Post-budget polling

There were three immediate post-budget polls on the day of the budget from Opinium, SavantaComRes and YouGov. They all showed very high levels of approval – YouGov found 46% support, 11% opposed; Opinium found 52% approve, 12% disapprove; SavantaComRes found 60% satisfied and 11% dissatisfied. The following day YouGov also put out new voting intention figures, which showed a Conservative lead of 13 points. While the Conservative lead has been steadily growing over recent weeks anyway, at least part of that looks likely to be a bounce from a positively received budget. Worth remembering that it was conducted immediately after the budget, before the press coverage turned rather less positive…

NHS Salaries

This would not be the first initially popular budget to come unstuck in the following days as people look in more detail at the details. In this case the downside doesn’t appear to be in the details of the budget itself, but in the proposed NHS pay settlement that was announced the following day. The first actual polling on this has come from Opinium in the Observer. This found 24% thought the proposed pay rise was too high or about right, 72% thought it was too low.

While high, this is by no means new, or different, or surprising. All past polling on nurses salaries has always shown the vast majority of people support increases – look, for example, here or here or here or here or here or here. That’s about a minute of googling. The public have very consistently and very widely supported increasing nurses’ pay for many years. It has not led to large rises, or prevented the Conservative party winning elections in their absence. A better question is perhaps to what degree it is a more salient issue given the coronavirus, and whether it actually damages Conservative support. Time will tell if that’s the case.

All past polling has shown that nurses are held in extremely high public regard (look, for example, at the Ipsos MORI veracity index). In terms of public sympathy, this is a fight that is probably unwinnable for the Government. The question is more weather they knuckle down and accept any hit to public support (because something is unpopular it does not necessarily damage support at the ballot box), or whether they U-turn on it.

Scotland

There are two Scottish polls in the Sunday papers, one from SavantaComRes for the Scotsman on Sunday, one from Panelbase for the Sunday Times.

The Scotsman on Sunday one makes great play of No being ahead in their SavantaComRes poll – 46% No, 43% Yes, Don’t know 10%.

This has been rather complicated however by methodological issues. Previous ComRes polls on Scottish Independence have been weighted by likelihood to vote. This one was not, meaning it can’t be easily compared to the previous figures. More to the point, the impact of weighting by likelihood to vote has sometimes been quite large in previous ComRes polls, so it’s quite hard to work out what the impact would have been.

In ComRes’s last Scottish poll, conducted in late February for ITN, applying turnout weighting had minimal effect. However, in their last poll for the Scotsman at the start of Feb 2021 it made a huge impact, transforming a 3 point No lead to a 5 point Yes lead. In other words, it’s quite possible that if the same turnout filter had been used this wouldn’t have shown any change in support for Independence at all.

The Scotsman on Sunday article also reports people claiming that the Salmond Inquiry makes them less likely to support Independence. I’d take that with a bucket of salt. I’ve written before about the perils of “does X make you more or less likely to vote Y” questions. They are tricky to ask, as committed supporters of something tend to pick “more likely” as the most supportive option (even if their opinion is completely unchanged), and the same for committed opponents. This means you get odd results like 16% saying Alex Salmond & Nicola Surgeon calling each other liars makes them support independence more*. Really, it is just committed supporters of independence saying they still support independence, and the claimed percentage saying it makes them less supportive of independence will include a lot of people who were concrete opponents of independence anyway.

The way to see if an event has actually changed the level of support for independence is to ask about support for independence and compare it to a poll conducted before the event. It does require you to ask it in a comparable manner though, rather than buggering about with the turnout filter.

The Panelbase poll does at least do that. They found topline figures of YES 46%(-3), NO 47%(+3). Changes are from their previous poll in January. The No lead is pretty much an artefact of the rounding – according to John Curtice who has written them up in the Sunday Times, without don’t knows it ends up as a 50/50 split. It is, as ever, just one poll, but does suggest some damage from the Salmond-Sturgeon row. One should again consider the context of the polling – just as the YouGov voting intention poll at the top of this post was conducted in the midst of extremely positive coverage about the budget, this poll was conducted in the midst of the SNP having a huge row between its current and former leaders. In both cases one should probably wait for things to calm down before assuming any long term impact.

(*As an aside, the best example of the useless of more/less likely to vote questions I’ve ever come across is this one from the US Alabama Senate election in 2017. The Republican candidate faced several accusations of sexually assaulting underage girls. A question asked in that same “more or less likely to vote” format found 36% of people were less likely to vote for him because of these accusations, and 28% were MORE likely. Either 28% of people were genuinely more likely to vote for a candidate because he’d been accused of molesting schoolgirls… or perhaps questions like that don’t really show what they appear to show.)


