Immunology question: what good is speeding up the boosters actually doing? Surely there must be a 'right' time to do the boosters, and if we give someone a booster only four months after his second jab, he still has substantial protection - and it is therefore a bit of a waste of a booster? Why is the current proposal better than the original timetable?
I guess so – hence why the delay was recommended in the first place!
Immunology question: what good is speeding up the boosters actually doing? Surely there must be a 'right' time to do the boosters, and if we give someone a booster only four months after his second jab, he still has substantial protection - and it is therefore a bit of a waste of a booster? Why is the current proposal better than the original timetable?
I think there is a specific benefit to people who got AZ first in showing the immune system a slightly different version of the spike protein via an mRNA vaccine.
There's very limited benefit - IMHO - of giving a Pfizer booster to someone who had their second Pfizer done three or four months ago.
For the zillionth time (does this really need repeating??) more regulation is not synonymous with better regulation. It's one of the most bizarre features of people on the Left that they seem to be totally incapable of getting their heads around this simplest of propositions. And I think it's a genuine intellectual failure in them, not just the obvious one of seeking to excuse a Labour Chancellor for the catastrophic dog's breakfast he made of financial regulation.
That's fine Richard - but I would just like an example of better regulation the Tories proposed at the time.
There will be mention of a Peter Lilley speech to some dinner or other.
Yes. Because he nailed it. And the reason you know about it also is because you know he nailed it.
There's been a massive rewriting of history by the left in this country, our crisis was born in the UK, the banks that failed were retail banks operating with little to no reserve capital and they were allowed to do so by the regulatory system cooked up by Brown.
But as mentioned, Thatcherites wanted to deregulate further. The prevailing direction of travel amongst Tory ideologues between 2000 and 2006 was that all areas of the British financial sector were still too "constricted". This has all hastily been forgotten and rewritten in itself, much like the uncomfortably widespread establishment supporters of fascism during the 1930s.
What a load of crap. The specific regulatory failure in the UK was taking capital regulation away from the Bank of England and this was opposed by the Tory party. Fewer better regulations are fine, onerous box ticking from the FSA was a disaster. Everything else in the UK financial crisis was a side show compared to the FSA allowing retail banks to operate at a 0-1.5% capital ratio. As I said, there's been a rewriting of history in the UK, our financial crisis was completely different to what happened in the US which was another kind of oversight failure. In all three scenarios of RBS, HBOS and Northern Rock the BoE would have insisted on shareholder fundraising and holding at least 8% reserve capital, not 1.4%, 0.5% and 0.1% in each of those cases.
Brown was doing nothing more than accommodating the Tories' starry-eyed techno-financial futurism that began in 1986. None of these ideas had their origins in the Labour tradition, and all those arguing for diverse forms of further cutting of financial oversight in the early 2000s were Conservative ; some of whom would also later become integral to the Brexit campaign. Far from the Hannanian outriders, the official Tory manifesto in 2005, for instance, started with :
"The best guarantee of future prosperity is a dynamic economy. New technology and the speed of global capital flows punish the inflexible and the sluggish. We need to reward risk-taking so that Britain becomes the best place in the world to start and to grow a business."
Peppa Pig super fan up in 20 mins to probably cause confusion over the exact details of the booster program, and to take 20 questions from the media about nativity plays and Christmas parties.
Ninky Noo; Iggle Piggle; Pontipine; Tombliboo; Makka Pakka; the Wottingers... The CBI would probably have voluntarily disbanded by now.
And only Makka Pakka seemed to have a proper job. Surely it should be the role of childrens' TV to show proper role models.
Is that the one those rubs rocks together for a living?
He washes stones. Which sounds to me like a public sector job. Not that I have anything against public sector jobs, but you have to wonder where the tax base to support this sort of spending comes from.
Immunology question: what good is speeding up the boosters actually doing? Surely there must be a 'right' time to do the boosters, and if we give someone a booster only four months after his second jab, he still has substantial protection - and it is therefore a bit of a waste of a booster? Why is the current proposal better than the original timetable?
Bingo, rather pleased it doesn't sound like they have an oven ready plan to speed things up so I should still get mine with a wait of over 5 months.
Peppa Pig super fan up in 20 mins to probably cause confusion over the exact details of the booster program, and to take 20 questions from the media about nativity plays and Christmas parties.
Ninky Noo; Iggle Piggle; Pontipine; Tombliboo; Makka Pakka; the Wottingers... The CBI would probably have voluntarily disbanded by now.
And only Makka Pakka seemed to have a proper job. Surely it should be the role of childrens' TV to show proper role models.
Is that the one those rubs rocks together for a living?
He washes stones. Which sounds to me like a public sector job. Not that I have anything against public sector jobs, but you have to wonder where the tax base to support this sort of spending comes from.
The local gravel pits wash stones all the time. And they are definitely private sector.
Immunology question: what good is speeding up the boosters actually doing? Surely there must be a 'right' time to do the boosters, and if we give someone a booster only four months after his second jab, he still has substantial protection - and it is therefore a bit of a waste of a booster? Why is the current proposal better than the original timetable?
I think the idea is that people to get booster before they get the new variant of Covid.
Whereas the difference between a four and six month gap for the booster in terms of increasing immunity is probably fairly small.
Peppa Pig super fan up in 20 mins to probably cause confusion over the exact details of the booster program, and to take 20 questions from the media about nativity plays and Christmas parties.
Ninky Noo; Iggle Piggle; Pontipine; Tombliboo; Makka Pakka; the Wottingers... The CBI would probably have voluntarily disbanded by now.
The Little 'Un watched 'Horrible Histories: the movie' recently, and recognised the voice of Derek Jacobi (playing Claudius) from 'In the Night Garden'.
BTW, I was amused by the fact the guy who played Claudius in 'I, Claudius' nearly fifty years ago also played Claudius in HH...
Immunology question: what good is speeding up the boosters actually doing? Surely there must be a 'right' time to do the boosters, and if we give someone a booster only four months after his second jab, he still has substantial protection - and it is therefore a bit of a waste of a booster? Why is the current proposal better than the original timetable?
Trial and error at the moment. It could be that the optimum time for long-term protection is two, three, or even twelve months.
Fair enough. Though if we were to take a scientific approach, we would give some their boosters earlier than others and assess the impact.
Immunology question: what good is speeding up the boosters actually doing? Surely there must be a 'right' time to do the boosters, and if we give someone a booster only four months after his second jab, he still has substantial protection - and it is therefore a bit of a waste of a booster? Why is the current proposal better than the original timetable?
Trial and error at the moment. It could be that the optimum time for long-term protection is two, three, or even twelve months.
Fair enough. Though if we were to take a scientific approach, we would give some their boosters earlier than others and assess the impact.
They probably have trials ongoing doing just that.
