The beauty of the English language is it's a mongrel and there are several ways to say the same things. It problem is it gives us different registers and people get judged unconsciously on the basis of which words they use. For example "to buy" / "to purchase".
That's an interesting point that I'd not consciously thought about but use all the time in my spare-time translation/revision work. I was revising someone's translation yesterday of an Austrian Government statement. The translation was fine, but it routinely used everyday language - abbreviations like "we're" and "it'd", "got" instead of "received", ""thought about" instead of "considered", etc. Without even thinking about it I changed it to the more formal usage everywhere, on the basis that this is what a government would want. Just being old-fashioned, perhaps actulaly making public statements less accessible, or bein gappropriate to the subject?
The beauty of the English language is it's a mongrel and there are several ways to say the same things. It problem is it gives us different registers and people get judged unconsciously on the basis of which words they use. For example "to buy" / "to purchase".
That's an interesting point that I'd not consciously thought about but use all the time in my spare-time translation/revision work. I was revising someone's translation yesterday of an Austrian Government statement. The translation was fine, but it routinely used everyday language - abbreviations like "we're" and "it'd", "got" instead of "received", ""thought about" instead of "considered", etc. Without even thinking about it I changed it to the more formal usage everywhere, on the basis that this is what a government would want. Just being old-fashioned, perhaps actulaly making public statements less accessible, or bein gappropriate to the subject?
If you are wearing FFP2s then you are being selfish. FFP2s have an exhalation valve which means you still expel aerosols onto others. Surgical masks are actually BETTER at protecting others. You are only protecting yourself
"In contrast to community masks, FFP2 masks are designed to not only protect others, but also yourself. However, masks with exhalation valves provide a considerably lower level of protection to others than masks without exhalation valves."
FFP2 masks come with or without valves, but generally with, as they are more comfortable to breathe through. However if you are wearing a mask with a valve you are NOT protecting your fellow humans, just yourself
Do you want to re-read that? Lets assume I am symptomatic. If I go out wearing no mask I am breathing the virus into the air and into your lungs. If I am wearing a mask I am breathing the virus into the mask - my masks have a filter.
So. Mask = no virus getting into your lungs. How is that "not protecting your fellow humans"? Unless the aim is get everyone infected now as you and others post repeatedly.
If you're symptomatic you shouldnt be going out.
Yeah, I meant infected but don't know yet - asymptomatic. The point stands - the mask and the filter layer absolutely protect people around you.
It depends on the mask. Many FFP2s have an exhalation valve. That's often the point
FFP2s are designed for people in dangerous scenarios, who will be exposed to Covid (or nasty dust, or other viruses etc). FFP2s, fitted correctly, are good at filtering aerosols. They protect the wearer, and if they have a valve they are more comfortable to wear as it is easier to breathe (so they are more likely to be used in the first place)
However the valve allows aerosols OUT so they are not good at protecting others. AIUI a surgical mask or even a cloth bandana worn over the mouth is better at CONTAINING aerosols
But you insist your FFP2s do not have a valve, and some don't, so it is irrelevant in this case
You keep banging on about the evils of valves. When did I say I had one with a valve? Search Amazon for FFP2 mask and its pages of non-valve masks.
I'm bloody sure that a proper mask that fits that has a filter is more effective than a piece of cloth. Despite your increased histrionics that they aren't and I am being selfish. Indeed, more selfish than all the people not wearing masks - which was the whole point in the attack.
"Are you using an N95 mask?" If no (as expected) its "virtue signalling" If yes, its a type of mask that I don't have and its less effective than no mask or whatever.
I just wish anti-maskers would say that clearly and simply, would save a lot of time.
Times Radio @TimesRadio · 1h "Boris Johnson doesn't believe in throwing people under a bus."
George Eustice, environment secretary, on the Prime Minister's loyalty after the Owen Paterson lobbying scandal.
===
Genuine
Suspect Eustice will find out sooner rather than later that Johnson throws people under buses for a hobby.
Crazy. A hole, and he's still digging. There's clearly no-one in Downing Street challenging Johnson's way of dealing with this, and they could be down ten points, not four, within a month or two, if they persist.
I say, Eustice may be an BJ apologist A hole but he's hardly alone.
Times Radio @TimesRadio · 1h "Boris Johnson doesn't believe in throwing people under a bus."
