that policy from September, I think any company should be able to do that form tomorrow.
Both of those latter two ideas are really interesting.
As an aside - why are people so down in Independent SAGE?
Everyone (certainly myself included) has made some duff recommendations at one point or another, but the things I've seen from them have generally looked pretty good with hindsight.
Warning about long covid, calling for ventilation in schools, warning of pressure on hospitals, better funding for isolation, India red list etc.
And one thing they've flagged which I'm keeping an eye on is the very fast growth of cases in the North East, which seems hard to explain when looking at vaccination rates/other variables. An early sign of a new variant? Hopefully not...
It's the "Independent SAGE" name that gets me. It gets them on TV where, not infrequently, they are posted as bing the real thing (admittedly Susan Michie and Steven Reicher are on both) when they are not either independent (their comms are by Carole Cadwalladr's organisation) nor SAGE (it's like me setting up a tax advisory service called "Independent HMRC" - that would get shut down quickly)
Honestly I think of independent as meaning they are independent of government, which is obviously true. It's a way of acknowledging they are not official. As for calling themselves SAGE... it's just good branding I think.
At a minimum they've pushed the real SAGE into being more transparent which is a good thing.
PCR positivity rate continues to increase - up to almost 10% (9.7%).
Suggests to me the lower case numbers a function of reporting cycles rather than anything to be optimistic about.
I am interested in how high certain stats can go before this burns out (or, and it's a depressing thought, the government loses its nerve and re-introduces restrictions).
For example, the new ONS antibody survey out on Wednesday will be interesting. The last one two weeks prior suggested 90% of adults in England had antibodies... how high can that go before herd immunity kicks in?
As there are no improved vaccines on the immediate horizon, the JCVI have decided for whatever reason most 12 - 17 and 2/3rds shouldn't get them and we're now demand limited on 1st doses and time limited on 2nds, we need to let this current wave be the "true" one providing the NHS doesn't collapse. Vax uptake in the more vulnerable to hospitalisation, 50+ is astoundingly good - so we might as well go for it now tbh.
I think the midnight nightclub scenes on the news shown throughout the day have spooked the government a bit. The thing is they should have seen it coming.
3 million 18-30 year olds have not had a vaccine...
Its like a thing called the Delta variant has come along.....where transmission is much higher, larger amount of vaccine escape....
Are you trying to claim a COVID variant with both of these properties was unforeseeable? I am fully in favour of vaccine passports but the government should have been honest from the start that they would have been needed
I see that those of us expecting yet another example of Boris dithering and avoiding making a sensible choice until it's too late and the damage has already been done, and then being forced into a half-baked U-turn, are not being disappointed by today's new announcements.
Still, two half-baked U-turns in five minutes is a bonus.
I really am getting confused. What's he done now?
I assume that it's this;
Vaccines Minister Nadhim Zahawi says a negative test result will no longer be enough to gain access to nightclubs and large indoor events by end of Sept. They must show proof of two jabs.
Apoparently unprecedented (Graun) Amber Extreme Heat warning for southern and western parts for several days (roughly anything west or south of Stoke on Trent, but maps provided)
But that's the point, you're on the one hand saying your advice to the government is just advice but on the other hand telling us that you should be free to bitch to the media when the government decides that your advice is just advisory.
Simply, you want to pretend that you aren't trying to influence policy decisions outside of your remit by maintaining a pretence that the government is free to ignore your advice but then the first moment this happens you'll bitch to the media that the government is "ignoring the science" or whatever else. It's only been happening for a year.
When you use the phrase "on the one hand [...] on the other hand", you are normally meant to present some sort of contradiction...? I am a scientist employed by a university in a country that believes in free speech and academic freedom. Part of my role as a scientist is to communicate my research to others. 99% of the time, that means talking to other academics, but if policymakers want to listen to me, I'll talk to them. If a radio channel wants to listen to me, I'll talk to them.
