18-OCT 2023 : LAB 44% / CON 28% / LDM 9% / REF 7%

[Rafwan]

I am with c-a-r-f-r-e-w on this. He speaks wisely.

[graham]

I do become irritated when senior journalists post or talk gibberish.
In today's Guardian political podcast the paper's political editor - Kiran Stacy - reveals his ignorance of basic arithmetic. Whilst discussing last night's Commons vote which produced a Government majority of 44, he refers to the 29 Tory rebels who had abstained. He then goes on to say that were those 29 abstainers to vote against the Bill in January that the Government would be defeated. That is wrong!Were those rebel all to oppose next month the Government's majority would fall from 44 to 15. It might well be ,of course, that some Tories who supported the Government last night - such as Prit Patel, JRM , IDS and Andrea Jenkins (who was paired) will vote against next time - and that could put the majority in peril. Also Peter Bone voted for the Bill - but is likely to have disappeared by January!
I do,however, expect better of supposedly top-class journalists.

[pete]

Dec 12, 2023 12:43:08 GMT athena said:

Apologies for a long, self-indulgent post. It's really my personal stock-take of the electoral options.

I started reading and contributing to this site partly because I'd completely lost touch with politics. I rather liked being a low-information member of the electorate, but when I realised I didn't know who the leader of the LDs was I thought I ought to re-engage at least long enough to make an informed decision about what to do with my vote at the next GE.

My most surprising realisation has been that constitutional reform, starting with a codified constitution is crucial to a lot of the political changes I consider most important. In the context of climate policy and environmental protections it's horrifying that any government that can muster a simple majority in the HoC can unpick legislation with long-term objectives enacted by a previous government. When this extends to unpicking international obligations I worry that other countries may regard us as unreliable partners and hesitate to enter into agreements with us. The EU might feel friendly towards Starmer and optimistic about relations with the UK under a Starmer premiership, but it'll be looking over his shoulder at potential successors. I also want radical decentralisation and the creation of a federal UK. Not piecemeal, grace and favour devolution, where power is delegated by Westminster and ultimate control still rests with the centre, but formal, permanent decentralisation such that certain powers are exercised, as of right, by elected governments in the English regions, Scotland, Wales and NI (unless NI prefers to join the Irish Republic). I can't see how we get to that point without a codified constitution.

I made a point of following the recent Lab conference, on the basis that it would be a good guide to the platform on which the party will fight the next GE and the policy programme Starmer will present if elected. None of the individual policies were new, but the presentation and emphasis clarified for me what Starmer stands for much more than I expected. My first reaction to his big speech was that he sounded incredibly old-fashioned. He's offering 20th century strategies for improving social mobility because he simply doesn't get the urgency and magnitude of the climate and biodiversity crises and still thinks they can be relegated and be tackled within the current economic framework. As well as being fundamentally misguided, his approach is short-sighted even on its own terms, because climate catastrophe will of course hit the poorest individuals and communities hardest. His climate myopia is particularly depressing because he made a point of saying that his renewal project would take more than one electoral cycle.

Recently I've been trying to tell myself that a Green vote would be interpeted as a vote for stronger action on climate and biodiversity, that it would be the best way to indicate that I want these crises prioritised and that the party's other policies don't matter because they're not what the party is known for and there's no chance that the Greens will win in my constituency. But after they garnered headlines for disaffiliating Green Party Women I can't bring myself to give them my vote.

It saddens and puzzles me that on something as fundamental as sex-based rights I find myself divided from so many people that are normally on the same political side but this is going to be a dealbreaker issue for me. Half the population is female, we're female all our lives, we still live in a patriarchal society and too often our sex shapes (disfigures would probably be more a accurate term) our life experiences more than any of characteristics that we prefer to think of as central our identity, so I don't think I'm being unreasonable to expect a political party that wants my vote to recognise that sex matters.

(To pre-empt the argument that polling suggests that sex-based rights are an important issue only for a small percentage of voters, I suspect this is partly because there's not much political choice. Voting Tory is not an option for most gender-critical feminists because, whilst the Tories are in a better position on sex-based rights, the party has a generally poor record on equality and women's issues - although May was responsible for some ground-breaking legislation on domestic abuse - and most of the openly sexist, misogynist MPs sit on its benches.)

Sounds as if you'll be voting for nobody.

[alec]

For those interested, and very briefly on the main thread, I thought I should pass on some potentially excellent biotech news. I've come across a new product, ViraWarn, produced by a company called Opteev, which claims to be able to sense a wide range of viruses (flu, RSV, and Covid, with several different variants tested) within 60 seconds. This is the kind of biosensor technology I've been talking about for some time, but it looks like the products are now coming to market after some very promising technical trials.

