BoJo’s Tories are arguably more vulnerable to the LDs at the next election than LAB – politicalbetti

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Alright, I'll level with you

I am Bradley Wiggins

LOL!

Excellent. A celeb on PB.

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

NorthofStoke said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

DougSeal said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

algarkirk said:

NickPalmer said:

noneoftheabove said:

algarkirk said:

It is not yet clear that the good people of, say, Wokingham, will certainly prefer the Burgon/Pidcock/Sturgeon/Davey/tree hugging alliance to John Redwood. That will be their choice.

Its posh seats which people of working age want to live in. Guildford, St Albans etc yes, Arundel is for the retired posh.

That's right, also within constituencies. In my patch (Hunt's constituency, SW Surrey) the Tories are down to 2 County Councillors out of 7, and both are in the villages where there are masses of wealthy retired people, while they have fallen miles behind the LibDems (and behind Labour at Borough level in some places like mine) in the small towns. Another factor is a college in the area even if not a full-blown university.

On algarkirk's hypothesis, for all the doubts about Starmer's positive ideas, few people will feel he's going to be a puppet of Burgon and Pidcock (if they've even heard of them). Is a possible post-election understanding with Sturgeon going to seem very terrifying in Wokingham? Will voters there care much about that? As for tree-huggers, lots of wealthy folk are quite open to a bit of greenery.

Interesting. In SW Surrey LD strength goes back decades so I shall wait and see, while agreeing that the Tories remain vulnerable in a number of seats. Your remaining argument is strong, that I fully accept. At the next election there is going to be strong contest between the Tories and all others. Personally I think the Tories as the only option for a majority government will hold attractions, that the LDs will do well but as usual spread too thin, and that the Tories will win SW Surrey and Wokingham.

I agree that Nicola is not a threat in Surrey or Wokingham in the same way she is in my English northern borders patch (if I stand up I can see Scotland). But neither is the idea of a government relying on the SNP a positive attraction anywhere in England. They may not be loathed but they are far from loved.

More loved than the others.

‘Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds’

Polling asked voters last week how they thought each UK party leader was performing, with the First Minister receiving a net +24% approval rating in Scotland and +10% across the UK.

By contrast, Boris Johnson scored -35% in Scotland and -8% across the UK, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was given a -17% by people in Scotland and +9% in the UK, and LibDem leader Ed Davey scored -15% and -12% respectively; making Sturgeon the most popular leader in both Scotland and the UK.

https://www.thenational.scot/news/19054486.nicola-sturgeon-popular-leader-uk-poll-finds/

Only because she has now gone soft on pushing indyref2, which is why the hardline Nats in Alba hate her
https://twitter.com/KennyMacAskill/status/1415344843862298635?s=20

The hardline Nats who hate Nicola Sturgeon are BritNats like you.

HYUFD is a Conservative,

Don't be silly. He is many things. A Conservative he is not.

Nigel finds it much easier to associate with authoritarian "Conservatives" that believe in Jackboots, invading Scotland and Spain etc like HYUFD than he does the liberal wing of the Party like myself.

You are a libertarian not a conservative

As are many Conservatives. As is the PM, as were Thatcher and Cameron. As is Truss.

The Party is not just a party for authoritarian Jackboot wearers like yourself and Nigel.

So there’s room in the party for more than just authoritarian jackboot wearers? And you’re happy to be in a party with these people?

Most of Philip's posts on here could easily be written by someone of the far right, with the exception of some incongruous support for BLM, which might be because he doesn't like being labelled as a Faragist, even though he voted for the Brexit Party and up until recently seemed pretty enthusiastic about them. Poor lad is a bit confused.

You're a liar, or pig ignorant.

I've never once been enthusiastic in voting for the Brexit Party. I have only ever been enthusiastic in voting for David Cameron and Boris Johnson's Conservatives.

Voting in a protest vote against what has always been my own party was done in sorrow and regret at what May was turning our party into and that she needed to go. Mission accomplished.

I don't approve of lying , Philip, which is why I do not approve of Johnson, an habitual liar whom you seem to be so in love with. I am sure it is not unrequited because he loves the gullible.

As for you voting Brexit Party, if we accept your very weak excuse, and seeing as you now seem to accept they are a fascist party, would you have voted BNP if they were the best vehicle to get "mission accomplished"? The truth is you voted for a fascist party and you know it. Your pretence now that you are some kind of moderate really does not wash, and it doesn't help that you are getting angry about it. You are a frothing right winger, and at one stage you seemed pretty proud of that. If you were American you would be voting Trump and driving around in a pickup.

Although objectionable to me the Brexit party was not a Fascist party. (I've no idea of its current state.) To label it as such is frankly ludicrous.

Philip seems to accept now that it is a fascist party, but still voted for it. I am of teh centre right so I am not an hysterical lefty engaging in hyperbole. I think there are definite parallels between Faragists and certainly Francoism, though obviously Farage hasn't killed anyone. Alan Sked who was the founder of UKIP says Farage is a racist. I am not aware Farage has attempted to deny it. The Brexit Party used fake news/propaganda to promote it's ideas and drive division. It was very much a form of British Nationalism with an undercurrent of racism with a few fig leaves to cover up the accusation. I would call them crypto-fascists

I do not accept that the Brexit Party is a Fascist Party and I would not have voted for it if I did.

I think the Brexit Party, at the time of 2019, was an empty void protest party. Their claims, their party political broadcasts etc were entirely of a "send a message" sort and not racist or fascist. If there was anything racist there I wouldn't have voted for it.

I voted for it despite Farage, but since the Tories were also led by an authoritarian xenophobe that was a miserable draw as far as that was concerned. So it purely came down to more of the same, or a protest, and I went for the protest.

May is no better than Farage.

Mate that's fine but as AA Gill said of people who watch TOWIE or any of those shows, there isn't a button to press to show that you're watching it ironically. It adds to audience numbers and lo, the series is renewed for another season.

You gave Farage what he craves most, by voting for his party you gave him political legitimacy and influence. You can't do that and then say but I don't like the other stuff. The horse has bolted.

I got him kicked out of the European Parliament and so humiliated then electorally that he didn't even bother standing in the 2019 General Election, and didn't bother standing candidates against Tories once the Tory Party was rehabiliated.

Farage has been destroyed electorally. Job done.

Once the Tory Party was rehabilitated?

Once the Tory Party morphed into the Brexit Party, is what you mean. That's why Farage didn't stand against them at GE19. He knew they'd nicked all his Hard Leaver Xenophobe vote.

