UK politics: Veni Vidi Vaccinati

[Spockydog]

36 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

Forget Keith Richards, how is Prince Phillip still alive? Anyway, he has been taken to hospital as a precautionary measure. Wouldnt have pegged him as a 99 year old, but there you have it.

Adrenochrome, according to my mum's Facebook feed. 

[Werthead]

1 minute ago, Spockydog said:

Adrenochrome, according to my mum's Facebook feed. 

Absorbing Princess Di's lifeforce to replenish his own, according to some (and probably the Express).

[Denvek]

48 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

Forget Keith Richards, how is Prince Phillip still alive? Anyway, he has been taken to hospital as a precautionary measure. Wouldnt have pegged him as a 99 year old, but there you have it.

He hasn't smoked since he got married, isn't a heavy drinker, had a fairly active lifestyle, and most importantly, has access to literally the best healthcare money can buy.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

9 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

That's a given, though unlike smallpox blankets I'm guessing those fun loving lads weren't particularly motivated on passing on their maladies, they just wanted to show the native lasses what a bit of good old British pork sausage was like. Though perhaps Cook had a notion that passing on those diseases to the natives would be advantageous to the Empire. Speculative musing of course, I don't want to unfairly besmirch his reputation by making claims with no proof. His reputation is already low among non-colonial descendants due to actions for which there is ample evidence.

No. IIRC Georg Forster (whose father joined the expedition as a researcher) pointed out the fact that Cook's jolly sailors were sick, and that they are very likely to spread it among the indigenous population, was rebuked by Cook. The reasoning was something along the lines: I don't care, I'd rather have them infect those kind savages, then have a bunch of pissed off sailors.

So he was pretty indifferent to the damage they caused.

[The Anti-Targ]

Indifferent might be too kind a word for it. But perhaps there was an assumption that STIs are everywhere so he thought they wouldn't be introducing a new disease to the populace. But I wonder if knowing they were an epidemiologically naive population would have made a difference?

[Zorral]

Just gonna say -- those small pox blankets of Franklin's are myth.  For one thing there was no need for them.  The Native Americans in question were acquiring small pox and dying at a perfectly satisfactory rate as it was.  Though Franklin did voice approval about that, seeing how it was the easiest solution to getting the Natives off the land that he and everyone else wanted to make a big killing from, so to speak.

[Maltaran]

Big news on gig economy employment rights

Uber drivers are workers not self-employed, Supreme Court rules https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-56123668

[Werthead]

Just now, Maltaran said:

Big news on gig economy employment rights

Uber drivers are workers not self-employed, Supreme Court rules https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-56123668

Interesting that this happens almost simultaneously with the proposition in California specifically exempting services like this from their employment laws.

I've seen a lot of praise for this move, and I think it is in general a good thing, but it might also result in far fewer people working for Uber. That's part of the point, that the service is massively oversubscribed, so they can get away with giving tiny scraps of money to their drivers and this will now see far fewer drivers working for a lot more money. But some of the appeal of the job is going to disappear. I don't really see much alternative though.

[Which Tyler]

Not seeing this anywhere else but if true, what are the implications?

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/02/17/europe/uk-astrazeneca-vaccine-contract-details-intl/index.html

[Filippa Eilhart]

there’s a discussion about this in the covid thread.

[Maltaran]

5 hours ago, Werthead said:

Interesting that this happens almost simultaneously with the proposition in California specifically exempting services like this from their employment laws.

I've seen a lot of praise for this move, and I think it is in general a good thing, but it might also result in far fewer people working for Uber. That's part of the point, that the service is massively oversubscribed, so they can get away with giving tiny scraps of money to their drivers and this will now see far fewer drivers working for a lot more money. But some of the appeal of the job is going to disappear. I don't really see much alternative though.

The speculation on Twitter is that this will also have big implications on the separate case from HMRC about whether Uber has been avoiding VAT payments by claiming they are a technology firm instead of a cab company (if they're found to be officially a taxi company they will owe about £500m).