Immunology question: what good is speeding up the boosters actually doing? Surely there must be a 'right' time to do the boosters, and if we give someone a booster only four months after his second jab, he still has substantial protection - and it is therefore a bit of a waste of a booster? Why is the current proposal better than the original timetable?
We're prioritising better protection now - to give us the best chance against Omicron - whereas with Delta we were able to prioritise the best long-term protection.
This is a sensible change in prioritization in the face of the risk that Omicron is either more transmissible, more deadly, or more able to evade existing immunity (or all three).
For the zillionth time (does this really need repeating??) more regulation is not synonymous with better regulation. It's one of the most bizarre features of people on the Left that they seem to be totally incapable of getting their heads around this simplest of propositions. And I think it's a genuine intellectual failure in them, not just the obvious one of seeking to excuse a Labour Chancellor for the catastrophic dog's breakfast he made of financial regulation.
Semi agreed. The regime put in place was rubbish and failed but there is no way on this earth that the old one, let alone any the Cons (who were fully signed up to 'light touch') would conceivably have implemented, could have headed off the crash of 08 or mitigated its impact on us to any significant degree.
There is "the crash of 08" with its attendant CDS and so forth, and there is the first bank panic in the UK for XX years with people queuing round the block to get their money out. The former of course not; the latter, perhaps.
The business model in question would need to have been prohibited in order to stop that. But the political culture of the time was 'these guys know what they're doing, leave them be, count the tax pounds'. Would this have been different with George Osborne or John McDonnell instead of Gordon Brown as Chancellor? (I now copy your last sentence).
The Bank of England is still in charge of monitoring bank capital ratios and blocks RBS from buying ABN Amro. The Bank of England tells Northern Rock it's business model is built on sand and to hold 8% capital, not 0%. The Bank of England tells HBOS the same and to hold 8% reserve capital.
That alone changes the nature and severity of the banking crisis in 08. You want to rewrite history and pretend it was investment banks that failed in the UK, it wasn't, it was standard old retail banks that shat the bed and needed bailing out.
I still think we should have let all of them go bankrupt and stood behind the depositors. It was a mistake to for the state to step in and socialise losses.
For the zillionth time (does this really need repeating??) more regulation is not synonymous with better regulation. It's one of the most bizarre features of people on the Left that they seem to be totally incapable of getting their heads around this simplest of propositions. And I think it's a genuine intellectual failure in them, not just the obvious one of seeking to excuse a Labour Chancellor for the catastrophic dog's breakfast he made of financial regulation.
That's fine Richard - but I would just like an example of better regulation the Tories proposed at the time.
There will be mention of a Peter Lilley speech to some dinner or other.
Yes. Because he nailed it. And the reason you know about it also is because you know he nailed it.
Peppa Pig super fan up in 20 mins to probably cause confusion over the exact details of the booster program, and to take 20 questions from the media about nativity plays and Christmas parties.
Ninky Noo; Iggle Piggle; Pontipine; Tombliboo; Makka Pakka; the Wottingers... The CBI would probably have voluntarily disbanded by now.
And only Makka Pakka seemed to have a proper job. Surely it should be the role of childrens' TV to show proper role models.
Is that the one those rubs rocks together for a living?
He washes stones. Which sounds to me like a public sector job. Not that I have anything against public sector jobs, but you have to wonder where the tax base to support this sort of spending comes from.
I would think it a fine example of value added. Who would buy a dirty stone?
Immunology question: what good is speeding up the boosters actually doing? Surely there must be a 'right' time to do the boosters, and if we give someone a booster only four months after his second jab, he still has substantial protection - and it is therefore a bit of a waste of a booster? Why is the current proposal better than the original timetable?
Trial and error at the moment. It could be that the optimum time for long-term protection is two, three, or even twelve months.
Fair enough. Though if we were to take a scientific approach, we would give some their boosters earlier than others and assess the impact.
They probably have trials ongoing doing just that.
I think we're undergoing the biggest trials ever. There will be reams of data to pour through, from people who had the various vaccine combinations and delays between doses.
To sack your own Home, Foreign, Education and Health Secretaries on the same day, just 6 months after you sacked your Chancellor, starts to make it look like you're the problem.
We Need To Talk About How Unsettling "In The Night Garden" Is In the Night Garden is a surrealist orgy of sex and death. Are we really showing this to the under-3s?
Peppa Pig super fan up in 20 mins to probably cause confusion over the exact details of the booster program, and to take 20 questions from the media about nativity plays and Christmas parties.
Ninky Noo; Iggle Piggle; Pontipine; Tombliboo; Makka Pakka; the Wottingers... The CBI would probably have voluntarily disbanded by now.
And only Makka Pakka seemed to have a proper job. Surely it should be the role of childrens' TV to show proper role models.
Not liking your usage of the apostrophe there.
The Ninky Nonk is clearly public transport, and the series concerns itself with the development of the nighttime economy. I'm pretty sure the PM would get several speeches out of it.
For the zillionth time (does this really need repeating??) more regulation is not synonymous with better regulation. It's one of the most bizarre features of people on the Left that they seem to be totally incapable of getting their heads around this simplest of propositions. And I think it's a genuine intellectual failure in them, not just the obvious one of seeking to excuse a Labour Chancellor for the catastrophic dog's breakfast he made of financial regulation.
Semi agreed. The regime put in place was rubbish and failed but there is no way on this earth that the old one, let alone any the Cons (who were fully signed up to 'light touch') would conceivably have implemented, could have headed off the crash of 08 or mitigated its impact on us to any significant degree.
There is "the crash of 08" with its attendant CDS and so forth, and there is the first bank panic in the UK for XX years with people queuing round the block to get their money out. The former of course not; the latter, perhaps.
The business model in question would need to have been prohibited in order to stop that. But the political culture of the time was 'these guys know what they're doing, leave them be, count the tax pounds'. Would this have been different with George Osborne or John McDonnell instead of Gordon Brown as Chancellor? (I now copy your last sentence).
The Bank of England is still in charge of monitoring bank capital ratios and blocks RBS from buying ABN Amro. The Bank of England tells Northern Rock it's business model is built on sand and to hold 8% capital, not 0%. The Bank of England tells HBOS the same and to hold 8% reserve capital.
That alone changes the nature and severity of the banking crisis in 08. You want to rewrite history and pretend it was investment banks that failed in the UK, it wasn't, it was standard old retail banks that shat the bed and needed bailing out.
I still think we should have let all of them go bankrupt and stood behind the depositors. It was a mistake to for the state to step in and socialise losses.
Yes. It was mistake, piled on top of mistake, piled on top of mistake. Spending at a deficit during growth years, removing BoE oversight, and then socialising losses.
Any of three critical failures of political judgement not happening and the economy would have been in a much, much better state.
We Need To Talk About How Unsettling "In The Night Garden" Is In the Night Garden is a surrealist orgy of sex and death. Are we really showing this to the under-3s?