So, yes, my advice to govt is just advice. I can't make govt do what I say. (They certainly frequently haven't to date!) And, yes, I should be free to bitch to the media, just like everyone else in the country is free to bitch to the media.
I am absolutely trying to influence policy decisions. I have not said otherwise. Lots of people try to influence policy decisions: MPs do, constituents do when they write to MPs, columnists do when they write columns, PB.com article writers do when they write articles. That's again how democracy works.
Lots of people try to influence policy decisions, the government absorbs all those inputs and comes to a decision. Who is responsible for the decision? Well, the Government is.
If I think the Govt is ignoring the science, I will absolutely bitch about it. I'm a scientist: that's my duty. If the Govt is ignoring fishermen, then the fishing industry bitch about it to the media. I'm not complaining about that. That's how it works.
You keep talking about freedom, but your freedom always seems to mean other people being silenced. That is not what "freedom" means. Freedom means that we are all allowed to say things, to whoever will listen.
You are not free to bitch to the media when you are integral to the government's decision-making process.
Ok, so let's take a different example.
I'm part of a team directly funded by the Department of Health to look at the impact of a government policy. The goverment policy seems to have had no effect (this has happened to me).
Should we be free to publish this - do interviews, whatever - even if the government pushes ahead with the policy anyway and does not want us to publish? (this has not happened to me - we were clear in advance that we could publish anyway and in the event the government then quietly dropped the policy, which was only at pilot stage anyway)
If the answer is yes, we should be free to publish, then it's hard to see how we, actually paid to do this by the government should be able to while SAGE should not.
If the answer is no, then we don't be doing any more of that research. The government can take it in house with actual employees, fine. But they'll either have to maintain a large pool of government-employed experts just in case or use generalists who may lack expertise in niche areas.
The government, if it wants, can abolish the concept of SAGE and instead directly employ more experts and have direct control over what they say. I've no problem with that on any moral level, although I think the current process of advice from truly independent people out in the open is preferable and likely to be more effective. A purely in-house team could tend to be self-selecting for particular biases and liable to groupthink. In the meantime, the independent experts in the field will presumably be allowed (and likely feel more free on a personal level) to explain exactly what the government is doing wrong. The government/interal team of experts may even refer to the indepent experts' evidence in making decisions - they'd be wise to, probably. So what exactly has been achieved?
You should have to resign from your position before doing so and make clear that is the reason you resigned. Didn't the children's tsar just do that? It's called having integrity.
That's really is different - it's an official position, with actual powers.
To be clear - if Chris Whitty goes off to Channel 4 news saying the government has cocked up it's Covid policy, he can't stay as Chief Medical Officer, he has to resign. Likewise Patrick Vallance. They have responsibilities and official positions.
People on SAGE weren't even named before there was a call for more transparency.
It's no different at this time, though. Advising the government on a pandemic during the pandemic means having to accept that decisions go against you sometimes and learning to live with it.
Maybe that's the issue, you see this from a science perspective and I'm looking at it from a public policy perspective. Normally the two aren't aligned but for the last year and a bit they have been and scientific advice must be aligned to policy and the advisers need to be able to go and sell a policy they disagree with or resign if they don't agree.
Yep, it's probably partly perspective. You say scientific advice has to be aligned to policy. There can only be one policy, but there can be multiple and conflicting scientific advice (there are some things we know, with a high degree of certainty, but Covid is new and there's lots of uncertainty - scientific advice early on said handwashing, it said likely no aerosol spread - it was wrong, as science often is and, as science always does, gathered new evidence and updated the scientific advice). I'd much rather than was all out in the open.
When there's a public enquiry into a disaster, it comes to a single conclusion, but it publishes all the conflicting evidence received. This is different, I accept, as it's happening now, not reviewing the past. But it doesn't bother me in the slightest if the government is going against the collective advice of SAGE (I don't know really whether they are) in what's happened today, certainly not if they've gone against the advice of some members. SAGE provides advice. The government decides. That's how it must be, otherwise we we would be in a tyranny of scientists and democracy would be gone.
