The betting movement seems rather odd. Hmm. OTOH, generally, if someone is sitting on a poll, the odds tend to suddenly shift. This has been more gradual.
Intriguing.
What has happened in the betting
Since this morning, con’s chances have improved from ~33% to ~50%. LDs fallen from ~66% to ~49%. In betting terms, that’s a big move.
"The BBC reckons there are now 2,500 Omicron infections a day, and that the number is doubling every 3 days. They say that if that rate of growth continued, it would mean more than 100,000 infections a day. In fact it would mean more than 400,000 infections a day, and you can probably double that again because their calculation ignores the differences between positive tests and infections."
That imnsho is a prediction. Of 800k cases/day.
Three days later it will be 1.6 million cases/day.
Within 4 weeks it'd be a hundred million cases per day. We'll be getting reinfected hours after catching it.
"The BBC reckons there are now 2,500 Omicron infections a day, and that the number is doubling every 3 days. They say that if that rate of growth continued, it would mean more than 100,000 infections a day. In fact it would mean more than 400,000 infections a day, and you can probably double that again because their calculation ignores the differences between positive tests and infections."
That imnsho is a prediction. Of 800k cases/day.
That illustrates exactly what I said to RCS. It is simply an arithmetical calculation of how many infections there would be on certain assumptions, if those assumptions were satisfied. By the end of December. And incidentally, it's only twice the number of daily Omicron infections that we have now according to Sajid Javid, though I still think he must have been badly confused when he said that to the Commons.
But - my God - do you really think that's not going to happen?
"The BBC reckons there are now 2,500 Omicron infections a day, and that the number is doubling every 3 days. They say that if that rate of growth continued, it would mean more than 100,000 infections a day. In fact it would mean more than 400,000 infections a day, and you can probably double that again because their calculation ignores the differences between positive tests and infections."
That imnsho is a prediction. Of 800k cases/day.
Three days later it will be 1.6 million cases/day.
Within 4 weeks it'd be a hundred million cases per day. We'll be getting reinfected hours after catching it.
@Chris has never made a prediction. Apart from that one. 800k cases/day and yet he refuses to bet with me about it.
The betting movement seems rather odd. Hmm. OTOH, generally, if someone is sitting on a poll, the odds tend to suddenly shift. This has been more gradual.
Intriguing.
What has happened in the betting
Since this morning, con’s chances have improved from ~36% to ~50%. LDs fallen from ~63% to ~49%. In betting terms, that’s a big move.
My legendary modesty klaxon prevents me from mentioning this comment from last Thursday.
Don't forget folks, the infections number is the government measure that counts first infections only. And Omicron cares not whether you had a previous variant.
Moron.
Really - we laughed when Robert Peston made the comment a while back but I don't think the methodology has changed.
No the moronic bit is suggesting that Omicron completely evades immunity from prior infection. We know that not to be true. RP is a moron and he's making things up to support his pro-lockdown forever view. I know he says otherwise but every post he makes is filled with the same bullshit zero COVID rhetoric from last year.
Yes the notion that prior infection provides zero protection against Omicron has to be the most absurd hysterical nonsense of this entire pandemic.
And he's inventing it because he wants to prove prior infections were a bad idea, not a good thing.
Either no intellectual honesty, or a complete moron.
And you can of course show where I said zero protection lol
Seriously, you need to decide which of you and Max are Hale and which is Pace. You're both hilarious this afternoon.
"And Omicron cares not whether you had a previous variant"
Literally right here you fool.
Wow. Because that is absolutely me saying "no protection" isn't it. Very very few people seemed to get Delta twice. But suddenly here we are in a panic trying to get needles into everyone's arms in 3 weeks because everyone is in the firing line for Omicron.
I have not said exit Covid. I have not said no protection. or any of the other things that you and Pace have been saying. I have pointed out that the significant dropping away of infection that was in that "exit wave" LSHTM report that you linked to hasn't happened. Nor has the sustained heavy rate of infection of all these other variants created natural immunity to Omicron.
You really need to chill. This is bad enough without you giving yourself conniptions. And in an argument with me as if my view has any more merit than yours or Philip's. Unless one of us is a leading virologist with access to the data model we're all pissing in the wind guessing. And I keep saying I am not in a position to predict this...
Err you said Omicron doesn't care if you have had COVID before. Either provide evidence for that claim or retract it.
I thought I just had. The dominant strain is now going to be Omicron. Where our existing defences are no longer enough. So we all need a 3rd jab whether we are "fully vaccinated" or recovered from another variant. The reinfection rate of Omicron if you had delta clearly isn't 0% or 100% as you and Hale keep trying to say it is.
Some unlucky bastards are getting reinfected. They weren't with Delta, and they need a booster despite 2 shots and the previous infection. So it doesn't care if you had Delta as it can hit you again hence the need for a booster.
I think this is only controversial to you and the few others who had been ramping that the failed exit wave now gave us all immunity. Well quite. Hence the panic need for a million boosters a day.
What evidence have you provided, all I see is more made up stats.
You said "it cares not" how is that not saying 0%?
Even if it was 1% protection it would, though it's coming in at about ~90% vs Delta at ~95% for symptomatic infection. Once again, explain to me how that is anything like "it cares not". It does, it cares a lot. In fact the 8-10m who got natural immunity over the summer and autumn will now possibly present 80-100k hospitalisations from reinfection rather than 400k-600k among people with no immunity. That's the reality you want to avoid seeing, yet it's still true.
This is very simple. I said something flippant in my usual bat it along style. I didn't imply or intend to imply 0%. You have inferred 0%. I have repeatedly said that I didn't say or intend to imply 0%, you keep saying "oh yes you did".
The scientists - the people who know, not morons like you and I - say the strike rate for Omicron reinfection is 3x that of Delta. That was my point. It isn't zero. It isn't total.
Unless this is panto perhaps you might want to move on.
Yes its maybe 4% instead of 1.5%
Which at 40k a day protected from having natural immunity earlier this year means over 1 million fewer people infectable this winter every 4 weeks of sustained 40k per day.
Had we had what you'd wanted, we'd have many millions more vulnerable this winter. Thank goodness we didn't, eh?
Care to admit yet that we were right to say its better to have cases over the summer than winter?
We appear to be getting both. Cases over the summer and then a huge wave over the winter. The millions you refer to remain vulnerable hence the need for a panic revaccination program...
"The BBC reckons there are now 2,500 Omicron infections a day, and that the number is doubling every 3 days. They say that if that rate of growth continued, it would mean more than 100,000 infections a day. In fact it would mean more than 400,000 infections a day, and you can probably double that again because their calculation ignores the differences between positive tests and infections."
That imnsho is a prediction. Of 800k cases/day.
That illustrates exactly what I said to RCS. It is simply an arithmetical calculation of how many infections there would be on certain assumptions, if those assumptions were satisfied. By the end of December. And incidentally, it's only twice the number of daily Omicron infections that we have now according to Sajid Javid, though I still think he must have been badly confused when he said that to the Commons.
But - my God - do you really think that's not going to happen?
"arithmetical calculation of how many infections there would be on certain assumptions if blah blah blah" = prediction.
Will it happen? Not sure. No one is. For reasons that I pulled out of my arse I however think there is a chance it won't happen. You think it will.
Really REALLY amazing. It is as incredible as everyone says.
You spiral down into your mind and it turns out that your soul is deep down at the glamorously darkened end of a glittering spiritual whirlpool made of sparkling emerald hexagons. With orange sparks like microscopic angels caught in the light of a fire, dancing attendance as you descend
Then, finally, you get to meet yourself
That's Tibetan Buddhism right there. Dare I ask which one of you you meet?
It was the same me that met God - for the first time - 35 years ago. Also, it was the same God. Jehovah. A bit of a c*nt. Doesn’t really give a fuck about us. We can do whatever.
The idea He is really pissed off about our overuse of plastics is laughable
He said: Stop whining, so what if the fucking world ends, there are many others
"The BBC reckons there are now 2,500 Omicron infections a day, and that the number is doubling every 3 days. They say that if that rate of growth continued, it would mean more than 100,000 infections a day. In fact it would mean more than 400,000 infections a day, and you can probably double that again because their calculation ignores the differences between positive tests and infections."
That imnsho is a prediction. Of 800k cases/day.
Three days later it will be 1.6 million cases/day.
Within 4 weeks it'd be a hundred million cases per day. We'll be getting reinfected hours after catching it.
@Chris has never made a prediction. Apart from that one. 800k cases/day and yet he refuses to bet with me about it.
I wouldn't bet about that, because it would involve a large number of people dying.
But you really should try to reflect. If half the population needs to be infected with Omicron to get us to herd immunity, and the R number is in the region of 4, then how on earth do you imagine we can avoid a million infections a day unless we go into lockdown?
"The BBC reckons there are now 2,500 Omicron infections a day, and that the number is doubling every 3 days. They say that if that rate of growth continued, it would mean more than 100,000 infections a day. In fact it would mean more than 400,000 infections a day, and you can probably double that again because their calculation ignores the differences between positive tests and infections."
That imnsho is a prediction. Of 800k cases/day.
That illustrates exactly what I said to RCS. It is simply an arithmetical calculation of how many infections there would be on certain assumptions, if those assumptions were satisfied. By the end of December. And incidentally, it's only twice the number of daily Omicron infections that we have now according to Sajid Javid, though I still think he must have been badly confused when he said that to the Commons.
But - my God - do you really think that's not going to happen?
"arithmetical calculation of how many infections there would be on certain assumptions if blah blah blah" = prediction.
It's a problem with not understanding the meaning of common English words, then? Such as "prediction"? Or "arithmetic"? Or "if"?
If Omicron is milder, then having people infected with delta beforehand is worse for them, no?
Like punching someone in the head to toughen them up ready to have their eyebrows plucked.
Hmm depends. Your delta specific antibodies will get to work on Omicron, if you're frail though it could finish you off I suppose. Most people it'll be an advantage - some will be hit hard.
The betting movement seems rather odd. Hmm. OTOH, generally, if someone is sitting on a poll, the odds tend to suddenly shift. This has been more gradual.
Intriguing.
What has happened in the betting
Since this morning, con’s chances have improved from ~36% to ~50%. LDs fallen from ~63% to ~49%. In betting terms, that’s a big move.
No surprise. What's in the news? Vaccines. Viruses. What was in the news last week? Corruption. Incompetence. Confusion. Rebellion. Hence the odds.
Really REALLY amazing. It is as incredible as everyone says.
You spiral down into your mind and it turns out that your soul is deep down at the glamorously darkened end of a glittering spiritual whirlpool made of sparkling emerald hexagons. With orange sparks like microscopic angels caught in the light of a fire, dancing attendance as you descend
Then, finally, you get to meet yourself
That's Tibetan Buddhism right there. Dare I ask which one of you you meet?
So long as he doesn't end up one of the reincarnating lamas. Think of the arguments about how many there were of the lama and which one was the right reincarnation.
Don't forget folks, the infections number is the government measure that counts first infections only. And Omicron cares not whether you had a previous variant.
Moron.
Really - we laughed when Robert Peston made the comment a while back but I don't think the methodology has changed.
No the moronic bit is suggesting that Omicron completely evades immunity from prior infection. We know that not to be true. RP is a moron and he's making things up to support his pro-lockdown forever view. I know he says otherwise but every post he makes is filled with the same bullshit zero COVID rhetoric from last year.