[Denvek]

21 minutes ago, Maltaran said:

The speculation on Twitter is that this will also have big implications on the separate case from HMRC about whether Uber has been avoiding VAT payments by claiming they are a technology firm instead of a cab company (if they're found to be officially a taxi company they will owe about £500m).

The VAT thing isn't tech company v taxi company. It's that if Uber is just a tech company providing an app for many self-employed taxi drivers to find customers, the VAT liability rests with the self-employed drivers, most of whom don't earn enough to be liable for VAT. But if Uber drivers are in fact Uber drivers (even if they're only workers rather than employees), the VAT liability rests with Uber, who definitely earn over the threshold.

[Which Tyler]

1 hour ago, Filippa Eilhart said:

there’s a discussion about this in the covid thread.

Thank you, I've not been in there for a bit, but remember discussion about the contracts in here

[ants]

On 2/19/2021 at 11:43 PM, Werthead said:

Interesting that this happens almost simultaneously with the proposition in California specifically exempting services like this from their employment laws.

I've seen a lot of praise for this move, and I think it is in general a good thing, but it might also result in far fewer people working for Uber. That's part of the point, that the service is massively oversubscribed, so they can get away with giving tiny scraps of money to their drivers and this will now see far fewer drivers working for a lot more money. But some of the appeal of the job is going to disappear. I don't really see much alternative though.

Why would it reduce the pool of drivers?  Simple supply & demand indicates that if Uber has to pay them more, more people will want to participate.  The issue will be if the higher wages push prices up and demand for ride-share services drops.  

It would also be interesting to know if this has any implications for the taxi industry.  Depending on how some are setup.  

[ants]

On 2/20/2021 at 4:13 AM, Which Tyler said:

Not seeing this anywhere else but if true, what are the implications?

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/02/17/europe/uk-astrazeneca-vaccine-contract-details-intl/index.html

Wow.  So the EU signed their agreement first, and both contracts are on a best endeavours basis.  So is there any reason the UK is being prioritised? 

[BigFatCoward]

If you took all the worst tories since 1979, and put them in the same government, could you approach the ineptitude of this current lot? Hancock must be thanking his lucky stars for the press and their hardon for Meghan. 

[Which Tyler]

1 hour ago, BigFatCoward said:

If you took all the worst tories since 1979, and put them in the same government, could you approach the ineptitude of this current lot?

Depends - are the current lot eligible? After all, they're also "since 1979". You'd have to suspect they'd make a majority of that combined cabinet; but it would certainly be worse if you swapped some of the most competent now with their least competent historical colleagues

[lessthanluke]

2 hours ago, BigFatCoward said:

If you took all the worst tories since 1979, and put them in the same government, could you approach the ineptitude of this current lot? Hancock must be thanking his lucky stars for the press and their hardon for Meghan. 

Along with Starmer stating the general public don't want to see Hancock resign. 

He's so out of touch, the tories will win the next General election if he's still Labour leader at the time, despite how they've handled this pandemic. 

[Spockydog]

9 minutes ago, lessthanluke said:

Along with Starmer stating the general public don't want to see Hancock resign. 

He's so out of touch, the tories will win the next General election if he's still Labour leader at the time, despite how they've handled this pandemic. 

Starmer is a disaster.

[Heartofice]

15 minutes ago, lessthanluke said:

Along with Starmer stating the general public don't want to see Hancock resign. 

He's so out of touch, the tories will win the next General election if he's still Labour leader at the time, despite how they've handled this pandemic. 

Starmer is probably right about Hancock, I don’t think he gets the ire and fury that a lot of other Tories get. I think there is probably a level of sympathy with his position.

Starmers real problem is that he is too often positioned as being simply opposition, and obviously the captain hindsight thing.

What he really needs is a coherent vision of the future, a definition of the sort of country he wants to build and create. It’s a tall order because there isn’t a lot of that vision going around. But at the moment I couldn’t tell you what he is FOR.