Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

The message is getting through to CON MPs and more are wearing masks – politicalbetting.com

1235»

Comments

  • CookieCookie Posts: 6,942

    Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico
    ·
    48m
    Cases are going to start to fall within the next 2-3 weeks. Once they start to fall, they are going to drop, over time, by some 30% or more from their current level. Cases this winter are going to be lower than now, not higher.

    ===

    Pretty frank prediction there.

    There is a (conspiracy?) theory going around that iSage and the Zerocovidians* are going hard now to try to get restrictions as they are aware of a likely drop around the corner.

    The thinking goes, if they don't get the restrictions now, they never will, but if they get the restrictions now, they can claim credit for the drop.

    Probably baloney, but it's a theory I keep encountering.
    Well I'm sure that IS true. But the extent to which I can get angry about it is tempered by the fact that 'going hard to try to get new restrictions' has been their only tactic for the last 18 months, regardless of circumstance. It's frustrating that they're doing it, but you may as well get annoyed at the river for flowing out to sea.
  • TOPPING said:

    Nigelb said:

    TOPPING said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    TOPPING said:

    Meanwhile, 95-yr old woman "back at her desk" after hospital check ups.

    Been described as "in good spirits". That generally means you're completely fucked. cf Phil the Greek.
    When the Princess of Hearts was in that car crash doctors described her condition as "grave" and I said oh well that's ok then she'll be fine. To which a doctor friend of mine said no, "grave" means it's all over, might already be.
    The clue is in the word, surely ?
    Well I hadn't thought it literally relates to the grave but I'm sure someone will enlighten me.
    Grave: the noun meaning burial place, and the adjective meaning serious; appear to etymologically separate.

    The noun is from Proto-Germanic grafa, meaning ditch or grave. This is the same source that gives us 'engrave', to scratch in.

    The adjective is from Old French greve, meaning terrible or dreadful. This derived from Latin gravis, meaning weighty or serious. And where we get gravity from.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,490
    Off topic. While most of the focus in the Governors’ races in the US has been on Virginia, the New Jersey race looks to be tightening significantly - Murphy’s lead down to 6 vs healthy double digit leads a few months back:

    https://emersonpolling.reportablenews.com/pr/new-jersey-2021-gov-murphy-with-six-point-lead-over-republican-challenger-ciattarelli

    I don’t think Murphy loses but 60pc of undecideds are swinging towards his opponent so a shock can’t be ruled out.

    Possibly worth a few quid as a bet on his challenger as an outside chance.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 35,224

    TOPPING said:

    Nigelb said:

    TOPPING said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    TOPPING said:

    Meanwhile, 95-yr old woman "back at her desk" after hospital check ups.

    Been described as "in good spirits". That generally means you're completely fucked. cf Phil the Greek.
    When the Princess of Hearts was in that car crash doctors described her condition as "grave" and I said oh well that's ok then she'll be fine. To which a doctor friend of mine said no, "grave" means it's all over, might already be.
    The clue is in the word, surely ?
    Well I hadn't thought it literally relates to the grave but I'm sure someone will enlighten me.
    Grave: the noun meaning burial place, and the adjective meaning serious; appear to etymologically separate.

    The noun is from Proto-Germanic grafa, meaning ditch or grave. This is the same source that gives us 'engrave', to scratch in.

    The adjective is from Old French greve, meaning terrible or dreadful. This derived from Latin gravis, meaning weighty or serious. And where we get gravity from.
    Thank you. And for medical purposes, though, surely it is not lifted straight from the hole in the ground.
  • Commentators - and Dominic Cummings - are beginning to twig that Boris (rather, Rishi) is cancelling “levelling up”.

    https://twitter.com/dominic2306/status/1451468675039510528?s=21

    Or is Cummings referring specifically to UK-ARPA aka ARIA?
    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/advanced-research-and-invention-agency-aria-statement-of-policy-intent/advanced-research-and-invention-agency-aria-policy-statement

    It will be a shame if we are dropping research (again) while our rivals and competitors increase theirs. And it is not as if there is not a pandemic which shows the importance of earlier blue skies research.
    R&D funding
    HS2 Eastern branch
    Northern Rail
    ARIA
    etc
    That is bad for the country. It might also be bad for whoever leads the Conservatives into the general election. Much red wall support was likely contingent on levelling up.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 100,749
    edited October 2021

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    fox327 said:

    I believe that wearing a mask should be a personal choice. I will not be voting for a party at the next general election if most of its MPs are wearing masks in the House of Commons chamber.