Again, the issue is that we're in the middle of a pandemic and scientific advice invariably becomes public policy. As I said earlier, I have no issue with dissent and no issue with minutes being published. I'd want that to happen. What I absolutely hate seeing is some sour scientist who is unable to accept being on the losing side of an argument mouthing off to the Guardian and BBC about why the government is wrong and they're on SAGE and the government is anti-science because they're ignoring the advice of one scienctist.
18,186 new first doses in the whole of the UK? What on earth is going on?
No one left to vaccinate. vaccination centres are everywhere but are quite, there was even a walk in vaccination centre at the Golf.
There is not much more the Government can do.
There are plenty of people left to vaccinate. Get them booked in quicker as was done before. There is absolutely no reason to slow down, they can fill the vaccination centres with the unvaccinated as they have done from the start.
Either the organisation has fallen down, or we are desperately short of vaccines, or the remaining millions who haven't had both jabs are refusing.
There are thousands of vaccination centres around the Country which you can just walk in whenever and get a vaccine, no need to book.
The Government are continually advertising this.
What more do you want them to do?
Two things they could do to incres the rate of vaccination and therefore slow the spread quicker:
1) Allow under 18s that what to get vaccinated, to have the Jab,
2) Bring down the wait for the second Jab,
and 2 more radical policy's that could also be implemented:
1) Acquire a border range of vaccines, including the Johnson and Johnson, the Russian and even a few of the Chines vaccines, and then give the people who have sead no to vaccines so far a chose of which vaccine. this will not get everybody but there will be some who when empowered to make a chose about which vaccine will feel more willing to take part in the overall program.
2) Empower/enable company's that wish to have a 'you must be vaccinated to work/do business here' policy to implement that. AIUI nursing homes will be able to implement that policy from September, I think any company should be able to do that form tomorrow.
Both of those latter two ideas are really interesting.
I think the midnight nightclub scenes on the news shown throughout the day have spooked the government a bit. The thing is they should have seen it coming.
3 million 18-30 year olds have not had a vaccine...
Nor any nooky (or at least greatly reduced quantity thereof).
Until Labour is seen as better, the Tories will continue to lead. But it is undeniable, the Tories and Government are becoming more unpopular
Mandatory vaccine passports for young people at nightclubs.
The liberal democrats will probably be against. What should labour do?
Personally I think Labour should say we should close the night clubs and not bother with the passports
And what of the owners and those that work there? Throw them on the scrap heap? What of those that enjoy going there? What of the children never born because their parents stayed at home and never met?
I see that those of us expecting yet another example of Boris dithering and avoiding making a sensible choice until it's too late and the damage has already been done, and then being forced into a half-baked U-turn, are not being disappointed by today's new announcements.
Still, two half-baked U-turns in five minutes is a bonus.
I really am getting confused. What's he done now?
1. Vaccine passports for young'uns wanting to go into nightclubs, with no opportunity of a test as an alternative. But not until end Sept (!!!)
2. Double jabbed plus two weeks 'critical workers' to no longer have to isolate, effective immediately.
Both are U-turns. Both are too late. Both are half-baked. Neither makes much sense because they are so half-baked.
Presumably 1 is just a ruse to encourage people to get vaccinated but will never actually happen.
Indeed, 30 Sep is the end of the summer (actually astronomical Autumn!) and is psychologically an eternity away when the schools are still in.
A massive nudge to get young guns to get their jabs: many won’t be arsed or won’t turn up (late out, forgot, got a better offer). So this is just to incentivise it IMO.
Though if we are going to continue to insist on the 8 week gap, having the second jab by the end of September means doing the first in the next 3 weeks or so, which might be pushing it. And whilst a proportion of da yoot frequent nightclubs, it's a minority, surely?
And the big question is still- if this is a good idea then, why isn't it a good idea now? Except that nobody thought about it 8 weeks ago, when it might have been useful?
Until Labour is seen as better, the Tories will continue to lead. But it is undeniable, the Tories and Government are becoming more unpopular
Mandatory vaccine passports for young people at nightclubs.