Yes the notion that prior infection provides zero protection against Omicron has to be the most absurd hysterical nonsense of this entire pandemic.
And he's inventing it because he wants to prove prior infections were a bad idea, not a good thing.
Either no intellectual honesty, or a complete moron.
And you can of course show where I said zero protection lol
Seriously, you need to decide which of you and Max are Hale and which is Pace. You're both hilarious this afternoon.
"And Omicron cares not whether you had a previous variant"
Literally right here you fool.
Wow. Because that is absolutely me saying "no protection" isn't it. Very very few people seemed to get Delta twice. But suddenly here we are in a panic trying to get needles into everyone's arms in 3 weeks because everyone is in the firing line for Omicron.
I have not said exit Covid. I have not said no protection. or any of the other things that you and Pace have been saying. I have pointed out that the significant dropping away of infection that was in that "exit wave" LSHTM report that you linked to hasn't happened. Nor has the sustained heavy rate of infection of all these other variants created natural immunity to Omicron.
You really need to chill. This is bad enough without you giving yourself conniptions. And in an argument with me as if my view has any more merit than yours or Philip's. Unless one of us is a leading virologist with access to the data model we're all pissing in the wind guessing. And I keep saying I am not in a position to predict this...
Err you said Omicron doesn't care if you have had COVID before. Either provide evidence for that claim or retract it.
I thought I just had. The dominant strain is now going to be Omicron. Where our existing defences are no longer enough. So we all need a 3rd jab whether we are "fully vaccinated" or recovered from another variant. The reinfection rate of Omicron if you had delta clearly isn't 0% or 100% as you and Hale keep trying to say it is.
Some unlucky bastards are getting reinfected. They weren't with Delta, and they need a booster despite 2 shots and the previous infection. So it doesn't care if you had Delta as it can hit you again hence the need for a booster.
I think this is only controversial to you and the few others who had been ramping that the failed exit wave now gave us all immunity. Well quite. Hence the panic need for a million boosters a day.
What evidence have you provided, all I see is more made up stats.
You said "it cares not" how is that not saying 0%?
Even if it was 1% protection it would, though it's coming in at about ~90% vs Delta at ~95% for symptomatic infection. Once again, explain to me how that is anything like "it cares not". It does, it cares a lot. In fact the 8-10m who got natural immunity over the summer and autumn will now possibly present 80-100k hospitalisations from reinfection rather than 400k-600k among people with no immunity. That's the reality you want to avoid seeing, yet it's still true.
This is very simple. I said something flippant in my usual bat it along style. I didn't imply or intend to imply 0%. You have inferred 0%. I have repeatedly said that I didn't say or intend to imply 0%, you keep saying "oh yes you did".
The scientists - the people who know, not morons like you and I - say the strike rate for Omicron reinfection is 3x that of Delta. That was my point. It isn't zero. It isn't total.
Unless this is panto perhaps you might want to move on.
Yes its maybe 4% instead of 1.5%
Which at 40k a day protected from having natural immunity earlier this year means over 1 million fewer people infectable this winter every 4 weeks of sustained 40k per day.
Had we had what you'd wanted, we'd have many millions more vulnerable this winter. Thank goodness we didn't, eh?
Care to admit yet that we were right to say its better to have cases over the summer than winter?
We appear to be getting both. Cases over the summer and then a huge wave over the winter. The millions you refer to remain vulnerable hence the need for a panic revaccination program...
France has 14.5k in hospital right now. Double our current rate and 1500 people were admitted yesterday, 70% higher than our rate. A few weeks ago Macron was boasting about how he's conquered COVID and french hospitals had emptied out. This is without Omicron finding all of their unvaccinated.
I am of the opinion that he has not fully recovered from covid
LOL Boris is proper crambazzled
*Political betting as well as politely trying to make point post
I’m not saying this to be politically agitatoralative - or maybe I am as a Libdem so sat on opposition benches to the Conservatives. But I am trying to make a helpful point to think about, I know you want Boris gone and you prefer Rishi in there BIG G and you are right its miles better, but coming back to the sort of poll advantage Boris enjoyed over Corbyn may not be very straightforward after that.
With Boris there was GBD and levelling up, which may have had good electoral appeal, so after Boris goes early in New Years (I think resignation when told by whips how badly he’ll lose vonc) Boris voters may go on asking Conservatives, where is levelling up, where is examples of £350M a day in Nhs and other Brexit Dividend.
Another consideration is you cannot be sure who you will get as replacement, and can’t know now how effective they will be wearing a crown. I think media narrative in the leadership election will make a big difference. I know you want Rishi, but starting as hot favourite media will scrutinise his central role in the Boris Government - I am convinced his bid does not survive that at this time - it’s not just the Tax sums fighting covid making him the biggest tax taker since paying off WW2 debt, it’s the colossally waste of money, it’s the lack of scrutiny as he signed off a lot of these cheques. His party will know what’s going to emerge before next election that is his fault, dragging them all down if he is leader.
Whose job was due diligence before signing the cheques?
The media narrative will want Saj. He seems able. His backstory is growing up in flat above shop in rundown high street. He is archetypal Tory PM. I’m on Saj at 14-1. Would you be happy with Saj, Big G?
If Omicron is milder, then having people infected with delta beforehand is worse for them, no?
Like punching someone in the head to toughen them up ready to have their eyebrows plucked.
LOL. As I and I think @dixiedean noted, perhaps not.
A couple of weeks ago I had precisely the same sore throat, feeling sh&tty, etc palaver as I did when I had Covid. Oh bollocks I thought, how can I have it again. LFTed and negative and by the following morning all was gone.
Was it Omicron? Absolutely no idea but bizarre that the symptoms, for less than 12 hours, were exactly the same, around six weeks after I had Covid.
The Lib Dem leader, whose name nobody knows, will not be making his considerable presence felt in the Commons after testing positive.
Who do you think Sir Ed should have a celebrity affair with to raise his profile and get people to remember his name, Farooq? Madonna would be a coup for Lib Dems if a tabloid gets pics of them canoodling on a wine bar terrace you would agree. Though we may have to settle for Rebel Wilson.
Been done before. That LD MP. Nesbit? Lembit? Can't remember his name but he had a singer type lady friend which got him lots of photos in the papers.
"The BBC reckons there are now 2,500 Omicron infections a day, and that the number is doubling every 3 days. They say that if that rate of growth continued, it would mean more than 100,000 infections a day. In fact it would mean more than 400,000 infections a day, and you can probably double that again because their calculation ignores the differences between positive tests and infections."
That imnsho is a prediction. Of 800k cases/day.
Three days later it will be 1.6 million cases/day.
Within 4 weeks it'd be a hundred million cases per day. We'll be getting reinfected hours after catching it.
@Chris has never made a prediction. Apart from that one. 800k cases/day and yet he refuses to bet with me about it.
I wouldn't bet about that, because it would involve a large number of people dying.
But you really should try to reflect. If half the population needs to be infected with Omicron to get us to herd immunity, and the R number is in the region of 4, then how on earth do you imagine we can avoid a million infections a day unless we go into lockdown?
Look I am not sure - no one is. There are plenty of unknowns (known and unknown) about Omicron.
But I took issue with your post which said there are likely to be 800k cases a day. Because so much is unknown.
While we're in reflection mode do you think your prediction was a measured assertion.
Reading this conversation makes me wonder whether the ancient art of analysing the risks for yourself and acting accordingly is gone forever. We're getting on for 2 years into this pandemic and most of us have got a reasonable handle on what we're dealing with here. It was a bit different in the first year when the virus was an unknown quantity and there was a genuine risk of bodies piling up on the street if something wasn't done - but we're nowhere near that point at the moment. Vaccination levels (and we know for a fact that vaccines largely prevent serious infections and worse) are very high and, while there is no doubt that Omicron is extremely transmissible, there is no conclusive evidence that it is going to cause mass fatalities - although granted there is not yet conclusive evidence that it won't.
So assess your own risk. If it worries you, or if you're worried about coming into contact with someone who might be more at risk than average, act accordingly. If you're not, don't. I don't see why the only entity that can now make decisions on everyone's behalf is the Government. Several times I've heard phrases such as "the people seem to be ahead of the Government here" on radio shows - no, it's people assessing their own risks and acting accordingly.
What I am 100% certain on, is that if I wanted somebody to assess my own risk for me and make decisions on my behalf about how to manage said risk, it would most certainly not be Boris Johnson. Or Keir Starmer for that matter. Or any politician or civil servant. We're dealing with unknowns here, but also dealing with enough data to make our own assumptions. It should not be the Government's job to order me how to deal with it. And any political party that acknowledges this position would have my vote tomorrow.
The betting movement seems rather odd. Hmm. OTOH, generally, if someone is sitting on a poll, the odds tend to suddenly shift. This has been more gradual.
Intriguing.
What has happened in the betting
Since this morning, con’s chances have improved from ~36% to ~50%. LDs fallen from ~63% to ~49%. In betting terms, that’s a big move.
My legendary modesty klaxon prevents me from mentioning this comment from last Thursday.
"The BBC reckons there are now 2,500 Omicron infections a day, and that the number is doubling every 3 days. They say that if that rate of growth continued, it would mean more than 100,000 infections a day. In fact it would mean more than 400,000 infections a day, and you can probably double that again because their calculation ignores the differences between positive tests and infections."
That imnsho is a prediction. Of 800k cases/day.
That illustrates exactly what I said to RCS. It is simply an arithmetical calculation of how many infections there would be on certain assumptions, if those assumptions were satisfied. By the end of December. And incidentally, it's only twice the number of daily Omicron infections that we have now according to Sajid Javid, though I still think he must have been badly confused when he said that to the Commons.
But - my God - do you really think that's not going to happen?
"arithmetical calculation of how many infections there would be on certain assumptions if blah blah blah" = prediction.
It's a problem with not understanding the meaning of common English words, then? Such as "prediction"? Or "arithmetic"? Or "if"?
"In fact it would mean more than 400,000 infections a day, and you can probably double that again because their calculation ignores the differences between positive tests and infections." = prediction.
One thing I love about political betting is that, unlike the equity markets, I can stay solvent longer than the market can stay irrational.
I just wish there were more elections.
That's why I like Chartism.
An annual general election would be great for betting purposes.
I've often wondered whether it would encourage short termism and instability or stagnation and consensus.
You could EITHER:
Fuck the future and try to bribe as many voters as possible in 11/12 months to stay in power, then fail, get turfed out, the other comes in, rinse and repeat:
OR
You could reason that you're only there for a short time so if you want anything to survive you need to build bridges with the other side, allowing you to think very long term as elections would make sod all difference.
It would be a fascinating experiment to watch - from a safe distance.
The betting movement seems rather odd. Hmm. OTOH, generally, if someone is sitting on a poll, the odds tend to suddenly shift. This has been more gradual.
Intriguing.
What has happened in the betting
Since this morning, con’s chances have improved from ~36% to ~50%. LDs fallen from ~63% to ~49%. In betting terms, that’s a big move.
My legendary modesty klaxon prevents me from mentioning this comment from last Thursday.
Don't forget folks, the infections number is the government measure that counts first infections only. And Omicron cares not whether you had a previous variant.
Moron.