Theresa May was the xenophobe, not Boris.

Worth noting that Boris dropped Theresa May/David Cameron's pledge to bring immigration down to the tens of thousands.

But you said Farage decided not to stand against the Tories because they'd "rehabilitated".

If you meant rehabilitated away from xenophobia - which it seems you did - why on earth would that cause Farage (who you and I both consider to be a xenophobe) to give them a free pass?

See the logic fail?

You trip yourself up all the time on this one because you aren't telling the truth about it.

No I don't see the logic fail.

Theresa May and Nigel Farage are two sides of the same coin. Authoritarian xenophobes. Both saw the Brexit vote simply through the prism of xenophobia and immigration. Theresa May reacted to the Brexit vote by doubling down on her xenophobia.

But the UK is not xenophobic. The country is not racist. Which is why neither Farage nor May have ended up being that popular in reality.

The country didn't want doubling down in xenophobia which is all Nigel's May offered. The country wanted its vote in 2016 respecting, but in a friendly manner. May didn't offer that, Farage didn't offer that. Boris did. That's why Boris won in 2016, its why he won in 2019. Its why the voters of the country ran a mile from Farage once there was a rational alternative instead of May's xenophobia.

Farage didn't give the Tories a free pass, he lost support because his hardcore xenophobes are not who voted for him in the Spring. It was sane, normal, mainstream people rejecting May and her closed-minded, bigoted, empty citizens of nowhere authoritarian xenophobia. Farage gave up as he knew the game was up.

On Topic:

Hang on!

These are all pre-boundary changes. The world is going to look very different in 2024.

My understanding is that the LDs theoretically pick up the new seat of Finchley & Muswell Hill, and also become the notional winners in both Esher & Walton and Wimbledon.

The two London seats will be interesting, not least because historically Labour has been the challenger there, not the LDs. Next years locals should be very instructive. But I suspect Raab is toast in Esher & Walton.

Unvaccinated people account for 96% of new Covid-19 cases, says French PM
https://twitter.com/FRANCE24/status/1417821190631006208

northern_monkey said:

Just had a bloke fitting a new door for me. I know it’s warm but he was sweating loads. And coughing a lot. Generally seemed a bit peaky…

I've just walked back from the dentist - I too am sweaty loads. Its extreme heat out there (for UK). Not sure about the cough though...

JohnLilburne said:

JohnLilburne said:

ridaligo said:

noneoftheabove said:

ridaligo said:

noneoftheabove said:

ridaligo said:

Mexicanpete said:

NerysHughes said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

algarkirk said:

NickPalmer said:

noneoftheabove said:

algarkirk said:

It is not yet clear that the good people of, say, Wokingham, will certainly prefer the Burgon/Pidcock/Sturgeon/Davey/tree hugging alliance to John Redwood. That will be their choice.

Its posh seats which people of working age want to live in. Guildford, St Albans etc yes, Arundel is for the retired posh.

That's right, also within constituencies. In my patch (Hunt's constituency, SW Surrey) the Tories are down to 2 County Councillors out of 7, and both are in the villages where there are masses of wealthy retired people, while they have fallen miles behind the LibDems (and behind Labour at Borough level in some places like mine) in the small towns. Another factor is a college in the area even if not a full-blown university.

On algarkirk's hypothesis, for all the doubts about Starmer's positive ideas, few people will feel he's going to be a puppet of Burgon and Pidcock (if they've even heard of them). Is a possible post-election understanding with Sturgeon going to seem very terrifying in Wokingham? Will voters there care much about that? As for tree-huggers, lots of wealthy folk are quite open to a bit of greenery.

Interesting. In SW Surrey LD strength goes back decades so I shall wait and see, while agreeing that the Tories remain vulnerable in a number of seats. Your remaining argument is strong, that I fully accept. At the next election there is going to be strong contest between the Tories and all others. Personally I think the Tories as the only option for a majority government will hold attractions, that the LDs will do well but as usual spread too thin, and that the Tories will win SW Surrey and Wokingham.

I agree that Nicola is not a threat in Surrey or Wokingham in the same way she is in my English northern borders patch (if I stand up I can see Scotland). But neither is the idea of a government relying on the SNP a positive attraction anywhere in England. They may not be loathed but they are far from loved.

More loved than the others.

‘Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds’

Polling asked voters last week how they thought each UK party leader was performing, with the First Minister receiving a net +24% approval rating in Scotland and +10% across the UK.

By contrast, Boris Johnson scored -35% in Scotland and -8% across the UK, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was given a -17% by people in Scotland and +9% in the UK, and LibDem leader Ed Davey scored -15% and -12% respectively; making Sturgeon the most popular leader in both Scotland and the UK.

https://www.thenational.scot/news/19054486.nicola-sturgeon-popular-leader-uk-poll-finds/

Only because she has now gone soft on pushing indyref2, which is why the hardline Nats in Alba hate her
https://twitter.com/KennyMacAskill/status/1415344843862298635?s=20

The hardline Nats who hate Nicola Sturgeon are BritNats like you.

HYUFD is a Conservative,

Don't be silly. He is many things. A Conservative he is not.

Nigel finds it much easier to associate with authoritarian "Conservatives" that believe in Jackboots, invading Scotland and Spain etc like HYUFD than he does the liberal wing of the Party like myself.

You are a libertarian not a conservative

As are many Conservatives. As is the PM, as were Thatcher and Cameron. As is Truss.

The Party is not just a party for authoritarian Jackboot wearers like yourself and Nigel.

NerysHughes said:

ridaligo said:

On the Marcus Rashford thing, here's my (admittedly cynical take).

He's taken up social causes that are easy to support and difficult to challenge in order to build his brand - Saint Marcus the champion of the underprivileged, squeaky clean, future Knight of the Realm.

That his people have come out swinging with a pre-emptive strike against the Spectator is telling - get your retaliation in first, frame the narrative. The Luvvies are already circling the wagons in defence of Marcus (I'm looking at you BBC and your front page puff piece).

But that statement from the Rashford camp is very carefully worded, as some on here have noted. He doesn't "need" to partner with brands ... well no-one does, do they, unless they want them to pay for stuff. And "most" of any fees goes to the good good causes. Hmmm.

Brand building doesn't come cheap ... staffers to pay, "operating expenses" and so on.

Yes, I'm an old cynic, but the Spectator is right to shine a light on this.