The liberal democrats will probably be against. What should labour do?
Personally I think Labour should say we should close the night clubs and not bother with the passports
In this particular instance I'm going to side with the Government. We've had nearly a year-and-a-half of cricket batting youngsters and banning things they enjoy to protect the old. Enough.
You are not free to bitch to the media when you are integral to the government's decision-making process.
Fair enough. I am very certain that I am not integral to the Govt's decision-making process. I will now continue to exercise the birthright of all Englishmen to bitch about stuff.
That would be my key point. SAGE does not have this hold over Govt that some fantasise about. Govt is constantly doing things that SAGE participants disagree with. That's why you hear so much of what has been described as bitching to the media! We are providing advice, among many. So I advise on how much people are following advice. I've been in the media recently talking about people's behaviours around using the NHS COVID-19 App. Political decisions, how you make those extremely difficult choices weighing up deaths from the illness, pressures on the NHS, costs to the Treasury, restrictions on people's daily lives, impact on the economy, etc., etc., etc., those are absolutely definitely not being made in SAGE.
I hear you. And as I have said, Boris bears a lot of the blame for this. He is Prime Minister.
But I also believe that all those people advising the government should not give a running commentary (!) on what they are doing. You have said you have been on the media, in which case you can't double hat on advising the government and speaking freely to the press about government actions. It's one or the other because you are part of the former, whether they act on your specific advice or not, it all forms part of the decision-making. And the government should be allowed to make those decisions without one element of the input being plastered all over the media.
When it's all over write a book about it. I'd buy it.
I see that those of us expecting yet another example of Boris dithering and avoiding making a sensible choice until it's too late and the damage has already been done, and then being forced into a half-baked U-turn, are not being disappointed by today's new announcements.
Still, two half-baked U-turns in five minutes is a bonus.
I really am getting confused. What's he done now?
1. Vaccine passports for young'uns wanting to go into nightclubs, with no opportunity of a test as an alternative. But not until end Sept (!!!)
2. Double jabbed plus two weeks 'critical workers' to no longer have to isolate, effective immediately.
Both are U-turns. Both are too late. Both are half-baked. Neither makes much sense because they are so half-baked.
Considering the numbers of my double jabbed colleagues who are testing positive, I would only let critical workers contacts back in FFP3 masks, in order to protect patients. Indeed there is a good case for FFP3 masks being the default for HCW.
Quite - I assume we are not limited by supply any more and it makes sense.
Great questions from the public. Boris offloaded the first one on to JVT, even though it is a political issue. Question 2. Don't know.
I assume you realise this, but you know the government selects the questions the public ask? I'm mean they are literally the straight men for the message that the government wants to put out.
NOTE a poster here has jusst been banned for stating in comment "the Germans are drowning (always a nice distraction)"
No choice really. No choice.
When a poster is banned their avatar on my screen doubles up. So they've gone and yet at the same time there are now 2 of them.
Only 2 of Leon is somewhat unrepresentative.
True! Thing is, great to have an alias or 4, but everybody except me seems to know exactly who he is. You can't hide online if you're a massive A or B list celeb in the real world.
I see that those of us expecting yet another example of Boris dithering and avoiding making a sensible choice until it's too late and the damage has already been done, and then being forced into a half-baked U-turn, are not being disappointed by today's new announcements.
Still, two half-baked U-turns in five minutes is a bonus.
I really am getting confused. What's he done now?
I assume that it's this;
Vaccines Minister Nadhim Zahawi says a negative test result will no longer be enough to gain access to nightclubs and large indoor events by end of Sept. They must show proof of two jabs.
I see that those of us expecting yet another example of Boris dithering and avoiding making a sensible choice until it's too late and the damage has already been done, and then being forced into a half-baked U-turn, are not being disappointed by today's new announcements.
Still, two half-baked U-turns in five minutes is a bonus.
I really am getting confused. What's he done now?