4,237 Responses to “Polling Round-Up – the Budget, NHS Salaries and Scottish Independence”

1 83 84 85
  1. TW

    @” That is a decision for MHRA and JCVI to make once they’ve examined the facts and considered the issues involved. I’m simply pointing out the hypocrisy of the ‘usual suspects’ and the risk of ‘armchair experts’ making claims to expertise that they clearly do not have.”

    Yes

    I really hope that the increased supply forecast for EU starts to push their rollout on. We do need them to be at the same level of protection as us asap.

    That Chile experience should be a warning too.

  2. @Danny

    “Why do you so often resort to name calling instead of finding some facts to support your beliefs?”

    I’m sorry that I called you a silly rabbit that lives in a fantastic place underground. I’ll send you some carrots to make it up.

    The “facts” in terms of cases and deaths speak for themselves, as well as the numbers protected by vaccination.

  3. The Trevs,
    “Sadly we saw a small drop in UK willingness to be vaccinated after the ‘scare mongering’ from some EU nations”

    Did we? How would we know that?

    as the programme proceeds it is entering younger and younger age griups whio are inherently safe, and many must both know that and have already had covid. Its logical to expect vaccination rates will fall with time because its pointless being vaccinated if young.

    “Thankfully in UK our govt ‘seeded’ vaccine investment, ensured we ordered enough and then left it to the actual experts (MHRA and JCVI) to decide on the medical aspects.”

    In Sweden for constitutional reasons they left it to the medical experts. In the Uk all the experts unanimously state actual decisions are made by politicians and they only offer advice. A few have gone further and said they are expected to publicly support government decisions whether they agree with them or not. One woman from sage last summer admitted lying on TV when she was interviewed and disagreed with government policy. She said she supported it.

    IF Van Tamm or Whitty were not willing to do this, they would not be in those jobs. They cannot be trusted as impartial sources of information (as has been proved time after time).

  4. @ JIB – It was over 6,000 lives using “estimates up to the end of February” . Using reasonable assumptions anyone can check that maths for themselves (I showed now to build up the number a few days ago on a week-week basis)

    “Covid-19: More than 6,000 ‘lives saved by vaccine programme'”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56521415

    Making further reasonable assumptions since end of Feb then we’d likely be over 20k lives saved by now.

    NB There are huge lags involved. Someone getting the vaccine mid Feb would still be high risk of serious infection for up to 4weeks after their jab and hence not in the ‘end of Feb’ analysis. There is then the 3weeks+ from infection to death (and hence why it took a while to see deaths dropping far faster than cases and hospital admissions).

    However, quite clearly the daily data, the ONS studies (eg antibodies), etc all show vaccines have had a huge impact on reducing deaths, reducing demand on NHS and hence now meaning we can start to come out of lockdown (a tiny bit slow IMO but polling shows most folks thinks the pace is about right)

  5. @Danny

    “No JIB. That was a model based upon certain assumptions. It assumes the epidemic was not already over but instead was ended by vaccine. But we know thats a false assumption because it peaked at the end of December all by itself.

    If you assume a vaccine stops an outbreak, then you have already assumed it saves lives. Garbage in – garbage out.”

    I didn’t write that, it was Steve.

    Nevertheless, you’re wrong and I’ve already said there’s little poi nt in debating with you as you inhabit a magical Warren and have a bushy white tail.

  6. TW

    That BBC report on Starmer/teacher jabs says :-

    “Labour later clarified that moving teachers up the queue was a decision for the JCVI – something that had not been made explicit when the Labour leader first announced the policy.”

    Probably a nod to teaching unions ?

    Wonder what Starmer think about this ?:-

    “Schools must “decolonise” the curriculum across all subjects including maths and science, a teaching union voted yesterday.

    Children are taught about black people as slaves, victims of colonisation and having a heritage “only based in pain” rather than as scientists, military strategists and authors, according to the former president of the NASUWT, Michelle Codrington-Rogers.”

    Times.

    What is “colonial maths” and “colonial science” ?

  7. Danny
    I said that not JIB as I recall it’s based on a estimate comparing a sample of similar ages and risk who have been vaccinated against those who havent.
    Comparing infection rates, down 60% and admissions to hospital down 80%.

    You make yourself look dumb by denying the efficacy of vaccination vaccine have been preventing unnecessary deaths for over 200 years.

    The issue in relation to the covid vaccination is the morbidity from covid is overwhelmingly amongst those , to put it bluntly, who are going to die relatively soon anyway.

    It doesn’t mean it’s not an important tool in combating the disease but the numbers of lives saved isn’t the same as with a virus that attacks the young.

  8. Good morning all from a breezy and sunny Winchester.

    Politics For All
    @PoliticsForAlI
    BREAKING: Labour officially opposes the government’s plans for vaccine passports
    _______

    Excellent news. Vaccine passports will discriminate and drive an underclass society. There is a place for vaccine passports for travelling abroad (temporarily) but their use domestically is far too Orwellian.

