27,941 comments posted · 294 followers · following 0
You certainly have my full support for your correct decision in the interests not only of the local people you represent, but also of the rest of us.
Nor can the laws of thermodynamics.
EVs only make any kind of financial sense to business buyers who can save thousands of pounds a year in BIK tax and avoided congestion charges, not to mention the subsidy on purchase and lower VED. It helps to be able to stuff that motorway recharge at 80p/kWh on expenses. Depreciation still remains eye-watering.
Government is not going to be able to afford to subsidise EV rollout for ever. It will have to replace lost taxation as well. Ordinary motorists are aware, and they fear the attempts to make owning a vehicle a privilege of the rich.
The naivety of assuming that it is merely a matter for the National Grid and subsidising the installation of charge points is charming. The reality is that it will be the distribution companies who will be faced with digging up every street in Britain to recable to provide the necessary power: that alone is a £200bn item, without considering the inconvenience caused. There isn't the spare capacity in the distribution system. Even more stupid will be doing it over again a few years later if there is a large push towards electrification of heating.
Then of course there is the question of providing the additional power in a reliable fashion. The manner in which the grid has creaked whenever it has been cold, dark and windless, despite still having coal and nuclear capacity to call on that will soon be shut down, suggests that regular power cuts loom.
It is of course entirely wrong to suggest that we will have 100% EVs on the road in 2030, since there will still be a very substantialfleet of ICE vehicles. Proba by just as well, since the target is complete fantasy.
It is a big concern if we have MPs who believe the impossible and are determined to attempt to impose it. Some basic understanding of the very real problems is desperately needed.
Ongoing review in real time for the ‘Innova SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Qualitative Test’ shows that the test had a specificity of 99.68% (that is, a false-positive rate of 0.32%), an overall sensitivity of 76.8%, and a sensitivity of over 95% for those with high viral loads.
It should be noted that the preliminary report from the joint PHE Porton Down and University of Oxford SARS-CoV-2 test development and validation cell found the sensitivity of the ‘Innova SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Qualitative Test’ dropped from 79% when used by laboratory scientists compared to 73% when used by trained healthcare staff compared to 58% when used by self-trained members of the public. This means there is a higher chance of false negatives when the tests are used by self-trained users until they develop more experience.
So this test will not be all that good at picking up true positives, unless you are pretty sick with the virus, especially if you are not a skilled tester. And it still comes with a false positive rate that can give misleading impressions when blitz testing is conducted. It's far from clear that this is a sensible way to spend money.
The BMJ was unimpressed: