Can anyone explain the Denmark situation to me. They lifted all covid restrictions over a month ago and are doing fine so far as I can see. We, however, seem to be in a more difficult position.
Different vaccines/rates of take up? Different behaviour?
Perhaps they don't have a clown for a prime minister?
I don't think viruses care who the prime minister is.
They do care about population density though.
Denmark population density 137 / km^2 England population density 445 / km^2
Bulk densities are a fairly pointless metric, what matters is the distribution of crowdedness. You could change Denmark's population density hugely just by decided whether or not to include Greenland in the figures, but it would have no impact whatsoever to the transmission of the virus, because Copenhagen, Aarhus, Odense, and so on would all have exactly the same conditions.
A quick google tells me Copenhagen has a higher population density than London.
Copenhagen population density 725/ km^2 Islington population density 16,097 / km^2
Are people clutching at straws re COVID as the fall has not arrived, wrong again why am I not surprised.
Plan B now.
What are you talking about? The fall has arrived. Look at a graph! It may not have dropped like a stone, but it's going in the right direction. It's certainly not exponentiating upwards.
From my back of a fag paper calculations it looks like a full time employee on UC will be better off after today's budget than if they'd kept the £20 uplift but not touched the taper. Whereas they'd have been worse off even with the Living Wage boost had it not been touched.
Plus the benefit of a lower taper is the poverty trap is reduced for if they do some overtime or get a pay-rise.
People should be able to rely on work and not welfare.
Devil will be in the detail but I'm a happy bunny today. I'm still worse off personally due the NI changes, but the poorest who work are better off so this is a big first step in the right direction.
Back on board the Boris bus, thank goodness for that!
Maybe.
This is an issue I care passionately about which I've been campaigning about for years. Its not like I've suddenly just discovered this issue - this is something I did a paper on nearly two decades ago and is something I have long really cared about. There's a reason why when it was named other posters name-checked me on it, this is something I've been advocating for here.
The devil will be in the details. It will be interesting to see if this stands up in the light of day but if it does then Rishi may have won me back with this move.
But I'll want further such steps in the future, this isn't the end of the line as far as I'm concerned.
It's something I've come around to, and the more it's investigated, the better it looks.
Whilst some people jink at the "Unconditional" bit, it must be borne in mind that the alternative to Unconditional Basic Income is Conditional Basic Income. Because no modern country just sits by and let people starve.
Conditional Basic Income means that the State gets to dictate the conditions, monitor the conditions, assess you against those conditions, and implement the conditions.
And, because this is the case, it smothers citizens in need with complex, lengthy, and often ambiguous forms and documentation and repeated assessments, as well as incurring a delay when in need. This increases tension and stress just when said citizens are most stressed, and this damages the decision-making powers of the brain (this surprised me initially, but there are a lot of studies on it).
So just when people need a clear mind, they're clouded. And then we hold their (impaired) decisions against them, adding punitive elements to the conditions.
Set it up such that it replaces the tax allowance and, yes, you might need specific extra targeted benefits (such as for those who are disabled), but these are specific and far smaller add-ons.
The conditionality I'd place on a UBI system is in applying additional tax rates of a number of percent for a period after UBI has been accessed. This would still therefore be a taper of sorts, but would be much more controllable. And, as you say, putting the tax free allowance to a low value (but would probably need to be non-zero). The only decision for a person to make would be to decide their own advantage and to access UBI or not and whether that be temporary or permanent.
The aim in such structure would be to ensure this was not a revenue buster for the treasury. It could have elements for lots of different scenarios - perhaps ultimately replacing student loans, state pensions, child benefits, institutional care costs, and with overlapping but capped additional tax rates applied to different taxes appropriate to circumstance, income tax, IHT and so forth.
Just watched the John Lewis advert - have I been in a cave for a few weeks?
Perhaps I'm reading too much into it but the message seems to be - if you're a boy and you want to cause chaos (let's face it lots of boys do), make sure you put a dress and make up on first!
The problem is that none of the damage is accidental - unless the parents completely lie on the claims form.
12% having had a booster is great - we really want to keep that improving, but that's very encouraging.
Yes, I was slightly surprised by this after all the doomy mood music - we're now vaccinating around 400k a day, taking into account firsts, seconds and boosters - not the heady heights of 600 a day from last Spring, but certainly very encouraging. https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/vaccinations
Can anyone explain the Denmark situation to me. They lifted all covid restrictions over a month ago and are doing fine so far as I can see. We, however, seem to be in a more difficult position.
Different vaccines/rates of take up? Different behaviour?
Perhaps they don't have a clown for a prime minister?
I don't think viruses care who the prime minister is.
They do care about population density though.
Denmark population density 137 / km^2 England population density 445 / km^2
Raw population density isn't that important, surely, as number of people living in cities and in close proximity to each other. If the Highlands of Scotland suddenly declared in indepedence, it wouldn't result in case rates shooting up in Edinburgh and Glasgow.
But overall population does generally matter because unless everyone is crowded into a single area then countries with low density tend to have more space between towns and cities, acting as more of a natural firebreak.
Take Edinburgh and Glasgow, if you compare it to the Highlands its densely population, but if you compare it to North West England its very sparsely populated. The land between Glasgow and Edinburgh is mostly farmland and relatively uninhabited compared to the land between Liverpool and Manchester, meaning that there's a firebreak there that doesn't exist here.