On a related point, I'm amazed that there hasn't been more of an expose of footballer tax affairs given the public's appetite for taking the super rich down a peg or two. How much of Rashford's £10m salary finds it's way to the HMRC? If I were earning that amount I'd only see, what, £6m of it under PAYE and the rest would go to Rishi (but then I'm not a tax accountant).

Its always baffled me that the public are so supportive of someone who earns £15million plus per year, who has at least 8 houses, loads of super cars, but does not contribute any of that money to help his cause, just a bit of time, which he has plenty of. He could easily buy someone on UC a house per month and still have a £1 million quid to play aorund with. Now that would make a massive difference .He could also get his super rich team mates to do the same.

it baffles me that some of the public are so supportive of an individual who earned huge sums for writing polemics and clowning around on gameshows, and feel that those traits are appropriate qualifications to be Prime Minister

Marcus Rashford earns in 4 days what the PM earns in a year

Marcus Rashford is paid on the basis of a remarkable meritocratic skill. I thought Conservatives would approve of this. Marcus Rashford's economic value as a top footballer is greater than Boris Johnson's is as Prime Minister.

Personally I think the Prime Minister should be paid considerably more than he is. Someone running the country and earning less than a Premiership footballer or unique talent actor or musician is one thing. Earning less than the Principal of an academy school, the CE of a local authority, or an NHS Trust is another matter. They are generally not unique talents, just fortunate to win at a job interview.

I agree with those sentiments. I do approve of Rashford getting paid handsomely for his talent ... market forces.

I don't approve of him becoming a political activist, essentially a multi-millionaire spending other people's money. If he wants to volunteer in a soup kitchen, or whatever, go right ahead ... just don't use it for personal, commercial gain or to agitate for increased taxes for others.

What are your criteria for approval of political activism? The rest of us need to ensure we don't offend.

Don't worry on my account. I have no problem with being offended. You go ahead and engage in whatever political activism you want as long as I get the right to criticise you. How about that as a deal?

Sounds fine, still interested in the criteria for approval of political criticism? Is it the money? That he doesnt belong to a party? That he is on the left? Not educated enough? Too young?

I simply don't understand why someone would think he should not contribute to political life yet it is fine for Starmer, Johnson or Sturgeon to do so, so was asking the question.

Well the obvious answer would be that I get to vote for the policies and tax plans of Starmer, Johnson et al but I don't remember voting for Marcus Rashford. I have no problem with him contributing to political life but, if that's what he wants to do, then I (or The Spectator) get to scrutinize (and disagree with) his political views, question his motives and highlight any hypocrisy (just as Starmer, Johnson et al have to face).

What is not healthy is if there are no-go areas for scrutiny and criticism ... and this feels like one.

And particularly when you vote in local elections. I have voted Lib Dem, Brexit, Loony and Tory in recent years and would consider voting for a certain local party if it ever stood in my ward. Voting LibDem in the last election was not about supporting their programme for government but more about local planning and governance. I'll go back to voting Tory in elections where ideology and economics matter.

Er that should be "Voting LibDem in the last *local"* election". I voted Loony in the GE, obvs.

There's a difference?

NerysHughes said:

kinabalu said:

NerysHughes said:

kinabalu said:

NerysHughes said:

kinabalu said:

ridaligo said:

On the Marcus Rashford thing, here's my (admittedly cynical take).

He's taken up social causes that are easy to support and difficult to challenge in order to build his brand - Saint Marcus the champion of the underprivileged, squeaky clean, future Knight of the Realm.

That his people have come out swinging with a pre-emptive strike against the Spectator is telling - get your retaliation in first, frame the narrative. The Luvvies are already circling the wagons in defence of Marcus (I'm looking at you BBC and your front page puff piece).

But that statement from the Rashford camp is very carefully worded, as some on here have noted. He doesn't "need" to partner with brands ... well no-one does, do they, unless they want them to pay for stuff. And "most" of any fees goes to the good good causes. Hmmm.

Brand building doesn't come cheap ... staffers to pay, "operating expenses" and so on.

Yes, I'm an old cynic, but the Spectator is right to shine a light on this.

On a related point, I'm amazed that there hasn't been more of an expose of footballer tax affairs given the public's appetite for taking the super rich down a peg or two. How much of Rashford's £10m salary finds it's way to the HMRC? If I were earning that amount I'd only see, what, £6m of it under PAYE and the rest would go to Rishi (but then I'm not a tax accountant).

I see. So this multi-millionaire young black sports star from an impecunious background has decided to campaign against child food poverty not because he's genuinely concerned about child food poverty but in order to boost his personal brand and make himself even more rich and famous than he already is. Such a take is not "cynicism". It's something else entirely. Something putrid.

It's also devoid of logic. Like, the 'evidence' for this is that the cause he selected is soft and cuddly and almost impossible to oppose. Implication - in order to show he isn't doing it for brand building reasons, he ought to be campaigning for hardcore divisive stuff. Defund the police perhaps. Then you'd be 100% behind him, right? No sniping from you then? I should cocoa.

He has a vast personal fortune, money he does not need, why not give 50% of that to the poorer people of Manchester if he is that concerned about them? Now that would be good.

That's a VERY high bar you're setting to earn your approval when it comes to young black footballers from working class backgrounds campaigning for government action to end child food poverty. Perhaps some sweet day one of them will manage to clear it. I wonder what you'll use then as a reason to snipe? Will you be able to come up with something new and creative? I say yes. My money's on you to rise to the challenge.

A high bar?? He will be left with £25 million plus earning a million a month. How will he cope?

So a wealthy person can't campaign for government to spend more money on something unless they cough up a chunk of their own.

That effectively means rich people must shut up about politics unless they're campaigning for lower tax and spending cuts.

If you can't see what a nonsense that is, I can't help you.

I think the term "put your money where your mouth is" comes to mind.

Im afraid that if a extremely rich person is campaigning for the Government to spend taxpayers money on some cause then they should donate a decent wedge to that cause.

He has 8 houses, does he need 8 houses? There are numerous poor people in Manchester living in run down over crowded conditions. Why not give away some of these houses?

I don't think I have ever seen such a load of spiteful and envious posts before here. Assumptions made that he is a tax fiddler and doesn't donate his own money based on no evidence provided whatsoever. In the grand scheme of things I know who gets my vote as a decent human being and Rashford beats you hands down. You should be embarrassed to post such stuff.

felix said:

williamglenn said:

I've just been reading about the vaccine situation in Australia. It seems like a complete shambles and they're currently not giving AZ to people under 60 despite having spare domestic production capacity.