I can't vouch for this product, which can be found here - opteev.com/virawarn/ but there is some published experimental data (I think from the manufacturers themselves, so I'd prefer to see more independent testing as well) - www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/23/18/8000

But this is going to be one of the key steps forward and it's encouraging to see a product designed for the domestic market coming through so quickly. It is a bit costly, at $400, and I don't know about the UK supply position, but for people wanting to mix with friends safely, a combination of lft tests on the door and this on the dining table and you can start to imagine a world where we can meet with vulnerable friends and relatives with a clear conscience.

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

Re: Sunak’s evidence to the enquiry, and the reliability of the data at the time…

“At the Covid Inquiry this week, Rishi Sunak made a striking admission. The Prime Minister pointed out that, based on analysis by Imperial College and Manchester University, the costs of lockdown are likely to be greater than the benefits.

The research was based on ‘quality-adjusted life years’ – the measure used by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (Nice) to determine whether any health intervention is worth the price.

Sunak pointed to the report from August 2020, which warned that ‘treating possible future Covid-19 deaths as if nothing else matters is going to lead to bad outcomes.’

One might think such a statement – and the science behind it – would be worth exploring, but Hugo Keith KC shut down the comments, telling Sunak that he ‘did not want to get into quality-life assurance models.’ (sic)

The exchange was telling, demonstrating a lack of scientific rigour from the inquiry barrister…

…Sunak’s witness statement also proved eye-opening, showing that the country may have been locked down for too long because of bad science, data issues and poor modelling. It’s worth exploring his points…”

Telegraph

[pjw1961]

Dec 13, 2023 14:06:01 GMT steve said:

Catastrophic losses reported from us sources in the military deployed by war criminal Putin in Ukraine.
With nearly 90% of those originally deployed killed in action and two thirds of Russian tanks destroyed.

Of course war criminal Putin doesn't care and continues to throw conscripts into the meat grinder.
Fortunately he has allies in the Putin enabling anti democratic republican party and it's rapist traitor leader.

I think you need to make it clearer where you stand on this steve

[crossbat11]

Dec 13, 2023 15:19:11 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

Re: Sunak’s evidence to the enquiry, and the reliability of the data at the time…

“At the Covid Inquiry this week, Rishi Sunak made a striking admission. The Prime Minister pointed out that, based on analysis by Imperial College and Manchester University, the costs of lockdown are likely to be greater than the benefits.

The research was based on ‘quality-adjusted life years’ – the measure used by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (Nice) to determine whether any health intervention is worth the price.

Sunak pointed to the report from August 2020, which warned that ‘treating possible future Covid-19 deaths as if nothing else matters is going to lead to bad outcomes.’

One might think such a statement – and the science behind it – would be worth exploring, but Hugo Keith KC shut down the comments, telling Sunak that he ‘did not want to get into quality-life assurance models.’ (sic)

The exchange was telling, demonstrating a lack of scientific rigour from the inquiry barrister…

…Sunak’s witness statement also proved eye-opening, showing that the country may have been locked down for too long because of bad science, data issues and poor modelling. It’s worth exploring his points…”

You normally attribute your quotations. Where is this from? The Telegraph? Spectator?

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

Dec 13, 2023 15:47:56 GMT crossbat11 said:

Dec 13, 2023 15:19:11 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

Re: Sunak’s evidence to the enquiry, and the reliability of the data at the time…

“At the Covid Inquiry this week, Rishi Sunak made a striking admission. The Prime Minister pointed out that, based on analysis by Imperial College and Manchester University, the costs of lockdown are likely to be greater than the benefits.

The research was based on ‘quality-adjusted life years’ – the measure used by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (Nice) to determine whether any health intervention is worth the price.

Sunak pointed to the report from August 2020, which warned that ‘treating possible future Covid-19 deaths as if nothing else matters is going to lead to bad outcomes.’

One might think such a statement – and the science behind it – would be worth exploring, but Hugo Keith KC shut down the comments, telling Sunak that he ‘did not want to get into quality-life assurance models.’ (sic)

The exchange was telling, demonstrating a lack of scientific rigour from the inquiry barrister…

…Sunak’s witness statement also proved eye-opening, showing that the country may have been locked down for too long because of bad science, data issues and poor modelling. It’s worth exploring his points…”

You normally attribute your quotations. Where is this from? The Telegraph? Spectator?

Soz, yeah it’s the Telegraph… slipped my mind after following alec ’s link. (have amended accordingly)

[mercian]

Dec 13, 2023 10:26:05 GMT Danny said:

The reith lecture today noted that housing costs for the young had moved from 5% of income to 25% of income now. Not quite sure what was the starting point, maybe he was contrasting with what now 70 year olds had experienced, which he was talking about.

Anyway, that is a 20% income tax rise with no tax free allowance. If you reapportioned it with some sort of tax free band , then you might reasonably look at it as 40% extra on the effective starting income tax today.