Really - we laughed when Robert Peston made the comment a while back but I don't think the methodology has changed.
No the moronic bit is suggesting that Omicron completely evades immunity from prior infection. We know that not to be true. RP is a moron and he's making things up to support his pro-lockdown forever view. I know he says otherwise but every post he makes is filled with the same bullshit zero COVID rhetoric from last year.
Yes the notion that prior infection provides zero protection against Omicron has to be the most absurd hysterical nonsense of this entire pandemic.
And he's inventing it because he wants to prove prior infections were a bad idea, not a good thing.
Either no intellectual honesty, or a complete moron.
And you can of course show where I said zero protection lol
Seriously, you need to decide which of you and Max are Hale and which is Pace. You're both hilarious this afternoon.
"And Omicron cares not whether you had a previous variant"
Literally right here you fool.
Wow. Because that is absolutely me saying "no protection" isn't it. Very very few people seemed to get Delta twice. But suddenly here we are in a panic trying to get needles into everyone's arms in 3 weeks because everyone is in the firing line for Omicron.
I have not said exit Covid. I have not said no protection. or any of the other things that you and Pace have been saying. I have pointed out that the significant dropping away of infection that was in that "exit wave" LSHTM report that you linked to hasn't happened. Nor has the sustained heavy rate of infection of all these other variants created natural immunity to Omicron.
You really need to chill. This is bad enough without you giving yourself conniptions. And in an argument with me as if my view has any more merit than yours or Philip's. Unless one of us is a leading virologist with access to the data model we're all pissing in the wind guessing. And I keep saying I am not in a position to predict this...
Err you said Omicron doesn't care if you have had COVID before. Either provide evidence for that claim or retract it.
I thought I just had. The dominant strain is now going to be Omicron. Where our existing defences are no longer enough. So we all need a 3rd jab whether we are "fully vaccinated" or recovered from another variant. The reinfection rate of Omicron if you had delta clearly isn't 0% or 100% as you and Hale keep trying to say it is.
Some unlucky bastards are getting reinfected. They weren't with Delta, and they need a booster despite 2 shots and the previous infection. So it doesn't care if you had Delta as it can hit you again hence the need for a booster.
I think this is only controversial to you and the few others who had been ramping that the failed exit wave now gave us all immunity. Well quite. Hence the panic need for a million boosters a day.
What evidence have you provided, all I see is more made up stats.
You said "it cares not" how is that not saying 0%?
Even if it was 1% protection it would, though it's coming in at about ~90% vs Delta at ~95% for symptomatic infection. Once again, explain to me how that is anything like "it cares not". It does, it cares a lot. In fact the 8-10m who got natural immunity over the summer and autumn will now possibly present 80-100k hospitalisations from reinfection rather than 400k-600k among people with no immunity. That's the reality you want to avoid seeing, yet it's still true.
This is very simple. I said something flippant in my usual bat it along style. I didn't imply or intend to imply 0%. You have inferred 0%. I have repeatedly said that I didn't say or intend to imply 0%, you keep saying "oh yes you did".
The scientists - the people who know, not morons like you and I - say the strike rate for Omicron reinfection is 3x that of Delta. That was my point. It isn't zero. It isn't total.
Unless this is panto perhaps you might want to move on.
Then you retract the "it cares not" statement. Good. So at ~10-12% reinfection rates do you not agree that with Omicron it's good that we're going into the winter with 8-10m unvaccinated people in the natural immunity funnel? Omicron would infect all 8-10m of them with ease over the next two months or we'd have to go into an economic shutdown to avoid that overwhelming the NHS as it would result in something like at least 400k-600k hospitalisations, 10k per day.
This was always the nightmare scenario from Chris Whitty, that we'd be insufficiently vaccinated and naturally immune in the winter and hospitals would be overwhelmed. Now with vaccine protection being eroded that might still happen, I don't know, but it's also why there's a big hurry up on the booster programme
There's a lot of legitimate criticism of the government, the JCVI, Boris, The Saj and everyone else in the cabinet. The idea that getting 8-10m unvaccinated people into the immunity funnel is a legitimate criticism is for the birds, it may be the difference between an NHS disaster and not, economic shutdown and not, 200k dead and not.
We have a significant percentage of the population vaccinated and that is a Good Thing. Two doses in the arm of Mrs RP is likely the difference between it kicking the shit out of her and her being in IC. I'm not sure anyone is really placing any focus on the unvaccinated beyond "get jabbed you twats". The focus and hercluean ask is to get a 3rd dose because 2 or 2 + a past infection is an insufficient protection against Omicron.
If you had been reading what I have been actually saying instead of falling back on what you think I think with witty "moron" reposts, you would see that I am against the new proposed restrictions. Omicron either isn't going to hit us as hard as they are saying or its already too late to stop it.
The lockdown I think they will impose straight after Christmas will be too late to have any practical use not that it will be universal thanks to the Downing Street bunga bunga parties. Nor do we need lockdown - we are already seeing people dropping with it so it will be the infected or the immediate relatives of the infected locking themselves down (like me, like employees of Scotrail, DHL, Manchester United and MPs to give a few examples over the last few days).
You and I come from different ends of the belief spectrum. You want to believe its all over and we don't need to do anything, I want to believe that but can't ignore the evidence. Nor does it matter what you or I think or say - neither of us has the experience or knowledge to speak with any authority.
I just don't get the rage that you and @Anabobazina and @Philip_Thompson throw about. I want lockdown forever apparently. No, I personally can't go out for a week again and its hateful. I want people to get infected you said. After what my family have gone through this last week and a half I would tell you to go fuck yourself if I could be bothered.
Seriously. Chill out. We are passengers in this thing. Either Javid, Whitty et al have overcooked the data and we get away with it, or we are fucked. Either way, lets all try not to act like twats at each other and make the best of Christmas because January looks likely to be hateful...
Regarding vaccine passports, can I suggest a compromise?
Firms are free to require vaccine passports, but are not obliged. We would probably find that 60-70% of restaurants would require them (pretty much any with elder clientele), but individual businesses would not be forced to require them.
Friday night in the city. Relais de Venise had a queue out of the door. The Counting House was rammo until later than usual.
Was in Balham on Sunday. Pub quiz as busy and rowdy as ever.
I went to Soho last night.
The waiting time for Zedels was 90 minutes.
On a Monday.
My main impression so far:
Many people are happy to revert to WFH in the run up to Xmas. But they're still boozing and enjoying themselves. And us youngsters want to crack on.
I'd be surprised if restos wanted added work of vaccine passports. They all seem understaffed at the moment as it is.
Who exactly is going to enforce these vaxports? I suppose you could make them a sale condition of buying a round, which is not quite the same thing.
That is a good point. In theory I expect the poor bloody businesses are going to have to check them on the doors. In practice, it's not as if the police are liable to be dressing up in civvies and doing secret customer swoops on these establishments to see whether or not they're bothering. Or at least I hope not.
The authorities may be reliant on indignant sticklers amongst the general population to grass up places that aren't doing the checks.
The betting movement seems rather odd. Hmm. OTOH, generally, if someone is sitting on a poll, the odds tend to suddenly shift. This has been more gradual.
Intriguing.
What has happened in the betting
Since this morning, con’s chances have improved from ~36% to ~50%. LDs fallen from ~63% to ~49%. In betting terms, that’s a big move.
My legendary modesty klaxon prevents me from mentioning this comment from last Thursday.
The betting movement seems rather odd. Hmm. OTOH, generally, if someone is sitting on a poll, the odds tend to suddenly shift. This has been more gradual.
Intriguing.
What has happened in the betting
Since this morning, con’s chances have improved from ~36% to ~50%. LDs fallen from ~63% to ~49%. In betting terms, that’s a big move.
My legendary modesty klaxon prevents me from mentioning this comment from last Thursday.
Regarding vaccine passports, can I suggest a compromise?
Firms are free to require vaccine passports, but are not obliged. We would probably find that 60-70% of restaurants would require them (pretty much any with elder clientele), but individual businesses would not be forced to require them.
Friday night in the city. Relais de Venise had a queue out of the door. The Counting House was rammo until later than usual.
Was in Balham on Sunday. Pub quiz as busy and rowdy as ever.
I went to Soho last night.
The waiting time for Zedels was 90 minutes.
On a Monday.
My main impression so far:
Many people are happy to revert to WFH in the run up to Xmas. But they're still boozing and enjoying themselves. And us youngsters want to crack on.
I'd be surprised if restos wanted added work of vaccine passports. They all seem understaffed at the moment as it is.
Who exactly is going to enforce these vaxports? I suppose you could make them a sale condition of buying a round, which is not quite the same thing.
That is a good point. In theory I expect the poor bloody businesses are going to have to check them on the doors. In practice, it's not as if the police are liable to be dressing up in civvies and doing secret customer swoops on these establishments to see whether or not they're bothering. Or at least I hope not.
The authorities may be reliant on indignant sticklers amongst the general population to grass up places that aren't doing the checks.
Who could forget the Covid Wardens?
My church still has them, little busy body Napoleons. New parish being sought.
"The BBC reckons there are now 2,500 Omicron infections a day, and that the number is doubling every 3 days. They say that if that rate of growth continued, it would mean more than 100,000 infections a day. In fact it would mean more than 400,000 infections a day, and you can probably double that again because their calculation ignores the differences between positive tests and infections."
That imnsho is a prediction. Of 800k cases/day.
That illustrates exactly what I said to RCS. It is simply an arithmetical calculation of how many infections there would be on certain assumptions, if those assumptions were satisfied. By the end of December. And incidentally, it's only twice the number of daily Omicron infections that we have now according to Sajid Javid, though I still think he must have been badly confused when he said that to the Commons.
But - my God - do you really think that's not going to happen?
"arithmetical calculation of how many infections there would be on certain assumptions if blah blah blah" = prediction.
It's a problem with not understanding the meaning of common English words, then? Such as "prediction"? Or "arithmetic"? Or "if"?
How forceful you are. You know that guy in Fish called Wanda to whom JLC says "I've worn dresses that had a higher IQ than you"? That's who you remind me of.
One thing I love about political betting is that, unlike the equity markets, I can stay solvent longer than the market can stay irrational.
I just wish there were more elections.
That's why I like Chartism.
An annual general election would be great for betting purposes.
I've often wondered whether it would encourage short termism and instability or stagnation and consensus.
You could EITHER:
Fuck the future and try to bribe as many voters as possible in 11/12 months to stay in power, then fail, get turfed out, the other comes in, rinse and repeat:
OR
You could reason that you're only there for a short time so if you want anything to survive you need to build bridges with the other side, allowing you to think very long term as elections would make sod all difference.
It would be a fascinating experiment to watch - from a safe distance.
I once spoke to a former Prime Minister, he agreed with me, that for first terms, a 14 to 20 year first term would be ideal.
One major reform, merging NI and income tax would cause a few edge cases and quirks in the first few years that the governing power would be out for a generation if we had 4/5 year terms, on a 14 year term, they'd win a landslide.
The betting movement seems rather odd. Hmm. OTOH, generally, if someone is sitting on a poll, the odds tend to suddenly shift. This has been more gradual.
Intriguing.
What has happened in the betting
Since this morning, con’s chances have improved from ~36% to ~50%. LDs fallen from ~63% to ~49%. In betting terms, that’s a big move.