1. Vaccine passports for young'uns wanting to go into nightclubs, with no opportunity of a test as an alternative. But not until end Sept (!!!)
2. Double jabbed plus two weeks 'critical workers' to no longer have to isolate, effective immediately.
Both are U-turns. Both are too late. Both are half-baked. Neither makes much sense because they are so half-baked.
Presumably 1 is just a ruse to encourage people to get vaccinated but will never actually happen.
Indeed, 30 Sep is the end of the summer (actually astronomical Autumn!) and is psychologically an eternity away when the schools are still in.
A massive nudge to get young guns to get their jabs: many won’t be arsed or won’t turn up (late out, forgot, got a better offer). So this is just to incentivise it IMO.
Though if we are going to continue to insist on the 8 week gap, having the second jab by the end of September means doing the first in the next 3 weeks or so, which might be pushing it. And whilst a proportion of da yoot frequent nightclubs, it's a minority, surely?
And the big question is still- if this is a good idea then, why isn't it a good idea now? Except that nobody thought about it 8 weeks ago, when it might have been useful?
They probably saw the spike in vaccination bookings after Macron said it would be mandatory to go to bars and thought they'd try the same trick.
Comments
Vaccines Minister Nadhim Zahawi says a negative test result will no longer be enough to gain access to nightclubs and large indoor events by end of Sept. They must show proof of two jabs.
Govt is still "encouraging" venues to use Covid passes to prove Covid status but reserves right to mandate their use.
____
Happy Freedom day everybody, lets have a laigh at the pointless protests, nobody wants restrictions forever, etc etc
Your choices now:
Take the bet
Retract and apologise for the slur
Say nothing and tacitly admit to a chronic and incurable case of micropenis syndrome
Watcha gonna do?
You really aren't very bright.
As somebody once sang "What have I, what have I, what have I done to deserve this?"
Another session of pep talk and self-justification I imagine.
Maybe that's the issue, you see this from a science perspective and I'm looking at it from a public policy perspective. Normally the two aren't aligned but for the last year and a bit they have been and scientific advice must be aligned to policy and the advisers need to be able to go and sell a policy they disagree with or resign if they don't agree.
So during a national emergency you are not treating giving the government advice similarly to giving a fee-paying client advice and hence give the former a degraded service.
All about the $$$.
Amazing.
As for the past calls, well on campuses (at least up and down the country) there were scientists everywhere making those points.
@RedfieldWilton
Westminster Voting Intention (19 July):
Conservative 42% (+1)
Labour 33% (–)
Liberal Democrat 10% (-2)
Green 5% (-1)
Scottish National Party 4% (–)
Reform UK 3% (–)
Other 2% (+1)
Changes +/- 12 July
Tied lowest % for Labour since May 2020.
I'm not expecting you to do so now, in the heat of posting but you will eventually and when you do, you will I'm sure do the right thing.
Britain will threaten this week to deviate from the Brexit deal unless the European Union shows more flexibility over Northern Ireland, one UK and three EU sources told Reuters, a move that could thrust the five-year Brexit divorce into tumult.
Conservative 42% (+1)
Labour 33% (–)
Liberal Democrat 10% (-2)
Green 5% (-1)
Scottish National Party 4% (–)
Reform UK 3% (–)
Other 2% (+1)
Changes +/- 12 July
Tied lowest % for Labour since May 2020.
https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1417152270609879041?s=20
How will they recover from the Patel row?
Still, two half-baked U-turns in five minutes is a bonus.
As always, media got their finger on the pulse....
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2021/07/tories-are-learning-culture-wars-make-you-enemies-well-friends
https://inews.co.uk/opinion/priti-patel-racism-football-culture-war-1101497
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/tories-libdems-byelection-culture-war_uk_60cb64b4e4b05fb35761894e
Pre-pandemic, I've done two sorts of work: I've done direct, paid consultancy for Govt, where I delivered the work (to the Home Office) and commented no further on it. More often, I've been funded in other ways, but we have been invited to talk to (usually) the Department of Health, or to various agencies (NHS, PHE etc.), and we've done that, but we've also maintained our academic freedom and written our own outputs for public consumption. I am doing the same now. Were Govt to hire me, I'd shut up as they wished. Govt has not hired me: they sometimes ask my advice (well, mine as part of a wider group), so I give it, and if anyone else is interested, e.g. the media, I'll say the same to them.