    Indeed, legally mask wearing is personal choice now everywhere apart from the London Underground.

    If you have been double vaccinated that is the main thing
    The problem is that the intersection of the Venn diagram of those who wear masks and those who haven't been vaccinated is likely to be very small.
    Yes, I'm all for personal choice on things that only affect me. Should I take a male lover? Change my cereal to Shreddies? Vote SWP or UKIP? Commit suicide? None of your business. However, the right to enter a crowded space and choose not to minimise the risk of infecting other people? There, you have a legitimate interest and a right to lay down rules on what I can do.
    I would only make mask wearing mandatory in crowded spaces and public transport for those who have not been double vaccinated
    If you are double jabbed you can a) still be carrying covid b) be asymptomatic and c) pass it to others.

    As the plague is almost certainly passed via aerosol (not via deodorants silly people!) , then mask wearing should be encouraged at least, and mandated where necessary until the infection rate is considerably lower than it is today IMO.
    Being double jabbed certainly reduces the spread more than say wearing a cloth mask would do
    https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/227713/coronavirus-infections-three-times-lower-double/
    Duh! Of course it does. The point is that you can still get COVID and pass it on when double jabbed. Mask wearing in crowded places makes that considerably less likely, particularly when the infection rate is so high. I am on the fence as to whether it should be mandatory, but those (such as fuckwit Rees-Mogg) that seem to want to discourage it are exceptionally irresponsible.
    You can still get Covid and pass it on when masked. DUH! The fact is double vaccination or mask wearing reduces the risk of transmission, they do not eliminate it and wearing a cloth mask only makes barely any difference at all.

    I refuse to back a mandate for mask wearing for the double jabbed. End of!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 100,749

    Quite something:

    NEW: Veteran Labour politician Frank Field says he has changed his mind on assisted dying because he is dying himself. He has just spent a period in a hospice.

    Baroness Meacher has just read out a statement on his behalf supporting the assisted dying bill in the House of Lords.


    https://twitter.com/tony_diver/status/1451480499617140744?s=21

    Sad news. Euthanasia is already legal in some nations, eg Spain, Canada, New Zealand, Belgium and the Netherlands and most Australian states but only generally for the terminally ill of sound mind with less than 6 months to live as confirmed by at least 2 doctors. We must ensure the legislation goes no further than that
  • kinabalu said:

    eek said:

    Pulpstar said:

    I note the French have got their cases down to around 6,000 and double jabbed up ~ 70% of 12 - 17.

    I quite like their approach of actively making antivaxxers lives a complete misery.

    Yep - sadly, the only way to get antivaxxers to take the vaccine is to make their day to day life impossible until they give up and get vaccinated.
    The problem is to do that without inconveniencing the vaccinated.

    The alternative strategy is to let the anti-vaxxers all get infected.
    That approach leads to maximum incovenience for the vaccinated... Especially if you have a need to use the health service.
    The answer is to stop the anti-vaxxers getting NHS treatment.
    Keep hearing this. It's people expressing frustration rather than a viable option. There is (absolutely and rightly) zero chance of it happening.
    Yet there is absolutely and wrongly increasing waiting lists of other required medical treatment because resources are being used on anti-vaxxers.

    Why do you think it is right that anti-vaxxers get treatment ahead of the medical requirements of others ?
    So by that metric we should also be withholding treatment from:

    Smokers
    Drinkers
    Anyone who does drugs
    Anyone whose BMI is over the recommended level
    Anyone injured whilst undertaking a dangerous sport
    Anyone injured in an incident where they had not properly safety assessed and were not wearing the proper protective gear
    Anyone injured committing a crime
    Anyone injured in a car accident where they were not wearing a seat belt or were speeding.

    Well that should eliminate about 80% or more of the entire population and leave medical treatment for those who may be alive but have never actually lived.

    But its not those groups which are, we're told, threatening to overwhelm the NHS.
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    fox327 said:

    I believe that wearing a mask should be a personal choice. I will not be voting for a party at the next general election if most of its MPs are wearing masks in the House of Commons chamber.

    Indeed, legally mask wearing is personal choice now everywhere apart from the London Underground.