Taxes fallen under governments today compared to post war years? really? Not so much as seems!

When interest rates reached their peak in about 1980, I was paying over 50% of my post-tax income on my mortgage, so I think someone's being very selective with the data.

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

“Boris Johnson insisted that keeping the R below one was the most important of five tests that must be met before the country could return to normal.

But according to Sunak, there were “errors in the collection and analysis” of data, which overestimated transmission and made the R number look “artificially high,” prolonging restrictions.

…

Sunak said: “Rates of nosocomial infections (contracted in hospital settings) were of interest, as a high nosocomial rate and a low rate of infection in the community may have enabled us to start safely pursuing policies to open the economy and society, whilst focusing NPI (non-pharmaceutical intervention) efforts on reducing transmission within healthcare settings.”

…

“A Sage member recognised that bringing down R in all areas had a ‘huge economic cost, but sorting out R in hospitals and care homes should be possible at much lower economic cost’. On reflection, I am not sure whether this aspect was as rigorously understood, emphasised, or explored as much as it might have been.”

…

According to Sunak, by the beginning of May, 30 per cent of all cases originated in hospitals, a proportion that rose to 80 per cent by June 2020.

By June 18, Sage minutes acknowledged that the ‘errors’ meant that for some time they had in all probability been overestimating the rate of transmission”, making it look ‘artificially high’.”


Telegraph

[mercian]

Dec 13, 2023 10:46:46 GMT pjw1961 said:

Dec 13, 2023 10:10:38 GMT neilj said:

Re offshore processing I thought that was what many people of a progressive mindset wanted?
Rather than have people make a dangerous journey, process them in France or better still divert them to somewhere to be processed closer to where they are fleeing from
Really would think it would be people on the right who wouldn't like this?

There is no comparison with the tory scheme who want to remove people already here with no possibility of return even if their asylum claim is successful (only exception is if they commit serious crimes in Rwanda they will ve returned here!!!)

Yes, provided it is part of a structured immigration system, with safe routes and respect for international and UK law. For example assessing asylum claims in France would be fine, so long as the process is rapid. 

And most of them are rejected.

[steve]

neilj
"More Brexit 'benefits"

Jib will be along shortly to explain how the cluster shambles of brexit that he voted for was actually down to the junior partners in the coalition government that finished a year before the referendum.

[mercian]

Dec 13, 2023 11:37:32 GMT hireton said:

Mark Drakeford is stepping down with immediate effect as Welsh First Minister.

I heard his speech and I thought he said he was staying on until a successor could be selected which he expected to be around February/March next year.

[pjw1961]

Dec 13, 2023 16:08:44 GMT mercian said:

Dec 13, 2023 11:37:32 GMT hireton said:

Mark Drakeford is stepping down with immediate effect as Welsh First Minister.

I heard his speech and I thought he said he was staying on until a successor could be selected which he expected to be around February/March next year.

Beat you to it - again

[mercian]

Dec 13, 2023 16:18:54 GMT pjw1961 said:

Dec 13, 2023 16:08:44 GMT mercian said:

I heard his speech and I thought he said he was staying on until a successor could be selected which he expected to be around February/March next year.

Beat you to it - again

I only look in from time to time.

[alec]

c-a-r-f-r-e-w - (from the DT) - "One might think such a statement – and the science behind it – would be worth exploring, but Hugo Keith KC shut down the comments, telling Sunak that he ‘did not want to get into quality-life assurance models.’ (sic)

The exchange was telling, demonstrating a lack of scientific rigour from the inquiry barrister…"

Can't say for certain, but this is probably an example of typical of the laziness of the Telegraph, and to be fair, nearly every other mainstream outlet. The central point is that much of the media has only covered the inquiry seriously once the politicians and key figures were on stage. They want to report on whatsapp messages and such like, but were missing in action throughout the weeks of detailed technical evidence.

On the technicalities, there were extensive discussions about the QLA lives lost measure during these earlier sessions. One of the points made very strongly, which is completely valid, is that the QLA measures are just another model. There's nothing particularly rigorous or inherently accurate about them, but they are a useful indicative tool. In the case of SARS-CoV-2, they are a tool of distinctly limited value, because we don't have any good quality data about future impacts of infection. What we do have is data from SARS1 survivors, which suggest previously fit and healthy younger individuals who survived a single SARS1 infection now have average life expectancy of around 60 - 65 years, 10 - 15 years below their uninfected peers (this data is limited, as the funding for the longditudinal studies was shut down after the disease was eradicated) and we know that SARS1 survivors suffer from a range of ongoing, persistent symptoms 18 years after recovery.