My legendary modesty klaxon prevents me from mentioning this comment from last Thursday.
Sitting in a starlit Balearic garden, looking at my very own Antony Gormley statue. Sipping excellent wine, as frogs croak in the fountains. Global meltdown seems a long way away
And yet
And yet for writing that, I hope you are about to be pooped on by a seagull.
One thing I love about political betting is that, unlike the equity markets, I can stay solvent longer than the market can stay irrational.
I just wish there were more elections.
That's why I like Chartism.
An annual general election would be great for betting purposes.
I've often wondered whether it would encourage short termism and instability or stagnation and consensus.
You could EITHER:
Fuck the future and try to bribe as many voters as possible in 11/12 months to stay in power, then fail, get turfed out, the other comes in, rinse and repeat:
OR
You could reason that you're only there for a short time so if you want anything to survive you need to build bridges with the other side, allowing you to think very long term as elections would make sod all difference.
It would be a fascinating experiment to watch - from a safe distance.
I once spoke to a former Prime Minister, he agreed with me, that for first terms, a 14 to 20 year first term would be ideal.
One major reform, merging NI and income tax would cause a few edge cases and quirks in the first few years that the governing power would be out for a generation if we had 4/5 year terms, on a 14 year term, they'd win a landslide.
I had no idea John Major was quite so wistful about the aftereffects of Black Wednesday.
"The country will face an “exit wave” of coronavirus infections whenever restrictions are lifted, England’s chief medical officer has said."
DEMONSTRABLY AN ABUSE OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE
If we had seen cases rise and fall then fine. But we didn't. Cases rose. And with some variations at the top stayed largely the same. We didn't see the dropping away as we exit that wave. Its just stayed high permanently.
We did see them fall.
Because in the first phase schools were closed, in the second the schools were reopened.
Unless you have come to some perverted belief that schools don't affect transmission? Is that your claim now?
Lol
Covid cases 17th May 2,220 (7 day average). Then after we made changes a big spike and the pogoing highs and lows around the new baseline.
When you say "we did see them fall" it was to 25,722, a mere 11.5x higher than the start. And then up and up and up.
You are being so insane now, May was during restrictions, why the hell would it have to fall beneath the figure that is only achievable with restrictions? What an absurd suggestion (!)
Are you so naive and so unwilling to be realistic now that you can't tell the difference between transmission with schools closed and transmission with schools open now?
16 July 47,970.4 13 September 28,540.4
So the 7 day average halved until the schools went back, that's one wave.
You seem to be in utter denial. First you want us to exit the virus, then you want cases to fall below what they were when we were in lockdown. You just clearly haven't grasped the severity of reality have you?
You're getting irate at others because you're in complete denial.
More belly laughs at my end - this is great! Had it dropped to 28k and kept falling then that would have been great! Instead that was the new floor and then we saw an ever-increasing level of new floors. 28k. 33k, now 51k.
You said "We did see them fall. Because in the first phase schools were closed, in the second the schools were reopened." Yes. And then they went up again. And up some more. And some more.
We replaced the 2k cases a day with mask restrictions with a very best 28k a day and then up and up. If an ever-increasing number of cases is us exiting having cases then black truly is white.
Do keep it up, you're as funny as HYUFD foaming on about Toryism.
Why would it keep falling? Schools reopened! Then it became winter.
You are utterly delusional. Had we not had the exit wave we would have seen exponential growth with schools open, no restrictions and winter. To keep levels flat, while circumstances are getting worse, is proof that the wave has happened.
I'm not an expert on waves, but I don't think they're supposed to peak, and then just keep going at the level of the peak indefinitely.
One reason waves in the water form the pattern they do is the ground level is rising which causes the water to rise too.
In the UK since lifting lockdown the ground level for Covid's spread has been rising: Schools reopened, summer ended, winter began. And yet despite the ground level rising, the cases have been flat. Why?
The only reason the cases have been flat despite the higher ground level, is that the prior wave had just happened.
Imagine if it was the other way around, starting in winter with schools open, then going into spring, then summer, then the schools closed over summer holidays - if cases were flat over that, then you'd be confused why.
To have cases flat, while the ground level to boost Covid is getting higher, is proof that the wave had happened, not proof it didn't.
It's proof that the wave isn't over yet, which is proof that the (presumed) prior belief that it would crest and then break was wrong. In short, it is now conclusively proven to be Not a Wave.
Look at it another way: six months ago, was anyone predicting an "exit wave" that got stuck around 50k cases reported per day for months on end, if restrictions lifted?
Waves is funny things. One never knows, the dynamics muight have generatyed a soliton which moves forward as quickly as we do in time: see this ship in a canal 2:30 ON.
I think I understood this. Waves travel through time, meaning that a wave can happen before the event that caused it. I think I could squeeze a paper out of this and it'll make a big splash.
What are they trying to achieve here? I get the it's fun to see the wave sploosh up into a vertical jet at the end, but are they trying to model something? Coastal erosion?
Haven't a clue - one never knows with students. It might be the soliton itself that is the primary interest and the bit at the end of the canal is just to stop it sloshing all over the tarmac. But it could be of relevance to erosion in dead end canals and docks. Experimenting with different shapes - having one wave at a time simplifies analysis I suppose.
I have the sense that you'd be better off opening out the end of a canal into a wide, deep pool. But a spurty V thing could be a cool piece of public art, soaking the occasional unaware passerby.
You can see something very much like a soliton by standing next to the River Severn (or the River Trent) at the right time of day...
Bore!
Yeah, I know. We can't all be Leon.
(It is the train of waves behind the front bore wave that are most soliton like, of course)
Ok, can you explain that? Why is the bore not a soliton?
I must admit that the waves behind the shock front itself do look awfully solitony here (about 50 sec on in particular)
The betting movement seems rather odd. Hmm. OTOH, generally, if someone is sitting on a poll, the odds tend to suddenly shift. This has been more gradual.
Intriguing.
What has happened in the betting
Since this morning, con’s chances have improved from ~36% to ~50%. LDs fallen from ~63% to ~49%. In betting terms, that’s a big move.
My legendary modesty klaxon prevents me from mentioning this comment from last Thursday.
Might it be wise to keep your legendary modesty in storage until it is built on firmer foundations; for example, the result of the by-election?
TSE has connections.
He often sees embargoed opinion poll results several hours before the hoi poloi. Seeing the results of a by election a day or so before polling begins is a measure of his influence and the circles in which he moves.
Regarding vaccine passports, can I suggest a compromise?
Firms are free to require vaccine passports, but are not obliged. We would probably find that 60-70% of restaurants would require them (pretty much any with elder clientele), but individual businesses would not be forced to require them.
Friday night in the city. Relais de Venise had a queue out of the door. The Counting House was rammo until later than usual.
Was in Balham on Sunday. Pub quiz as busy and rowdy as ever.
I went to Soho last night.
The waiting time for Zedels was 90 minutes.
On a Monday.
My main impression so far:
Many people are happy to revert to WFH in the run up to Xmas. But they're still boozing and enjoying themselves. And us youngsters want to crack on.
I'd be surprised if restos wanted added work of vaccine passports. They all seem understaffed at the moment as it is.
Who exactly is going to enforce these vaxports? I suppose you could make them a sale condition of buying a round, which is not quite the same thing.
That is a good point. In theory I expect the poor bloody businesses are going to have to check them on the doors. In practice, it's not as if the police are liable to be dressing up in civvies and doing secret customer swoops on these establishments to see whether or not they're bothering. Or at least I hope not.
The authorities may be reliant on indignant sticklers amongst the general population to grass up places that aren't doing the checks.
Who could forget the Covid Wardens?
My church still has them, little busy body Napoleons. New parish being sought.
Reading this conversation makes me wonder whether the ancient art of analysing the risks for yourself and acting accordingly is gone forever. We're getting on for 2 years into this pandemic and most of us have got a reasonable handle on what we're dealing with here. It was a bit different in the first year when the virus was an unknown quantity and there was a genuine risk of bodies piling up on the street if something wasn't done - but we're nowhere near that point at the moment. Vaccination levels (and we know for a fact that vaccines largely prevent serious infections and worse) are very high and, while there is no doubt that Omicron is extremely transmissible, there is no conclusive evidence that it is going to cause mass fatalities - although granted there is not yet conclusive evidence that it won't.
So assess your own risk. If it worries you, or if you're worried about coming into contact with someone who might be more at risk than average, act accordingly. If you're not, don't. I don't see why the only entity that can now make decisions on everyone's behalf is the Government. Several times I've heard phrases such as "the people seem to be ahead of the Government here" on radio shows - no, it's people assessing their own risks and acting accordingly.
What I am 100% certain on, is that if I wanted somebody to assess my own risk for me and make decisions on my behalf about how to manage said risk, it would most certainly not be Boris Johnson. Or Keir Starmer for that matter. Or any politician or civil servant. We're dealing with unknowns here, but also dealing with enough data to make our own assumptions. It should not be the Government's job to order me how to deal with it. And any political party that acknowledges this position would have my vote tomorrow.
Good post and I agree with the first two paragraphs pretty much entirely. But there is a role for government still, it should just be limited, with voluntary guidance preferred where possible, and mandated and enforced only as a last resort. Personally I am far from convinced that the current situation is close to satisfying that last resort criteria but I can understand why others believe it is.
On topic BTW - when this thread was made the value bet was clearly on the Tories to win. I still favour the LD's but this has been a very easy by-election to bet on. I'm on LDs at about 4-1 and Tories at about 2-1 in what's effectively a two horse race.
The betting movement seems rather odd. Hmm. OTOH, generally, if someone is sitting on a poll, the odds tend to suddenly shift. This has been more gradual.
Intriguing.
What has happened in the betting
Since this morning, con’s chances have improved from ~36% to ~50%. LDs fallen from ~63% to ~49%. In betting terms, that’s a big move.
My legendary modesty klaxon prevents me from mentioning this comment from last Thursday.
Might it be wise to keep your legendary modesty in storage until it is built on firmer foundations; for example, the result of the by-election?
TSE has connections.
He often sees embargoed opinion poll results several hours before the hoi poloi. Seeing the results of a by election a day or so before polling begins is a measure of his influence and the circles in which he moves.
Returning from the depleted team Christmas lunch and talking to the shift manager at the venue, they had suffered a lot of cancellations and reductions yet there was a table of 10 next to us (all co-workers) and a couple of family tables. Encouraging, but you'd expect the place to be rammed on the 14th December and it wasn't.
Coming back tonight, Bank Station was very quiet at 5.15pm and no problem with seats on tubes.
Perusing the Evening Standard, my eye was drawn to the Anne McElvoy column:
She claims four to five million unvaccinated adults nationally - elsewhere, the quote is two million unvaccinated in London alone. These figures are quoted without source or evidence.
I'm left pondering what seems to this observer an absurdity.
We are seeing four and five hours queues of people waiting to get the booster vaccination. These are younger people who, I presume, with the double vaccine, would have a statistically small chance of hospitalisation or death with Omicron. Getting everyone of these vaccinated for a third time makes the Government look good and would reduce the spread of the virus.
However, isn't the real challenge the wholly unvaccinated? These are by definition much more likely to contract the virus, require hospital treatment and die so where is the effort to reach these individuals? It's hard work requiring a number of agencies both Government and non-Government. It might require knocking on doors which is labour-intensive and intrusive but isn't getting one unvaccinated person to have one dose more important than getting ten doubly vaccinated people to get a booster.