    The regime and the Scottish Government along with the devolved administrations should instead focus on the vaccine rollout rather than discriminating people.

    Lockdowns and the rest of the restrictive measures have gone on for over a year now. I accept there will be a need for caution as we lift measures but after June/July then I would hope all forms of social distancing etc to be booted into the long grass.

    Opinion polls sow huge support for vaccine passports but the polls are fraud in nature. When faced with no entry or entry with a vaccine passport then obviously people will be in favour of the things.

  9. DANNY
    The Trevs,
    “Sadly we saw a small drop in UK willingness to be vaccinated after the ‘scare mongering’ from some EU nations”

    Did we? How would we know that?


    Can agree with you on that one why would it be specifically European union nations and not for example Canada or the United states.

    Oh I remember it doesn’t feed into the europhobia of our brexitanian contributors.

  10. @Trevs – “No it was me, for once your memory is correct. I used the term ‘anti-vaxxer conspiracy theory’ in specific reference to you concerning one of your posts…”

    Yes, I thought it was. My memory is usually pretty good on such matters.

    So when you earlier stated – “Or do you have the decency to state that specific comment, the one I claimed was you taking part in ‘anti-vaxxer conspiracy theory’ was nonsense.”

    your were talking, er, nonsense?

    Glad that’s settled. Whenever you launch into your regular tirades about my memory, time machines, nonsense, drivel etc etc it always ends up that what I said was true and what you claimed was not. As ever. No apology needed.

    The rest of your post is equally defective. I think you will struggle to find anywhere where I have ever backed Macron’s silly statement on the AZ vaccine. As it happens, I seem to recall I criticised macron for saying such things before you did. Whatever.

    “WTF. You think any of this is ‘funny’. You are a sick, twisted person.”

    Really now – do try to calm down. I quite disagree. UK Brexiters are obsessed with the EU and trying to demonstrate how bad they are at everything. Seeing these types having to explain the same decisions by the British MHRA (if it happens) will indeed be very funny. Surely you have sufficient sense of humour to appreciate that?

  11. Good news :-

    “On Wednesday, Delpharm will begin manufacturing the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine at its plant in Saint-Rémy-sur-Avre, west of Paris. It’s expected to produce tens of millions of doses.

    Production of Moderna’s mRNA vaccine, meanwhile, is to begin at the Recipharm facility in the Loire Valley.

    The facilities will not make the vaccines but support their formulation, doing the filling and finishing, checking and freezing.”

    Yahoo/france

  12. We are witnessing a fight between the mad hatter and the Easter bunny.

    Bring your own popcorn.

  13. @ COLIN (10:46am) – Yes, we absolutely want EU (and rWorld) to speed up vaccination and get transmission of C19 and the mutant strains risk down.

    For EU then we have more direct self-interest as lots of RoRo lorries (with a driver) enter UK borders every day – I assume no one is saying we ban EU lorry drivers from entering UK? (UK is not NZ)

    I heard Whitty mention Chile. Not one I’ve looked at but I’ll take a look later.

    10:52am. Starmer does seem to occasionally go ‘off piste’ to please one faction and then later retract his comments.

    The ‘Unions’ issue is a tricky one for him. He can’t remove them but to appease their more bizarre demands is a massive turn-off to the kind of voters he needs to win back.

    He can ‘vote stack’ the Inner City seats (high % of young, BAME, ‘woke’, Far-Left folks) to shore up the Corbynite/ista vote and Union support but he can’t appease all of the people he needs to win a GE at any time (not unless Boris+co really mess up)

    IE can he ‘broaden’ the LAB ‘church’ (pun intended) wide enough without risk of splitting it (directly or indirectly)?

    I can’t see that being a bit less Tory than the Tories will win him many votes (and we’ve seen that in the polling as even when Boris was messing up, very few CON’19 moved to LAB VI)

    Also see discussion with SHEVII and previous comments – based on polling, not just making stuff up.

  14. @Colin – “Alec’s extraordinary comment about towing the EU “line” is hilarious. There is no line there. There is a mish mash of member state policies , completely disconnected apparently from the Union Regulator’s advice.”

    I’d appreciate it if you could post where I have written about the EU line? I have mentioned some national regulators, but I’m not aware of having promoted the idea of a single EU line on the AZ vaccine. I think I’ve been pretty clear and factual about different national decisions across the various sovereign states of the EU?

    On the French reports of AZ vaccine hesitancy, that will be interesting to watch. I think I’ve posted the figures of rising deployment rates of the AZ vaccine in France, up from 80% to 89% over the last week, which suggests limited hesitancy. It is possible that the latest news on the blood clots has increased this over the last few days though, although your report is apparently from the Express, so let’s be a little cautious before assuming this is gospel?