What is the latest on vaccoine efficacy for AZT/Moderna/Pfizer, etc. I thought they were all looking good for all the current variants but Leon is semihyper-ventilating about Delta so I wonder if there is some news I've missed.

This is still the most up to date comparative study. Both vaccines come out pretty well against delta. I think the Canadian numbers have also been basically the same but is based on a smaller data set. The Israeli studies are the most interesting because it could point to efficacy decline being more of an issue for delta than we had previously hoped.

turbotubbs said:

northern_monkey said:

Just had a bloke fitting a new door for me. I know it’s warm but he was sweating loads. And coughing a lot. Generally seemed a bit peaky…

I've just walked back from the dentist - I too am sweaty loads. Its extreme heat out there (for UK). Not sure about the cough though...

Thinking about it, he got here about half 10. It was cloudy here until about half 12, so it wasn't that hot this morning.

Hmmm....

turbotubbs said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

I do have to laugh at somebody lecturing others on racism when they endorse a party with an Islamophobia problem.

You shouldn't be so harsh on yourself.....

You make jokes about racism, which is pretty low. The Tories have an Islamophobia problem and you know it.

I think the country as a whole has an islamophobia problem, and that is reflected in ALL political parties, at least at the level of voters. Its tricky, because some evil, probably psychopathic, mentally ill, people have been committing atrocities in the name of Islam and your average person on the street reacts to that. That some elements of the muslim religion seem to want to live separate lives in the UK gets on some peoples wicks. Are all muslims terrorists? Of course not, the vast majority are decent everyday people, but the evil ones end up tarring the rest, no matter how unfair that is.

Its wrong to discriminate against Muslims, but there is a greater threat to society from Islamic extremists than there is the other way around. Same thing all around the globe wherever people adopt extremist religions.

Organised religion is a pox on the globe.

MattW said:

kinabalu said:

JosiasJessop said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Sorry, voting for a party is now not supporting that party.

Am I drunk

Nope, but perhaps you are seeing this too much from a partisan perspective.

I have voted Conservative, Labour, Independent, and Lib Dem in the last few years. I forget, but I might even have voted Green as well. By your thinking, I was 'supporting' those parties. I was not: I have no loyalty, or even faith particularly, in them. I just tried to pick the best candidate/party for the job - often amidst a sadly restricted choice.

I didn't particularly support the local Co-Op when I went in earlier for some orange juice and a pack of crisps; and I won't feel guilty if I go to Tescos in the next few days.

Co-Op v Tesco as analogy for who you vote for?

You can't mean that. It implies you have no ideology whatsoever. I know it can be a dirty word - ideology - but the total absence of it leaves a person with no political underpinning. No framework within which to decide what sort of policies they want to see.

I actually switched from our Local Mini-Coop to the Mini-Tesco because, whilst previously a customer of the former due to their nicer food, they have been inconsistent in the staff wearing masks for the last year.

Analogy as to how we judge politicians?

That's crazy. The Co-op have a fantastic rosé - Coeur de Cardeline at £8 a pop (down from around £11 in previous vintages). It's excellent. Tescos, meanwhile, got rid of its wine by the case business which was great and now has a very meh collection.

Stick with the Co-op is my advice.

Oh masks you say? Can't say I noticed either way. Was in Londis earlier (for some reason they have a St. Veran from 2011 on the shelves, a huge oversight/mispricing) - it's 50:50 on masks.

It’s time to finish off the wine cellar

Leon said:

felix said:

williamglenn said:

I've just been reading about the vaccine situation in Australia. It seems like a complete shambles and they're currently not giving AZ to people under 60 despite having spare domestic production capacity.

What is the latest on vaccoine efficacy for AZT/Moderna/Pfizer, etc. I thought they were all looking good for all the current variants but Leon is semihyper-ventilating about Delta so I wonder if there is some news I've missed.

Just do a Twitter search on ‘delta variant’ - it’s hard to avoid the bad news

Some American authorities are now mandating masks for children over 2. Delta seems to be much worse for kids

I hope the Americans are over-reacting but the data is ominous

Another issue: original Covid had an R0 of 3. Delta has an R0 between 6 and 10. Worse than smallpox. It is brutally infectious. This means you need incredibly high levels of vaccination to get herd immunity, probably unreachably high. Which in turn means Delta is going to rip through every country, unless they are totally isolated or have a massive lockdown

Yay! Lets drop all restrictions and reopen the nightclubs!!!

rcs1000 said:

Leon said:

felix said:

williamglenn said:

I've just been reading about the vaccine situation in Australia. It seems like a complete shambles and they're currently not giving AZ to people under 60 despite having spare domestic production capacity.

What is the latest on vaccoine efficacy for AZT/Moderna/Pfizer, etc. I thought they were all looking good for all the current variants but Leon is semihyper-ventilating about Delta so I wonder if there is some news I've missed.

Just do a Twitter search on ‘delta variant’ - it’s hard to avoid the bad news

Some American authorities are now mandating masks for children over 2. Delta seems to be much worse for kids

I hope the Americans are over-reacting but the data is ominous

Another issue: original Covid had an R0 of 3. Delta has an R0 between 6 and 10. Worse than smallpox. It is brutally infectious. This means you need incredibly high levels of vaccination to get herd immunity, probably unreachably high. Which in turn means Delta is going to rip through every country, unless they are totally isolated or have a massive lockdown

It's worth noting *why* Delta causes problems with vaccines. It's not that the virus is not being recognised by the immune system, and all to do with higher levels of viral shedding. Simply, people with Delta are pumping out up to (and I'm not kidding) 1,000x the level of viral particles into the air. This means that the headstart the body gets through a vaccine is diminished, and contributes to the large number of asymptomatic cases of Delta we're seeing. (Simply the immune system doesn't get enough of a headstart to prevent noticeable infection levels, but it does - most of the time - to prevent it getting really serious.)

We therefore need to stimulate a more robust immune response - and we need to make sure that everyone has been jabbed. Mix-and-matching the vaccines will help with the former. And we know what we need to do with the latter.

We may end up moving to three dose vaccines with an 8 week gap for dose 2 and a 16 week gap for dose 3. It means the world needs to make an additional 5.5bn doses, so far we've only administered 3.8bn out of potentially 16.5bn needed rather than 11bn. That's potentially a massive challenge ahead of us.