George Eustice, environment secretary, on the Prime Minister's loyalty after the Owen Paterson lobbying scandal.
===
Genuine
Suspect Eustice will find out sooner rather than later that Johnson throws people under buses for a hobby.
Crazy. A hole, and he's still digging. There's clearly no-one whatsoever in Downing Street challenging Johnson's way of dealing with this, and they could be down ten points, not four, within a month or two, if they carry on like that.
Its a good question to ask. Would the Tory vote go up or down if Boris was axed?
You would mandate mask wearing in England now. Okay. You would introduce a law that makes it illegal to visit pubs, bars, theatres, clubs and shops without a mask. That’s a very significant imposition.
Would you then also mandate vaccination in England from today?
?
Where did I say ban visiting pubs etc? They aren't banned up here or in Germany or in the rest of the world that hasn't been as daft as England in dropping the requirement to wear masks. England - like the rest of the developed world - should have maintained a mask mandate.
You didn't. you can't put the genie back in the bottle. Politically any new restrictions will be difficult because so many people down there think its all over. Hence the need for Plan B, Plan C, "Jabbed or Christmas gets it" etc etc
You keep asking what I think. I don't think. But I listen to what Whitty, Vallance, Van-Tam, Taylor etc think. I know nothing on this subject, I am not a doctor or a virologist or someone qualified to disagree with them. Unlike you and many on here apparently.
No. Wrong again. I didn’t even suggest you would ban pubs. You said you would impose a mask mandate, which of course would include pubs.
My question to you is would you also mandate vaccinations?
You know my position on this. I'm against vaccine passports so why would I be in favour of pinning people down to vaccinate them?
So whats your point? Here and everywhere else you need to wear a mask indoors in public buildings. You take them off when sat eating or drinking. They remain open and thriving and with less infections which means more people available to work and go out spending money. A "significant imposition" that pretty much everywhere else manages without a fuss.
Ultimately its down to who is the expert here. I am not. You apparently are. Perhaps the NHS should listen to you.
I don’t claim to be an expert, and never have. My view is that we should retain the status quo. I’ve been clear about that. I would mandate neither vaccinations nor masks, although I would advocate a stronger public campaign on vaccinations to whittle down the refuseniks.
I find your position absolutely irrational. You would mandate masks - which are a daily imposition, affect 100% of the population and have only a moderate impact. But you would not mandate vaccinations, which are a minor inconvenience, affect just 5% of the population (the unvaxxed cohort) and have a huge impact. That is a bizarre position in my view. Deeply irrational.
I'm happy to be "irrational" in your eyes. As my position is shared by much of the developed world I'll take your comments under advisement.
The rational view would of course be mandatory vaccinations AND masks until completed. Then again as vaccinations have proven to be ineffective at wholly stopping the virus (unlike some other vaccines for other viruses) we would need to retain masks even with a full mandatory vaccination programme until we had all had sufficient rounds of boosters to stop this thing.
I do love the "moderate impact" lie from you ant-maskers. It doesn't matter how much the scientists prove the significant reduction in transmission gained from the proper wearing of masks, you and your still say "not proven".
So actually what you are saying is that in practice we will maintain masks forever. No thanks.
Forever? We will get to the point where there is sufficient protection in the vaccinations most of us have had to discard them. I'd quite like to burn mine I hate them that much.
Nah we won't. This is going to be endemic and varying just like flu. The idea we will ever be rid of this thing is for the fairies. Might as well get used to it as just another of those many persistent low level threats that we live with.
If it was a low-level threat then fine. It isn't. The NHS are genuinely bricking it over how they get us all through the winter. What does seem clear is that it dissipates significantly over the summer. So we need to have a concerted drive next summer to get booster 3 / 4 into everyone's arms. A tax break or cash incentive for getting it - something. Or we really do end up stuck with this as a real problem not just another winter bug that nobody need be that worried about.
The NHS is bricking it every winter over getting us through. That is a sign of a failed system (and I say that without any commentary on how or why it is failed, we have discussed that enough in other threads).
Now personally I wear a mask in various enclosed spaces as a mark of courtesy to people as I know there are those out there who are still genuinely worried about this stuff. But I would not for a second criticise anyone next to me who didn't wear a mask. That is their personal choice.