    If you have been double vaccinated that is the main thing
    The problem is that the intersection of the Venn diagram of those who wear masks and those who haven't been vaccinated is likely to be very small.
    Yes, I'm all for personal choice on things that only affect me. Should I take a male lover? Change my cereal to Shreddies? Vote SWP or UKIP? Commit suicide? None of your business. However, the right to enter a crowded space and choose not to minimise the risk of infecting other people? There, you have a legitimate interest and a right to lay down rules on what I can do.
    I would only make mask wearing mandatory in crowded spaces and public transport for those who have not been double vaccinated
    If you are double jabbed you can a) still be carrying covid b) be asymptomatic and c) pass it to others.

    As the plague is almost certainly passed via aerosol (not via deodorants silly people!) , then mask wearing should be encouraged at least, and mandated where necessary until the infection rate is considerably lower than it is today IMO.
    Being double jabbed certainly reduces the spread more than say wearing a cloth mask would do
    https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/227713/coronavirus-infections-three-times-lower-double/
    Duh! Of course it does. The point is that you can still get COVID and pass it on when double jabbed. Mask wearing in crowded places makes that considerably less likely, particularly when the infection rate is so high. I am on the fence as to whether it should be mandatory, but those (such as fuckwit Rees-Mogg) that seem to want to discourage it are exceptionally irresponsible.
    You can still get Covid and pass it on when masked. DUH! The fact is double vaccination or mask wearing reduces the risk of transmission, they do not eliminate it and wearing a cloth mask only makes barely any difference at all.

    I refuse to back a mandate for mask wearing for the double jabbed. End of!
    Did I ask you to "back a mandate for mask wearing for the double jabbed"? I think you might be slightly overstating your own importance? If I could speak to you I would say it very slowly: Mask wearing lowers transmission. Wake up! We have over 500 cases per million in UK. France (remember those silly furriners?) have 70. The twat that you give blind loyalty to with the scruffy blond hair needs to realise running a country is not just about winning elections it is about governing. He needs to get a grip.
  • Commentators - and Dominic Cummings - are beginning to twig that Boris (rather, Rishi) is cancelling “levelling up”.

    https://twitter.com/dominic2306/status/1451468675039510528?s=21

    Levelling Up was always an empty slogan. We'll get a few millions drip-fed to Tory voting areas for hanging baskets and the like, but as a serious proposition it was never going to happen.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 40,952
    TOPPING said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    eek said:

    Pulpstar said:

    I note the French have got their cases down to around 6,000 and double jabbed up ~ 70% of 12 - 17.

    I quite like their approach of actively making antivaxxers lives a complete misery.

    Yep - sadly, the only way to get antivaxxers to take the vaccine is to make their day to day life impossible until they give up and get vaccinated.
    The problem is to do that without inconveniencing the vaccinated.

    The alternative strategy is to let the anti-vaxxers all get infected.
    That approach leads to maximum incovenience for the vaccinated... Especially if you have a need to use the health service.
    The answer is to stop the anti-vaxxers getting NHS treatment.
    Keep hearing this. It's people expressing frustration rather than a viable option. There is (absolutely and rightly) zero chance of it happening.
    Yet there is absolutely and wrongly increasing waiting lists of other required medical treatment because resources are being used on anti-vaxxers.

    Why do you think it is right that anti-vaxxers get treatment ahead of the medical requirements of others ?
    So by that metric we should also be withholding treatment from:

    Smokers
    Drinkers
    Anyone who does drugs
    Anyone whose BMI is over the recommended level
    Anyone injured whilst undertaking a dangerous sport
    Anyone injured in an incident where they had not properly safety assessed and were not wearing the proper protective gear
    Anyone injured committing a crime
    Anyone injured in a car accident where they were not wearing a seat belt or were speeding.

    Well that should eliminate about 80% or more of the entire population and leave medical treatment for those who may be alive but have never actually lived.

    Absolutely. This needs hammering home. Dear god what has happened so that we end up with you, me and @kini in agreement but this is where we are. Surely that *is* end of days.
    No it doesn't. If the equivalent of not wearing a seatbelt makes you feel unshackled and truly alive, you have terminal sadness issues. Like the people who put One Life - Live It stickers in their shitty series 1 Discoveries
    Was not the point of Richard's (and, tbf, yesterday many of my) posts. If you start rationing medical treatment you are in a world of dystopia and on a slippery slope.
    While I agree with the sentiment, we are already rationing healthcare in various manners.
  • kinabalu said:

    eek said:

    Pulpstar said:

    I note the French have got their cases down to around 6,000 and double jabbed up ~ 70% of 12 - 17.

