Weston Super Saint

None. My issue is with the constantly moving goal posts. Get two jabs was the previous message to protect society. Kids don't need the jab because they just aren't affected to any great degree by the virus, was the previous message. Society will go back to normal once everyone has two jabs was the previous message. The process is irreversible was the previous message (although I'm happy to accept that was merely grandstanding from Boris making promises he couldn't keep). We won't be introducing vaccine passports was the previous message. Now we're being told that booster jabs are the way out. Like I said, the figures don't add up with what is actually being reported and the modellers have been way off the mark at pretty much every stage. If we've committed to paying for millions of vaccines that we don't need, donate them to countries that don't have them and where the virus is much more likely to spread and therefore mutate, which would be far more effective at reducing the chance of a 'new variant' rather than planning for the arrival of one....

Presumably these are the same 'modellers' that predicted 100k infections by mid August. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58566235 They certainly know how to hedge their bets with that range! Pretty much covered all of the covid bingo buzz words in that article, the only thing I can see missing is the mention of a new, 'far more transmissable, probably more deadly' strain of virus. There's only one way out of this and that's vaccinations, what happened to that mantra? 89% of the adult population have had one jab and 82% have had 2 jabs and we're still talking about possible lockdowns (or certainly some half arsed botched version commonly known as the tiers that were useless). My guess is that the Government committed to buying millions of doses more than we actually needed and rather than donate them to countries who can't afford to buy their own, we're pressing on full steam to use them up, with this being the start of the scare mongering to get everyone to have their 'booster' jab....

From where?

No thread is safe from the opinions of other people that dominate boriersaints twitter feed

Borriersaint's twitter feed is likely to be the very definition of confirmation bias.

Bless you for trying. As I stated in my post "certainly from the beginning of 2015 right up until the day before the vote" but nice to see you've chosen a tiny snippet of the polls mainly from the 2 months before the vote to prove your point about counting From the beginning of 2015 up until the referendum (a timescale that has a little more meaning during the campaigning for the vote!), there were 203 polls in total. 137 predicted a remain win and 66 predicted a leave win (28 of those were recording in May and June 2016). So 67% of the polls in the time period I quoted backed the remain campaign. As you point out, this stuff isn't hard, its just counting (and reading what was posted).

I'll put it in a few words for you, so you can try.... 'Total Population' is different to 'voting population'.

As you can see in the link, the polling results in general in the run up to the referendum (certainly from the beginning of 2015 right up until the day before the vote) predicted a remain win (although I am more than happy to admit that 'overwhelming victory' is a tabloid-esque exaggeration and will happily withdraw it!). https://ig.ft.com/sites/brexit-polling/

Sigh. Reverted back to type so soon with your "you're far too stupid to understand" argument. I understand what random sampling is, do you? In the link I posted, the data gathered by YouGov has the following caveats : They then go on to confirm that their samples are based on the 'voting' preferences for the country and to be fair, they do a fairly good job of matching the percentages. However, as I'm sure you are already aware, given that you brought the subject up, a 'random sampling' is an unbiased sampling of the TOTAL POPULATION. Given that the 'total population' includes many millions of people who aren't eligible to vote, the YouGov poll that you linked to is NOT an example of 'random sampling' as it is purely based on the 'voting population'.

Surely anyone selling the virtues of the EU would want all the requirements of EU membership including free movement and the Eurozone...

Not sure France could leave the ECJ without also leaving the EU...

To be fair, it's clear evidence that a majority of the 1653 people that were polled by YouGov on behalf of The Times have regret (although we don't actually know how they originally voted and they could all be remain voters, or conversely all leave voters). As before the referendum, all the polls suggested an overwhelming victory for the Remain campaign, yet we all know the actual result. I suspect that quite a lot of people who voted leave aren't really the target demographic for The Times.

39% is only 3% below the data from the 1st of January 1970 As ever the devil is in the detail when it comes to polls. One of the lowest polling sample sizes since the Brexit vote (1653), with 2 questions about grocery shortages and supply chain issues included in the questions in the 3rd September round of polling - in some circles these might be construed as 'leading questions'. https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/in-highsight-do-you-think-britain-was-right-or-wrong-to-vote-to-leave-the-eu/?notes What's the old addage about lies, damn lies and statistics?

Fucking Brexit! https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/michel-barnier-hardline-brexit-negotiator-embraces-merits-of-euroscepticism-tl9chglsd

Maybe it says more that you have stayed in touch for over four years

Living rent free in there

Wow. You really, really, really haven't understood trousers's post. Not a surprise though

As Badger has already stated, Vets are on the 'shortage' list so Brexit has not taken away any of the opportunities for EU vets to work in the UK, in fact, it is actively encouraged.... https://dnavetcare.co.uk/a-guide-for-vets-working-in-the-uk-after-brexit/

I imagine that's probably about right - it's been discussed before on the covid thread that test and trace is only effective when there are 'low' numbers of infections when the aim is to control the spread. Ours was launched when we already had tens of thousands of infections and was therefore pointless. Still, this has taken the thread so far off topic and isn't relevant at all to funding social care.

Lol. Surely the point of the tweet (post) was that Serco have been paid £50m per month, given that that was pretty much all that was in the post! Well, that and some bollocks about peasants and cocktails.

I'm sure it won't be long. I like the way Brexit is blamed as an afterthought, immediately after explaining that most large animal practices now specialise in this area.... Still, looking at the multicultural and diverse team at Stokesley Vets, it doesn't look like they've ever had anyone coming to work in their practice from 'abroad' (unless you count Scotland or Liverpool ) https://www.stokesleyvets.co.uk/about-us/meet-the-team

The average is 7.4million tests per day over the past 7 days, so that's what, about 30million tests per month? Source £1.67 per test doesn't seem like an awful lot to me, given the logistics involved. How have you reached the conclusion that 'we've got cocktails to sip ra ra ra'?

A bit weird. Congestion and pollution charges are supposed to be funding climate change initiatives (whether they actually do or not, I have no idea). Other solutions exist to avoid travelling by car into these areas thus avoiding the charges. Getting old on the other hand is completely unavoidable for the overwhelming majority of the population and something that eventually we will all have to encounter. Odd that you've equated a tax to fund care with the congestion charge.

Should businesses like this one be left alone? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-58485816 Most of that tax bill is apparently employers NI contributions. This is definitely one company that isn't paying its 19% corporation tax.... Again, the solution seems very simple and if these huge companies weren't allowed to dodge the taxes that they should be paying, then the low skilled, low paid workers that work for them wouldn't be saddled with the bill....

I believe the £86k cap is per person, so a couple living together could be billed for £172k, not a million miles away from the 'average' UK house price (which is a skewed measure anyway, given all those people living in Guildford in their £850k houses driving the average upwards).