|
Vlex posted:Wasn't there a poll last week at 55 Remain - 42 Exit? That's a pretty huge swing even for a "reputable" pollster.  The previous ICM phone poll was 47-39. It was ORB who had 55-42, but their latest poll narrowed to 51-46.
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 18:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 21:53 |
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Conservatives wouldn't have been able to do anything like what they did with the Psychoactive Substances Act under the coalition, but otoh they did prevent any of the positive changes that the Lib Dems were trying to push through. Yeah but Middle England didn't have their collective knickers in a twist about "research chemicals" quite as much then as they do now. I don't think I'm being overly cynical for suggesting that Clegg would have rolled over on that had he been in (well, near) power today. Vlex posted:Wasn't there a poll last week at 55 Remain - 42 Exit? That's a pretty huge swing even for a "reputable" pollster. I don't think it's actually a swing, I just think that for whatever reason there's a massive margin for error it's been bouncing from 55 to 50 for Remain for as long as they've been doing the polls. I said right at the beginning that the weather's going to have a massive effect because the Leave types generally feel much more strongly about it, so the worse the weather the better Leave will do. I'll admit this opinion is based on even less than my usual "Well some bloke down the pub said..." thoughts, but it seems like even professional polling organisations are working at that level of rigor.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 18:23
|
|
|
Vote Leave broadcast is pretty hosed up. http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b07d9t6x/eu-referendum-campaign-broadcasts-vote-leave-310516
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:Yeah but Middle England didn't have their collective knickers in a twist about "research chemicals" quite as much then as they do now. I don't think I'm being overly cynical for suggesting that Clegg would have rolled over on that had he been in (well, near) power today. That and keeping sentencing as a matter of jurisprudence rather than legislating mandatory minimums for minor crimes seem to be two things that Clegg was prepared to rock the boat on.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
keep punching joe posted:Vote Leave broadcast is pretty hosed up. 
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 18:48
|
|
|
As has been stated before, the most convincing argument to vote Remain is the Leave campaign.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 19:01
|
|
|
There isn't an big enough for that broadcast.Was it sponsored by Ladbrooks or something?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 19:01
|
|
|
The Lib Dem media operation in the past five years was incredibly poor, and everybody knew it. The problem was that a lot of the media operations had been taken away from party HQ and the (directly-elected) Federal Executive and given to an inner circle consisting of party grandees such as Paddy and Nick. And then Ryan Coetzee got on the board of Stronger In. 
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
keep punching joe posted:Vote Leave broadcast is pretty hosed up. What the gently caress
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 19:04
|
|
|
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/may/31/nhs-refusal-fund-hiv-aids-prevention-treatment-shameful-say-charitiesquote:The UK’s leading HIV and sexual health charities have attacked as “shameful” a decision by NHS England not fund a treatment method that can drastically reduce transmission risks. is this just dodgy reporting by the guardian or do the NHS really not give prescriptions of it?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
Nice little data mining scam, and that old woman is wasting our precious resources going to A&E when she could just get a bottle of Robitussons.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
Jose posted:http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/may/31/nhs-refusal-fund-hiv-aids-prevention-treatment-shameful-say-charities Nope. They prescribe PEP (post-exposure prophylaxis), but not PrEP. Which has led to the rise of gay men "clinic hopping" to find GUM clinics that will give them the drugs.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 19:29
|
|
|
Jose posted:http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/may/31/nhs-refusal-fund-hiv-aids-prevention-treatment-shameful-say-charities If the argument is that preventative medication is not in the NHS's remit then, well, that kind of makes sense? Because it's kind of hard to present a general case where people are going to be at particular risk of contracting HIV. It would be like, erm, giving people anticonvulsants to stop them getting epilepsy in the event of a head injury or something, you could conceivably prescribe them to the entire country because everyone is at risk of head injuries. You could argue that gay men are at higher risk of it but even then it's still a bit strange and something I think it would be hard to make work, as a general rule for the NHS.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 19:31
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:It would be like, erm, giving people anticonvulsants to stop them getting epilepsy in the event of a head injury or something, you could conceivably prescribe them to the entire country because everyone is at risk of head injuries. this is a terrible analogy
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 19:35
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:You could argue that gay men are at higher risk of it but even then it's still a bit strange and something I think it would be hard to make work, as a general rule for the NHS. gay men do have long term relationships, you know
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 19:35
|
|
|
Jose posted:this is a terrible analogy I don't really think that offering drugs to everyone who is worried about catching HIV, and then presumably, by extension, every other condition which could be mitigated by advance treatment, is necessarily a very good idea either? That could be literally anyone and it's not like a vaccine that is cheap with no side effects. Something like the flu jab where you can buy it if you want it would make more sense. Spangly A posted:gay men do have long term relationships, you know Yes they do but statistically HIV infection rates are higher among gay men as a group as far as I know, presumably married/LTR gay men are rather lower.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
if contraceptive pills are available on the NHS I think that this HIV drug should be available as well
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:
right, but some of these people have HIV and some don't, and some of them are in relationships, and in a sexual relationship the odds of not tramsitting fluids slowly reaches 0% one pill a day vs the eventual certainty of a HIV infection and dozens of pills a day. The cost/benefit given the cost of HIV treatments has to be counted on the other side, not just the original medication. There is absolutely no medically ethical reason not to prescribe this drug to statistically at risk populations, and I'd be loving shocked if the cost/benefit analysis sides with letting people get their HIV treated by the NHS. On top of that the idea prophylactics are out of the NHS remit is frankly opposite to the idea of a public health system and reality. If there's a legal problem, crush it.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
If I'm going out with a girl who has HIV, for example, I'm going to take the pill and also I'd be loving pissed if the NHS response was "please keep supporting private medical institutions, because they need the money"