Everything is amped up during a pandemic, but I fail to see why certain posters who talk a lot about freedom think that the solution is to remove freedoms and muzzle people.
Also, you say, "but we don't get to hear from behavioural psychologists that not unlocking will bring another set of consequences. Or from economists, or...or..." Yes, you do. Plenty of those people are in the media too. They all get to write academic papers too. They all get to tweet too. Etc.
Just in case of confusion, Granddaughter Three is still at school
Disagree in private and then collectively support the decision made in public.
Often it's better to make sure an imperfect plan is executed as well as possible than to undermine its implementation in search of a perfect plan.
* Monday before last: up 12%;
* last Monday: up 8%;
* today: down 17%.
Increase that would be necessary from today's figure to establish a new peak: 36%.
Look at my (admittedly tortured) analogy about the Coventry bombing.
But you have slightly given it away - if the government had paid you you would have shut up. So you accept that shutting up is the ideal, just that - in a national emergency, btw - they didn't pay enough for you to have done so. Otherwise why charge for shutting up.
2. Double jabbed plus two weeks 'critical workers' to no longer have to isolate, effective immediately.
Both are U-turns. Both are too late. Both are half-baked. Neither makes much sense because they are so half-baked.
Vaccines Minister Nadhim Zahawi says a negative test result will no longer be enough to gain access to nightclubs and large indoor events by end of Sept. They must show proof of two jabs.
https://twitter.com/RichardVaughan1/status/1417149774034243586?s=20
That would be my key point. SAGE does not have this hold over Govt that some fantasise about. Govt is constantly doing things that SAGE participants disagree with. That's why you hear so much of what has been described as bitching to the media! We are providing advice, among many. So I advise on how much people are following advice. I've been in the media recently talking about people's behaviours around using the NHS COVID-19 App. Political decisions, how you make those extremely difficult choices weighing up deaths from the illness, pressures on the NHS, costs to the Treasury, restrictions on people's daily lives, impact on the economy, etc., etc., etc., those are absolutely definitely not being made in SAGE.
https://twitter.com/nadhimzahawi/status/1349107577481809920
Until Labour is seen as better, the Tories will continue to lead. But it is undeniable, the Tories and Government are becoming more unpopular
As though he had never considered not self-isolating.
There are parasites which modify their hosts' brains so as to ensure they are optimally transmitted. Like that cat parasite which is transmitted via other mammals and lodges in their brains; makes humans behave in a more risky way (Which is great when the cat is a lion on the savannah and the hominid Lucy of the footprints, who thereby becomes easier to catch for dinner; not so much when it'[s Pussy and her owner goes out and drives through a red light).
Do you think it is having this effect on Mr Johnson? It all counts in the Darwinian stats ...
Would Sajid Javid who is currently actually infected with SARSCoV2 and suffering Covid symptoms be allowed into an event, because he's double-jabbed? Or is it a negative test result AND double-jabbed status that would be needed?
19/7 39,950
12/7 34,471
5/7 27,334
And I really wouldn't be using that sort of day on day figure for anything as there are too many reasons why figures may be being reported on a different day.
So it's good news for anyone who wants to see a gig in October, your Covid odds ratio may well be lower than the counterfactual.
A convoluted benefit but I think it's correct...
When there's a public enquiry into a disaster, it comes to a single conclusion, but it publishes all the conflicting evidence received. This is different, I accept, as it's happening now, not reviewing the past. But it doesn't bother me in the slightest if the government is going against the collective advice of SAGE (I don't know really whether they are) in what's happened today, certainly not if they've gone against the advice of some members. SAGE provides advice. The government decides. That's how it must be, otherwise we we would be in a tyranny of scientists and democracy would be gone.
