Every one of those wards has a very high BAME % population- in some cases over 90%.
No surprise when you breakdown 80+ vaccination rates across Brum by ethnicity (Bham and Solihull CCG)
White B 93%
British Indians 86%
Chinese 67%
Bangladeshi 67%
Pakistanis 66%
Caribbean 64%
But in even some much whiter areas take up is lower than average
So a ward like Kingstanding which is 83% white still only has a take up rate for the over 80s of 77.5%
Indeed the Council says in the doc that deprivation is one of the key factors in determining take up
In fact the docs say there's now a 15 point gap between take up for the first dose for the over 80s in the most deprived wards in the city compared to the most affluent wards.
Of course, everyone is being offered a vaccine, it's about take up.
The vaccine centre I was in was the Al-Abbas Islamic Centre in Balsall Heath.
Balsall Heath is one of the poorest wards in the country with long established health inequalities.
The clinical lead at the centre tells me how ingrained scepticism in his community has become: "Initially we were asked is it safe to have. Is it halal? Are the ingredients safe? Will it change my genes? Will it affect my fertility? Will I get tracked?"
"The correlation is due to deprivation, language and mistrust for higher authorities. It plays a huge part."
Setting up the centre in the mosque has really helped. But the local Imam told me that it still wasn't enough- that more needed to be done in terms of community outreach, otherwise with unlocking based on national figures, there was a long term risk of communities like his…
...continue to struggle. "If we don’t go for our jabs- it’s big danger. It's about trust and we [community leaders] have it. We've seen so many die in my community, I've buried 19 people this past year year, this year so far we’ve buried five or six this year- this is reality."
Scientists too are concerned about the differentials between white and BAME communities and rich and poor and that we should think about them more when considering unlocking.
Earlier I spoke to Professor Janet Lord of Bham University, she also sits on SAGE. She said the differentials between communities and the fact the data still isn't complete means it isn't the time to being making decisions on unlocking.
I also spoke to @liambyrnemp, one of the local MPs. He says that unless we work out a plan to deal with differing vaccination rates across communities and one to deal with already appalling health inequalities, deprived communities will be scarred by this for decades to come.
I just can't emphasise enough how big these vaccine disparities are.
Look at these two slides, one for Ladywood constituency (inner city, BAME, poor) and one for Sutton Coldfield (richer, whiter). It's a completely different picture.
Become commonplace to say about Covid globally that none of us are safe til we all are.
So it is in Britain- and getting lost in how we talk about vaccines is how many communities are at risk of being left behind.
Nadhim Zahawi asked about my Bham data story Today this morning. Says government is seeking to step up role of community pharmacists in rollout in more deprived areas. Still not much of a sense of a wider structural analysis of why some deprived areas might have take up issues.
Some of those more systemic problems probably have their roots in some of the issues Nasar described below- similar to other issues we’ve seen apropos deprivation and the pandemic.
In a year of disaster, last night was finally a very good night for Democrats
-sweeping the board in Virginia and New Jersey (two states where they went seriously backwards in 24)
-near supermajority in Virginia General Assembly
-Mamdani win
-California redistricting win
Foreshadows potential blue wave in midterms
Mamdani will get all the attention (he’s an extraordinary and charismatic candidate) but the VA/NJ results probably more significNt for the dynamics of US politics over next year
Shows once again that in off presidential years Dem base is now more committed than GOP’s. There has been much pessimism for Democrats about even taking back the House. With the California redistricting win and clear signs of Trump backlash, Dems will find fundraising and candidate recruitment easier.
Newsom emerges a big winner. He gambled on a redistricting strategy, showed some fight and won. The party will remember and be grateful. The prospect of a Dem House and even competitive Senate election will anger and incentivise Trump to play dirtier in run up to midterms. He’s been used to complete power in his second term and will abhor the idea of a Dem Congress coming after him again. Who knows what he’ll try and pull off to keep voters away from polling stations.
Anyone covering/interested in digital ID would be well advised to look for insight on it anywhere but X. Yet another example of where this site/online right opinion is fevered/way off the beat with the public.