To sack your own Home, Foreign, Education and Health Secretaries on the same day, just 6 months after you sacked your Chancellor, starts to make it look like you're the problem.
Obviously you missed the events of June 25th/26th 2016.
We Need To Talk About How Unsettling "In The Night Garden" Is In the Night Garden is a surrealist orgy of sex and death. Are we really showing this to the under-3s?
To sack your own Home, Foreign, Education and Health Secretaries on the same day, just 6 months after you sacked your Chancellor, starts to make it look like you're the problem.
I don't recall that line of attack working against Macmillan, either.
Peppa Pig super fan up in 20 mins to probably cause confusion over the exact details of the booster program, and to take 20 questions from the media about nativity plays and Christmas parties.
Ninky Noo; Iggle Piggle; Pontipine; Tombliboo; Makka Pakka; the Wottingers... The CBI would probably have voluntarily disbanded by now.
And only Makka Pakka seemed to have a proper job. Surely it should be the role of childrens' TV to show proper role models.
Is that the one those rubs rocks together for a living?
He washes stones. Which sounds to me like a public sector job. Not that I have anything against public sector jobs, but you have to wonder where the tax base to support this sort of spending comes from.
I would think it a fine example of value added. Who would buy a dirty stone?
Just look at an average garden centre or builders' merchant. Lots of crates and those weird bags with straps full of sparkly clean pebbles.
For the zillionth time (does this really need repeating??) more regulation is not synonymous with better regulation. It's one of the most bizarre features of people on the Left that they seem to be totally incapable of getting their heads around this simplest of propositions. And I think it's a genuine intellectual failure in them, not just the obvious one of seeking to excuse a Labour Chancellor for the catastrophic dog's breakfast he made of financial regulation.
Semi agreed. The regime put in place was rubbish and failed but there is no way on this earth that the old one, let alone any the Cons (who were fully signed up to 'light touch') would conceivably have implemented, could have headed off the crash of 08 or mitigated its impact on us to any significant degree.
The old system would never have allowed RBS to operate at 70:1 leverage, the purchase of ABN Amro would simply have been blocked by the Bank of England. Northern Rock wouldn't have been able to operate at an almost infinite level of leverage as the Bank of England would have insisted on reserve capital. HBOS likewise.
Once again, it was the retail banks that completely fucked it in this country. The regulatory regime that took capital requirement monitoring away from the Bank of England was a gigantic disaster and that was completely and totally owned by Brown and opposed by the Tories.
I really doubt it. The culture was leave them be. It was a juggernaut. What I will say is that this - City Regulation and things like the PFI scam - is a slightly more respectable line of attack on Brown than the Tory Story, 'spent like a drunken sailor' and 'failed to fix the roof while the sun was shining'.
Peppa Pig super fan up in 20 mins to probably cause confusion over the exact details of the booster program, and to take 20 questions from the media about nativity plays and Christmas parties.
Ninky Noo; Iggle Piggle; Pontipine; Tombliboo; Makka Pakka; the Wottingers... The CBI would probably have voluntarily disbanded by now.
And only Makka Pakka seemed to have a proper job. Surely it should be the role of childrens' TV to show proper role models.
Is that the one those rubs rocks together for a living?
He washes stones. Which sounds to me like a public sector job. Not that I have anything against public sector jobs, but you have to wonder where the tax base to support this sort of spending comes from.
I would think it a fine example of value added. Who would buy a dirty stone?
To sack your own Home, Foreign, Education and Health Secretaries on the same day, just 6 months after you sacked your Chancellor, starts to make it look like you're the problem.
Dear BJO
I understand from discussions with my Shadow Secretary of State for Business that your unstinting support of a LOTO is not directly correlated with ensuing electoral success
For the zillionth time (does this really need repeating??) more regulation is not synonymous with better regulation. It's one of the most bizarre features of people on the Left that they seem to be totally incapable of getting their heads around this simplest of propositions. And I think it's a genuine intellectual failure in them, not just the obvious one of seeking to excuse a Labour Chancellor for the catastrophic dog's breakfast he made of financial regulation.
Semi agreed. The regime put in place was rubbish and failed but there is no way on this earth that the old one, let alone any the Cons (who were fully signed up to 'light touch') would conceivably have implemented, could have headed off the crash of 08 or mitigated its impact on us to any significant degree.
There is "the crash of 08" with its attendant CDS and so forth, and there is the first bank panic in the UK for XX years with people queuing round the block to get their money out. The former of course not; the latter, perhaps.
The business model in question would need to have been prohibited in order to stop that. But the political culture of the time was 'these guys know what they're doing, leave them be, count the tax pounds'. Would this have been different with George Osborne or John McDonnell instead of Gordon Brown as Chancellor? (I now copy your last sentence).
The Bank of England is still in charge of monitoring bank capital ratios and blocks RBS from buying ABN Amro. The Bank of England tells Northern Rock it's business model is built on sand and to hold 8% capital, not 0%. The Bank of England tells HBOS the same and to hold 8% reserve capital.
That alone changes the nature and severity of the banking crisis in 08. You want to rewrite history and pretend it was investment banks that failed in the UK, it wasn't, it was standard old retail banks that shat the bed and needed bailing out.
I still think we should have let all of them go bankrupt and stood behind the depositors. It was a mistake to for the state to step in and socialise losses.
The reason that didn't happen is because it would have resulted in the interbank market going to zero, and banks being unable to borrow in the bond markets.
The goal was to avoid solvent - but illiquid - institutions from being unable to fund themselves.
We Need To Talk About How Unsettling "In The Night Garden" Is In the Night Garden is a surrealist orgy of sex and death. Are we really showing this to the under-3s?
In The Night Garden was awesome. Loved it as much as my children did.
My youngest had an Iggle Piggle doll which she took everywhere, including on holiday.
One year we were in Barbados and - the horror - she lost it. We wracked our brains and decided it must have been dropped during a nature park walk.
Photographic evidence showed her with the doll during our walk but without it just prior to leaving (we could see it left on a bench in the background).
We hired a taxi driver to drive 45 mins e/w to rescue him (her?) after showing him the picture. Sure enough he found it for us and our hero was well-tipped.
For the zillionth time (does this really need repeating??) more regulation is not synonymous with better regulation. It's one of the most bizarre features of people on the Left that they seem to be totally incapable of getting their heads around this simplest of propositions. And I think it's a genuine intellectual failure in them, not just the obvious one of seeking to excuse a Labour Chancellor for the catastrophic dog's breakfast he made of financial regulation.
Semi agreed. The regime put in place was rubbish and failed but there is no way on this earth that the old one, let alone any the Cons (who were fully signed up to 'light touch') would conceivably have implemented, could have headed off the crash of 08 or mitigated its impact on us to any significant degree.