  15. @ ALEC – You really are a sad pathetic individual.

    You don’t even have the decency to retract your comments on Ox-AZ and over 65s and admit you were wrong.

    Whatever. zzz ZZZ

    I’ll leave you to your EU obsessed drivel. If you want to check some actual polling on ‘most important issues’ you’d see Leavers have moved on. Sad losers like you still seem to obsessed with EU

    Take your EUphilia up with Starmer or Davey – CON and Leavers (highly correlated) have moved on.

    It is in UK interests for EU nations to get C19 under control and their populations vaccinated and that has very little to do with Brexit (although for some reasons I have no interest in you and your twit-everse ‘friends’ seem to think it does)

  16. STEVE
    We are witnessing a fight between the mad hatter and the Easter bunny.

    Bring your own popcorn.
    …………
    TREVS
    @ALEC
    I’ll leave you to your EU obsessed drivel. If you want to check some actual polling on ‘most important issues’ you’d see Leavers have moved on. Sad losers like you still seem to obsessed with EU

    Take your EUphilia up with Starmer or Davey – CON and Leavers (highly correlated) have moved on.

    It is in UK interests for EU nations to get C19 under control and their populations vaccinated and that has very little to do with Brexit (although for some reasons I have no interest in you and your twit-everse ‘friends’ seem to think it does)
    ________

    Well this is one form of entertainment where we don’t need to show vaccine passports to come and enjoy. :) :)

  17. ALEC

    @”I have mentioned some national regulators, but I’m not aware of having promoted the idea of a single EU line on the AZ vaccine.”

    Accepted-just checked. I was wrong.

    Not sure which Press reports receive your approval. Don’t you accept quotations even ?

    How about this one ?

    https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/france-uses-only-quarter-of-astrazeneca-vaccine-doses-ministry-2021-03-02

    24% utilisation as at Feb 28.

  18. @Colin

    The quote you attributed to me was actually YouGov. Take issue with them, if you like.

    My post was about possible media-induced negative perceptions of the EU, so your broadening of your response to assessments of each government’s performance was not relevant to that.

    Your maths (and sentence completion) seem to have gone a bit awry, too:

    “France and Sweden both registered high “badly” scores-69 & 63 respectively So only DK of the 5 countries polled got a lower “badly” score than ”

    Nothing followed the “than” so, while I’m sorry to have to guess your meaning again, I’ll assume that you meant to finish that sentence “than the UK” as only that seems to work. If it was something else, feel free to tell me and add “Bless. You’re having another bad day.”

    So here is what your sentence looks like once the errors and omissions are sorted:

    “So only DK and Sweden of the 4 non-UK countries polled produced a lower “badly” score for the EU than the UK did.”

    (You’ll understand, I expect, that statistically you can’t include the UK in a total of countries failing to produce a lower score than the UK).

  19. TW

    @”IE can he ‘broaden’ the LAB ‘church’ (pun intended) wide enough without risk of splitting it (directly or indirectly)?”

    Yep.

    Its a tough one, unless you are Old Corby and just pretend that “members” = “voters.”

    Jim Jam is our expert on this . Perhaps he will visit again soon?

  20. Useful update on the EU vaccine projections here, from Bloomberg – https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-06/eu-will-near-virus-immunity-by-end-june-internal-memo-shows?sref=FSjtyMb8

    Some member states will probably be well ahead of the 70% vaccinated target by the end of June, while others will take a little longer.

    The reasons for the disparity given are interesting though. The laggard nations are those that failed to draw down their full allowance of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, instead choosing to focus on the AZ vaccine, with the supply issues then causing problems.

    Overall though, the projections again demonstrate the fact that most of the EU will achieve effective herd immunity by the time the UK is aiming for, at the end of July.

  21. @Colin – thanks. Didn’t think that was me, but it does demonstrate folks willingness sometimes to take a pop based on what they think another poster has said.

    The retraction is gratefully received though. I like that.

    On the AZ uptake, it was very poor in February, largely due to Macron being foolish I suspect, but John Lichfield has been plotting this for a while now and calculates that it was at nearly 90% by last week. That link of yours is well out of date.

    @Trevs – :)

    Just like I said.

  22. SJ

    Sorry about the mangled question-please ignore it.

    But could you answer my other questions please .

    The first was :-

    “Are the Germans reading UK newspapers too do you think ?

    This was a reference to your suggestion that the UK score on EU rollout-a net Badly 51 was a product of our country ” getting its information from the UK media, not direct experience:”

    And yet Germany had a net Badly score of 60. Hence my question about a larger Badly score in a member state of the EU.