Guess who need digital/reliable ID most? Those in poverty.
Right now we have the absurdity of compulsory ID for voting without a hassle free ID system. Madness and unfair to those least likely to have passports/driving licences etc- again, poorer people, younger people etc.
I’m well aware of how hopeless government IT systems/data protection can be. Earlier in the year I helped uncover one of the biggest data loss scandals in UK govt history. But the digital economy/world is a fact, and govts have to respond. Right now it’s a wild west, with the population left to fend for themselves, usually handing vast amounts of data over to unknowable massive Silicon Valley companies. At least the UK govt and what they do with our data is accountable to us, as citizens.
More than half think her sentence was too lenient or about right. Only a third that it was too harsh.
Only 18% think politicians should associate themselves her, while 51% think they should actively distance themselves from her.
Turns out the preoccupations of the online right don’t mirror the way population thinks at large- who knew!
Conservative voters are more than twice as likely to say politicians should create distance between themselves and Connolly (48 per cent), than associate themselves with her (22 per cent).
Globally, we're moving back towards an aristocracy of wealth, more akin to the 19th century than the 20th.
Anyone who cares about social justice, about moving away from higher and higher levels of taxation on work, should be very concerned. Time to do something about it.
-The top 10% of UK households hold 57% of all wealth, while the bottom 50% own less than 5%.
-The top 1% alone controls 23% of wealth
-Inheritances are soaring: projected to double from £100bn a year (2020) to £200bn by 2040
-Half of all wealth in the UK is now inherited rather than earned, up from about 25% in the 1970s.
-Children of the wealthiest 20% are seven times more likely to remain in the top 20% as adults than children from the poorest fifth
Meanwhile working people are paying higher and higher taxes on their labour. We need to shift towards taxation on inherited wealth and a reduction in taxes on work and consumption. Both for moral and economic reasons. Let's allow people to keep more on what they do NOT what they inherit.
Lots of people accusing me of being communist. No- it's a liberal argument. On this I'll defer to John Stuart Mill, who wrote this in 1848 and would be dismissed as a "commie wanker" today:
"The principle of inheritance… is chiefly grounded on the duty of parents to provide for their children. But that duty has certain limits; and when these are exceeded, the right ceases. Beyond a certain point, to permit the transmission of enormous fortunes is nothing less than to establish a monopoly of wealth, and is wholly opposed to the spirit of a free and equal society.”
I'm being intentionally provocative when I propose a 100% rate. But I certainly think the rate should be much higher than it is today. It has been before in British history (go back to the 1920s) and in other societies- see Japan, S Korea.
For those waking up in US, bewildered in Europe, what happened?
Have been on air for last 12 hours pouring over the data
Here it is
There's no silver lining for Democrats. Trump won everywhere. He's going to win the popular vote. He did better across the demographics. He grew his coalition, better with black voters, Latinos, young voters. The US become less racially divided by party. Harris underperformed Biden virtually everywhere.
Trump improved on his 2020 margin in 2,367 counties. His margin decreased in only 240 counties.
Trump didn't just sweep up in the swing states, and none of them are going to be that close. He closed the gap on Harris in a tonne of blue states. She turned out anaemic victories in New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Minnesota. He expanded his margins in red states to take huge generationally big victories in Florida and Iowa. He flipped Miami Dade county, winning a heavily Latino county Hillary won by 30 points by 10. He drove down Harris margins in big urban centres everywhere, including Chicago, New York, Austin etc.
This feels a far more devastating loss for the Democrats, even than 2016.
2016 the Dems had plenty of things to console them. A massive popular vote victory. A narrow electoral college loss in a few places. A rock solid ethnic minority coalition which looked like a solid electoral map of the future. Roe was intact. The Supreme Court was still balanced.
They have none of that now. They're staring down the barrel of a transformed Republican Party and a sustained inability to know how to deal with Trump and Magaism. In policy terms, they also have nowhere to go. In Biden's term they governed exactly in line with their own instincts. It's been soundly rejected by the electorate.