The old system would never have allowed RBS to operate at 70:1 leverage, the purchase of ABN Amro would simply have been blocked by the Bank of England. Northern Rock wouldn't have been able to operate at an almost infinite level of leverage as the Bank of England would have insisted on reserve capital. HBOS likewise.
Once again, it was the retail banks that completely fucked it in this country. The regulatory regime that took capital requirement monitoring away from the Bank of England was a gigantic disaster and that was completely and totally owned by Brown and opposed by the Tories.
I really doubt it. The culture was leave them be. It was a juggernaut. What I will say is that this - City Regulation and things like the PFI scam - is a slightly more respectable line of attack on Brown than the Tory Story, 'spent like a drunken sailor' and 'failed to fix the roof while the sun was shining'.
You doubt what? That the Bank of England would have stepped in or that it wouldn't make any difference? If it's the former then that's bullshit, if it's the latter then you've not properly understood the UK banking crisis which was all about banks not holding any reserve capital and the later poor growth is because banks spent a long time rebuilding those capital buffers which limited overall lending capability.
What you want to be true and what actually happened are two different things and you're simply in denial about the nature of the failure in UK banking.
Some interesting rebels in the second vote. On the first vote (masks), the rebels were the usual awkward squad (Steve Baker, Bill Wragg, Philip Davies, Mark Francois, etc). In the second vote (self-isolation rules), they were joined by some of the sane Tory MPs, such as Greg Clark & Huw Merriman.
Some interesting rebels in the second vote. On the first vote (masks), the rebels were the usual awkward squad (Steve Baker, Bill Wragg, Philip Davies, Mark Francois, etc). In the second vote (self-isolation rules), they were joined by some of the sane Tory MPs, such as Greg Clark & Huw Merriman.
Some interesting rebels in the second vote. On the first vote (masks), the rebels were the usual awkward squad (Steve Baker, Bill Wragg, Philip Davies, Mark Francois, etc). In the second vote (self-isolation rules), they were joined by some of the sane Tory MPs, such as Greg Clark & Huw Merriman.
What are the self-isolation rules about?
IIRC you have to self isolate for ten days if you come into contact with someone who tests positive Omicron even if you are double/triple jabbed.
We should prepare ourselves for the SARSCoV2 Omicron variant to be associated with significantly higher breakthrough infection rates. Though, vaccine protection against severe symptoms upon infection might remain largely unaffected.
But what about covid drugs?
One piece of potential good news is that I do not expect the Omicron variant to be resistant to either of the most promising incoming drugs produced by Merck (molnupiravir; LAGEVRIO) and Pfizer (PAXLOVID). 2/
For the zillionth time (does this really need repeating??) more regulation is not synonymous with better regulation. It's one of the most bizarre features of people on the Left that they seem to be totally incapable of getting their heads around this simplest of propositions. And I think it's a genuine intellectual failure in them, not just the obvious one of seeking to excuse a Labour Chancellor for the catastrophic dog's breakfast he made of financial regulation.
Semi agreed. The regime put in place was rubbish and failed but there is no way on this earth that the old one, let alone any the Cons (who were fully signed up to 'light touch') would conceivably have implemented, could have headed off the crash of 08 or mitigated its impact on us to any significant degree.
There is "the crash of 08" with its attendant CDS and so forth, and there is the first bank panic in the UK for XX years with people queuing round the block to get their money out. The former of course not; the latter, perhaps.
The business model in question would need to have been prohibited in order to stop that. But the political culture of the time was 'these guys know what they're doing, leave them be, count the tax pounds'. Would this have been different with George Osborne or John McDonnell instead of Gordon Brown as Chancellor? (I now copy your last sentence).
The Bank of England is still in charge of monitoring bank capital ratios and blocks RBS from buying ABN Amro. The Bank of England tells Northern Rock it's business model is built on sand and to hold 8% capital, not 0%. The Bank of England tells HBOS the same and to hold 8% reserve capital.
That alone changes the nature and severity of the banking crisis in 08. You want to rewrite history and pretend it was investment banks that failed in the UK, it wasn't, it was standard old retail banks that shat the bed and needed bailing out.
I still think we should have let all of them go bankrupt and stood behind the depositors. It was a mistake to for the state to step in and socialise losses.
The reason that didn't happen is because it would have resulted in the interbank market going to zero, and banks being unable to borrow in the bond markets.
The goal was to avoid solvent - but illiquid - institutions from being unable to fund themselves.
Lots of reasons why the Government stepped in. However its an awful model where the taxpayer throws a comfort blanket of money whenever there's some peril in the system. We see this with the energy companies today.
The main reason though was of course a fear of a domino effect. Arranging that no dominoes should fall was certainly not the thing to do though. I've no wisdom to offer as to a better way.
Some interesting rebels in the second vote. On the first vote (masks), the rebels were the usual awkward squad (Steve Baker, Bill Wragg, Philip Davies, Mark Francois, etc). In the second vote (self-isolation rules), they were joined by some of the sane Tory MPs, such as Greg Clark & Huw Merriman.
What are the self-isolation rules about?
IIRC you have to self isolate for ten days if you come into contact with someone who tests positive Omicron even if you are double/triple jabbed.
I'm not sure what precisely they objected to, but Lucy Fisher says in a tweet:
Bigger revolt driven in part by anger that self-isolation rules don't expire in legislation until March 24, 2022 (while mask rules expire Dec 20, unless extended)
Some interesting rebels in the second vote. On the first vote (masks), the rebels were the usual awkward squad (Steve Baker, Bill Wragg, Philip Davies, Mark Francois, etc). In the second vote (self-isolation rules), they were joined by some of the sane Tory MPs, such as Greg Clark & Huw Merriman.
What are the self-isolation rules about?
IIRC you have to self isolate for ten days if you come into contact with someone who tests positive Omicron even if you are double/triple jabbed.
*double checks NHS covid app is disabled on phone*
PM: "we haven't ruled out anything... but another lockdown of the kind we've seen before is extremely unlikely"
Let's see what happens in January 2022. If the virus escapes the vaccines and also reinfects people, there could be a lot of cases. But we know that another lockdown of the kind we've seen before is extremely unlikely.
Immunology question: what good is speeding up the boosters actually doing? Surely there must be a 'right' time to do the boosters, and if we give someone a booster only four months after his second jab, he still has substantial protection - and it is therefore a bit of a waste of a booster? Why is the current proposal better than the original timetable?
Trial and error at the moment. It could be that the optimum time for long-term protection is two, three, or even twelve months.
Fair enough. Though if we were to take a scientific approach, we would give some their boosters earlier than others and assess the impact.
If the new variant is sufficiently infectious, there would be no time for such a study.
Some interesting rebels in the second vote. On the first vote (masks), the rebels were the usual awkward squad (Steve Baker, Bill Wragg, Philip Davies, Mark Francois, etc). In the second vote (self-isolation rules), they were joined by some of the sane Tory MPs, such as Greg Clark & Huw Merriman.
