Howdy, Stranger!

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

Ministers on mask-wearing: Don’t do as we do but as we say – politicalbetting.com

1235»

Comments

  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,069
    Leon said:

    Cursed ratio time.

    France, Redfield & Wilton Strategies poll:

    Run-off

    Macron (LREM-RE): 52% (-3)
    Le Pen (RN-ID): 48% (+3)

    +/- vs. 15-16 April 2021

    https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1437862049963560967

    Is it bad that I want Le Pen to win just for the lolz?

    A tiny bit of me (not the majority) also wanted Trump to win for the same primitive and unpleasant reason, and that didn't turn out too good, so maybe I am just a Bad and Frivolous Person

    I don't think a Le Pen win would be anywhere near as dangerous as Trump, who is clearly mad as a cut snake and should be nowhere near a position of government.

    Le Pen has repellent views but is at least sane. The biggest problem would be to the UK from a Le Pen victory IMO. That border could get rather fraught.
  • alex_ said:

    So as SAGE release another set of graphs allegedly predicting high numbers of people ending up in hospital over the next few weeks, we continue to hear the line that "80% are vaxxed, therefore there remain 6 million vulnerable". Does anyone ever ask them to explain the figures from ONS suggesting that high 90s% of people have antibodies - the difference presumably being made up by prior infection - and why the believed immunity to serious illness caused by this isn't reflected in the models?

    Also the need to continue to ask the question about whether, in a world where vaccines and other developed "immunity" appears to give high protection against serious illness, but less so again infection, whether the current approach to categorising Covid deaths is particularly helpful or increasingly misleading?


    Andrew Lilico
    @andrew_lilico
    ·
    3h
    In which "7,000 hospitalisations/day" becomes the new "300k cases/day. I see there's a timescale on it: next month. Well, GLWT.


    ===

    It's another load of tosh from SAGE. Why are they still allowed to push these useless models?
    Pity we can't have faith in them like we can with the marvellous climate models.
  • rcs1000 said:

    Toms said:

    Never trust a scientist. Hell's Bells they don't even trust each other.

    My maxim is ‘Never trust anybody who spells gonorrhoea correctly on the first attempt’
    Why ever not??
    They might be a doctor.
    That reminds me of a joke

    2 STD microbes were on a railway line, what did one say to the other?

    "I think we're a gonner here"
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 4,785
    MaxPB said:

    alex_ said:

    maaarsh said:

    The first piece of advice my PhD supervisor gave me back in the day when working with modeling / ML....as soon as you have run something, do a raincheck, ask yourself if the output is even possible or realistic...

    7000 hospitalisations in a month....we would have to be having 100,000s of daily infections in a couple of weeks time for that.

    That's their middle scenario. The bad scenario is just hilarious. Their upside scenario is 2000 hospitalisations by the end of this month.

    It's really hard to explain this in a way which says anything good for the integrity of the modellers involved.
    Do you have a link for this model?
    Where else?

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/14/bring-in-measures-soon-or-risk-7000-daily-covid-cases-sage-warns
    What's completely stupid is that the current R value is under 1, somewhere around 0.8 by my calculation. I have no idea where they get R1.1 from and then have that sustained over a very long period of time given how close we are to the herd immunity threshold (estimated 75-85% of people with immunity now against a 85% to hit herd immunity).

    Eventually the virus just runs out of viable hosts, none of those scenarios have taken that into account and seem to just model an unlimited number of viable hosts.
    One care here: 75-85% of people with (some degree of) immunity does not equal 75-85% immunity.

    My rounded envelope numbers recently have been:

    1/3 of the population have had COVID and carry full immunity.
    1/2 of the population have not had COVID but have been vaccinated, and each have 2/3 immunity, so contribute another 1/3 to herd immunity.

    So, 2/3 population immunity and we need to reach a bit over 5/6.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    MaxPB said:

    Alistair said:

    alex_ said:

    So as SAGE release another set of graphs allegedly predicting high numbers of people ending up in hospital over the next few weeks, we continue to hear the line that "80% are vaxxed, therefore there remain 6 million vulnerable". Does anyone ever ask them to explain the figures from ONS suggesting that high 90s% of people have antibodies - the difference presumably being made up by prior infection - and why the believed immunity to serious illness caused by this isn't reflected in the models?

    Also the need to continue to ask the question about whether, in a world where vaccines and other developed "immunity" appears to give high protection against serious illness, but less so again infection, whether the current approach to categorising Covid deaths is particularly helpful or increasingly misleading?