On Friday night I was at a Suede concert at Rock City (Fecking amazing by the way). 3,000 people in a tight packed space, all pogoing away, singing at the top of their voices and having a brilliant time with the band absolutely loving every second of it. Not once did I even think about any concern about masks, infections or anything else related to Covid. That is done. I am double jabbed, will get my booster and have recently had Covid caught from my son via school. If, a year or so down the line I catch it again as the effects of all of that have worn off and this time die from it then that is, I am afraid, just life (or death). I refuse now to live my life in fear over something that is now just as likely as me dying from normal flu or a car crash.
Masks, lockdowns and distancing were all vitally important at the time. I agreed with them all and was content to abide by them. That is now done. Life may still be a bit less safe than before November 2019 but I don't care any more. Life is, anyway, too short to worry about such things.
On Tuesday I am going with my son and wife to watch Public Service Broadcasting again at Rock City. It will be his first concert and that is more important to me than any of this stuff.
Well said
As a society we will all, soon, need to move on. Yes there is probably increased risk, and it will persist, but it cannot close down the economy, let alone normal human life
And how bad is that risk, anyhow? If these Pfizer antivirals work as well as promised, and you add them to the efficacy of the vaccines, the CFR of Covid-19 will be about 0.01%.
1 in 10,000 people that get it will die. Pretty bloody tiny, and ten times LESS lethal than flu, a disease we get every winter, and which does not affect society one jot
There is a clear and growing split between the new Tories and the grandees. The new ones don't appreciate being forced to vote for stupid only for stupid to then be immediately dropped. Especially when they're told vote for it or your towns fund money gets pulled.
The new tories believed the hype, not realising that the soul of the Tory Party had been cleansed and only the believers remained. Imagine their surprise when instead of delivering a sensible, levelling up, open and imaginative Brexit, their Party made it clear they are determined to bring the house down on everyone instead.
Aren't the Grandees supposed to have left?
The attack tweets on that thread are quite interesting eg:
When the veneer slips and Tories row it really is something to behold; all that pent up spite and snidery which they so (not all of them, admittedly) like to think they are above and the bad blood they believe the sole preserve of the uncivilized poor and disadvantaged; all too often and if anything, what shows is how their privelege, and fancy educations have left them even more fucked up than the masses they quietly exert so much energy in despising.
Is that true of red wall Tories, and does that attack land?
Mine (Lee Anderson ) is certainly genuinely 'working class' - lived in a normal terraced house until a few years ago, as befits a Labour Councillor. Also true of Ben Bradley next door.
Has anyone done a decent survey of backgrounds of new Tory MPs from 2019?
I think Ken Clarke and Bill Cash are both Tory grandees so I'm not sure grandee gets us anywhere in the analysis.
And as for the Red Wall tories perhaps in 20 years time people will have forgotten that the Tory party of the 20th and early 21st centuries was in any way associated with inherited wealth and privilege.
I don't know tbh how true your assumption is. How many of the Tories in that period are actually self-made? I'm interested to find out. I'm also interested in how far that type of attack will work. My preference for Tories is that a more NS voting coalition is better balanced. Whether that is still possible?
"COP26: The Royal Family's climate interventions have left no one in any doubt that they want meaningful actions from the summit
The royals have been everywhere and with their unique star appeal have helped to get pictures from this summit to a wider global audience as they've rubbed shoulders with everyone from world leaders to wealthy businessmen and high-profile campaigners.
"COP26: The Royal Family's climate interventions have left no one in any doubt that they want meaningful actions from the summit
The royals have been everywhere and with their unique star appeal have helped to get pictures from this summit to a wider global audience as they've rubbed shoulders with everyone from world leaders to wealthy businessmen and high-profile campaigners.
You would mandate mask wearing in England now. Okay. You would introduce a law that makes it illegal to visit pubs, bars, theatres, clubs and shops without a mask. That’s a very significant imposition.
Would you then also mandate vaccination in England from today?
?
Where did I say ban visiting pubs etc? They aren't banned up here or in Germany or in the rest of the world that hasn't been as daft as England in dropping the requirement to wear masks. England - like the rest of the developed world - should have maintained a mask mandate.
You didn't. you can't put the genie back in the bottle. Politically any new restrictions will be difficult because so many people down there think its all over. Hence the need for Plan B, Plan C, "Jabbed or Christmas gets it" etc etc
You keep asking what I think. I don't think. But I listen to what Whitty, Vallance, Van-Tam, Taylor etc think. I know nothing on this subject, I am not a doctor or a virologist or someone qualified to disagree with them. Unlike you and many on here apparently.