What are the self-isolation rules about?
IIRC you have to self isolate for ten days if you come into contact with someone who tests positive Omicron even if you are double/triple jabbed.
I see, thank you. I have to say, I'm quite impressed that people are still getting tested.
To sack your own Home, Foreign, Education and Health Secretaries on the same day, just 6 months after you sacked your Chancellor, starts to make it look like you're the problem.
Obviously you missed the events of June 25th/26th 2016.
Some interesting rebels in the second vote. On the first vote (masks), the rebels were the usual awkward squad (Steve Baker, Bill Wragg, Philip Davies, Mark Francois, etc). In the second vote (self-isolation rules), they were joined by some of the sane Tory MPs, such as Greg Clark & Huw Merriman.
What are the self-isolation rules about?
IIRC you have to self isolate for ten days if you come into contact with someone who tests positive Omicron even if you are double/triple jabbed.
Immunology question: what good is speeding up the boosters actually doing? Surely there must be a 'right' time to do the boosters, and if we give someone a booster only four months after his second jab, he still has substantial protection - and it is therefore a bit of a waste of a booster? Why is the current proposal better than the original timetable?
We're prioritising better protection now - to give us the best chance against Omicron - whereas with Delta we were able to prioritise the best long-term protection.
This is a sensible change in prioritization in the face of the risk that Omicron is either more transmissible, more deadly, or more able to evade existing immunity (or all three).
It also looks as though the Government is actually doing something. This is most important.
Our children's school has decided no Nativity this year. 🤬🙄
Good. Keep religion out of schools.
I'm as atheist as it gets, but the Nativity for Primary School kids is fun.
My daughter believes that her Woody, Jessie and Buzz Lightyear dolls can talk to her, talks to Santa every day, has a bunny teddy that gives her "good dreams" if she sleeps with it . . . if she learns about a fairytale about people going to Bethlehem then I'm OK with that.
Its when people try to believe that crap as adults, rather than adults playing along for children's benefit, that its a problem.
We should prepare ourselves for the SARSCoV2 Omicron variant to be associated with significantly higher breakthrough infection rates. Though, vaccine protection against severe symptoms upon infection might remain largely unaffected.
But what about covid drugs?
One piece of potential good news is that I do not expect the Omicron variant to be resistant to either of the most promising incoming drugs produced by Merck (molnupiravir; LAGEVRIO) and Pfizer (PAXLOVID). 2/
Nice to hear a little about the 50k homes without power at the end. Should imagine this would be a bigger story were it anywhere near where journalists live.
For the zillionth time (does this really need repeating??) more regulation is not synonymous with better regulation. It's one of the most bizarre features of people on the Left that they seem to be totally incapable of getting their heads around this simplest of propositions. And I think it's a genuine intellectual failure in them, not just the obvious one of seeking to excuse a Labour Chancellor for the catastrophic dog's breakfast he made of financial regulation.
Semi agreed. The regime put in place was rubbish and failed but there is no way on this earth that the old one, let alone any the Cons (who were fully signed up to 'light touch') would conceivably have implemented, could have headed off the crash of 08 or mitigated its impact on us to any significant degree.
There is "the crash of 08" with its attendant CDS and so forth, and there is the first bank panic in the UK for XX years with people queuing round the block to get their money out. The former of course not; the latter, perhaps.
The business model in question would need to have been prohibited in order to stop that. But the political culture of the time was 'these guys know what they're doing, leave them be, count the tax pounds'. Would this have been different with George Osborne or John McDonnell instead of Gordon Brown as Chancellor? (I now copy your last sentence).
The Bank of England is still in charge of monitoring bank capital ratios and blocks RBS from buying ABN Amro. The Bank of England tells Northern Rock it's business model is built on sand and to hold 8% capital, not 0%. The Bank of England tells HBOS the same and to hold 8% reserve capital.
That alone changes the nature and severity of the banking crisis in 08. You want to rewrite history and pretend it was investment banks that failed in the UK, it wasn't, it was standard old retail banks that shat the bed and needed bailing out.
I still think we should have let all of them go bankrupt and stood behind the depositors. It was a mistake to for the state to step in and socialise losses.
The reason that didn't happen is because it would have resulted in the interbank market going to zero, and banks being unable to borrow in the bond markets.
The goal was to avoid solvent - but illiquid - institutions from being unable to fund themselves.
The Bank and Fed already had unlimited liquidity available for solvent banks, letting RBS, Northern Rock and HBOS go bankrupt would have been a national good and the Bank could have kept the emergency liquidity available for viable banks. Instead taxpayer money was pumped into RBS, Lloyds was forced down the aisle and Northern Rock was nationalised. It was the worst possible response to the whole saga and has opened up a whole moral hazard we didn't need to over "well we bailed out the financial sector so we should also bail out this failure of a company".
Some interesting rebels in the second vote. On the first vote (masks), the rebels were the usual awkward squad (Steve Baker, Bill Wragg, Philip Davies, Mark Francois, etc). In the second vote (self-isolation rules), they were joined by some of the sane Tory MPs, such as Greg Clark & Huw Merriman.
What are the self-isolation rules about?
IIRC you have to self isolate for ten days if you come into contact with someone who tests positive Omicron even if you are double/triple jabbed.
Pingdemic rules basically.
How would they know? You don't need to sign into venues and everyone deleted the app months ago.
Some interesting rebels in the second vote. On the first vote (masks), the rebels were the usual awkward squad (Steve Baker, Bill Wragg, Philip Davies, Mark Francois, etc). In the second vote (self-isolation rules), they were joined by some of the sane Tory MPs, such as Greg Clark & Huw Merriman.
What are the self-isolation rules about?
IIRC you have to self isolate for ten days if you come into contact with someone who tests positive Omicron even if you are double/triple jabbed.
*double checks NHS covid app is disabled on phone*
Saturday will be my last day out for ten days because I'm not going to miss the new Spiderman film that comes out on the 15th.
Some interesting rebels in the second vote. On the first vote (masks), the rebels were the usual awkward squad (Steve Baker, Bill Wragg, Philip Davies, Mark Francois, etc). In the second vote (self-isolation rules), they were joined by some of the sane Tory MPs, such as Greg Clark & Huw Merriman.
What are the self-isolation rules about?
IIRC you have to self isolate for ten days if you come into contact with someone who tests positive Omicron even if you are double/triple jabbed.
Pingdemic rules basically.
How would they know? You don't need to sign into venues and everyone deleted the app months ago.
Our children's school has decided no Nativity this year. 🤬🙄
Good. Keep religion out of schools.
Absolutely. We have tolerated plays about teenage mums having babies out of wedlock for far too long. Even more so when migrants come unscreened bringing "presents from the east" and as for seeking asylum immediately afterwards...