The fear of God has been put into people by claims the double vaccine affords no protection against Omicron but is this correct? We are bombarded on here by plenty of "good news" tweets claiming Omicron is mild and there's nothing to worry about but that doesn't seem to be the UK Government's line.
In any case, the problem isn't the young double vaccinated but the older unvaccinated - where is the co-ordinated effort to get into those communities where vaccination take up remains poor, where is the support for local councils and voluntary groups to dive deep into these communities and start finding out what's happening? What about those who don't officially exist and are fearful of any authority?
The betting movement seems rather odd. Hmm. OTOH, generally, if someone is sitting on a poll, the odds tend to suddenly shift. This has been more gradual.
Intriguing.
What has happened in the betting
Since this morning, con’s chances have improved from ~36% to ~50%. LDs fallen from ~63% to ~49%. In betting terms, that’s a big move.
My legendary modesty klaxon prevents me from mentioning this comment from last Thursday.
Might it be wise to keep your legendary modesty in storage until it is built on firmer foundations; for example, the result of the by-election?
TSE has connections.
He often sees embargoed opinion poll results several hours before the hoi poloi. Seeing the results of a by election a day or so before polling begins is a measure of his influence and the circles in which he moves.
Reading this conversation makes me wonder whether the ancient art of analysing the risks for yourself and acting accordingly is gone forever. We're getting on for 2 years into this pandemic and most of us have got a reasonable handle on what we're dealing with here. It was a bit different in the first year when the virus was an unknown quantity and there was a genuine risk of bodies piling up on the street if something wasn't done - but we're nowhere near that point at the moment. Vaccination levels (and we know for a fact that vaccines largely prevent serious infections and worse) are very high and, while there is no doubt that Omicron is extremely transmissible, there is no conclusive evidence that it is going to cause mass fatalities - although granted there is not yet conclusive evidence that it won't.
So assess your own risk. If it worries you, or if you're worried about coming into contact with someone who might be more at risk than average, act accordingly. If you're not, don't. I don't see why the only entity that can now make decisions on everyone's behalf is the Government. Several times I've heard phrases such as "the people seem to be ahead of the Government here" on radio shows - no, it's people assessing their own risks and acting accordingly.
What I am 100% certain on, is that if I wanted somebody to assess my own risk for me and make decisions on my behalf about how to manage said risk, it would most certainly not be Boris Johnson. Or Kier Starmer for that matter. Or any politician or civil servant. We're dealing with unknowns here, but also dealing with enough data to make our own assumptions. It should not be the Government's job to order me how to deal with it. And any political party that acknowledges this position would have my vote tomorrow.
In WW1, so the story goes, some soldiers declined to wear helmets when they were available to them. The reasoning went: if a bullet out there has your name on it, it'll get you no matter what you try to do to prevent it. Wear a helmet, and it'll get you in the heart instead. This fatalism, in some cases, proved fatal, as unhelmeted soldiers were, of course, at a higher risk of getting shot in the head.
These people, if the story is at all accurate, didn't have good risks analysis skills. The idea that people in the past were somehow wiser and better is an age old canard. It's probably never been true, but people go on believing it.
The most cunning soldiers write their name on one of their own bullets to circumvent this problem, or at least that's what I learned from this WW1 documentary I saw once.
Reading this conversation makes me wonder whether the ancient art of analysing the risks for yourself and acting accordingly is gone forever. We're getting on for 2 years into this pandemic and most of us have got a reasonable handle on what we're dealing with here. It was a bit different in the first year when the virus was an unknown quantity and there was a genuine risk of bodies piling up on the street if something wasn't done - but we're nowhere near that point at the moment. Vaccination levels (and we know for a fact that vaccines largely prevent serious infections and worse) are very high and, while there is no doubt that Omicron is extremely transmissible, there is no conclusive evidence that it is going to cause mass fatalities - although granted there is not yet conclusive evidence that it won't.
So assess your own risk. If it worries you, or if you're worried about coming into contact with someone who might be more at risk than average, act accordingly. If you're not, don't. I don't see why the only entity that can now make decisions on everyone's behalf is the Government. Several times I've heard phrases such as "the people seem to be ahead of the Government here" on radio shows - no, it's people assessing their own risks and acting accordingly.
What I am 100% certain on, is that if I wanted somebody to assess my own risk for me and make decisions on my behalf about how to manage said risk, it would most certainly not be Boris Johnson. Or Kier Starmer for that matter. Or any politician or civil servant. We're dealing with unknowns here, but also dealing with enough data to make our own assumptions. It should not be the Government's job to order me how to deal with it. And any political party that acknowledges this position would have my vote tomorrow.
In WW1, so the story goes, some soldiers declined to wear helmets when they were available to them. The reasoning went: if a bullet out there has your name on it, it'll get you no matter what you try to do to prevent it. Wear a helmet, and it'll get you in the heart instead. This fatalism, in some cases, proved fatal, as unhelmeted soldiers were, of course, at a higher risk of getting shot in the head.
These people, if the story is at all accurate, didn't have good risks analysis skills. The idea that people in the past were somehow wiser and better is an age old canard. It's probably never been true, but people go on believing it.
You are doubtless correct - but that doesn't mean that they should not be free to make those risk analyses. And nor does it mean that politicians, or even medical experts, are necessarily better at it than your average punter.
The betting movement seems rather odd. Hmm. OTOH, generally, if someone is sitting on a poll, the odds tend to suddenly shift. This has been more gradual.
Intriguing.
What has happened in the betting
Since this morning, con’s chances have improved from ~36% to ~50%. LDs fallen from ~63% to ~49%. In betting terms, that’s a big move.
My legendary modesty klaxon prevents me from mentioning this comment from last Thursday.
Might it be wise to keep your legendary modesty in storage until it is built on firmer foundations; for example, the result of the by-election?
The Lib Dems have just issued a request for extra funds to print a last minute leaflet pointing out that Labour can't win but are trying to stop the LDs winning.
On topic BTW - when this thread was made the value bet was clearly on the Tories to win. I still favour the LD's but this has been a very easy by-election to bet on. I'm on LDs at about 4-1 and Tories at about 2-1 in what's effectively a two horse race.
I've favoured the Tories all the way through. I still expect them to win for all the reasons I have given in the past.
But - an upset is a lot more plausible than it was.
And I maintain, despite divers Tories saying otherwise, that if he loses this Johnson is toast. The only time the Tories have ever - and I mean ever - lost this seat was in a low turnout by election at the nadir/apogee* of Asquith's Town Hall Campaign against the Tariff Reform movement. They've won it even in the general elections of 1832, 1880, 1906, 1945 and 1997. It's also one of their safest current seats.
He wouldn't survive the LibDems taking this from third. If it's even close I expect to see panic.
If Omicron is milder, then having people infected with delta beforehand is worse for them, no?
Like punching someone in the head to toughen them up ready to have their eyebrows plucked.
Hmm depends. Your delta specific antibodies will get to work on Omicron, if you're frail though it could finish you off I suppose. Most people it'll be an advantage - some will be hit hard.
What I mean is, if you had to choose between delta or omicron, which would you pick. Having one may well protect you from the other so for a lot of people it'll be either or. Perhaps.
Just asking a question.
I caught some Prof John Bell this morning - always a treat - and he covered this point of Omicron symptoms. Omi does have a different look & feel, apparently, cf previous variants. The bit that stood out for me is you are quite likely to get the shits whereas before this was not usually on the menu. I think the hope generally is it does more of this sort of thing - unpleasant as it is - and less of the attacks on lung function. Data insufficient to say atm.
Reading this conversation makes me wonder whether the ancient art of analysing the risks for yourself and acting accordingly is gone forever. We're getting on for 2 years into this pandemic and most of us have got a reasonable handle on what we're dealing with here. It was a bit different in the first year when the virus was an unknown quantity and there was a genuine risk of bodies piling up on the street if something wasn't done - but we're nowhere near that point at the moment. Vaccination levels (and we know for a fact that vaccines largely prevent serious infections and worse) are very high and, while there is no doubt that Omicron is extremely transmissible, there is no conclusive evidence that it is going to cause mass fatalities - although granted there is not yet conclusive evidence that it won't.
So assess your own risk. If it worries you, or if you're worried about coming into contact with someone who might be more at risk than average, act accordingly. If you're not, don't. I don't see why the only entity that can now make decisions on everyone's behalf is the Government. Several times I've heard phrases such as "the people seem to be ahead of the Government here" on radio shows - no, it's people assessing their own risks and acting accordingly.
What I am 100% certain on, is that if I wanted somebody to assess my own risk for me and make decisions on my behalf about how to manage said risk, it would most certainly not be Boris Johnson. Or Keir Starmer for that matter. Or any politician or civil servant. We're dealing with unknowns here, but also dealing with enough data to make our own assumptions. It should not be the Government's job to order me how to deal with it. And any political party that acknowledges this position would have my vote tomorrow.
Good post and I agree with the first two paragraphs pretty much entirely. But there is a role for government still, it should just be limited, with voluntary guidance preferred where possible, and mandated and enforced only as a last resort. Personally I am far from convinced that the current situation is close to satisfying that last resort criteria but I can understand why others believe it is.
Completely agree, and that's where I'm at as well. It is depressing how many people are looking to the government to make their life decisions for them instead nowadays.
Reading this conversation makes me wonder whether the ancient art of analysing the risks for yourself and acting accordingly is gone forever. We're getting on for 2 years into this pandemic and most of us have got a reasonable handle on what we're dealing with here. It was a bit different in the first year when the virus was an unknown quantity and there was a genuine risk of bodies piling up on the street if something wasn't done - but we're nowhere near that point at the moment. Vaccination levels (and we know for a fact that vaccines largely prevent serious infections and worse) are very high and, while there is no doubt that Omicron is extremely transmissible, there is no conclusive evidence that it is going to cause mass fatalities - although granted there is not yet conclusive evidence that it won't.
So assess your own risk. If it worries you, or if you're worried about coming into contact with someone who might be more at risk than average, act accordingly. If you're not, don't. I don't see why the only entity that can now make decisions on everyone's behalf is the Government. Several times I've heard phrases such as "the people seem to be ahead of the Government here" on radio shows - no, it's people assessing their own risks and acting accordingly.
What I am 100% certain on, is that if I wanted somebody to assess my own risk for me and make decisions on my behalf about how to manage said risk, it would most certainly not be Boris Johnson. Or Kier Starmer for that matter. Or any politician or civil servant. We're dealing with unknowns here, but also dealing with enough data to make our own assumptions. It should not be the Government's job to order me how to deal with it. And any political party that acknowledges this position would have my vote tomorrow.
In WW1, so the story goes, some soldiers declined to wear helmets when they were available to them. The reasoning went: if a bullet out there has your name on it, it'll get you no matter what you try to do to prevent it. Wear a helmet, and it'll get you in the heart instead. This fatalism, in some cases, proved fatal, as unhelmeted soldiers were, of course, at a higher risk of getting shot in the head.
These people, if the story is at all accurate, didn't have good risks analysis skills. The idea that people in the past were somehow wiser and better is an age old canard. It's probably never been true, but people go on believing it.
Perhaps, in less coddled times, the older and wiser had a statistically significant better chance of reaching old age.