    One thing about the ONS antibody stat is it is percentage of 16+, it doesn't measure children
    Kids aren't exactly going to contribute any significant number to hospitalisation, though. 7k hospitalisations per day just seems completely ridiculous, we'd need maybe 10x our current number of cases per day which is about 2m per week. Who exactly is it they are suggesting is going to be infected?
    Oh quite, the 7k hospitalisation figires is just off the wall bonkers.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,840
    Foxy said:

    dixiedean said:

    Stocky said:

    pm215 said:

    Stocky said:

    Foxy said:


    Yes, that is the law on consent. It has not changed for years, and relates to the Gillick case in the Eighties.

    Yes, but I thought that this related to the 16-18 year olds? I'm surprised and somewhat troubled that 12 year olds are going to be able to get vaccinated for Covid without parental consent.
    The wikipedia page says that "Gillick competence" has always been about the under-16s. For 16-18 the assumption is that the young person has the choice to give consent or not. https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/consent-to-treatment/children/ says that can only be overruled in exceptional circumatances.

    So 11 year olds can't give consent, 16 year olds can, and Gillick is about doctors making a judgement call for the grey area in the middle. It doesn't mean "all 12 year olds can give consent themselves".
    So are we saying that a 12 year old can prove competence to their GP and get the vaccine without parents being informed? If that is so, then that is one thing, however if a 12 year old can enter a walk-in vaccination centre and get jabbed that is another.
    What difference does that make?

    The question is whether the child can show "competence" or not. I don't see how the competence required varies based upon whether its a vaccine centre or a GP that measures it. If the vaccine centre can test for competence then job done.
    One might think a vaccine centre might be better placed to judge competence to take a vaccine than a GP.
    Plus. You can't get to see a GP already. Do we want them using their time judging Gillicks?
    Indeed, one of the places most relevant to Gillick is contraception services, STD, and abortion. It is something that a lot of under 16s access away from their GPs, as often that is where other members of their family go.

    In practice, I don't think many teens will be vaccinated under Gillick, as it is good practice in assessing competence to enquire why the child doesn't want parents involved. Outside issues of sexuality that is pretty rare, though there are obviously some family situations where relations are very abnormal. The pros and cons of vaccination in this age are finely balanced, and vaccinating against* parental will potentially injurious to the child-parent relationship, so would rarely be done.

    *Gillick competence goes both ways so children can also refuse despite parental desire for vaccination.
    Substance abuse is another big one. Children's Services deal with this frequently.
    A question though for a doctor. If the child INSISTS. Either to have or not have? And fully understands the parent/child dynamic consequences. Where then?
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670

    .

    Wowsers

    Two days after the January 6 attack on the US Capitol, President Donald Trump's top military adviser, Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Mark Milley, single-handedly took secret action to limit Trump from potentially ordering a dangerous military strike or launching nuclear weapons, according to "Peril," a new book by legendary journalist Bob Woodward and veteran Washington Post reporter Robert Costa.

    Woodward and Costa write that Milley, deeply shaken by the assault, 'was certain that Trump had gone into a serious mental decline in the aftermath of the election, with Trump now all but manic, screaming at officials and constructing his own alternate reality about endless election conspiracies.'

    Milley worried that Trump could 'go rogue,' the authors write.

    "You never know what a president's trigger point is," Milley told his senior staff, according to the book.

    In response, Milley took extraordinary action, and called a secret meeting in his Pentagon office on January 8 to review the process for military action, including launching nuclear weapons. Speaking to senior military officials in charge of the National Military Command Center, the Pentagon's war room, Milley instructed them not to take orders from anyone unless he was involved.

    "No matter what you are told, you do the procedure. You do the process. And I'm part of that procedure," Milley told the officers, according to the book. He then went around the room, looked each officer in the eye, and asked them to verbally confirm they understood.

    "Got it?" Milley asked, according to the book.

    "Yes, sir."

    'Milley considered it an oath,' the authors write.


    https://edition.cnn.com/2021/09/14/politics/woodward-book-trump-nuclear/index.html

    That doesn't bode well for January 21, 2025.

    Is Trump even aware that his mark on world history by obliterating Planet Earth is counter productive if there is no one left to read about it?
    Trump's first day he will replace the chief of staffs with someone who will obey his orders no matter how f*cking insane.

    America is truly f*cked if that dangerous clown gets back in. As are the rest of us.
    The real danger is all the Trumpite state and local politicians who are conitting to the big lie amd looking to crack down on free and fair elections.

    Add in QAnon who have an organised campaign to run for school boards and you have a genuinely scary situation.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    edited September 2021

    BREAKING NEWS: California's Governor has successfully avoided recall due with the vote count showing evidence of fraud says his Republican opponent: https://twitter.com/NoLieWithBTC/status/1437614398231781377

    Considering the election is tomorrow, if he's seen the vote count result he might have a point!

    It is part of the pattern of GOP polio icians claiming fraud. The poibt is not to be believed but to delegitimase the entire democratic process.
  • paulyork64paulyork64 Posts: 2,461
    New thread
This discussion has been closed.