For the zillionth time (does this really need repeating??) more regulation is not synonymous with better regulation. It's one of the most bizarre features of people on the Left that they seem to be totally incapable of getting their heads around this simplest of propositions. And I think it's a genuine intellectual failure in them, not just the obvious one of seeking to excuse a Labour Chancellor for the catastrophic dog's breakfast he made of financial regulation.
Semi agreed. The regime put in place was rubbish and failed but there is no way on this earth that the old one, let alone any the Cons (who were fully signed up to 'light touch') would conceivably have implemented, could have headed off the crash of 08 or mitigated its impact on us to any significant degree.
Under the previous regime where the Chancellor was directly responsible for monetary policy it would have been much harder to pretend that astronomical increases in house prices could be safely ignored because 'boom and bust' had been abolished.
I'll ask again, what will we start calling the variants once we hit the Ω variant?
Move on from Greek letters to Greek gods? Once you get through the main Olympians there are enough minor ones to keep us going for years...
Anyway, just been catching up on the briefing, am mildly encouraged by the rejection of the Harries sit at home and rot suggestions from this morning, and entreaties to those panicking about Christmas events not to scrub them. But I still won't believe that there won't be (at least) more mask crap announced at the next review date until I see it.
I've decided not to try to get a vaccine appointment before my current booking on the 29th though. Apparently the website has already been crashing, and there'll probably be a deluge of demand when it's been fixed and reprogrammed to accept all those extra people. It's mildly annoying having to wait quite that long, but I don't want to give up my current slot only to discover there isn't another one available until even later.
Our children's school has decided no Nativity this year. 🤬🙄
Good. Keep religion out of schools.
I'm as atheist as it gets, but the Nativity for Primary School kids is fun.
My daughter believes that her Woody, Jessie and Buzz Lightyear dolls can talk to her, talks to Santa every day, has a bunny teddy that gives her "good dreams" if she sleeps with it . . . if she learns about a fairytale about people going to Bethlehem then I'm OK with that.
Its when people try to believe that crap as adults, rather than adults playing along for children's benefit, that its a problem.
Very sorry to hear about the cancellation. Absolutely bonkers.
And yes the holy trinity for children surely: Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and God.
Our children's school has decided no Nativity this year. 🤬🙄
Good. Keep religion out of schools.
I'm as atheist as it gets, but the Nativity for Primary School kids is fun.
My daughter believes that her Woody, Jessie and Buzz Lightyear dolls can talk to her, talks to Santa every day, has a bunny teddy that gives her "good dreams" if she sleeps with it . . . if she learns about a fairytale about people going to Bethlehem then I'm OK with that.
Its when people try to believe that crap as adults, rather than adults playing along for children's benefit, that its a problem.
In my only acting credit to date, I played one of the Three Kings (this was back in 1982!). The one wot carried myrrh.
For the zillionth time (does this really need repeating??) more regulation is not synonymous with better regulation. It's one of the most bizarre features of people on the Left that they seem to be totally incapable of getting their heads around this simplest of propositions. And I think it's a genuine intellectual failure in them, not just the obvious one of seeking to excuse a Labour Chancellor for the catastrophic dog's breakfast he made of financial regulation.
Semi agreed. The regime put in place was rubbish and failed but there is no way on this earth that the old one, let alone any the Cons (who were fully signed up to 'light touch') would conceivably have implemented, could have headed off the crash of 08 or mitigated its impact on us to any significant degree.
There is "the crash of 08" with its attendant CDS and so forth, and there is the first bank panic in the UK for XX years with people queuing round the block to get their money out. The former of course not; the latter, perhaps.
The business model in question would need to have been prohibited in order to stop that. But the political culture of the time was 'these guys know what they're doing, leave them be, count the tax pounds'. Would this have been different with George Osborne or John McDonnell instead of Gordon Brown as Chancellor? (I now copy your last sentence).
The Bank of England is still in charge of monitoring bank capital ratios and blocks RBS from buying ABN Amro. The Bank of England tells Northern Rock it's business model is built on sand and to hold 8% capital, not 0%. The Bank of England tells HBOS the same and to hold 8% reserve capital.
That alone changes the nature and severity of the banking crisis in 08. You want to rewrite history and pretend it was investment banks that failed in the UK, it wasn't, it was standard old retail banks that shat the bed and needed bailing out.
I still think we should have let all of them go bankrupt and stood behind the depositors. It was a mistake to for the state to step in and socialise losses.
I'm not rewriting history. You're constructing an alternative history whereby under the 'light touch' laissez faire Tories, the City's reckless exuberance (being kind there) would have been tamed to such an extent that when global money markets had their near fatal seizure we here would have been largely protected. I find this fanciful in the extreme. Also the distinction between retail and investment banks' behaviour isn't a clear one. Eg, a large part of RBS's problem was paying a ludicrous amount for the poison pill that was ABN. It was full of junk. Barclays and the much vaunted Bob Diamond avoided that fate by the sheer dumb luck of being outbid by a bigger and more hubristic fool. Investment banks (and bankers) played a full part in the debacle on both sides of the Atlantic.
South Africa reports 4,373 new coronavirus cases, an increase of 404% from last week
OMICRON? Or is this just what happens when Covid starts spreading again.
The new case numbers have been in four figures for a few days now... there were 3,220 on Saturday for example, they then 'fell'* for three days before spiking up again.
I suspect there is an omicron effect, a general covid effect and a day-of-the-week reporting effect.
For the zillionth time (does this really need repeating??) more regulation is not synonymous with better regulation. It's one of the most bizarre features of people on the Left that they seem to be totally incapable of getting their heads around this simplest of propositions. And I think it's a genuine intellectual failure in them, not just the obvious one of seeking to excuse a Labour Chancellor for the catastrophic dog's breakfast he made of financial regulation.
Semi agreed. The regime put in place was rubbish and failed but there is no way on this earth that the old one, let alone any the Cons (who were fully signed up to 'light touch') would conceivably have implemented, could have headed off the crash of 08 or mitigated its impact on us to any significant degree.
There is "the crash of 08" with its attendant CDS and so forth, and there is the first bank panic in the UK for XX years with people queuing round the block to get their money out. The former of course not; the latter, perhaps.
The business model in question would need to have been prohibited in order to stop that. But the political culture of the time was 'these guys know what they're doing, leave them be, count the tax pounds'. Would this have been different with George Osborne or John McDonnell instead of Gordon Brown as Chancellor? (I now copy your last sentence).
The Bank of England is still in charge of monitoring bank capital ratios and blocks RBS from buying ABN Amro. The Bank of England tells Northern Rock it's business model is built on sand and to hold 8% capital, not 0%. The Bank of England tells HBOS the same and to hold 8% reserve capital.