On topic BTW - when this thread was made the value bet was clearly on the Tories to win. I still favour the LD's but this has been a very easy by-election to bet on. I'm on LDs at about 4-1 and Tories at about 2-1 in what's effectively a two horse race.
I've favoured the Tories all the way through. I still expect them to win for all the reasons I have given in the past.
But - an upset is a lot more plausible than it was.
And I maintain, despite divers Tories saying otherwise, that if he loses this Johnson is toast. The only time the Tories have ever - and I mean ever - lost this seat was in a low turnout by election at the nadir/apogee* of Asquith's Town Hall Campaign against the Tariff Reform movement. They've won it even in the general elections of 1832, 1880, 1906, 1945 and 1997. It's also one of their safest current seats.
He wouldn't survive the LibDems taking this from third. If it's even close I expect to see panic.
*delete according to party allegiance.
That's an interesting observation, especially as you are going back to when the local Tory candidate was killing off the local mammoths in a red-ochre stained fur jockstrap for fun.
Returning from the depleted team Christmas lunch and talking to the shift manager at the venue, they had suffered a lot of cancellations and reductions yet there was a table of 10 next to us (all co-workers) and a couple of family tables. Encouraging, but you'd expect the place to be rammed on the 14th December and it wasn't.
Coming back tonight, Bank Station was very quiet at 5.15pm and no problem with seats on tubes.
Perusing the Evening Standard, my eye was drawn to the Anne McElvoy column:
She claims four to five million unvaccinated adults nationally - elsewhere, the quote is two million unvaccinated in London alone. These figures are quoted without source or evidence.
I'm left pondering what seems to this observer an absurdity.
We are seeing four and five hours queues of people waiting to get the booster vaccination. These are younger people who, I presume, with the double vaccine, would have a statistically small chance of hospitalisation or death with Omicron. Getting everyone of these vaccinated for a third time makes the Government look good and would reduce the spread of the virus.
However, isn't the real challenge the wholly unvaccinated? These are by definition much more likely to contract the virus, require hospital treatment and die so where is the effort to reach these individuals? It's hard work requiring a number of agencies both Government and non-Government. It might require knocking on doors which is labour-intensive and intrusive but isn't getting one unvaccinated person to have one dose more important than getting ten doubly vaccinated people to get a booster.
The fear of God has been put into people by claims the double vaccine affords no protection against Omicron but is this correct? We are bombarded on here by plenty of "good news" tweets claiming Omicron is mild and there's nothing to worry about but that doesn't seem to be the UK Government's line.
In any case, the problem isn't the young double vaccinated but the older unvaccinated - where is the co-ordinated effort to get into those communities where vaccination take up remains poor, where is the support for local councils and voluntary groups to dive deep into these communities and start finding out what's happening? What about those who don't officially exist and are fearful of any authority?
I have also considered this. Clearly there are a hardcore who will not get the jab - they haven't done by now so won't be easy to persuade. We can't do anything for them, but even setting them aside its still 1m jabs a day required to get the vaxxed boosted.
Notable as well is that they aren't even trying to sift the numbers to prioritise. There are no longer low priority groups - those people who have already had Covid or are recently jabbed or are young and healthy.
From their perspective things are so bad that they need to set an almost impossible target that will impose huge demands on the system and the people doing the jabs to run 24/7 if possible right through Christmas.
We know how reluctant this government have been to act quickly or clearly at times - and yet this is "we have to do this, everyone needs it and they need it right now".
Returning from the depleted team Christmas lunch and talking to the shift manager at the venue, they had suffered a lot of cancellations and reductions yet there was a table of 10 next to us (all co-workers) and a couple of family tables. Encouraging, but you'd expect the place to be rammed on the 14th December and it wasn't.
Coming back tonight, Bank Station was very quiet at 5.15pm and no problem with seats on tubes.
Perusing the Evening Standard, my eye was drawn to the Anne McElvoy column:
She claims four to five million unvaccinated adults nationally - elsewhere, the quote is two million unvaccinated in London alone. These figures are quoted without source or evidence.
I'm left pondering what seems to this observer an absurdity.
We are seeing four and five hours queues of people waiting to get the booster vaccination. These are younger people who, I presume, with the double vaccine, would have a statistically small chance of hospitalisation or death with Omicron. Getting everyone of these vaccinated for a third time makes the Government look good and would reduce the spread of the virus.
However, isn't the real challenge the wholly unvaccinated? These are by definition much more likely to contract the virus, require hospital treatment and die so where is the effort to reach these individuals? It's hard work requiring a number of agencies both Government and non-Government. It might require knocking on doors which is labour-intensive and intrusive but isn't getting one unvaccinated person to have one dose more important than getting ten doubly vaccinated people to get a booster.
The fear of God has been put into people by claims the double vaccine affords no protection against Omicron but is this correct? We are bombarded on here by plenty of "good news" tweets claiming Omicron is mild and there's nothing to worry about but that doesn't seem to be the UK Government's line.
In any case, the problem isn't the young double vaccinated but the older unvaccinated - where is the co-ordinated effort to get into those communities where vaccination take up remains poor, where is the support for local councils and voluntary groups to dive deep into these communities and start finding out what's happening? What about those who don't officially exist and are fearful of any authority?
If the unvaxxed want a jab they can have one - it is not like they are being deprived or held down. They are choosing to do this because they "know better" or "prefer not to be told things" or believe "a man on the internet".
TBH, it is like listening to toddlers shouting "Shan't! Shan't! Shan't!" and throwing fits of temper. This disease will kill some of them and any of them over 50 might be signing their own death warrant.
There are no shortages of examples of people at death's door in ICU begging for a vaccine when it is too late and a good number's last words were along the lines of "I wish I had got jabbed".
Some people only learn the hard way and some of these lessons will be terminal and unless vaccination is made mandatory then there is nothing we can do about it
I have to say in two years "exit the virus" is surely up there among the most stupid things said about it. That there's anyone who believes that is worrying and the government Comms needs to be updated to warn everyone that we're all going to get it and the best way to decrease likelihood of symptoms is to get vaccinated. There is no other game in town.
I agree! So why do you keep saying we had an exit wave?
Because we did? Immunity and vaccine coverage in the UK is the highest in the world. Despite all of the doom rhetoric from the scientists we're not in any lockdown while most of Europe has got severe restrictions on going anywhere. Omicron may change the game, it may not. But in the summer to now 11-13m people got the virus, 70-80% of them unvaccinated by choice. Would you rather they had zero immunity heading into the Omicron wave?
Don't take my word for it Chris Whitty said it in June. It was and remains the right strategy, everyone is going ti get COVID. Lockdowns and NPIs displace infections, but now the vaccine cavalry is already here, last winter it wasn't so displacement of 1000 infections was ~9.5 lives saved. Today displacement of infections will save close to zero lives, anyone who wants to be can get vaccinated. I walked into a pharmacy with my wife yesterday and we both got our boosters.
Again and again, the only game in town is vaccines. Lockdowns will do nothing because the moment we unlock the virus will be back. Infecting all those same idiots who refused the vaccine. Lockdown to save people who refused the vaccine is immoral, better to tell them to die at home.
The reality is that those who are calling for lockdowns are looking for a legislative safety blanket where none exists.
It has been my view throughout that it is not the role of the state to protect people from a virus. Measures to fundamentally restrict the liberties of e.g. children to 'protect' the very elderly and vulnerable are not IMO morally justified at the current CFR. Excessive safetyism is not a road I want the state to go down.
I am very proud to see so many Tory 'rebel' MPs standing up for liberty today. I would vote exactly the same way.
So I read, I am a foaming lockdown forever advocate. And yet I said days ago I would also vote against. We need measures to sustain businesses who get screwed by the shutdown being caused by Omicron running rampant. Not half-measures and excuses.
We need to see MPs back reviewing the latest data and proposals as they come out - instead Javid is proposing another enabling act where Peppa will rule by decree through the Christmas recess.
Unacceptable.
Or let those of us who want to continue as is, continue.
I'm in my early 30s. As are most of my mates. All of us just want to crack on.
Could you make it any more obvious you think you're invulnerable and you couldn't give a damn about anyone else?
@Chris, I'm in my late 20s so liable to piss you off even more than Mortimer.
The disease appears to be even less dangerous to us than it was before. We've got vaxxed even when it was probably not in our personal interest to do so.
Uni/college students and school pupils have missed out on the education that we all got. And people my age haven't travelled, met partners etc for nearly two years.
Do you give a damn about anyone else?
Not about people who are so self-obsessed that they're willing to put a higher priority on travel, "meeting partners" and respecting their anti-vaccine fantasies than on giving a toss whether other people die or not.
It's not that I think I'm particularly at risk myself. I don't have any particular risk factors and I've had a booster. It's just that people like you turn my stomach with your grotesque selfishness.
Ummm, other than @rural_voter, who has "anti-vaccine fantasies" on here?
The bloke I was replying to, in the post I was replying to, when he said "even when it was probably not in our personal interest to do so [get vaccinated, even though he was in his 20s]".
Recommendation: Don't spout crap, unless you can be bothered to read what you're spouting about (or unless this site is now an anti-vaccination propaganda outlet).
Bit weak, mate.
Bit weak? Quoting the anti-vaccine crap I was replying to?
Jesus wept!
Just for the avoidance of all doubt, I have had two lots of Moderna, had grim side effects after the second.
I'm currently pissing about on the NHS Scotland website trying to book a booster (account locked for some reason).
I'm doing it for people like you, Chris, even though you despise me.
The betting movement seems rather odd. Hmm. OTOH, generally, if someone is sitting on a poll, the odds tend to suddenly shift. This has been more gradual.
Intriguing.
What has happened in the betting
Since this morning, con’s chances have improved from ~36% to ~50%. LDs fallen from ~63% to ~49%. In betting terms, that’s a big move.
My legendary modesty klaxon prevents me from mentioning this comment from last Thursday.
Might it be wise to keep your legendary modesty in storage until it is built on firmer foundations; for example, the result of the by-election?
TSE has connections.
He often sees embargoed opinion poll results several hours before the hoi poloi. Seeing the results of a by election a day or so before polling begins is a measure of his influence and the circles in which he moves.
Like insider trading, eh? Dodgy.
Not at all.
I was alluding to far more sinister matters than that, with no personal besmirchment of TSE's impeccable character. Just that he "knows people".
Similarly the FIA knew who was going to win the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix before it started.
The betting movement seems rather odd. Hmm. OTOH, generally, if someone is sitting on a poll, the odds tend to suddenly shift. This has been more gradual.
Intriguing.
What has happened in the betting
Since this morning, con’s chances have improved from ~36% to ~50%. LDs fallen from ~63% to ~49%. In betting terms, that’s a big move.
My legendary modesty klaxon prevents me from mentioning this comment from last Thursday.
I am of the opinion that he has not fully recovered from covid
LOL Boris is proper crambazzled
*Political betting as well as politely trying to make point post
I’m not saying this to be politically agitatoralative - or maybe I am as a Libdem so sat on opposition benches to the Conservatives. But I am trying to make a helpful point to think about, I know you want Boris gone and you prefer Rishi in there BIG G and you are right its miles better, but coming back to the sort of poll advantage Boris enjoyed over Corbyn may not be very straightforward after that.