When the quoted study was drafted, the authors had access to the data from SARS1 (and MERS, another SARS type coronavirus with similar long term health impacts) but they had zero knowledge of the long term impacts of SARS-CoV-2. We now have a great deal more data, none of which is very encouraging, but we're still less than 4 years out. Using QLA measures in these circumstances is deeply flawed, because it's pretty obvious to anyone following the science the SARS-CoV-2 is leading a high levels of morbidity and mortality way beyond the acute phase, whereas the study only focused on deaths and illness in the acute phase.

Also, where you quote -
"According to Sunak, by the beginning of May, 30 per cent of all cases originated in hospitals, a proportion that rose to 80 per cent by June 2020.

By June 18, Sage minutes acknowledged that the ‘errors’ meant that for some time they had in all probability been overestimating the rate of transmission”, making it look ‘artificially high’.”"

I'd suggest this is something of a red herring. Sunak leans heavily on the proportion of hospital acquired 'cases' as evidence there was less transmission than was thought at the time, but he's forgetting two things. First, these weren't cases, but confirmed PCR test results, of which there were far higher testing proportions in hospitals. Second, from April 2020, we had the ONS Infection Survey, still considered to be the world's best measure of population infection. This was done using PCR confirmed tests on a randomly selected and weighted proportion of the population. It was nothing to do with hospital acquired infections, and it went on the form the basis for the statistical extrapolation of the R number.

Basically, Sunak is talking various shades of bollocks in an attempt to save his own skin, and the Telegraph journalists are too lazy and/or biased to actually dig into the detail.

[alec]

lens - I'm with c-a-r-f-r-e-w and @rafwan on the masking issue. It's pretty obvious that if you're covid cautious, you'll do your best to avoid potentially infectious situations, so mask wearers will be doing more online shopping, more WFH, less pubbing and clubbing. Like my local village shop, there's a small group of around a dozen people I regularly see first thing when the Coop opens, usually masked. These are the folks who want to do the weekly shopping when the store is empty, and for reference, it's just over 2% of the village population, around 5% if you count the people who share households with them. But you'll not see any of them unless you're up in the dark the minute the shop opens.

I also think you're discounting the power of peer pressure. A lot of people would like to protect themselves but feel very self conscious, and so bow to social pressure. (It's one reason why autistic people are over represented in masking populations, according to one poll I've seen). They would like to mask, but don't want to be seen to be odd. This is an extremely powerful social mechanism.

There is a third factor, based on the introvert/extrovert divide. Lots of research tells us that extroverts are far less willing to stand out from the crowd, whereas introverts are more prepared to be different. Busy public spaces are more favoured environments for extroverts, so there will be some level of effect on suppression of mask wearing from this also.

I don't believe for a moment that the survey is bullshit, as you say. I'm a little surprised by some of the numbers in favour of closing things, but not that surprised. There's a much larger community of people out here who prefer to avoid constant infection than you think.

[neilj]

Redfield Wilton Wales

'Labour lead the Conservatives by 25% in Wales.

Wales Westminster VI (10-11 December):

Labour 47% (+3)
Conservatives 22% (-2)
Plaid Cymru 11% (-2)
Reform UK 10% (+1)
Liberal Democrat 6% (+2)
Green 3% (-2)
Other 0% (-1)

Changes +/- 12-13 November'

[leftieliberal]

Dec 13, 2023 15:02:03 GMT graham said:

I do become irritated when senior journalists post or talk gibberish.
In today's Guardian political podcast the paper's political editor - Kiran Stacy - reveals his ignorance of basic arithmetic. Whilst discussing last night's Commons vote which produced a Government majority of 44, he refers to the 29 Tory rebels who had abstained. He then goes on to say that were those 29 abstainers to vote against the Bill in January that the Government would be defeated. That is wrong!Were those rebel all to oppose next month the Government's majority would fall from 44 to 15. It might well be ,of course, that some Tories who supported the Government last night - such as Prit Patel, JRM , IDS and Andrea Jenkins (who was paired) will vote against next time - and that could put the majority in peril. Also Peter Bone voted for the Bill - but is likely to have disappeared by January!
I do, however, expect better of supposedly top-class journalists.

It's a waste of time expecting anything better from The Guardian; it's just the Daily Mail for lefties. I find the i the least objectionable of the LOC newspapers.

[graham]

Dec 13, 2023 17:06:52 GMT leftieliberal said:

Dec 13, 2023 15:02:03 GMT graham said:

I do become irritated when senior journalists post or talk gibberish.
In today's Guardian political podcast the paper's political editor - Kiran Stacy - reveals his ignorance of basic arithmetic. Whilst discussing last night's Commons vote which produced a Government majority of 44, he refers to the 29 Tory rebels who had abstained. He then goes on to say that were those 29 abstainers to vote against the Bill in January that the Government would be defeated. That is wrong!Were those rebel all to oppose next month the Government's majority would fall from 44 to 15. It might well be ,of course, that some Tories who supported the Government last night - such as Prit Patel, JRM , IDS and Andrea Jenkins (who was paired) will vote against next time - and that could put the majority in peril. Also Peter Bone voted for the Bill - but is likely to have disappeared by January!
I do, however, expect better of supposedly top-class journalists.