    I quite like their approach of actively making antivaxxers lives a complete misery.

    Yep - sadly, the only way to get antivaxxers to take the vaccine is to make their day to day life impossible until they give up and get vaccinated.
    The problem is to do that without inconveniencing the vaccinated.

    The alternative strategy is to let the anti-vaxxers all get infected.
    That approach leads to maximum incovenience for the vaccinated... Especially if you have a need to use the health service.
    The answer is to stop the anti-vaxxers getting NHS treatment.
    Keep hearing this. It's people expressing frustration rather than a viable option. There is (absolutely and rightly) zero chance of it happening.
    Yet there is absolutely and wrongly increasing waiting lists of other required medical treatment because resources are being used on anti-vaxxers.

    Why do you think it is right that anti-vaxxers get treatment ahead of the medical requirements of others ?
    So by that metric we should also be withholding treatment from:

    Smokers
    Drinkers
    Anyone who does drugs
    Anyone whose BMI is over the recommended level
    Anyone injured whilst undertaking a dangerous sport
    Anyone injured in an incident where they had not properly safety assessed and were not wearing the proper protective gear
    Anyone injured committing a crime
    Anyone injured in a car accident where they were not wearing a seat belt or were speeding.

    Well that should eliminate about 80% or more of the entire population and leave medical treatment for those who may be alive but have never actually lived.

    But its not those groups which are, we're told, threatening to overwhelm the NHS.
    Well if you decided to stop treating all those with cancer or other diseases from smoking or drinking then you would have room for lots more anti-vaxxers. Why should one stupid lifestyle choice be penalised and others let off?
  • New thread.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 52,426
    Thread from a Lab councillor on what the party should be saying on Plan A/B:


    Labour really needs to be pushing for Plan B NOW.

    I get why LOTO is avoiding this: apparently research showed that swing voters hated Lab criticising the government over Covid. And they must calculate that if things get bad enough then voters will turn against the gov anyway. 1/

    https://twitter.com/ChristabelCoops/status/1451459209393065999
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 14,443
    edited October 2021

    Commentators - and Dominic Cummings - are beginning to twig that Boris (rather, Rishi) is cancelling “levelling up”.

    https://twitter.com/dominic2306/status/1451468675039510528?s=21

    Levelling Up was always an empty slogan. We'll get a few millions drip-fed to Tory voting areas for hanging baskets and the like, but as a serious proposition it was never going to happen.
    Well, to some extent.

    Boris’s speech on it was actually a half-decent (though characteristically rambling) précis of the main problems and likely solutions to Britain’s regional inequality problem (on some measures, worst in the developed world).

    I actually praised it on here.

    However, the government has pledged to do several things at once

    - Return the budget to steady state
    - Tackle the Covid backlog
    - Protect funding for Health, Education & Defence
    - Keep tax rises to a minimum
    - Drive toward carbon zero
    - Fund social care
    - Keep bribing the retired and house-owners.
    - “Level up”

    Meanwhile we have global supply shocks, exacerbated by Brexit, and we have decided we won’t use immigration to mitigate against an ageing population.

    So something (most of the things) was gonna give.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 8,622
    Cookie said:

    Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico
    ·
    48m
    Cases are going to start to fall within the next 2-3 weeks. Once they start to fall, they are going to drop, over time, by some 30% or more from their current level. Cases this winter are going to be lower than now, not higher.

    ===

    Pretty frank prediction there.

    I'm totally confident that cases are going to start falling imminently. They're doing so already in some regions: East Midlands,North West, Yorkshire, West Midlands. They just haven't fed through to the seven day averages yet.

    It can't be emphasised enough that the national figures are made up of regional figures, which in turn are made up of dozens and dozens of localised waves. The virus hits somewhere - there are a lot of cases - then there is nowhere for it to go and it declines. Everywhere that was high a few weeks ago is now declining. Of course, even within local authorities there are lots of little waves going on.

    I'm less confident in what will be happening in four weeks time. I mean, it makes sense to me that they'll go down and stay lower than now. But in the past the path of the virus hasn't moved in straight lines. I'm mildly optimistic that they'll be lower, but not totally confident.
    Also SW retesting figures are skewing the SW cases too.
This discussion has been closed.