With Boris there was GBD and levelling up, which may have had good electoral appeal, so after Boris goes early in New Years (I think resignation when told by whips how badly he’ll lose vonc) Boris voters may go on asking Conservatives, where is levelling up, where is examples of £350M a day in Nhs and other Brexit Dividend.
Another consideration is you cannot be sure who you will get as replacement, and can’t know now how effective they will be wearing a crown. I think media narrative in the leadership election will make a big difference. I know you want Rishi, but starting as hot favourite media will scrutinise his central role in the Boris Government - I am convinced his bid does not survive that at this time - it’s not just the Tax sums fighting covid making him the biggest tax taker since paying off WW2 debt, it’s the colossally waste of money, it’s the lack of scrutiny as he signed off a lot of these cheques. His party will know what’s going to emerge before next election that is his fault, dragging them all down if he is leader.
Whose job was due diligence before signing the cheques?
The media narrative will want Saj. He seems able. His backstory is growing up in flat above shop in rundown high street. He is archetypal Tory PM. I’m on Saj at 14-1. Would you be happy with Saj, Big G?
I read your comments with interest and my choice has been Rishi for months, but there are others including Truss, Sharma, Saj and more.
I know that Rishi performs well in opinion polls across the UK and would be a formidable opponent against the colourless and humourless Starmer
It is also relevant that when I text my MP and personal friend of 40 years yesterday asking that the 1922 sought Boris resignation, his response was interesting in that he said it was being discussed but the MPs cannot agree on an alternative and until that happens Boris will remain in place
These are difficult times for the conservative party but with nearly 3 years to the next GE it is a brave person who would write the conservative party off
The betting movement seems rather odd. Hmm. OTOH, generally, if someone is sitting on a poll, the odds tend to suddenly shift. This has been more gradual.
Intriguing.
What has happened in the betting
Since this morning, con’s chances have improved from ~36% to ~50%. LDs fallen from ~63% to ~49%. In betting terms, that’s a big move.
My legendary modesty klaxon prevents me from mentioning this comment from last Thursday.
Might it be wise to keep your legendary modesty in storage until it is built on firmer foundations; for example, the result of the by-election?
TSE has connections.
He often sees embargoed opinion poll results several hours before the hoi poloi. Seeing the results of a by election a day or so before polling begins is a measure of his influence and the circles in which he moves.
Like insider trading, eh? Dodgy.
Not at all.
I was alluding to far more sinister matters than that, with no personal besmirchment of TSE's impeccable character. Just that he "knows people".
Similarly the FIA knew who was going to win the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix before it started.
Not really, if Lewis had been in second place as the safety car went out the same sequence of events would have occurred for the opposite driver.
The betting movement seems rather odd. Hmm. OTOH, generally, if someone is sitting on a poll, the odds tend to suddenly shift. This has been more gradual.
Intriguing.
What has happened in the betting
Since this morning, con’s chances have improved from ~36% to ~50%. LDs fallen from ~63% to ~49%. In betting terms, that’s a big move.
My legendary modesty klaxon prevents me from mentioning this comment from last Thursday.
18 months. What do we think? I'm not sure why the driver wasn't prosecuted for attempted murder.
They don't like prosecuting drivers for that sort of general offence. This was Causing Serious Injury by Dangerous Driving, which has a max sentence of 5 years.
I'd say that 3-3.5 years would be more like it for the physical and psychological injuries caused and the behaviour displayed, and that "moment of madness" is a crappy defence when calmness and focus is the most important factor for anyone driving any car on a public road. The initial collision was caused by a third party obstructing the cyclist.
Quite ironic that he is bang to rights due to his own dashcam.
I'm not sure if GBH level harm (which is how it is defined) is enough to come under the Unduly Lenient Sentencing review scheme, but someone may refer it. But the list of offences for that is tilted towards the sexual.
I'm not sure what the legal distinction is between careless driving and dangerous driving, but it implies that the injury caused to the cyclist was an unintentional byproduct of the driving (as in the example you cite). It seems clear that with the case I linked to that there was an intent to cause injury to the cyclist, and it must have been clear that it would have been serious injury. His reaction after committing the offence, and pursuing the cyclist after the original incident are also aggravating factors.
I don't know whether these offences were created because there was a reluctance from juries to convict drivers for manslaughter, etc, because, I suppose, many jury members might think that they could easily be in the dock if they made a mistake.
As a cyclist I don't feel like the law is protecting me. I'm fair game.
If you did raise it as an ULS it would be interesting to know what came of it. I'm wondering whether I should write to the CPS about it.
For what it is worth and based on nothing more than guessing at BJ's character I think he will resign next year if some sort of face saving reason can be concocted.
Sitting in a starlit Balearic garden, looking at my very own Antony Gormley statue. Sipping excellent wine, as frogs croak in the fountains. Global meltdown seems a long way away
And yet
Why do you want a statute of Anthony gormley in your garden?
And how large is it? Is it sort of a Gormley Gnome?
For what it is worth and based on nothing more than guessing at BJ's character I think he will resign next year if some sort of face saving reason can be concocted.
Sitting in a starlit Balearic garden, looking at my very own Antony Gormley statue. Sipping excellent wine, as frogs croak in the fountains. Global meltdown seems a long way away
And yet
Why do you want a statute of Anthony gormley in your garden?
And how large is it? Is it sort of a Gormley Gnome?
Gormley is one of those horrifically overrated artists. The planet is full of them. Absolute shite. Future generations will point and laugh.
The Lib Dem leader, whose name nobody knows, will not be making his considerable presence felt in the Commons after testing positive.
Who do you think Sir Ed should have a celebrity affair with to raise his profile and get people to remember his name, Farooq? Madonna would be a coup for Lib Dems if a tabloid gets pics of them canoodling on a wine bar terrace you would agree. Though we may have to settle for Rebel Wilson.
Been done before. That LD MP. Nesbit? Lembit? Can't remember his name but he had a singer type lady friend which got him lots of photos in the papers.
I have to say in two years "exit the virus" is surely up there among the most stupid things said about it. That there's anyone who believes that is worrying and the government Comms needs to be updated to warn everyone that we're all going to get it and the best way to decrease likelihood of symptoms is to get vaccinated. There is no other game in town.
I agree! So why do you keep saying we had an exit wave?
Because we did? Immunity and vaccine coverage in the UK is the highest in the world. Despite all of the doom rhetoric from the scientists we're not in any lockdown while most of Europe has got severe restrictions on going anywhere. Omicron may change the game, it may not. But in the summer to now 11-13m people got the virus, 70-80% of them unvaccinated by choice. Would you rather they had zero immunity heading into the Omicron wave?
Don't take my word for it Chris Whitty said it in June. It was and remains the right strategy, everyone is going ti get COVID. Lockdowns and NPIs displace infections, but now the vaccine cavalry is already here, last winter it wasn't so displacement of 1000 infections was ~9.5 lives saved. Today displacement of infections will save close to zero lives, anyone who wants to be can get vaccinated. I walked into a pharmacy with my wife yesterday and we both got our boosters.
Again and again, the only game in town is vaccines. Lockdowns will do nothing because the moment we unlock the virus will be back. Infecting all those same idiots who refused the vaccine. Lockdown to save people who refused the vaccine is immoral, better to tell them to die at home.
The reality is that those who are calling for lockdowns are looking for a legislative safety blanket where none exists.
It has been my view throughout that it is not the role of the state to protect people from a virus. Measures to fundamentally restrict the liberties of e.g. children to 'protect' the very elderly and vulnerable are not IMO morally justified at the current CFR. Excessive safetyism is not a road I want the state to go down.
I am very proud to see so many Tory 'rebel' MPs standing up for liberty today. I would vote exactly the same way.
So I read, I am a foaming lockdown forever advocate. And yet I said days ago I would also vote against. We need measures to sustain businesses who get screwed by the shutdown being caused by Omicron running rampant. Not half-measures and excuses.
We need to see MPs back reviewing the latest data and proposals as they come out - instead Javid is proposing another enabling act where Peppa will rule by decree through the Christmas recess.
Unacceptable.
Or let those of us who want to continue as is, continue.
I'm in my early 30s. As are most of my mates. All of us just want to crack on.
Could you make it any more obvious you think you're invulnerable and you couldn't give a damn about anyone else?
@Chris, I'm in my late 20s so liable to piss you off even more than Mortimer.
The disease appears to be even less dangerous to us than it was before. We've got vaxxed even when it was probably not in our personal interest to do so.
Uni/college students and school pupils have missed out on the education that we all got. And people my age haven't travelled, met partners etc for nearly two years.
Do you give a damn about anyone else?
Not about people who are so self-obsessed that they're willing to put a higher priority on travel, "meeting partners" and respecting their anti-vaccine fantasies than on giving a toss whether other people die or not.
It's not that I think I'm particularly at risk myself. I don't have any particular risk factors and I've had a booster. It's just that people like you turn my stomach with your grotesque selfishness.
Ummm, other than @rural_voter, who has "anti-vaccine fantasies" on here?
The bloke I was replying to, in the post I was replying to, when he said "even when it was probably not in our personal interest to do so [get vaccinated, even though he was in his 20s]".
Recommendation: Don't spout crap, unless you can be bothered to read what you're spouting about (or unless this site is now an anti-vaccination propaganda outlet).
Don't spout crap
Would you like to me to compare your forecasts for Covid cases in the UK with mine? And then we can talk about who has been talking crap.
What? You don't think someone saying it wasn't in their interest to get vaccinated because they were in their 20s is anti-vaccine drivel? Astonishing.
As for forecasts, I've made none. I've occasionally pointed out what would obviously happen under certain assumptions, which anyone numerate had the ability to check.
If you fancy yourself Nostradamus, that particular delusion is not my problem.
Um, what @Endillion said, admittedly after this but the info was available to you all the time. Are the JCVI anti vaccine fantasists? How embarrassing is it, 1-10, being you?
Of course the JVCI has never said vaccination represented a higher risk than non-vaccination to those in their 20s, even viewed from the purely selfish perspective.
Unbelievable that people are still pushing the anti-vaccine crap, even in the situation we're in now. Even more unbelievable that it's actually being supported by RCS.
Nobody is pushing an anti-vaccine argument, you numptoid wazzock. That is just not a thing which has happened. you are tilting at windmills, you are going into paroxysms over the safety of people who are a lot less obsessed with it than you are, and you think "meeting partners" is such an outlandish aspiration it needs putting in scare quotes. Odd person.
Sort of betting he has a comfortable home with plenty of space and lives with his partner and family. Not someone who lives alone in a cramped flat and hasnt been able to go find a date in two years almost or someone like me who hasn't seen their girlfriend in two years as she is afraid to return from australia where her children live because she might not be easily able to return. Typical "lockdown works for me" type.
Of course we could all fantasise about the private lives of people we know nothing about - probably with results equally inaccurate, though as far as inaccuracy goes, that was pretty spectacular.
Though really you must realise your hyperbolic fantasies have little enough to do with vaccination risk, and do little enough to justify anti-vaccine propaganda.
WTF are you talking about....I am fully vaxxed and get my booster on friday just fed up with cunts like you wanting total lock down because its "Fine for you" when many of us havent seen loved ones in almost two years fuck off you fucking twat. You showed your I am alright jack tendencies with your quoted bit about meeting people. I refuse point blank your lockdowns and restrictions and have absolutely no intention to be governed by your paranoia
The Lib Dem leader, whose name nobody knows, will not be making his considerable presence felt in the Commons after testing positive.