    My second question was :-

    “Which media sources do you feel the German, French & Swedish respondents were reading?

    This was in connection with the “your own government” rollout question where those three countries registered large net Badly responses. Given the probability that respondents would havehad “direct experience” of their countries’ rollout and presumably read their own media I wondered if you had any thoughts on the media influences involved in those responses?

    In summary , if you like, it seemed as though your post implied that negative opinions in that poll about vaccine rollout in the European UNion were a product of uninformed UK media. But opinions in Germany France & Sweden appeared equally negative without-(would you agree ?) the probability of the influences you suggest.

    Thanks

  23. @ ALEC – So you accept you’re a sad pathetic individual who can’t even admit to how wrong you were about Ox-AZ use for over 65s? YES/NO.

    What else (since your still spaffing)? Did you ever admit it was wrong for Denmark to try to snaffle up Israel’s spare doses (doses Israel should give to Palestenians) just to meet their political target? If you did I guess I scrolled past you admitting that was wrong.

    Also are you still struggling with maths and the concept of solidarity[1] within your beloved EU?

    End-stage EUphilia is a very sad sight to see. Rest of us have moved on but in your sad pathetic need to claim EU, even if just one nation in EU, vaccinates it’s most at risk quicker than UK you’ll grab any claim you can find – even if it puts vulnerable people’s lives at risk (ie the ‘scare mongering’ over Ox-AZ)

    Fine by me. Your lack of self awareness extents to opinion polling (which you never seem to mention on an opinion polling forum).

    Maybe check how many UK eligible voters think UK vaccine programme has been a great success and if you want to write anti UK or anti CON HMG posts maybe actually find a subject where you’re not helping draw folks attention to UK’s success and EC-EU’s failure.

    [1] Fortunately they saw the light on that one. Although in solving one problem have they just created more animosity elsewhere (eg in the countries giving up the quotas they originally snaffled from the countries left behind)?

    “EU countries agree to share ‘solidarity vaccines’ with states in need”

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-eu-vaccines-idUSKBN2BO6NM

  24. YG latest ‘most important issues’, pick up to three (change since 29Mar)

    Overall:

    Health: 53 (-1)
    Economy: 56 (-3)
    Environment: 27 (-2)
    Britain Leaving EU: 26 (uc)

    CON

    Economy: 65 (-3)
    Health: 49 (-4)
    Immigration: 40 (+3)
    Crime: 28 (+6)

    (Brexit used to get 90%+ figures but now down to 21% of CON folks bovvered by that as an important issue)

    LAB

    Health: 59 (-5)
    Economy: 47 (uc)
    Environment: 37 (-4)
    Britain Leaving EU: 33 (uc)

    for LDEM then Britain Leaving EU is 36 (-1) and also 4th place

    for the most Arch-EUromantic of all then for SNP ‘Britain Leaving EU’ still ticks the box as important issue for 46% (+4) and comes in at 3rd place (although at least in their case then Rejoin.EU is their policy)

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/the-most-important-issues-facing-the-country

    To get the x-breaks download the file.

    PS Apologies for posting opinion polling data on an opinion polling forum. I appreciate some folks prefer their own n=1 drivel.

  25. New thread!!

  26. Colin: “Are the Germans reading UK newspapers too do you think ?

    I’m sure some are, just as you read German websites and regale us with your findings.

    But we aren’t talking about how people gain information and strong opinions about what’s going on in their own backyard, but about what’s going on elsewhere, ie how Brits see what’s going on across the Channel.

    If the Germans (for instance) had a strongly negative opinion about the UK failure to export any vaccines, wouldn’t you expect that to derive from local (ie German) media coverage?

    That response covers your second question, too. Of course people get most information from their own media: that’s my point.

    I doubt polling would reveal any strong opinions in the UK about vaccine procurement in Australia, Canada, New Zealand or Japan because although there are some real clunkers among that lot, there seems very little interest in covering failures if they aren’t attributable to the EU.

    I’d understand it if you’d written “the UK opinion is fair enough because that’s the way the locals see it too” but you don’t like me guessing what you mean.

    The wider point, which seems to me to be obvious to the point of banality, is that our perceptions of what’s going on in the EU are inevitably and obviously dependent almost entirely on what and how the UK media choose to portray it. We can’t even get direct experience through travel, and the impact of personal conversations is surely tiny.

    In short, we believe their performance is dreadful because that’s what we’re told. Any attempt to present a more balanced picture, eg by Alec, seems to attract real vitriol. It’s as if only by denigrating others can we validate ourselves.

  27. SJ

    You haven’t really answered my question.

    Perhaps I can simplify it.

    You attribute a net Badly score of 51 by UK respondents to the question “How well or badly do you think the European Union is handling the rollout of the coronavirus vaccine?” ; to influence of anuninformed UK Press.