Nasty looking floods in China.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-57861067

rcs1000 said:

On Topic:

Hang on!

These are all pre-boundary changes. The world is going to look very different in 2024.

My understanding is that the LDs theoretically pick up the new seat of Finchley & Muswell Hill, and also become the notional winners in both Esher & Walton and Wimbledon.

The two London seats will be interesting, not least because historically Labour has been the challenger there, not the LDs. Next years locals should be very instructive. But I suspect Raab is toast in Esher & Walton.

What boundary changes? The proposals are going to gut a stack of Tory seats, I can't see why they would want to push them through. Virtue signal that they're doing it yes, but make the changes? Naah - people assume that an announcement is it actually happening anyway.

44k vs 42k last week - looking pretty flat...

MaxPB said:

rcs1000 said:

Leon said:

felix said:

williamglenn said:

I've just been reading about the vaccine situation in Australia. It seems like a complete shambles and they're currently not giving AZ to people under 60 despite having spare domestic production capacity.

What is the latest on vaccoine efficacy for AZT/Moderna/Pfizer, etc. I thought they were all looking good for all the current variants but Leon is semihyper-ventilating about Delta so I wonder if there is some news I've missed.

Just do a Twitter search on ‘delta variant’ - it’s hard to avoid the bad news

Some American authorities are now mandating masks for children over 2. Delta seems to be much worse for kids

I hope the Americans are over-reacting but the data is ominous

Another issue: original Covid had an R0 of 3. Delta has an R0 between 6 and 10. Worse than smallpox. It is brutally infectious. This means you need incredibly high levels of vaccination to get herd immunity, probably unreachably high. Which in turn means Delta is going to rip through every country, unless they are totally isolated or have a massive lockdown

It's worth noting *why* Delta causes problems with vaccines. It's not that the virus is not being recognised by the immune system, and all to do with higher levels of viral shedding. Simply, people with Delta are pumping out up to (and I'm not kidding) 1,000x the level of viral particles into the air. This means that the headstart the body gets through a vaccine is diminished, and contributes to the large number of asymptomatic cases of Delta we're seeing. (Simply the immune system doesn't get enough of a headstart to prevent noticeable infection levels, but it does - most of the time - to prevent it getting really serious.)

We therefore need to stimulate a more robust immune response - and we need to make sure that everyone has been jabbed. Mix-and-matching the vaccines will help with the former. And we know what we need to do with the latter.

We may end up moving to three dose vaccines with an 8 week gap for dose 2 and a 16 week gap for dose 3. It means the world needs to make an additional 5.5bn doses, so far we've only administered 3.8bn out of potentially 16.5bn needed rather than 11bn. That's potentially a massive challenge ahead of us.

And J&J looks like a duffer....

The #COVID19 Dashboard has been updated: https://t.co/XhspoyTG79

On 21 July, 44,104 new cases and 73 deaths within 28 days of a positive test were reported across the UK.

46,388,744 people have now received the first dose of a #vaccine. 36,404,566 have received a 2nd dose. https://t.co/sX1RPuIYuH

https://twitter.com/PHE_uk/status/1417862082528165891?s=19

MaxPB said:

44k cases.

Armageddon is postponed…

7 day increase slower too +40.7% to +35.8%

What we need now with covid is a breakthrough on treatment and also something to be given as soon as you get it to minimize progression from mild disease to ICU admission.

I seemed to remember the government announcing some sort of trial of anti-virals to be given to network of people as soon as somebody within that group tested positive.

FrancisUrquhart said:

MaxPB said:

rcs1000 said:

Leon said:

felix said:

williamglenn said:

I've just been reading about the vaccine situation in Australia. It seems like a complete shambles and they're currently not giving AZ to people under 60 despite having spare domestic production capacity.

What is the latest on vaccoine efficacy for AZT/Moderna/Pfizer, etc. I thought they were all looking good for all the current variants but Leon is semihyper-ventilating about Delta so I wonder if there is some news I've missed.

Just do a Twitter search on ‘delta variant’ - it’s hard to avoid the bad news

Some American authorities are now mandating masks for children over 2. Delta seems to be much worse for kids

I hope the Americans are over-reacting but the data is ominous

Another issue: original Covid had an R0 of 3. Delta has an R0 between 6 and 10. Worse than smallpox. It is brutally infectious. This means you need incredibly high levels of vaccination to get herd immunity, probably unreachably high. Which in turn means Delta is going to rip through every country, unless they are totally isolated or have a massive lockdown

It's worth noting *why* Delta causes problems with vaccines. It's not that the virus is not being recognised by the immune system, and all to do with higher levels of viral shedding. Simply, people with Delta are pumping out up to (and I'm not kidding) 1,000x the level of viral particles into the air. This means that the headstart the body gets through a vaccine is diminished, and contributes to the large number of asymptomatic cases of Delta we're seeing. (Simply the immune system doesn't get enough of a headstart to prevent noticeable infection levels, but it does - most of the time - to prevent it getting really serious.)

We therefore need to stimulate a more robust immune response - and we need to make sure that everyone has been jabbed. Mix-and-matching the vaccines will help with the former. And we know what we need to do with the latter.

We may end up moving to three dose vaccines with an 8 week gap for dose 2 and a 16 week gap for dose 3. It means the world needs to make an additional 5.5bn doses, so far we've only administered 3.8bn out of potentially 16.5bn needed rather than 11bn. That's potentially a massive challenge ahead of us.

And J&J looks like a duffer....

Really? Trashing vaccines Francis?

noneoftheabove said:

ridaligo said:

noneoftheabove said:

ridaligo said:

noneoftheabove said:

ridaligo said:

Mexicanpete said:

NerysHughes said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

algarkirk said:

NickPalmer said:

noneoftheabove said:

algarkirk said:

It is not yet clear that the good people of, say, Wokingham, will certainly prefer the Burgon/Pidcock/Sturgeon/Davey/tree hugging alliance to John Redwood. That will be their choice.

Its posh seats which people of working age want to live in. Guildford, St Albans etc yes, Arundel is for the retired posh.

That's right, also within constituencies. In my patch (Hunt's constituency, SW Surrey) the Tories are down to 2 County Councillors out of 7, and both are in the villages where there are masses of wealthy retired people, while they have fallen miles behind the LibDems (and behind Labour at Borough level in some places like mine) in the small towns. Another factor is a college in the area even if not a full-blown university.

