Some 95.8% of adults in England have #Covid19 antibodies, according to @ONS data just released. Figures are broadly similar in Scotland, Wales and NI ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulati…
Couple of striking (if unsurprising) things from age breakdown:
- Among younger people (top row) note how antibodies (green line) is above vaccinations -> immunity from prev infection.
- Among older people (bottom row) you can see the “booster effect” pushing antibodies back up
Apologies I took the number from the wrong line here. Antibodies levels in England are 92.8% of adult population - that 95.8% was the number with 1 or more vaccination. Still very, very high.
Something I hadn’t quite appreciated when first glancing at today’s antibody numbers: levels among those aged 80+ are now higher than EVER.
Fresh evidence the booster programme is lifting protection BEYOND the initial two-dose levels.
Chart is for England. Look at the black line
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
How many people could still die of #Covid19 in the UK?
It’s an unpalatable question I know, but is worth pondering given cases are on the rise in many parts of Europe.
The good news is that, well, this thread contains better news than you might have thought.
First, the data:
Here’s the big picture. Covid may have been out of the headlines in recent months but the death toll has been creeping higher.
Now up to nearly 168k in the UK, 142k in England.
These are deaths where Covid is mentioned in certificate. Abt 90% were directly attributed to Covid.
You can split it into three broad phases:
1 Wave 1 last spring. 2. Wave 2 (arguably two waves in one) last winter.
3 The period since May.
Here’s the death toll in each (for England). Raising the question: what next. How many more deaths…?
CLIMATE FINANCE THREAD
Let's start with a simple question: how much is UK donating to poorer countries to help with climate change?
It's an important question given rich countries collective pledges are falling short of goals. That's been one of the big disappointments of #COP26
So: is the UK a leader or laggard when it comes to the $100bn?
Short answer: we give surprisingly little, given our typical leadership role in international development. But getting to the bottom of this involves diving deep inside a climate finance wormhole. Deep breath...
Let's start with the big picture. The idea behind climate finance is that rich countries should help poorer countries both to adapt to higher temperatures and to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels.
The target was to get to $100bn a year by 2020.
We failed.
Might hit it by 2023
BLOG: The $130 trillion climate finance figure bandied around at #COP26 today is utterly meaningless.
It is “numberism” - an attempt to deploy big numbers as symbols rather than data.
Here’s my attempt to explain what’s really going on (excerpt below): edmundconway.com/the-curse-of-b…
Given there are so many numbers flying around, let’s consider what they actually mean.
First @MarkJCarney’s $130 trillion.
You might, from the noises made at #COP26, have been left with the impression that this is a new fund which will help combat climate change.
It’s not.
It’s not an actual pot of money dedicated to combatting climate change.
Instead it’s more like saying: here’s how incredibly rich these financial firms which have now signed our climate change pledge are.
Might help divert more money to energy transition. But not quite the same.
As @COP26 gets going in Glasgow, if you’re wondering where the world’s emissions actually come from, here’s a primer I made recently for @SkyNews
Here is one big problem overshadowing the discussions at @COP26.
The targets you’ll mostly hear about this fortnight (NDCs) are based on domestic emissions.
On this front the UK, for instance, has done brilliantly, bringing them down 35% since 1990
But consider how much carbon this country is not just emitting in its borders but is RESPONSIBLE for, via imported goods, and the total is much higher - the dark line here.
This is our FOOTPRINT.
It’s going down, but not as fast. And it’s not due to hit net zero til after 2050
Five things you need to know about today's Budget/SR. Do read my full analysis if/when you have time. It's in this link. But if you're pressed here's the quick 1,2,3,4,5: news.sky.com/story/sunaks-b…
1. The forecast contained some BIG changes: much higher growth. Look how much higher the dark blue line here is than the yellow line (last forecast). Also much higher inflation forecasts. This has a bearing on the fiscal numbers, so...
2. The Chancellor got a MASSIVE windfall thanks to these forecast changes. Higher growth/inflation both push up net tax receipts. Roughy £35bn a year each year, thanks to higher tax receipts (even after the extra cost of benefits/debt interest). That is a LOT of money.
Half an hour left til Budget. Here are a few nuggets to ponder. Let’s start with a claim @RishiSunak may make (tho am hoping he doesn’t): that UK is fastest growing economy in G7.
It’s true if u look at Q2 alone (chart 1).
But look at GDP since covid and UK is mid/low table (ch2)
There’ll be lots of talk about fiscal responsibility and keeping the public finances in order.
All very well but by far the biggest issue in the coming decades is health-related costs which massively outweigh net zero. What does this govt do in the face of that?
After all, this govt has already set aside a large slug of the extra spending review money to health. The real question is what happens to other depts. Do they get real terms Budget increases? Does the era of austerity live on in certain corners of Whitehall?