    And yet German respondents to the same question scored a net Badly 61.

    Why then, do you highlight the lesser “net Badly” score and why should it have been a product of uninformed Press coverage, when
    a greater net Badly score is given by respondents in a member state.?
    (Indeed in three of the four Member States polled , significant net Badly scores were given to this question.)

  28. Colin: Why then, do you highlight the lesser “net Badly” score

    I didn’t. You introduced net figures to the discussion, not me.

    I simply produced a quote from YouGo, in an attempt to add some polling meat to the bones of comments to the effect that people were woefully informed about EU vaccine procurement, to the extent that some think there has been no vaccination at all in the EU.

    This was the YouGov quote:

    “The proportion of Britons who feel the EU has done a good job is the lowest of the five countries, with just 14% having a positive opinion, while 65% think it has done badly.”

    If YouGov thought that point worth making in that way, then that’s OK by me. It’s short, simple and to the point. I provided a link for the convenience of those who wanted to delve deeper.

    If you prefer to calculate net well/badly, and then have a protracted discussion about whether that or simple percentage approving is the better measure, then that’s your prerogative. As is doing a sum and coming up with the answer 1 out of 5 when the reality is 2 out of 4.

    If you want to argue that the UK public have based their highly negative view of EU vaccine procurement on anything other than what they’ve been told by UK media, then I’m all ears.

  29. SOMERJOHN

    It is at this point , yet again, that I realise I was right about you & TOH was right to advise me to stop wasting my time trying to engage with you .

    So once again I give up as you prevaricate & avoid rational discussion of the point you were making .

    THat you quoted YouGov is not a reason to avoid my question. You posted the quote , not as an aid to those who cannot use Google, but to make a point.

    Which was this -i quote you :-

    ” the country having the lowest opinion of the EU’s vaccine procurement was the one getting its information from the UK media, not direct experience:”

    You introduced ” was the one getting its information from the UK media, not direct experience:” not You Gov -who did not make such an unproven assertion about the media sources of these respondents.

    And you did so with a finding which is statistically indistinguishable from the German “well” response-15% as opposed to the 14% you used to attribute the UK opinion to uninformed UK media coverage.

    In quoting You Gov it was you who introduced the UK “Badly ” score-65%. So I compared UK’s net Badly -quoted and posted by you-to the Germany net Badly response.The latter is higher by 9% pts.

    And so I asked you to explain why a UK response revealing a Net Bad which was exceeded by that from German respondents who met your criterion of “direct experience” of the subject in the question ; could credibly have been due to uninformed UK media.

    The German respondents, who “directly experienced” the “European Union handling of the rollout of the coronavirus vaccine”
    reached the same conclusion as the UK respondents.

    Respondents from the other three EU member States in poll all gave Net Badly scores in this question.

  30. JIB,
    “The “facts” in terms of cases and deaths speak for themselves, as well as the numbers protected by vaccination.”

    Something we agree about! The facts say that in every outbreak of covid, it self limits at a small proportion of the population. Typically last year an outbreak would rise detectably for a fortnight, then flatten off and take maybe 6 weeks to subside. But it has NEVER reached the extent of the Sage credible worst case scenario, anywhwere. This is now thoroughly discredited.

    There is a massive shortfall of people apparently being infected in places no special measures such as lockdowns ever took place. The best explanation is lockdowns dont really work, just slowing spread which still catches up and you end with the same number infected. The reason why this is so is probably because covid is very contagious, much more than first believed, and because we have a complex interconnected society which simply does not allow us to stay separated enough to avoid covid.

    The aspect of vaccination which sage seem most convinced of is the likelihood of preventing deaths. Not that Sage are a very good source on this, because they are obliged to follow the official government line. But of course, if there is a mutation to evade vaccine, then this too is in doubt. Plus the problem yet to be quantified that the most at risk from covid are also as a group the least likely on whom a vaccine will work well.

  31. Steve,
    “I said that not JIB as I recall it’s based on a estimate comparing a sample of similar ages and risk who have been vaccinated against those who havent.
    Comparing infection rates, down 60% and admissions to hospital down 80%.

    Would be grateful if you could point out the source. Some branch of government published an estimate of saving 6,000 deaths recently, but it assumed what it was seeking to prove, that vaccine prevented deaths. I read that one, and it had the problems I described. I assumed it was the only one published at that time.

    “You make yourself look dumb by denying the efficacy of vaccination vaccine have been preventing unnecessary deaths for over 200 years.”

    Vaccines cannot save any lives if there is no epidemic. Someone above pointed out that vaccinating the whole of australia would save precisely no one at present. Similarly, since the Uk epidemic was already declining before vaccines were in any significant numbers, they could not have accomplished what the modelling claimed.