No. Wrong again. I didn’t even suggest you would ban pubs. You said you would impose a mask mandate, which of course would include pubs.
My question to you is would you also mandate vaccinations?
You know my position on this. I'm against vaccine passports so why would I be in favour of pinning people down to vaccinate them?
So whats your point? Here and everywhere else you need to wear a mask indoors in public buildings. You take them off when sat eating or drinking. They remain open and thriving and with less infections which means more people available to work and go out spending money. A "significant imposition" that pretty much everywhere else manages without a fuss.
Ultimately its down to who is the expert here. I am not. You apparently are. Perhaps the NHS should listen to you.
I don’t claim to be an expert, and never have. My view is that we should retain the status quo. I’ve been clear about that. I would mandate neither vaccinations nor masks, although I would advocate a stronger public campaign on vaccinations to whittle down the refuseniks.
I find your position absolutely irrational. You would mandate masks - which are a daily imposition, affect 100% of the population and have only a moderate impact. But you would not mandate vaccinations, which are a minor inconvenience, affect just 5% of the population (the unvaxxed cohort) and have a huge impact. That is a bizarre position in my view. Deeply irrational.
I'm happy to be "irrational" in your eyes. As my position is shared by much of the developed world I'll take your comments under advisement.
The rational view would of course be mandatory vaccinations AND masks until completed. Then again as vaccinations have proven to be ineffective at wholly stopping the virus (unlike some other vaccines for other viruses) we would need to retain masks even with a full mandatory vaccination programme until we had all had sufficient rounds of boosters to stop this thing.
I do love the "moderate impact" lie from you ant-maskers. It doesn't matter how much the scientists prove the significant reduction in transmission gained from the proper wearing of masks, you and your still say "not proven".
So actually what you are saying is that in practice we will maintain masks forever. No thanks.
Forever? We will get to the point where there is sufficient protection in the vaccinations most of us have had to discard them. I'd quite like to burn mine I hate them that much.
Nah we won't. This is going to be endemic and varying just like flu. The idea we will ever be rid of this thing is for the fairies. Might as well get used to it as just another of those many persistent low level threats that we live with.
If it was a low-level threat then fine. It isn't. The NHS are genuinely bricking it over how they get us all through the winter. What does seem clear is that it dissipates significantly over the summer. So we need to have a concerted drive next summer to get booster 3 / 4 into everyone's arms. A tax break or cash incentive for getting it - something. Or we really do end up stuck with this as a real problem not just another winter bug that nobody need be that worried about.
The NHS is bricking it every winter over getting us through. That is a sign of a failed system (and I say that without any commentary on how or why it is failed, we have discussed that enough in other threads).
Now personally I wear a mask in various enclosed spaces as a mark of courtesy to people as I know there are those out there who are still genuinely worried about this stuff. But I would not for a second criticise anyone next to me who didn't wear a mask. That is their personal choice.
On Friday night I was at a Suede concert at Rock City (Fecking amazing by the way). 3,000 people in a tight packed space, all pogoing away, singing at the top of their voices and having a brilliant time with the band absolutely loving every second of it. Not once did I even think about any concern about masks, infections or anything else related to Covid. That is done. I am double jabbed, will get my booster and have recently had Covid caught from my son via school. If, a year or so down the line I catch it again as the effects of all of that have worn off and this time die from it then that is, I am afraid, just life (or death). I refuse now to live my life in fear over something that is now just as likely as me dying from normal flu or a car crash.
Masks, lockdowns and distancing were all vitally important at the time. I agreed with them all and was content to abide by them. That is now done. Life may still be a bit less safe than before November 2019 but I don't care any more. Life is, anyway, too short to worry about such things.
On Tuesday I am going with my son and wife to watch Public Service Broadcasting again at Rock City. It will be his first concert and that is more important to me than any of this stuff.
Well said
As a society we will all, soon, need to move on. Yes there is probably increased risk, and it will persist, but it cannot close down the economy, let alone normal human life
And how bad is that risk, anyhow? If these Pfizer antivirals work as well as promised, and you add them to the efficacy of the vaccines, the CFR of Covid-19 will be about 0.01%.