That alone changes the nature and severity of the banking crisis in 08. You want to rewrite history and pretend it was investment banks that failed in the UK, it wasn't, it was standard old retail banks that shat the bed and needed bailing out.
I still think we should have let all of them go bankrupt and stood behind the depositors. It was a mistake to for the state to step in and socialise losses.
I'm not rewriting history. You're constructing an alternative history whereby under the 'light touch' laissez faire Tories, the City's reckless exuberance (being kind there) would have been tamed to such an extent that when global money markets had their near fatal seizure we here would have been largely protected. I find this fanciful in the extreme. Also the distinction between retail and investment banks' behaviour isn't a clear one. Eg, a large part of RBS's problem was paying a ludicrous amount for the poison pill that was ABN. It was full of junk. Barclays and the much vaunted Bob Diamond avoided that fate by the sheer dumb luck of being outbid by a bigger and more hubristic fool. Investment banks (and bankers) played a full part in the debacle on both sides of the Atlantic.
Ask yourself this, why after such a long period of it not happening why did so many banks go bust after Gordon Brown changed the rules?
Now I've spent the last decade working in banking and financial services regulation/compliance so I'm obviously an ingénue in these matters, so be gentle.
Our children's school has decided no Nativity this year. 🤬🙄
Good. Keep religion out of schools.
I'm as atheist as it gets, but the Nativity for Primary School kids is fun.
My daughter believes that her Woody, Jessie and Buzz Lightyear dolls can talk to her, talks to Santa every day, has a bunny teddy that gives her "good dreams" if she sleeps with it . . . if she learns about a fairytale about people going to Bethlehem then I'm OK with that.
Its when people try to believe that crap as adults, rather than adults playing along for children's benefit, that its a problem.
In my only acting credit to date, I played one of the Three Kings (this was back in 1982!). The one wot carried myrrh.
About 10 years ago, my grandson was one half of "The Fog" in his nursery school's production of "Santa Claus and The Three Bears".
For the zillionth time (does this really need repeating??) more regulation is not synonymous with better regulation. It's one of the most bizarre features of people on the Left that they seem to be totally incapable of getting their heads around this simplest of propositions. And I think it's a genuine intellectual failure in them, not just the obvious one of seeking to excuse a Labour Chancellor for the catastrophic dog's breakfast he made of financial regulation.
Semi agreed. The regime put in place was rubbish and failed but there is no way on this earth that the old one, let alone any the Cons (who were fully signed up to 'light touch') would conceivably have implemented, could have headed off the crash of 08 or mitigated its impact on us to any significant degree.
There is "the crash of 08" with its attendant CDS and so forth, and there is the first bank panic in the UK for XX years with people queuing round the block to get their money out. The former of course not; the latter, perhaps.
The business model in question would need to have been prohibited in order to stop that. But the political culture of the time was 'these guys know what they're doing, leave them be, count the tax pounds'. Would this have been different with George Osborne or John McDonnell instead of Gordon Brown as Chancellor? (I now copy your last sentence).
The Bank of England is still in charge of monitoring bank capital ratios and blocks RBS from buying ABN Amro. The Bank of England tells Northern Rock it's business model is built on sand and to hold 8% capital, not 0%. The Bank of England tells HBOS the same and to hold 8% reserve capital.
That alone changes the nature and severity of the banking crisis in 08. You want to rewrite history and pretend it was investment banks that failed in the UK, it wasn't, it was standard old retail banks that shat the bed and needed bailing out.
I still think we should have let all of them go bankrupt and stood behind the depositors. It was a mistake to for the state to step in and socialise losses.
The reason that didn't happen is because it would have resulted in the interbank market going to zero, and banks being unable to borrow in the bond markets.
The goal was to avoid solvent - but illiquid - institutions from being unable to fund themselves.
The Bank and Fed already had unlimited liquidity available for solvent banks, letting RBS, Northern Rock and HBOS go bankrupt would have been a national good and the Bank could have kept the emergency liquidity available for viable banks. Instead taxpayer money was pumped into RBS, Lloyds was forced down the aisle and Northern Rock was nationalised. It was the worst possible response to the whole saga and has opened up a whole moral hazard we didn't need to over "well we bailed out the financial sector so we should also bail out this failure of a company".
Well, Northern Rock effectively went bankrupt, in that shareholders and bondholders lost everything, and it was wound down in an orderly manner.
HBoS was bought by a solvent bank, and while you can make a case that Lloyds shouldn't have been 'encouraged' to acquire it, that did happen.
And RBS was a massive counterparty to other banks. Now, you can make (and maybe should make) the case that it should have been treated like National Rock and taken into effective administration. But what I think is inarguable is that a disorderly bankruptcy would have been extremely disruptive. Don't forget that in those circumstances, Barclays (for example) has no idea if - or when - it will be repaid money owed by RBS. And whether or not Barclays is solvent might rather depend on whether RBS pays it back the money it owes.
For the zillionth time (does this really need repeating??) more regulation is not synonymous with better regulation. It's one of the most bizarre features of people on the Left that they seem to be totally incapable of getting their heads around this simplest of propositions. And I think it's a genuine intellectual failure in them, not just the obvious one of seeking to excuse a Labour Chancellor for the catastrophic dog's breakfast he made of financial regulation.
Semi agreed. The regime put in place was rubbish and failed but there is no way on this earth that the old one, let alone any the Cons (who were fully signed up to 'light touch') would conceivably have implemented, could have headed off the crash of 08 or mitigated its impact on us to any significant degree.
There is "the crash of 08" with its attendant CDS and so forth, and there is the first bank panic in the UK for XX years with people queuing round the block to get their money out. The former of course not; the latter, perhaps.
The business model in question would need to have been prohibited in order to stop that. But the political culture of the time was 'these guys know what they're doing, leave them be, count the tax pounds'. Would this have been different with George Osborne or John McDonnell instead of Gordon Brown as Chancellor? (I now copy your last sentence).
The Bank of England is still in charge of monitoring bank capital ratios and blocks RBS from buying ABN Amro. The Bank of England tells Northern Rock it's business model is built on sand and to hold 8% capital, not 0%. The Bank of England tells HBOS the same and to hold 8% reserve capital.
That alone changes the nature and severity of the banking crisis in 08. You want to rewrite history and pretend it was investment banks that failed in the UK, it wasn't, it was standard old retail banks that shat the bed and needed bailing out.
I still think we should have let all of them go bankrupt and stood behind the depositors. It was a mistake to for the state to step in and socialise losses.
I'm not rewriting history. You're constructing an alternative history whereby under the 'light touch' laissez faire Tories, the City's reckless exuberance (being kind there) would have been tamed to such an extent that when global money markets had their near fatal seizure we here would have been largely protected. I find this fanciful in the extreme. Also the distinction between retail and investment banks' behaviour isn't a clear one. Eg, a large part of RBS's problem was paying a ludicrous amount for the poison pill that was ABN. It was full of junk. Barclays and the much vaunted Bob Diamond avoided that fate by the sheer dumb luck of being outbid by a bigger and more hubristic fool. Investment banks (and bankers) played a full part in the debacle on both sides of the Atlantic.