    I think I said, this might change in the future with another outbreak. However then we have the problem it could be a strain which evades the current vaccines.

    In general flu vaccines do not work very well. They have far from perfect success for the old, are unnecessary for the young and healthy, and do not give lasting protection. Though its an odd concept to consider how effective a vaccine cold be when given to people not likely to become seriously ill anyway.

    Other vaccines for different kinds of disease have been very successful indeed. It depends on the organism and its mode of operation. Or again, vaccines for some diseases have been complete failures. This whole area smacks of not being well understood by science. Modern technology is likely to improve this. I fancy following the last corona virus otbreaks in recent years there was initial interest, but then funding was withdrawn. Not our problem. Funy how that happens.

  32. Steve,
    “The issue in relation to the covid vaccination is the morbidity from covid is overwhelmingly amongst those , to put it bluntly, who are going to die relatively soon anyway.”

    Yes, They was an analysis last year arguing the qualy cost in life years of intervention exceed that of non intervention, precisely because those dying are already those closest to death.

    But I think using vaccination as the government seeks to do and create herd immunity is opposing the way our natural immunity works to best protect us.

    We all benefitted from pre existing immunity to covid before it existed. Because we had been vaccinated the natural way by exposure to related viruses. This worked! The people dying are precisely those who for whatever reason had a weakened immune system.

    Getting mild infections does not harm us. Rather, it boosts our overall immunity and updates it against any changes the virus has made. So it doesnt get the chance to undergo lots of changes before we see it again.

    99%+ of the UK population was safe with no intervention, and the 1% was in one way or another at higher risk from the outset. From an evolutionary standpoint, immunity worked to keep most of us of most benefit to society safe. That is what it is designed to do. Trying to use the immune system against the way it is designed to operate, risks it failing for the mass of the population. It isnt designed to eradicate covid, because it isnt in our overall interest to do that. Better to maintain repeat mild infections.

    We have spent the last year preventing the immune system working to protect us, not just from covid but all other illnesses.

  33. Colin:So once again I give up as you prevaricate & avoid rational discussion of the point you were making .

    Ah, I see what this is all about now. You wanted desperately to establish an instance to justify your otherwise insupportable accusation of prevarication, so you post long convoluted responses demanding an answer in very specific terms and then complain that my entirely rational and direct responses haven’t answered your questions to your satisfaction. You’re trying for a ‘Gotcha” as your fellow ideologue would put it.

    OK. As this is a dead thread and we won’t be boring others, I’ll take on your accusation of prevarication, in very precise terms and freed of my normal aim of keeping things as short, readable and easily comprehensible as possible.

    In your first response (April 6th, 2021 at 10:42 am) to my post with the YouGov quote, you posed three questions. One of these you subsequently agreed was garbled and you withdrew it. The other two were:

    1. “Are the Germans reading UK newspapers too do you think ?”

    Which I answered as follows:

    “I’m sure some are, just as you read German websites and regale us with your findings.

    But we aren’t talking about how people gain information and strong opinions about what’s going on in their own backyard, but about what’s going on elsewhere, ie how Brits see what’s going on across the Channel.

    If the Germans (for instance) had a strongly negative opinion about the UK failure to export any vaccines, wouldn’t you expect that to derive from local (ie German) media coverage?”

    In other words, in seeking to compare UK opinion with that in EU countries, you’re seeking to compare apples and oranges since one is vicarious and derived entirely from at-a-distance media coverage, while the other reflects what’s going on where they actually are.

    2. “Which media sources do you feel the German, French & Swedish respondents were reading?”

    “Of course people get most information from their own media: that’s my point.

    I doubt polling would reveal any strong opinions in the UK about vaccine procurement in Australia, Canada, New Zealand or Japan because although there are some real clunkers among that lot, there seems very little interest in covering failures if they aren’t attributable to the EU.”

    I went on to say:

    “I’d understand it if you’d written “the UK opinion is fair enough because that’s the way the locals see it too” but you don’t like me guessing what you mean.”

    Can you see what I was saying there? You ask obliquely pointed questions. I answer them directly. No prevarication; totally rational. But I also try to understand what you’re really getting at with your questions, and express that in simple terms (a process you seem to really hate).

    I really do try to understand what you are getting at, and I think “the UK opinion is fair enough because that’s the way the locals see it too” is a fair summary of what all your huffing and puffing amounts to.

    Your next question (actually 2-in-1) was:

    3a Why then, do you highlight the lesser “net Badly” score

    To which my answer was:

    “I didn’t. You introduced net figures to the discussion, not me.”

    Your response to that was:

    In quoting You Gov it was you who introduced the UK “Badly ” score-65%. So I compared UK’s net Badly -quoted and posted by you-to the Germany net Badly response.