On algarkirk's hypothesis, for all the doubts about Starmer's positive ideas, few people will feel he's going to be a puppet of Burgon and Pidcock (if they've even heard of them). Is a possible post-election understanding with Sturgeon going to seem very terrifying in Wokingham? Will voters there care much about that? As for tree-huggers, lots of wealthy folk are quite open to a bit of greenery.

Interesting. In SW Surrey LD strength goes back decades so I shall wait and see, while agreeing that the Tories remain vulnerable in a number of seats. Your remaining argument is strong, that I fully accept. At the next election there is going to be strong contest between the Tories and all others. Personally I think the Tories as the only option for a majority government will hold attractions, that the LDs will do well but as usual spread too thin, and that the Tories will win SW Surrey and Wokingham.

I agree that Nicola is not a threat in Surrey or Wokingham in the same way she is in my English northern borders patch (if I stand up I can see Scotland). But neither is the idea of a government relying on the SNP a positive attraction anywhere in England. They may not be loathed but they are far from loved.

More loved than the others.

‘Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds’

Polling asked voters last week how they thought each UK party leader was performing, with the First Minister receiving a net +24% approval rating in Scotland and +10% across the UK.

By contrast, Boris Johnson scored -35% in Scotland and -8% across the UK, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was given a -17% by people in Scotland and +9% in the UK, and LibDem leader Ed Davey scored -15% and -12% respectively; making Sturgeon the most popular leader in both Scotland and the UK.

https://www.thenational.scot/news/19054486.nicola-sturgeon-popular-leader-uk-poll-finds/

Only because she has now gone soft on pushing indyref2, which is why the hardline Nats in Alba hate her
https://twitter.com/KennyMacAskill/status/1415344843862298635?s=20

The hardline Nats who hate Nicola Sturgeon are BritNats like you.

HYUFD is a Conservative,

Don't be silly. He is many things. A Conservative he is not.

Nigel finds it much easier to associate with authoritarian "Conservatives" that believe in Jackboots, invading Scotland and Spain etc like HYUFD than he does the liberal wing of the Party like myself.

You are a libertarian not a conservative

As are many Conservatives. As is the PM, as were Thatcher and Cameron. As is Truss.

The Party is not just a party for authoritarian Jackboot wearers like yourself and Nigel.

NerysHughes said:

ridaligo said:

On the Marcus Rashford thing, here's my (admittedly cynical take).

He's taken up social causes that are easy to support and difficult to challenge in order to build his brand - Saint Marcus the champion of the underprivileged, squeaky clean, future Knight of the Realm.

That his people have come out swinging with a pre-emptive strike against the Spectator is telling - get your retaliation in first, frame the narrative. The Luvvies are already circling the wagons in defence of Marcus (I'm looking at you BBC and your front page puff piece).

But that statement from the Rashford camp is very carefully worded, as some on here have noted. He doesn't "need" to partner with brands ... well no-one does, do they, unless they want them to pay for stuff. And "most" of any fees goes to the good good causes. Hmmm.

Brand building doesn't come cheap ... staffers to pay, "operating expenses" and so on.

Yes, I'm an old cynic, but the Spectator is right to shine a light on this.

On a related point, I'm amazed that there hasn't been more of an expose of footballer tax affairs given the public's appetite for taking the super rich down a peg or two. How much of Rashford's £10m salary finds it's way to the HMRC? If I were earning that amount I'd only see, what, £6m of it under PAYE and the rest would go to Rishi (but then I'm not a tax accountant).

Its always baffled me that the public are so supportive of someone who earns £15million plus per year, who has at least 8 houses, loads of super cars, but does not contribute any of that money to help his cause, just a bit of time, which he has plenty of. He could easily buy someone on UC a house per month and still have a £1 million quid to play aorund with. Now that would make a massive difference .He could also get his super rich team mates to do the same.

it baffles me that some of the public are so supportive of an individual who earned huge sums for writing polemics and clowning around on gameshows, and feel that those traits are appropriate qualifications to be Prime Minister

Marcus Rashford earns in 4 days what the PM earns in a year

Marcus Rashford is paid on the basis of a remarkable meritocratic skill. I thought Conservatives would approve of this. Marcus Rashford's economic value as a top footballer is greater than Boris Johnson's is as Prime Minister.

Personally I think the Prime Minister should be paid considerably more than he is. Someone running the country and earning less than a Premiership footballer or unique talent actor or musician is one thing. Earning less than the Principal of an academy school, the CE of a local authority, or an NHS Trust is another matter. They are generally not unique talents, just fortunate to win at a job interview.

I agree with those sentiments. I do approve of Rashford getting paid handsomely for his talent ... market forces.

I don't approve of him becoming a political activist, essentially a multi-millionaire spending other people's money. If he wants to volunteer in a soup kitchen, or whatever, go right ahead ... just don't use it for personal, commercial gain or to agitate for increased taxes for others.

What are your criteria for approval of political activism? The rest of us need to ensure we don't offend.

Don't worry on my account. I have no problem with being offended. You go ahead and engage in whatever political activism you want as long as I get the right to criticise you. How about that as a deal?

Sounds fine, still interested in the criteria for approval of political criticism? Is it the money? That he doesnt belong to a party? That he is on the left? Not educated enough? Too young?

I simply don't understand why someone would think he should not contribute to political life yet it is fine for Starmer, Johnson or Sturgeon to do so, so was asking the question.

Well the obvious answer would be that I get to vote for the policies and tax plans of Starmer, Johnson et al but I don't remember voting for Marcus Rashford. I have no problem with him contributing to political life but, if that's what he wants to do, then I (or The Spectator) get to scrutinize (and disagree with) his political views, question his motives and highlight any hypocrisy (just as Starmer, Johnson et al have to face).

What is not healthy is if there are no-go areas for scrutiny and criticism ... and this feels like one.

Thanks for the answer, but "I have no problem with him contributing to political life" seems quite contradictory to "I don't approve of him becoming a political activist" a few minutes earlier. It is clearly not a no go area for criticism as you and many others are doing so. It is a free country, but expect such contradictions to be questioned and it is difficult not to assume that the real reason for the criticism is simply you don't like his politics and don't want to listen it. That assumption may be incorrect on my part, but I still don't understand.

OK, a qualifier "I don't approve of him becoming a political activist* if he's not allowed to be scrutinized / criticised and if he's using it for commercial gain" ... then I have a problem.

I don't really know his politics but the issue of FSM is more nuanced than "free stuff = good" ... for example, who's going to pay, how much, is it even the job of schools to feed children, what about parental responsibility, and so on.