It's a waste of time expecting anything better from The Guardian; it's just the Daily Mail for lefties. I find the i the least objectionable of the LOC newspapers.

To be fair, I think this relates to the individual rather than the newspaper as a whole.

[leftieliberal]

Dec 13, 2023 17:19:14 GMT graham said:

Dec 13, 2023 17:06:52 GMT leftieliberal said:

It's a waste of time expecting anything better from The Guardian; it's just the Daily Mail for lefties. I find the i the least objectionable of the LOC newspapers.

To be fair, I think this relates to the individual rather than the newspaper as a whole.

But it's not just him, there have been so many cases of basic innumeracy by Guardian journos. Plus they have got rid of the real scientists who used to write articles for them. Just do a search within the Guardian web site on "Occam's Corner" or "The H word" and you will see that they both used to exist until a few years ago. I blame Katharine Viner although Alan Rusbridger probably was partially responsible. How long is it since we've seen anything by Ben Goldacre, yet what he was writing about then still goes on, it's just that the Guardian has decided to stop informing us about it.

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

“Models played a pivotal role in the Covid pandemic, frequently used to justify the removal of freedoms as fundamental as being allowed to walk in the open air, or hold the hand of a dying loved one.

Yet according to Sunak, they were often based on erroneous data.

He pointed out that modelling submitted by Sage when determining the impact of lifting restrictions in spring 2020 had vastly overestimated the number of people attending work and school.

He pointed out that modelling submitted by Sage when determining the impact of lifting restrictions in spring 2020 had vastly overestimated the number of people attending work and school.

While Sage had assumed that 11 per cent of children would remain in school, just 2.5 per cent actually did.

Likewise, modellers estimated that there would be a 20 per cent increase in workplace contacts, yet there was only a four per cent uptick in people travelling to work.”

Telegraph

[graham]

Dec 13, 2023 16:02:14 GMT mercian said:

Dec 13, 2023 10:26:05 GMT Danny said:

The reith lecture today noted that housing costs for the young had moved from 5% of income to 25% of income now. Not quite sure what was the starting point, maybe he was contrasting with what now 70 year olds had experienced, which he was talking about.

Anyway, that is a 20% income tax rise with no tax free allowance. If you reapportioned it with some sort of tax free band , then you might reasonably look at it as 40% extra on the effective starting income tax today.

Taxes fallen under governments today compared to post war years? really? Not so much as seems!

When interest rates reached their peak in about 1980, I was paying over 50% of my post-tax income on my mortgage, so I think someone's being very selective with the data.

Yes . As I - and several others - have pointed out current interest rates are in no meaningful sense high in historical terms - they just happen to now be much higher than the level at which they remained 2008 - 2022. What we see today are pretty normal rates really. In the 1960s - when inflation was lower  - interest rates were often higher in the range of 6% - 8%. In late 1979 Thatcher raised Base Rate to 17%! We are a very long way from that  - but a problem does arise from very low interest rates for such an extended period having contributed to much higher house prices and the mortgages associated with them.

[lululemonmustdobetter]

Dec 13, 2023 12:19:35 GMT graham said:

Dec 13, 2023 8:49:52 GMT crossbat11 said:

I like the thought of that but doubt that it will actually happen in that Ofcom seems unlikely to grant the Reform Party 'Major Party' status  when it comes to the GE. This will seriously affect the coverage given by Broadcasters during the election campaign - particularly inclusion in discussion programmes and debates etc. Ofcom gives much more weight to votes received by parties in actual elections rather than what might be recorded in some polls. Unlike Ukip or the Brexit Party , it is difficult to see any electoral opportunities for the party before the GE. To date it has done no better than barely save one deposit - at Tamworth - and has had little success at local elections. A far cry from the boosts received by Ukip and Brexit Party - ironically - at the EU Parliament elections.

From what I understand this point is one of the 'pros' of the Tories going for a spring election, if Reform perform well in the locals then they would possibly get more coverage in an Oct election. Other factors seen as in the pro column are the fact that most boat crossing are in the summer, and the expectation that the economy is going to deteriorate over the course of next year. Personally, I don't think Sunak will care too much about timing based on damage limitation, but for his own reasons will want to stay as PM for as long as possible.

[Danny]

Dec 13, 2023 15:19:11 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

Re: Sunak’s evidence to the enquiry, and the reliability of the data at the time…

“At the Covid Inquiry this week, Rishi Sunak made a striking admission. The Prime Minister pointed out that, based on analysis by Imperial College and Manchester University, the costs of lockdown are likely to be greater than the benefits.