Who do you think Sir Ed should have a celebrity affair with to raise his profile and get people to remember his name, Farooq? Madonna would be a coup for Lib Dems if a tabloid gets pics of them canoodling on a wine bar terrace you would agree. Though we may have to settle for Rebel Wilson.
Been done before. That LD MP. Nesbit? Lembit? Can't remember his name but he had a singer type lady friend which got him lots of photos in the papers.
They were twins
Liam Fox did rather better with his chanteuse
She denies it was anything like Fox tacitly bigs it up to be.
Comments
Within 4 weeks it'd be a hundred million cases per day. We'll be getting reinfected hours after catching it.
But - my God - do you really think that's not going to happen?
Based on comments I made on PB earlier.
My prediction for North Shropshire.
Con hold but Lab + LD votes > Con votes.
https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/1468983058607099904
Most of it muscle too, apparently...
I just wish there were more elections.
Will it happen? Not sure. No one is. For reasons that I pulled out of my arse I however think there is a chance it won't happen. You think it will.
A bet! What are the terms.
The idea He is really pissed off about our overuse of plastics is laughable
He said: Stop whining, so what if the fucking world ends, there are many others
I’ve given up any idea of voting Green
But you really should try to reflect. If half the population needs to be infected with Omicron to get us to herd immunity, and the R number is in the region of 4, then how on earth do you imagine we can avoid a million infections a day unless we go into lockdown?
Most people it'll be an advantage - some will be hit hard.
What's in the news?
Vaccines. Viruses.
What was in the news last week?
Corruption. Incompetence. Confusion. Rebellion.
Hence the odds.
An annual general election would be great for betting purposes.
*Political betting as well as politely trying to make point post
I’m not saying this to be politically agitatoralative - or maybe I am as a Libdem so sat on opposition benches to the Conservatives. But I am trying to make a helpful point to think about, I know you want Boris gone and you prefer Rishi in there BIG G and you are right its miles better, but coming back to the sort of poll advantage Boris enjoyed over Corbyn may not be very straightforward after that.
With Boris there was GBD and levelling up, which may have had good electoral appeal, so after Boris goes early in New Years (I think resignation when told by whips how badly he’ll lose vonc) Boris voters may go on asking Conservatives, where is levelling up, where is examples of £350M a day in Nhs and other Brexit Dividend.
Another consideration is you cannot be sure who you will get as replacement, and can’t know now how effective they will be wearing a crown. I think media narrative in the leadership election will make a big difference. I know you want Rishi, but starting as hot favourite media will scrutinise his central role in the Boris Government - I am convinced his bid does not survive that at this time - it’s not just the Tax sums fighting covid making him the biggest tax taker since paying off WW2 debt, it’s the colossally waste of money, it’s the lack of scrutiny as he signed off a lot of these cheques. His party will know what’s going to emerge before next election that is his fault, dragging them all down if he is leader.
Whose job was due diligence before signing the cheques?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9738735/Fraud-blunders-Covid-support-schemes-cost-taxpayers-30bn-MPs-warn.html
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/apr/22/fifth-of-uk-covid-contracts-raised-red-flags-for-possible-corruption
The media narrative will want Saj. He seems able. His backstory is growing up in flat above shop in rundown high street. He is archetypal Tory PM. I’m on Saj at 14-1. Would you be happy with Saj, Big G?
A couple of weeks ago I had precisely the same sore throat, feeling sh&tty, etc palaver as I did when I had Covid. Oh bollocks I thought, how can I have it again. LFTed and negative and by the following morning all was gone.
Was it Omicron? Absolutely no idea but bizarre that the symptoms, for less than 12 hours, were exactly the same, around six weeks after I had Covid.
The plot thickens.....
But I took issue with your post which said there are likely to be 800k cases a day. Because so much is unknown.
While we're in reflection mode do you think your prediction was a measured assertion.
https://twitter.com/johnestevens/status/1470813585462992905
We are sooo fucked...
So assess your own risk. If it worries you, or if you're worried about coming into contact with someone who might be more at risk than average, act accordingly. If you're not, don't. I don't see why the only entity that can now make decisions on everyone's behalf is the Government. Several times I've heard phrases such as "the people seem to be ahead of the Government here" on radio shows - no, it's people assessing their own risks and acting accordingly.
What I am 100% certain on, is that if I wanted somebody to assess my own risk for me and make decisions on my behalf about how to manage said risk, it would most certainly not be Boris Johnson. Or Keir Starmer for that matter. Or any politician or civil servant. We're dealing with unknowns here, but also dealing with enough data to make our own assumptions. It should not be the Government's job to order me how to deal with it. And any political party that acknowledges this position would have my vote tomorrow.
You could EITHER:
Fuck the future and try to bribe as many voters as possible in 11/12 months to stay in power, then fail, get turfed out, the other comes in, rinse and repeat:
OR
You could reason that you're only there for a short time so if you want anything to survive you need to build bridges with the other side, allowing you to think very long term as elections would make sod all difference.
It would be a fascinating experiment to watch - from a safe distance.
Edit - That's fake news, I'm off to the poor house if Labour win this.
If you had been reading what I have been actually saying instead of falling back on what you think I think with witty "moron" reposts, you would see that I am against the new proposed restrictions. Omicron either isn't going to hit us as hard as they are saying or its already too late to stop it.
The lockdown I think they will impose straight after Christmas will be too late to have any practical use not that it will be universal thanks to the Downing Street bunga bunga parties. Nor do we need lockdown - we are already seeing people dropping with it so it will be the infected or the immediate relatives of the infected locking themselves down (like me, like employees of Scotrail, DHL, Manchester United and MPs to give a few examples over the last few days).
You and I come from different ends of the belief spectrum. You want to believe its all over and we don't need to do anything, I want to believe that but can't ignore the evidence. Nor does it matter what you or I think or say - neither of us has the experience or knowledge to speak with any authority.
I just don't get the rage that you and @Anabobazina and @Philip_Thompson throw about. I want lockdown forever apparently. No, I personally can't go out for a week again and its hateful. I want people to get infected you said. After what my family have gone through this last week and a half I would tell you to go fuck yourself if I could be bothered.
Seriously. Chill out. We are passengers in this thing. Either Javid, Whitty et al have overcooked the data and we get away with it, or we are fucked. Either way, lets all try not to act like twats at each other and make the best of Christmas because January looks likely to be hateful...
One major reform, merging NI and income tax would cause a few edge cases and quirks in the first few years that the governing power would be out for a generation if we had 4/5 year terms, on a 14 year term, they'd win a landslide.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikNxiAHyoy0
c 4:20
He often sees embargoed opinion poll results several hours before the hoi poloi. Seeing the results of a by election a day or so before polling begins is a measure of his influence and the circles in which he moves.
Returning from the depleted team Christmas lunch and talking to the shift manager at the venue, they had suffered a lot of cancellations and reductions yet there was a table of 10 next to us (all co-workers) and a couple of family tables. Encouraging, but you'd expect the place to be rammed on the 14th December and it wasn't.
Coming back tonight, Bank Station was very quiet at 5.15pm and no problem with seats on tubes.
Perusing the Evening Standard, my eye was drawn to the Anne McElvoy column:
https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/covid-unvaccinated-omicron-vaccine-passports-b971877.html
She claims four to five million unvaccinated adults nationally - elsewhere, the quote is two million unvaccinated in London alone. These figures are quoted without source or evidence.
I'm left pondering what seems to this observer an absurdity.
We are seeing four and five hours queues of people waiting to get the booster vaccination. These are younger people who, I presume, with the double vaccine, would have a statistically small chance of hospitalisation or death with Omicron. Getting everyone of these vaccinated for a third time makes the Government look good and would reduce the spread of the virus.
However, isn't the real challenge the wholly unvaccinated? These are by definition much more likely to contract the virus, require hospital treatment and die so where is the effort to reach these individuals? It's hard work requiring a number of agencies both Government and non-Government. It might require knocking on doors which is labour-intensive and intrusive but isn't getting one unvaccinated person to have one dose more important than getting ten doubly vaccinated people to get a booster.
The fear of God has been put into people by claims the double vaccine affords no protection against Omicron but is this correct? We are bombarded on here by plenty of "good news" tweets claiming Omicron is mild and there's nothing to worry about but that doesn't seem to be the UK Government's line.
In any case, the problem isn't the young double vaccinated but the older unvaccinated - where is the co-ordinated effort to get into those communities where vaccination take up remains poor, where is the support for local councils and voluntary groups to dive deep into these communities and start finding out what's happening? What about those who don't officially exist and are fearful of any authority?
Private polling on the other hand...
But - an upset is a lot more plausible than it was.
And I maintain, despite divers Tories saying otherwise, that if he loses this Johnson is toast. The only time the Tories have ever - and I mean ever - lost this seat was in a low turnout by election at the nadir/apogee* of Asquith's Town Hall Campaign against the Tariff Reform movement. They've won it even in the general elections of 1832, 1880, 1906, 1945 and 1997. It's also one of their safest current seats.
He wouldn't survive the LibDems taking this from third. If it's even close I expect to see panic.
*delete according to party allegiance.
NEW THREAD
Notable as well is that they aren't even trying to sift the numbers to prioritise. There are no longer low priority groups - those people who have already had Covid or are recently jabbed or are young and healthy.
From their perspective things are so bad that they need to set an almost impossible target that will impose huge demands on the system and the people doing the jabs to run 24/7 if possible right through Christmas.
We know how reluctant this government have been to act quickly or clearly at times - and yet this is "we have to do this, everyone needs it and they need it right now".
TBH, it is like listening to toddlers shouting "Shan't! Shan't! Shan't!" and throwing fits of temper. This disease will kill some of them and any of them over 50 might be signing their own death warrant.
There are no shortages of examples of people at death's door in ICU begging for a vaccine when it is too late and a good number's last words were along the lines of "I wish I had got jabbed".
Some people only learn the hard way and some of these lessons will be terminal and unless vaccination is made mandatory then there is nothing we can do about it
I'm currently pissing about on the NHS Scotland website trying to book a booster (account locked for some reason).
I'm doing it for people like you, Chris, even though you despise me.
I was alluding to far more sinister matters than that, with no personal besmirchment of TSE's impeccable character. Just that he "knows people".
Similarly the FIA knew who was going to win the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix before it started.
I know that Rishi performs well in opinion polls across the UK and would be a formidable opponent against the colourless and humourless Starmer
It is also relevant that when I text my MP and personal friend of 40 years yesterday asking that the 1922 sought Boris resignation, his response was interesting in that he said it was being discussed but the MPs cannot agree on an alternative and until that happens Boris will remain in place
These are difficult times for the conservative party but with nearly 3 years to the next GE it is a brave person who would write the conservative party off
I don't know whether these offences were created because there was a reluctance from juries to convict drivers for manslaughter, etc, because, I suppose, many jury members might think that they could easily be in the dock if they made a mistake.
As a cyclist I don't feel like the law is protecting me. I'm fair game.
If you did raise it as an ULS it would be interesting to know what came of it. I'm wondering whether I should write to the CPS about it.
And how large is it? Is it sort of a Gormley Gnome?
Liam Fox did rather better with his chanteuse