Another problem with your analysis is that human viruses don't travel in the same way that fire does. Large numbers of people commute back and forth between both Liverpool and Manchester, and Glasgow and Edinburgh. The density of the land between is, to my estimation, unimportant.
It would have been as you described in the middle ages, when viruses would have travelled at about walking pace, but nowadays they travel at diesel locomotive pace. If there was an outbreak in Manchester and Edinburgh at the same time, my guess is it'd appear in Liverpool and Glasgow before it appeared in Clock Face or Coatbridge, following the bulk population movement, not the distance.
Can anyone explain the Denmark situation to me. They lifted all covid restrictions over a month ago and are doing fine so far as I can see. We, however, seem to be in a more difficult position.
Different vaccines/rates of take up? Different behaviour?
Perhaps they don't have a clown for a prime minister?
I don't think viruses care who the prime minister is.
They do care about population density though.
Denmark population density 137 / km^2 England population density 445 / km^2
Bulk densities are a fairly pointless metric, what matters is the distribution of crowdedness. You could change Denmark's population density hugely just by decided whether or not to include Greenland in the figures, but it would have no impact whatsoever to the transmission of the virus, because Copenhagen, Aarhus, Odense, and so on would all have exactly the same conditions.
A quick google tells me Copenhagen has a higher population density than London.
Copenhagen population density 725/ km^2 Islington population density 16,097 / km^2
Ridiculous cherry picking, and where did you even get the Copenhagen figure from?
Can anyone explain the Denmark situation to me. They lifted all covid restrictions over a month ago and are doing fine so far as I can see. We, however, seem to be in a more difficult position.
Different vaccines/rates of take up? Different behaviour?
Perhaps they don't have a clown for a prime minister?
I don't think viruses care who the prime minister is.
They do care about population density though.
Denmark population density 137 / km^2 England population density 445 / km^2
Bulk densities are a fairly pointless metric, what matters is the distribution of crowdedness. You could change Denmark's population density hugely just by decided whether or not to include Greenland in the figures, but it would have no impact whatsoever to the transmission of the virus, because Copenhagen, Aarhus, Odense, and so on would all have exactly the same conditions.
A quick google tells me Copenhagen has a higher population density than London.
Copenhagen population density 725/ km^2 Islington population density 16,097 / km^2
Ridiculous cherry picking, and where did you even get the Copenhagen figure from?
Risible stuff from you.
Cherry picking indeed.
Population density of Copenhagen proper: 6,800/sq km Population density of Copenhagen Metro Area: 665/sq km
Population density of the City of London = 7,700/sq mile = 2,973/sq km Population density of Greater London = 14,550/sq mile = 5,618/sq km
Can anyone explain the Denmark situation to me. They lifted all covid restrictions over a month ago and are doing fine so far as I can see. We, however, seem to be in a more difficult position.
Different vaccines/rates of take up? Different behaviour?
Perhaps they don't have a clown for a prime minister?
I don't think viruses care who the prime minister is.
They do care about population density though.
Denmark population density 137 / km^2 England population density 445 / km^2
Raw population density isn't that important, surely, as number of people living in cities and in close proximity to each other. If the Highlands of Scotland suddenly declared in indepedence, it wouldn't result in case rates shooting up in Edinburgh and Glasgow.
But overall population does generally matter because unless everyone is crowded into a single area then countries with low density tend to have more space between towns and cities, acting as more of a natural firebreak.
Take Edinburgh and Glasgow, if you compare it to the Highlands its densely population, but if you compare it to North West England its very sparsely populated. The land between Glasgow and Edinburgh is mostly farmland and relatively uninhabited compared to the land between Liverpool and Manchester, meaning that there's a firebreak there that doesn't exist here.
Another problem with your analysis is that human viruses don't travel in the same way that fire does. Large numbers of people commute back and forth between both Liverpool and Manchester, and Glasgow and Edinburgh. The density of the land between is, to my estimation, unimportant.
It would have been as you described in the middle ages, when viruses would have travelled at about walking pace, but nowadays they travel at diesel locomotive pace. If there was an outbreak in Manchester and Edinburgh at the same time, my guess is it'd appear in Liverpool and Glasgow before it appeared in Clock Face or Coatbridge, following the bulk population movement, not the distance.
Yep, network theoretical approaches to epidemiology are more appropriate, which means number of and density at the hubs, and duration of interactions at those hubs.
Comments
Islington population density 16,097 / km^2
The aim in such structure would be to ensure this was not a revenue buster for the treasury. It could have elements for lots of different scenarios - perhaps ultimately replacing student loans, state pensions, child benefits, institutional care costs, and with overlapping but capped additional tax rates applied to different taxes appropriate to circumstance, income tax, IHT and so forth.
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/vaccinations
It would have been as you described in the middle ages, when viruses would have travelled at about walking pace, but nowadays they travel at diesel locomotive pace. If there was an outbreak in Manchester and Edinburgh at the same time, my guess is it'd appear in Liverpool and Glasgow before it appeared in Clock Face or Coatbridge, following the bulk population movement, not the distance.
Risible stuff from you.
Population density of Copenhagen proper: 6,800/sq km
Population density of Copenhagen Metro Area: 665/sq km
Population density of the City of London = 7,700/sq mile = 2,973/sq km
Population density of Greater London = 14,550/sq mile = 5,618/sq km
Yer pays yer money and takes yer choice.