The research was based on ‘quality-adjusted life years’ – the measure used by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (Nice) to determine whether any health intervention is worth the price.Sunak pointed to the report from August 2020, which warned that ‘treating possible future Covid-19 deaths as if nothing else matters is going to lead to bad outcomes.’

Surely those who are long term followers of LPSG will remember that this came up with a link to some researcher who pointed this out publicly that summer in a published paper.

One might think such a statement – and the science behind it – would be worth exploring, but Hugo Keith KC shut down the comments, telling Sunak that he ‘did not want to get into quality-life assurance models.’ (sic)

he was happy getting into the justifications for the 'toy model' (Might have been a different barrister leading) used to estimate effectiveness of interventions. But granted, I have yet to hear anyone arguing why a more sophisticated model might have given more reliable predictions.

Sunak’s witness statement also proved eye-opening, showing that the country may have been locked down for too long because of bad science, data issues and poor modelling. It’s worth exploring his points

Sounds as though he was well aware back in 2020 that interventions were about the look of it rather than the substance of saving lives.

[graham]

Dec 13, 2023 18:26:14 GMT lululemonmustdobetter said:

Dec 13, 2023 12:19:35 GMT graham said:

I like the thought of that but doubt that it will actually happen in that Ofcom seems unlikely to grant the Reform Party 'Major Party' status  when it comes to the GE. This will seriously affect the coverage given by Broadcasters during the election campaign - particularly inclusion in discussion programmes and debates etc. Ofcom gives much more weight to votes received by parties in actual elections rather than what might be recorded in some polls. Unlike Ukip or the Brexit Party , it is difficult to see any electoral opportunities for the party before the GE. To date it has done no better than barely save one deposit - at Tamworth - and has had little success at local elections. A far cry from the boosts received by Ukip and Brexit Party - ironically - at the EU Parliament elections.

From what I understand this point is one of the 'pros' of the Tories going for an spring election, if Reform perform well in the locals then they would possibly get more coverage in an Oct election. Other factors seen as in the pro column are the fact that most boat crossing are in the summer, and the expectation that the economy is going to deteriorate over the course of next year. Personally, I don't think Sunak will care too much about timing based on damage limitation, but for his own reasons will want to stay as PM for as long as possible.

To date there is little sign of Reform putting in much effort re- Local Elections. The past success of UKIP and the Brexit Party at such elections has followed on from earlier success at the Euro Elections or Parliamentary by elections. Perhaps the party will fight any Wellingborough by election hard  - but I doubt that their efforts will bear much fruit. I really do feel it is too late for them.

[patrickbrian]

Lulu
" I don't think Sunak will care too much about timing based on damage limitation, but for his own reasons will want to stay as PM for as long as possible."

It's hard for me to take in that anyone could prefer doing deals with the likes of Mark Francois and Bill Cash, to living the good life all summer in Malibu, but I suppose it takes all sorts and you're probably right!

[Danny]

Dec 13, 2023 16:04:54 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

“Boris Johnson insisted that keeping the R below one was the most important of five tests that must be met before the country could return to normal.

But according to Sunak, there were “errors in the collection and analysis” of data, which overestimated transmission and made the R number look “artificially high,” prolonging restrictions.

There is a feedback mechanism whereby R tends to stay at about 1, especially in a situation which we have now that after a few months people become reinfectable. This isnt the end of the story however, because its a big difference whether people catching it then die, or have a mild cold.

…

Sunak said: “Rates of nosocomial infections (contracted in hospital settings) were of interest, as a high nosocomial rate and a low rate of infection in the community may have enabled us to start safely pursuing policies to open the economy and society, whilst focusing NPI (non-pharmaceutical intervention) efforts on reducing transmission within healthcare settings.”

I am quite sure that what was said in the months of lockdown after April 2020 was that because rates of infections within hospitals remained high, then lockdown on the rest of us must be maintained. Somewhat the opposite of what he is saying now.

…

“A Sage member recognised that bringing down R in all areas had a ‘huge economic cost, but sorting out R in hospitals and care homes should be possible at much lower economic cost’. On reflection, I am not sure whether this aspect was as rigorously understood, emphasised, or explored as much as it might have been.”

We seem to have established that sage was never asked to assess economic consequences, though it did warn from time to time they should be considered. We have also heard that the treasury staff were deemed the appropriate people to ask about economic consequences of lockdown. So its their fault, presumably, if this did not get sufficient weight. Who was chancellor? Although I can see the treasury economists might not have been well suited to compare the cost effectiveness in health benefits of money spent either generally on the NHS, or on special covid measures, or even on the number of deaths caused by a recession.