I am sure you have probably seen my previous posts, Walter, where I have said I don't bet, I come on here for the politics. I don't need to bet with you, but I feel a little guilty that I am amused I obviously got under your skin.
I have no problem with my level of intelligence, but based upon your posts I guess both my IQ, and definitely my EQ are considerably higher than yours and my level of material success off the scale compared to an angry little saddo such as yourself. I have no need to prove any of it, unlike yourself. Your desire to boast and prove yourself demonstrates your immaturity and general underachievement.
Now go and calm down.
The liberal democrats will probably be against. What should labour do?
Suggests to me the lower case numbers a function of reporting cycles rather than anything to be optimistic about.
I am interested in how high certain stats can go before this burns out (or, and it's a depressing thought, the government loses its nerve and re-introduces restrictions).
For example, the new ONS antibody survey out on Wednesday will be interesting. The last one two weeks prior suggested 90% of adults in England had antibodies... how high can that go before herd immunity kicks in?
Bring back, bring back, bring back old William to PB, PB ... bring back, bring back, bring back old William to PB.
This is good punchy tabloid politics from the Opposition leader. Much needed and long overdue. Hopefully something we'll see more of.
While Johnson jabbers, Keir jabs.
When they go low, we stamp on their foot and kick them in the goolies.
Hardball, like Hamilton did yesterday. It works.
All about the $$$
And they've created an amazing vaccine that is saving lives the world over. Better in some ways than AZN, preferable, it seems, in the young, faster acting.
Amazing (in a good way)
*I think? Or have they added an altruistic discount?
A massive nudge to get young guns to get their jabs: many won’t be arsed or won’t turn up (late out, forgot, got a better offer). So this is just to incentivise it IMO.
Boris offloaded the first one on to JVT, even though it is a political issue.
Question 2. Don't know.
So, Inge Hansen is on the 4G/TV Co-existence Oversight Board and here's Inge Hansen talking at the 7th Annual European Spectrum Management Conference, https://eu-ems.com/speakers.asp?event_id=112&page_id=854 Because Inge Hansen, like everyone else who ever sits on a govt advisory board, is free to go about her work and talk to anyone else who will listen.
This is entirely normal and how it has always worked. The only difference is that you don't care what Inge Hansen said on the 4G/TV Co-existence Oversight Board, but you do care what is said on SAGE. The problem is not people who advise govt talking in other forums, the problem is you wanting to censor voices you don't want to hear.
Well, tough. We live in a free society. I can talk to who I want (barring my choice to enter into a contractual relationship that prohibits that). You can talk to who you want (ditto). Freedom -- it's great!
@GoodwinMJ
Dow down over 800 points. Worst day in 2021 so far. Covid variants spooking markets."
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1417155210363949064
It's a way of acknowledging they are not official. As for calling themselves SAGE... it's just good branding I think.
At a minimum they've pushed the real SAGE into being more transparent which is a good thing.
FFS.
Vax uptake in the more vulnerable to hospitalisation, 50+ is astoundingly good - so we might as well go for it now tbh.
3 million 18-30 year olds have not had a vaccine...
Apoparently unprecedented (Graun) Amber Extreme Heat warning for southern and western parts for several days (roughly anything west or south of Stoke on Trent, but maps provided)
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/warnings-and-advice/uk-warnings#?date=2021-07-19
The chickens are coming home to roost.
And the big question is still- if this is a good idea then, why isn't it a good idea now? Except that nobody thought about it 8 weeks ago, when it might have been useful?
But I also believe that all those people advising the government should not give a running commentary (!) on what they are doing. You have said you have been on the media, in which case you can't double hat on advising the government and speaking freely to the press about government actions. It's one or the other because you are part of the former, whether they act on your specific advice or not, it all forms part of the decision-making. And the government should be allowed to make those decisions without one element of the input being plastered all over the media.
When it's all over write a book about it. I'd buy it.