    So you appear to be saying that in posting a YouGov quote including no net figures, I was actually “highlight(ing) the lesser “net Badly” score.”

    Further, you write of ” UK’s net Badly -quoted and posted by you”.

    You made that up, Colin. I simply and irrefutably did not mention net figures, in the post to which you refer, nor did the YouGov quote.

    What seems to have happened is that you inferred the net figures from the YouGov quote, and you then somehow mentally transformed your inference into something that I “quoted and posted”.

    Even by your standards, that’s weird.

    The second part of your question was:

    3b The latter is higher by 9% pts.and why should it have been a product of uninformed Press coverage, when
    a greater net Badly score is given by respondents in a member state.?
    (Indeed in three of the four Member States polled , significant net Badly scores were given to this question.)

    That’s not exactly a crisp, clear question, and you had another go and clarified it a bit in your last post:

    I asked you to explain why a UK response revealing a Net Bad which was exceeded by that from German respondents who met your criterion of “direct experience” of the subject in the question ; could credibly have been due to uninformed UK media.

    So I’ll answer that one.

    First, you’ve added the descriptor “uninformed” to the UK media: it’s your assumption, not mine. I simply wrote that of the countries polled by YG, the UK was “getting its information from the UK media, not direct experience:”

    Do you dispute that? Y/N

    The UK, as polled by YG, has developed strongly negative views of the EU vaccine procurement programme.

    Do you dispute that? Y/N

    Our difference, I think, boils down simply to this:

    I think that UK public opinion on this derives from UK media coverage. The strength of that opinion illustrates the extent and nature of that coverage, because that’s all people in the UK have to go on. I suggested there is little corresponding awareness in the UK of vaccine procurement in other countries ( I cited Australia, Canada, Japan) because that attracts little coverage.

    You think that the strength of UK opinion on EU vaccine procurement simply reflects the situation, presumably as fairly reported in the UK. And you accept no distinction between opinion formed in countries dependent on EU procurement, and very much affected by it, and opinions formed by those looking on from outside, and not directly affected.

    But all that’s beside your point, isn’t it? You seem to be using this discussion as a vehicle for promoting or justifying your assertion that I “prevaricate and dissemble” to which you’ve now added that I “avoid rational discussion of the point you were making” .

    In the unlikely event that anyone reads our exchange with close enough attention to work out what the hell it’s all about, I’ll leave them to judge whether I avoid or answer your questions, and whose comments are the more rational and comprehensible.

  34. SJ

    @” And you accept no distinction between opinion formed in countries dependent on EU procurement, and very much affected by it, and opinions formed by those looking on from outside, and not directly affected.”

    You attempted to use a YouGov Poll in UK + 4 EU member states to prove that there is such a distinction ,on that topic.

    I sought to show you that in that particular Poll there is no such distinction. Indeed in one of the four countries ” very much affected by it,” ( procurement) , opinion was even less favourable than the unfavourable opinion in UK which you attribute to unbalanced UK Press influence.

    By the way -re your newly stated opinion that ” UK public opinion on this derives from UK media coverage. The strength of that opinion illustrates the extent and nature of that coverage, because that’s all people in the UK have to go on.”

    * The strength of UK opinion-as I demonstrated to you-on this subject is not dissimilar to that in EU member states according to YouGov
    * UK media coverage includes reports from the EU and copies of reports in EU media.
    * You do not know to what extent UK public opinion is informed by access to EU media reports
    * The “strength of opinion” is based on the people’s reaction to what is happening.

  35. Colin: You attempted to use a YouGov Poll in UK + 4 EU member states to prove that there is such a distinction ,on that topic.

    You’ve misunderstood. Sorry if I wasn’t clear.

    When I wrote “you accept no distinction between” I meant that you don’t accept that there are two different categories involved. One is people’s opinion of what’s going on in their own society (or country/polity/region if you prefer), and another is people’s opinion of what’s going on elsewhere.

    In my view, these are different thing. Apples and oranges.

    By your logic, you would maintain that the opinion of people in Milan, Munich or Milwaukee as to what’s going on in Manchester, is no different from, and can be compared directly to, the opinion of Mancunians resident there.

    TBH, I think you’re really scraping the barrel now.

  36. SJ.

    On the contrary I understood your post on the You Gov poll very well.

    And I understand your increasingly bizarre responses to my criticism of it even more clearly..

    Over and out.

1 83 84 85

Leave a Reply

NB: Before commenting please make sure you are familiar with the Comments Policy. UKPollingReport is a site for non-partisan discussion of polls.

You are not currently logged into UKPollingReport. Registration is not compulsory, but is strongly encouraged. Either login here, or register here (commenters who have previously registered on the Constituency Guide section of the site *should* be able to use their existing login)