…

According to Sunak, by the beginning of May, 30 per cent of all cases originated in hospitals, a proportion that rose to 80 per cent by June 2020.

I dont think the published figure was so starkly outlined at the time, but it is broadly what was said, that though covid had disappeared in the community (from memory it fell about x10 in incidence in April according to zoe), it was till going in hospitals and care homes.

Its being denied, but I am sure the so called experts were hoping to eradicate covid in the community, and thats why they kept on with restrictions regardless of other cost. It wasnt ignorance, it was a decision. Didnt work, of course. That x10 fall in April was never repeated even though the toy model predicted it should be.

By June 18, Sage minutes acknowledged that the ‘errors’ meant that for some time they had in all probability been overestimating the rate of transmission”, making it look ‘artificially high’.”

Yes I keep banging on about this too. That government has NEVER had a definite idea of the true levels of disease in the community. The entire history of mismanagment of the epidemic has been because what was happening in hospitals and similar places was projected onto the general population as if it would there have the same fatal outcomes. Whereas it simply didnt.

The bottom line seems to be about a 0.1% death rate whatever was done (per wave/substrain), and that figure has continued since vaccinations were done, its just that now its a constant drip drip instead of one big surge.

[pjw1961]

I'm not going to be around for the next few days, so I'll get ahead of the game and post Thursday's local by-elections now. Not that many interesting ones this week as mostly safe seats.

COTSWOLD DC; Lechlade, Kempsford & Fairford South (Lib Dem resigned)
Candidates:
ANDREWS, Stephen Ian (Conservative)
MAINWARING, Anna (Labour)
REGAN, Marshall (Independent)
WILKINSON, Tristan James (Liberal Democrat)

2023: LD 1150, 976; Con 785, 776; Lab 131, 114

Lib Dem hold seems a certainty.



NORTH KESTEVEN DC; Billinghay Rural (Con died)
Candidates:
BRAND, Anthony (Independent)
LILES, Wendy Anne (Lincolnshire Independents)
WHITTLE, Adrian Michael (Liberal Democrat)
WILKES, Andy (Conservative)

2023: 2 x Con unopposed

Past history is all Con or Ind. A possible Ind gain, but there are two varieties on offer - the Lincs Independents being the normally favoured.



RUGBY DC; Dunsmore (2x Con resigned)
Candidates:
BENNETT, Jonathan Carl (Liberal Democrat)
DYKE, Stephen (Labour)
ERIC, Salome Hlupi (Conservative)
FORD, Helen Rebecca (Green)
OFFORDILE, Jenny (Labour)
SIMPSON-VINCE, Jill Beverley (Conservative)
SUMMERS, Mark Andrew (Green)
TRIMBLE, Trisha (Liberal Democrat)

2023: Con 1089; Lab 638; LD 494; Grn 212
2022: Con 1239; LD 807; Lab 454
2021: Con 1888; Lab 552; Grn 339

Vacancies are from 2021 and 2022, so I have included those results. Neither Labour nor Lib Dems have ever won here.


SWALE DC; Abbey (Lib Dem resigned)
Candidates:
CRAYFORD, Rob (Labour)
CULHAM, Andy (Conservative)
FOTHERINGHAM-BRAY, William (Reform UK)
GIBSON, Charles Aexander (Liberal Democrat)
GOATHAM, Carol Ann(Green)

2023: LD 918, 807; Lab 314, 261; Con 276, 244

Certain Lib Dem hold



THREE RIVERS DC; Chorleywood South & Maple Cross (Lib Dem resigned)
Candidates:
DAVIES, Harry (Liberal Democrat)
NEVILLE, Oliver J M (Conservative)
STAFFORD, Roger J (Green)
WALDRON, Martin (Labour)

2023: LD 1125, 1097; Con 587, 514; Grn 218; Lab 194, 126
2022: LD 1251; Con 755; Grn 176; Lab 159
2021: LD 1632; Con 893; Grn 165; Lab 111

Vacancy is from 2021. Certain Lib Dem hold.



WARWICKSHIRE CC; Dunsmore & Leam Valley (Con resigned)
Candidates:
FORD, Helen Rebecca (Green)
KEELING, Dale (Conservative)
LIVESEY, Alison Ann (Labour)
PIMM, Stephen Warwick (Liberal Democrat)

2021: Con 1990; Lab 571; Grn 255; LD 210

Would be astonishing if the Conservatives lose this

[Danny]

Dec 13, 2023 16:37:48 GMT alec said:

There's nothing particularly rigorous or inherently accurate about them, but they are a useful indicative tool. In the case of SARS-CoV-2, they are a tool of distinctly limited value, because we don't have any good quality data about future impacts of infection. What we do have is data from SARS1 survivors, which suggest previously fit and healthy younger individuals who survived a single SARS1 infection now have average life expectancy of around 60 - 65 years, 10 - 15 years below their uninfected peers

Again you make this same class error. Effects on subsets of people badly affected by any disease cannot simply be projected onto the population as a whole. It is VERY important to determine what really happens to a population as a whole, not just to some small subset. The massive over reaction about covid was because the outcomes for the subset of old and already sick people was projected on the nation as a whole. The toy model used to predict epidemic outcomes was utterly unfit for the purpose. But now you want to make that same mistake again.

we know that SARS1 survivors suffer from a range of ongoing, persistent symptoms 18 years after recovery.