Useless regulation was the principal failing. Brown was responsible for that in the UK.
The regulator became bigger and entirely pointless.
Money laundering and insider trading became huge, and yet all the money spent achieved nothing. In fact some of the big beasts just did exactly that for fun.
Stability... not a bean spent, nor a thought given.
Comments
There's very limited benefit - IMHO - of giving a Pfizer booster to someone who had their second Pfizer done three or four months ago.
"The best guarantee of future prosperity is a dynamic economy. New technology and the speed of global capital flows punish the inflexible and the sluggish. We need to reward risk-taking so that Britain becomes the best place in the world to start and to grow a business."
Whereas the difference between a four and six month gap for the booster in terms of increasing immunity is probably fairly small.
BTW, I was amused by the fact the guy who played Claudius in 'I, Claudius' nearly fifty years ago also played Claudius in HH...
Though if we were to take a scientific approach, we would give some their boosters earlier than others and assess the impact.
NEW Westminster Voting Intention
Con 37 (+1)
Lab 37 (-1)
LDM 8 (-2)
Grn 5 (=)
SNP 5 (+1)
Other 9 (+1)
2,060 UK adults, 26-28 Nov
(Changes from 19-21 Nov)
This is a sensible change in prioritization in the face of the risk that Omicron is either more transmissible, more deadly, or more able to evade existing immunity (or all three).
That alone changes the nature and severity of the banking crisis in 08. You want to rewrite history and pretend it was investment banks that failed in the UK, it wasn't, it was standard old retail banks that shat the bed and needed bailing out.
I still think we should have let all of them go bankrupt and stood behind the depositors. It was a mistake to for the state to step in and socialise losses.
He was absolutely quaking in his boots at that stage.
To sack your own Home, Foreign, Education and Health Secretaries on the same day, just 6 months after you sacked your Chancellor, starts to make it look like you're the problem.
In the Night Garden is a surrealist orgy of sex and death. Are we really showing this to the under-3s?
https://www.buzzfeed.com/tomchivers/in-the-night-garden-is-a-surreal-orgy-of-sex-and-dea
The Ninky Nonk is clearly public transport, and the series concerns itself with the development of the nighttime economy.
I'm pretty sure the PM would get several speeches out of it.
Any of three critical failures of political judgement not happening and the economy would have been in a much, much better state.
Heard very little about the 5 million totally unvaccinated, mind. Other than a shrug.
https://news.sky.com/video/video-sajid-javid-persuades-sky-correspondent-jon-craig-to-get-his-booster-jab-12482745
I understand from discussions with my Shadow Secretary of State for Business that your unstinting support of a LOTO is not directly correlated with ensuing electoral success
All the best
Useless Nonentity
The goal was to avoid solvent - but illiquid - institutions from being unable to fund themselves.
My youngest had an Iggle Piggle doll which she took everywhere, including on holiday.
One year we were in Barbados and - the horror - she lost it. We wracked our brains and decided it must have been dropped during a nature park walk.
Photographic evidence showed her with the doll during our walk but without it just prior to leaving (we could see it left on a bench in the background).
We hired a taxi driver to drive 45 mins e/w to rescue him (her?) after showing him the picture. Sure enough he found it for us and our hero was well-tipped.
What you want to be true and what actually happened are two different things and you're simply in denial about the nature of the failure in UK banking.
Thread:
We should prepare ourselves for the SARSCoV2 Omicron variant to be associated with significantly higher breakthrough infection rates. Though, vaccine protection against severe symptoms upon infection might remain largely unaffected.
But what about covid drugs?
One piece of potential good news is that I do not expect the Omicron variant to be resistant to either of the most promising incoming drugs produced by Merck (molnupiravir; LAGEVRIO) and Pfizer (PAXLOVID).
2/
https://twitter.com/BallouxFrancois/status/1465726473889845260?s=20
TLDR - the drugs may work the same or better against Omicron.....
The main reason though was of course a fear of a domino effect. Arranging that no dominoes should fall was certainly not the thing to do though. I've no wisdom to offer as to a better way.
Bigger revolt driven in part by anger that self-isolation rules don't expire in legislation until March 24, 2022 (while mask rules expire Dec 20, unless extended)
Winne-The-Pooh-Pooh,
Winne-The-Pooh-Pooh-Pooh.....
My daughter believes that her Woody, Jessie and Buzz Lightyear dolls can talk to her, talks to Santa every day, has a bunny teddy that gives her "good dreams" if she sleeps with it . . . if she learns about a fairytale about people going to Bethlehem then I'm OK with that.
Its when people try to believe that crap as adults, rather than adults playing along for children's benefit, that its a problem.
Should imagine this would be a bigger story were it anywhere near where journalists live.
The Andromeda variant etc sounds like a scifi film.
Anyway, just been catching up on the briefing, am mildly encouraged by the rejection of the Harries sit at home and rot suggestions from this morning, and entreaties to those panicking about Christmas events not to scrub them. But I still won't believe that there won't be (at least) more mask crap announced at the next review date until I see it.
I've decided not to try to get a vaccine appointment before my current booking on the 29th though. Apparently the website has already been crashing, and there'll probably be a deluge of demand when it's been fixed and reprogrammed to accept all those extra people. It's mildly annoying having to wait quite that long, but I don't want to give up my current slot only to discover there isn't another one available until even later.
And yes the holy trinity for children surely: Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and God.
I suspect there is an omicron effect, a general covid effect and a day-of-the-week reporting effect.
(*yes, I know, I know)
Now I've spent the last decade working in banking and financial services regulation/compliance so I'm obviously an ingénue in these matters, so be gentle.
In another sense, I also hope and feel that I may be wrong.
HBoS was bought by a solvent bank, and while you can make a case that Lloyds shouldn't have been 'encouraged' to acquire it, that did happen.
And RBS was a massive counterparty to other banks. Now, you can make (and maybe should make) the case that it should have been treated like National Rock and taken into effective administration. But what I think is inarguable is that a disorderly bankruptcy would have been extremely disruptive. Don't forget that in those circumstances, Barclays (for example) has no idea if - or when - it will be repaid money owed by RBS. And whether or not Barclays is solvent might rather depend on whether RBS pays it back the money it owes.
https://twitter.com/ZemmourEric/status/1465636784537280514?s=20
Lot of Beethoven's 7th....
The regulator became bigger and entirely pointless.
Money laundering and insider trading became huge, and yet all the money spent achieved nothing. In fact some of the big beasts just did exactly that for fun.
Stability... not a bean spent, nor a thought given.