I suppose I have two issues with Team Rashford: the shutting down of any hint of questioning and the feeling that a brand is being built on the back of involvement in politics.

Maybe I'm just weird but I don't like feeling like I'm being manipulated.

turbotubbs said:

44,104

That was a LOT lower than I expected.

MaxPB said:

44k cases.

Have we maybe peaked? That would be hilarious for the 'we must wear masks FORRREEEEVVVER' brigade....

Leon said:

It’s time to finish off the wine cellar

Don't try this at home @Charles!

If children are starting to get this, I say fuck the anti-vaxxers

Why should kids die because some morons are selfish idiots?

Make the jabs mandatory. Punish avoidance

It’s the time of day for sarcastic, sanctimonious, self-satisfied trolling about covid peaks.

I can barely wait.

Cookie said:

turbotubbs said:

44,104

That was a LOT lower than I expected.

It’s definitely encouraging - if it’s not just a statistical glitch caused by schools closing?

Anabobazina said:

It’s the time of day for sarcastic, sanctimonious, self-satisfied trolling about covid peaks.

I can barely wait.

I'm just hoping its the peak.

RochdalePioneers said:

rcs1000 said:

On Topic:

Hang on!

These are all pre-boundary changes. The world is going to look very different in 2024.

My understanding is that the LDs theoretically pick up the new seat of Finchley & Muswell Hill, and also become the notional winners in both Esher & Walton and Wimbledon.

The two London seats will be interesting, not least because historically Labour has been the challenger there, not the LDs. Next years locals should be very instructive. But I suspect Raab is toast in Esher & Walton.

What boundary changes? The proposals are going to gut a stack of Tory seats, I can't see why they would want to push them through. Virtue signal that they're doing it yes, but make the changes? Naah - people assume that an announcement is it actually happening anyway.

My understanding was that the changes are, in effect, already the law. The process was changed this time round and the MPs don’t actually get a vote to stop them.

FrancisUrquhart said:

MaxPB said:

rcs1000 said:

Leon said:

felix said:

williamglenn said:

I've just been reading about the vaccine situation in Australia. It seems like a complete shambles and they're currently not giving AZ to people under 60 despite having spare domestic production capacity.

What is the latest on vaccoine efficacy for AZT/Moderna/Pfizer, etc. I thought they were all looking good for all the current variants but Leon is semihyper-ventilating about Delta so I wonder if there is some news I've missed.

Just do a Twitter search on ‘delta variant’ - it’s hard to avoid the bad news

Some American authorities are now mandating masks for children over 2. Delta seems to be much worse for kids

I hope the Americans are over-reacting but the data is ominous

Another issue: original Covid had an R0 of 3. Delta has an R0 between 6 and 10. Worse than smallpox. It is brutally infectious. This means you need incredibly high levels of vaccination to get herd immunity, probably unreachably high. Which in turn means Delta is going to rip through every country, unless they are totally isolated or have a massive lockdown

It's worth noting *why* Delta causes problems with vaccines. It's not that the virus is not being recognised by the immune system, and all to do with higher levels of viral shedding. Simply, people with Delta are pumping out up to (and I'm not kidding) 1,000x the level of viral particles into the air. This means that the headstart the body gets through a vaccine is diminished, and contributes to the large number of asymptomatic cases of Delta we're seeing. (Simply the immune system doesn't get enough of a headstart to prevent noticeable infection levels, but it does - most of the time - to prevent it getting really serious.)

We therefore need to stimulate a more robust immune response - and we need to make sure that everyone has been jabbed. Mix-and-matching the vaccines will help with the former. And we know what we need to do with the latter.

We may end up moving to three dose vaccines with an 8 week gap for dose 2 and a 16 week gap for dose 3. It means the world needs to make an additional 5.5bn doses, so far we've only administered 3.8bn out of potentially 16.5bn needed rather than 11bn. That's potentially a massive challenge ahead of us.

And J&J looks like a duffer....

It might become a two/three dose vaccine or one to potentially mix in with Pfizer and Moderna so the sequence is Moderna - J&J - Moderna with 8 and 16 week gaps in between. It does the job against original COVID but personally I'm glad the UK chose not to take delivery of it given our issues with delta and it not being approved for a multi-dose regime or mix and match.

kinabalu said:

JosiasJessop said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Sorry, voting for a party is now not supporting that party.

Am I drunk

Nope, but perhaps you are seeing this too much from a partisan perspective.

I have voted Conservative, Labour, Independent, and Lib Dem in the last few years. I forget, but I might even have voted Green as well. By your thinking, I was 'supporting' those parties. I was not: I have no loyalty, or even faith particularly, in them. I just tried to pick the best candidate/party for the job - often amidst a sadly restricted choice.

I didn't particularly support the local Co-Op when I went in earlier for some orange juice and a pack of crisps; and I won't feel guilty if I go to Tescos in the next few days.

Co-Op v Tesco as analogy for who you vote for?

You can't mean that. It implies you have no ideology whatsoever. I know it can be a dirty word - ideology - but the total absence of it leaves a person with no political underpinning. No framework within which to decide what sort of policies they want to see.

Of course I have an ideology - or perhaps ideologies. They just don't fit in with the classic ideologies of the UK's political parties. Even though they've adapted and evolved over time (and I hope they continue to do so), I don't particularly want to have to distort and squeeze them to 'support' any particular party.

When I last seriously considered joining a political party (I think back in 2015), I was torn between the Conservatives and the Lib Dems. I then decided that the uncertainty probably meant I shouldn't do it...

Leon said:

Cookie said:

turbotubbs said:

44,104

That was a LOT lower than I expected.

It’s definitely encouraging - if it’s not just a statistical glitch caused by schools closing?

Scotland cases have continued to decline over the last two weeks, so I don't think it's a glitch.

Simply, schools are big vectors for transmission.

Labour has come out against vaccine passports.

I may yet be able to go to a nightclub in October (!).

The hospital admissions data on the covid dashboard are now a week behind....what the hell is going on.

TOPPING said:

Leon said:

It’s time to finish off the wine cellar

One of the most depressing programmes I saw was the documentary on Dignitas. They interviewed some old bloke with MND who was there to kill himself and was, of course, compos mentis, as you have to be. And his wife, when they were sitting there waiting for the nurse to come in with the deadly cocktail, said something like, you have a lovely wine cellar at home for people to enjoy...