And we also know it mysteriously disappeared. Well it would, if it turned out most people were immune to it and were never ever going to get so sick, or similry did actually get infected but were never sick enough to notice. Just exactly the same behaviour as this covid.

it's pretty obvious to anyone following the science the SARS-CoV-2 is leading a high levels of morbidity and mortality way beyond the acute phase, whereas the study only focused on deaths and illness in the acute phase.

It completely isnt. The blunt truth is that had Sage and government known at outset how few people would in the end die from covid, there never would have been an extended lockdown. Quite possibly never any lockdown. Sweden did better without, and there is science to explain how this might be. Its the medical equivalent of Keynes arguing government spending creates more income than it spends. Cutting cases amongst the fit would be expected to increase cases amongt the unhealthy, and what we mostly did was cut cases amongst the fit.

Also, where you quote -
"According to Sunak, by the beginning of May, 30 per cent of all cases originated in hospitals, a proportion that rose to 80 per cent by June 2020.

By June 18, Sage minutes acknowledged that the ‘errors’ meant that for some time they had in all probability been overestimating the rate of transmission”, making it look ‘artificially high’.”"

I'd suggest this is something of a red herring. Sunak leans heavily on the proportion of hospital acquired 'cases' as evidence there was less transmission than was thought at the time, but he's forgetting two things. First, these weren't cases, but confirmed PCR test results, of which there were far higher testing proportions in hospitals.

Ah, something sensible. However zoe were testing from about 1 April, and whether or not their absolute numbers were accurate at that time, they measured a massive fall in cases in the general community. Whereas, as you say, government did have a better handle on hospital cases and could see it was not falling. And Im sure their hospital testing would tell them the proportion arriving with covid was falling, but the proportion inside the hospitals wasnt.

Second, from April 2020, we had the ONS Infection Survey, still considered to be the world's best measure of population infection.

By Whom? Chris Whitty? Johnson? I posted on the covid thread why it was flawed. If it had been a random sample of the national population then fine, but it was never that. It was a long term study of an established panel of volunteers, originally based on their pre existing panel for flu monitoring.  First off, taking part was agreeing to a long term commitment to keep answering their questions, being interviewed and doing their tests. Second, depending on your own circumstances, as a sick granny you might be very pleased to be regularly tested (at a time general testing was not available). But as an abbattoir worker who would lose money if you were sent home because you tested positive, the very last thing you wanted was to be tested. The sample was inherently biased towards respondents who were worried high risk/low frequency of covid.  As time went by they expanded the panel, and by the end were having great difficulty recruiting enough volunteers to fill their targets. It bwas appallingly statistically biased, which they had to try to compensate by weighting indviduals. Anyone familiar with polling should understand why this is all bad for accuracy.  And thats before we get to questions of whether the actual tests performed were accurate enough and frequent enough not to have missed cases even amongst their panel.  (not to mention they also sought to rely on antibody testing, guaranteed to under count)

This was done using PCR confirmed tests on a randomly selected and weighted proportion of the population. It was nothing to do with hospital acquired infections, and it went on the form the basis for the statistical extrapolation of the R number.

If I remember correctly, there was a second survey process conducted by Imperial colleg/React study, which did randomly question new people every time it did another batch of sampling. But this too was subject to the problem it could only sample people who wanted to take part and were willing to be formally recorded as ill. (Zoe was essentially anonymous in respect of whether or not you told government you had covid).. I  was in one of their bacthes and duly replied, but when they asked me to do an online questionaire whether i believed I had previosuly had covid (answer yes), it had no option to report this was in 2019.  So if they report no cases from 2019, well thats because they refused to accept anyone reporting such.

Basically, Sunak is talking various shades of bollocks in an attempt to save his own skin, and the Telegraph journalists are too lazy and/or biased to actually dig into the detail.

Basically, government has had little idea just how much covid was happening. You tell me its imposisble Hastings had covid winter 19/20 because someone would have noticed. I say no one was either diagnosing or counting covid at that time, so no one at all would have noticed. And that continued to be true throughout the epidemic to a pretty large extent. Its a total joke that as the total number of covid tests performed ramped up over about a year, so the total number of official cases ramped up in step.  The offical count was meaningless to determine total number of cases, and meaningless to compare total of cases in each wave.