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
I am willing to grant that prescribing the drug to at risk populations would probably be a good thing, but my quarrel is that: 1. Identifying at risk populations is going to probably amount to "gay people" primarily, which I am concerned will enhance the already unpleasant stigma associated with gay people and HIV, same as with the blood donation issue a while back. 2. The reason the NHS can't do it is supposedly because general preventative medicine like that is not part of their remit, and the reason for that is quite sensible if you consider that if it was, you would have everyone and their dog demanding preventative treatment for everything under the sun, with everything requriing a cost/benefit analysis and chances for appeal and whatever. I can't imagine how much expense that would create if you gave people the general right to preventative treatment. Perhaps an ideal NHS could afford it but I really don't think it would be good for the rather underfunded one we have. If you can create a specific exception for this one thing without turning it into the homo HIV pill club then great, I'm skeptical as to whether that is possible however. 3. The NHS can't change its own remit so it's really dumb to throw poo poo on the NHS for something which is presumably set at the government policy level, which is what people are doing in the article.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 19:52
|
|
|
Before we all get super mad let's read this: NHS England said the committee had “considered and accepted NHS England’s external legal advice that it does not have the legal power to commission PrEP” as local authorities are the responsible commissioner for HIV prevention services. There is more than one body which could be considered the NHS when youre talking about provision although NHS England is really the only national one left right now. The local bodies would be responsible for making available locally and I'd suggest getting involved with a campaign to lobby your CCG if you wish it to be available. The CCG will have a regular public meeting which you can attend although often questions must be submitted in advance. Edit: Actually disregard that, when they say the local authority is responsible they do actually mean the local authority as well as Public Health England. Go and lobby them as well as the CCG. namesake fucked around with this message at 20:11 on May 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
This sort of specialist medicine might be in the remit of NHS England, though.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 19:59
|
|
|
Wouldn't everyone being on HIV prevention drugs lose efficiency as the virus adapts? Also, it would cause all those eastern Europe and to flock here and avoid contracting HIV (my pal Nige told me so)
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 20:02
|
|
|
TinTower posted:This sort of specialist medicine might be in the remit of NHS England, though. Well they say it isn't though, so unless you want to argue that it should be handled by them at the nation level I don't see the relevance?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
Trickjaw posted:Wouldn't everyone being on HIV prevention drugs lose efficiency as the virus adapts? That's really more dependent on the drug's mechanism of action than anything else. It's not like antibiotics where overexposure all but guarantees reisistant strains developing.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I am willing to grant that prescribing the drug to at risk populations would probably be a good thing, but my quarrel is that: no, it's men who have sex with men, which is a different group to gay people. Raising public awareness of the risk and facts of HIV and how to prevent it would lessen stigma but that's an education problem.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
I am not confident in the public discourse's ability to make that distinction.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
None of us would be eligible to donate blood in America, British people alive in the UK in the 1990s are barred because of mad cow disease
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 20:49
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:None of us would be eligible to donate blood in America, British people alive in the UK in the 1990s are barred because of mad cow disease But John Gummer's daughter has so much to give 
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 21:00
|
|
|
There's a dark part of me that is hoping Leave wins, just to see what happens.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 21:01
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:None of us would be eligible to donate blood in America, British people alive in the UK in the 1990s are barred because of mad cow disease If you stayed in France, the time limit stretches back further. Basically French aren't allowed to give blood in America.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 21:11
|
|
|
I don't want that to happen because even the best case scenario is the status quo
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 21:12
|
|
|
Freezer posted:There's a dark part of me that is hoping Leave wins, just to see what happens. If I had a viable escape route for myself and my loved ones I'd be voting leave for all i was worth just to punish all the idiots who think the EU banned golliwogs and closed Woolworths.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 21:12
|
|
|
Immigration seems to be the only real issue.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 21:13
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:If I had a viable escape route for myself and my loved ones I'd be voting leave for all i was worth just to punish all the idiots who think the EU banned golliwogs and closed Woolworths. I have a friend who collects golliwogs. He's voting remain.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 21:14
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:I have a friend who collects golliwogs. That's an odd thing to do. Is he interested in their cultural significance/rarity or is he just a ball of hate? stev fucked around with this message at 21:32 on May 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 21:17
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:None of us would be eligible to donate blood in America, British people alive in the UK in the 1990s are barred because of mad cow disease I'm not allowed to donate any more blood in the UK because I've received a blood product during an operation. Anyone who has since 1980, or believes that they may have, is similarly barred. I'm O neg too, which I was told is useful blood in emergencies.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 21:21
|
|
|
If you have an Irish granny apply for Irish citizenship and claim the freedom of movement rights. This covers approximately 2/3rds of the UK
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 21:23
|
|
|
TheHoodedClaw posted:I'm not allowed to donate any more blood in the UK because I've received a blood product during an operation. Anyone who has since 1980, or believes that they may have, is similarly barred. I'm O neg too, which I was told is useful blood in emergencies. I don't know much about blood, but can't they just check the gently caress out of your blood to make sure it's alright, then allow you to donate?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 21:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 21:53 |
|
|
namesake posted:Well they say it isn't though, so unless you want to argue that it should be handled by them at the nation level I don't see the relevance? HIV prevention is one of those things that is frankly too important to put at risk of a postcode lottery.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 21:28
|
|