And I thought why not go home that minute, spend another two months drinking the fucking wine cellar yourself then get back to Switzerland if you must.

Perhaps because he was in pain, or because in a few months he might not be compos mentis enough, or physically able, to travel?

We really need to have a strong debate over end-of-life in this country. Thousands of people are suffering when they don't want to suffer. But it is a moral and practical minefield.

turbotubbs said:

MaxPB said:

44k cases.

Can only mean that PHE have a data problem. I mean I keep being told that cases are going to keep going up... Seriously, with the ONS antibody survey, and the fact that many many kids are already out of school, this is no surprise. Hopefully will continue to go in the right direction.

I'm not celebrating yet, I think we need to see the effect of unrestricted indoor socialising before making any judgements. It will be the Wednesday after next before we really get to see that as this weekend will be the first big nights on the town days. However, the levelling off in case growth is definitely welcome, the football effect seems to finally be out of the system and with schools breaking up this week it will be another big reduction in spread.

Cases today only 4% up from last Wednesday. It’s possible @rcs1000 was only a day out.

turbotubbs said:

Anabobazina said:

It’s the time of day for sarcastic, sanctimonious, self-satisfied trolling about covid peaks.

I can barely wait.

I'm just hoping its the peak.

Me too. And my post absolutely wasn’t intended for you. I suspect the intended know who they are…

Anabobazina said:

Leon said:

Cookie said:

turbotubbs said:

44,104

That was a LOT lower than I expected.

It’s definitely encouraging - if it’s not just a statistical glitch caused by schools closing?

Last day of term is today.

Not for us; the little 'un has another day tomorrow.

Leon said:

"The Delta variant is different," says Dr. Rick Barr of the Arkansas Children's Health System.

"We have 12 children admitted to the hospital now with Covid... they seem to be much sicker. Most of them are teenagers, and a number of them are in the ICU and have Covid pneumonia."

https://twitter.com/cnnnewsroom/status/1417572641884495873?s=21

We have to start vaxing our kids NOW

This is also alarming

‘Virulence of Delta, the evidence

medrxiv.org/content/10.110…
Compared with the non-variant of concerns

Increases with Delta variant

120% (93-153%) for hospitalization
287% (198-399%) for ICU admission
137% (50-230%) for death.’

‘A significantly larger and more lethal pandemic’

https://twitter.com/rougematisse/status/1417697218291773443?s=21

Hospitalisation risk 86% higher for the unvaccinated for Delta compared to Alpha compared to only 36% higher for the vaccinated is the key stat however

https://twitter.com/RougeMatisse/status/1417715996920590337?s=20

Sad article here from Alabama where only a third are fully vaccinated in a state which is now restriction free (compared to Vermont for example where 67% are fully vaccinated now)
https://twitter.com/kathrynw5/status/1417832222019792904?s=20

FrancisUrquhart said:

The hospital admissions data on the covid dashboard are now a week behind....what the hell is going on.

Filter on England it's fully up to date with the latest NHS release also out at 4pm (used to be 1 day behind). UK figures massively delayed by celtic incompetence.

JosiasJessop said:

TOPPING said:

Leon said:

It’s time to finish off the wine cellar

One of the most depressing programmes I saw was the documentary on Dignitas. They interviewed some old bloke with MND who was there to kill himself and was, of course, compos mentis, as you have to be. And his wife, when they were sitting there waiting for the nurse to come in with the deadly cocktail, said something like, you have a lovely wine cellar at home for people to enjoy...

And I thought why not go home that minute, spend another two months drinking the fucking wine cellar yourself then get back to Switzerland if you must.

Perhaps because he was in pain, or because in a few months he might not be compos mentis enough, or physically able, to travel?

We really need to have a strong debate over end-of-life in this country. Thousands of people are suffering when they don't want to suffer. But it is a moral and practical minefield.

Oh definitely. In this case, he didn't seem in pain but he also seemed the type not to show it. It just seemed so agonising.

contrarian said:

Labour has come out against vaccine passports.

I may yet be able to go to a nightclub in October (!).

Labours opposition is interesting. I hope it doesn’t come back to bite them

Leon said:

Cookie said:

turbotubbs said:

44,104

That was a LOT lower than I expected.

It’s definitely encouraging - if it’s not just a statistical glitch caused by schools closing?

Today’s “by specimen” figure is only about 7,000. Yesterday if was over 10k. So there will be a lot less to feed into that figure as it is backfilled.

Pulpstar said:

Leon said:

"The Delta variant is different," says Dr. Rick Barr of the Arkansas Children's Health System.

"We have 12 children admitted to the hospital now with Covid... they seem to be much sicker. Most of them are teenagers, and a number of them are in the ICU and have Covid pneumonia."

https://twitter.com/cnnnewsroom/status/1417572641884495873?s=21

We have to start vaxing our kids NOW

This is also alarming

‘Virulence of Delta, the evidence

medrxiv.org/content/10.110…
Compared with the non-variant of concerns

Increases with Delta variant

120% (93-153%) for hospitalization
287% (198-399%) for ICU admission
137% (50-230%) for death.’

‘A significantly larger and more lethal pandemic’

https://twitter.com/rougematisse/status/1417697218291773443?s=21

The JCVI is in direct contradiction with the MHRA now on vaccinations for kids. Lots of mealy mouthed "... is very low" "it is the JCVI's view" in their report.

At least it exposes the 'lets follow the science' bollox.

With covid there is little settled science and when the facts change ...

Lib Dem’s seem to be lining up,to oppose the ridiculous immigration bill.

I hope Davey goes hard on this. In their target group I suspect opposing this bill is a winner.

https://twitter.com/doddsjane/status/1417567921681969155?s=21

I think today’s 4% increase from last Wednesday is the smallest week on week daily reported increase we have seen since May. I think.

rcs1000 said:

Leon said:

Cookie said:

turbotubbs said:

44,104

That was a LOT lower than I expected.

It’s definitely encouraging - if it’s not just a statistical glitch caused by schools closing?

Scotland cases have continued to decline over the last two weeks, so I don't think it's a glitch.

Simply, schools are big vectors for transmission.

You may have been very close with your wild prediction. Kudos, if so. I will eat humble pie and groveling gravy

However I’m finding it hard to reconcile the two strands of data. Cases are plateauing in the UK even as we open up, and yet there’s a new strain of the bug which is horribly infectious and nasty, and we’re still some distance from herd immunity

Does delta just collapse perhaps? Holland is also intriguing