1 in 10,000 people that get it will die. Pretty bloody tiny, and ten times LESS lethal than flu, a disease we get every winter, and which does not affect society one jot
"Covid Deaths" will never get that low until somebody takes the decision to either stop mass testing, or change the way in which we record them.
"COP26: The Royal Family's climate interventions have left no one in any doubt that they want meaningful actions from the summit
The royals have been everywhere and with their unique star appeal have helped to get pictures from this summit to a wider global audience as they've rubbed shoulders with everyone from world leaders to wealthy businessmen and high-profile campaigners.
Are they gonna stop flying around the world to patronise the relics of the empire then? I think not.
Air miles Andy has been locked up in Balmoral for months, his emissions(!) must be minimal currently. You can't say fairer than that when it comes to showing they're serious.
I wonder if they'll let him out for Poppymas, maybe with an electronic tag?
You would mandate mask wearing in England now. Okay. You would introduce a law that makes it illegal to visit pubs, bars, theatres, clubs and shops without a mask. That’s a very significant imposition.
Would you then also mandate vaccination in England from today?
?
Where did I say ban visiting pubs etc? They aren't banned up here or in Germany or in the rest of the world that hasn't been as daft as England in dropping the requirement to wear masks. England - like the rest of the developed world - should have maintained a mask mandate.
You didn't. you can't put the genie back in the bottle. Politically any new restrictions will be difficult because so many people down there think its all over. Hence the need for Plan B, Plan C, "Jabbed or Christmas gets it" etc etc
You keep asking what I think. I don't think. But I listen to what Whitty, Vallance, Van-Tam, Taylor etc think. I know nothing on this subject, I am not a doctor or a virologist or someone qualified to disagree with them. Unlike you and many on here apparently.
No. Wrong again. I didn’t even suggest you would ban pubs. You said you would impose a mask mandate, which of course would include pubs.
My question to you is would you also mandate vaccinations?
You know my position on this. I'm against vaccine passports so why would I be in favour of pinning people down to vaccinate them?
So whats your point? Here and everywhere else you need to wear a mask indoors in public buildings. You take them off when sat eating or drinking. They remain open and thriving and with less infections which means more people available to work and go out spending money. A "significant imposition" that pretty much everywhere else manages without a fuss.
Ultimately its down to who is the expert here. I am not. You apparently are. Perhaps the NHS should listen to you.
I don’t claim to be an expert, and never have. My view is that we should retain the status quo. I’ve been clear about that. I would mandate neither vaccinations nor masks, although I would advocate a stronger public campaign on vaccinations to whittle down the refuseniks.
I find your position absolutely irrational. You would mandate masks - which are a daily imposition, affect 100% of the population and have only a moderate impact. But you would not mandate vaccinations, which are a minor inconvenience, affect just 5% of the population (the unvaxxed cohort) and have a huge impact. That is a bizarre position in my view. Deeply irrational.
I'm happy to be "irrational" in your eyes. As my position is shared by much of the developed world I'll take your comments under advisement.
The rational view would of course be mandatory vaccinations AND masks until completed. Then again as vaccinations have proven to be ineffective at wholly stopping the virus (unlike some other vaccines for other viruses) we would need to retain masks even with a full mandatory vaccination programme until we had all had sufficient rounds of boosters to stop this thing.
I do love the "moderate impact" lie from you ant-maskers. It doesn't matter how much the scientists prove the significant reduction in transmission gained from the proper wearing of masks, you and your still say "not proven".
So actually what you are saying is that in practice we will maintain masks forever. No thanks.
Forever? We will get to the point where there is sufficient protection in the vaccinations most of us have had to discard them. I'd quite like to burn mine I hate them that much.
Nah we won't. This is going to be endemic and varying just like flu. The idea we will ever be rid of this thing is for the fairies. Might as well get used to it as just another of those many persistent low level threats that we live with.
If it was a low-level threat then fine. It isn't. The NHS are genuinely bricking it over how they get us all through the winter. What does seem clear is that it dissipates significantly over the summer. So we need to have a concerted drive next summer to get booster 3 / 4 into everyone's arms. A tax break or cash incentive for getting it - something. Or we really do end up stuck with this as a real problem not just another winter bug that nobody need be that worried about.
The NHS is bricking it every winter over getting us through. That is a sign of a failed system (and I say that without any commentary on how or why it is failed, we have discussed that enough in other threads).
Now personally I wear a mask in various enclosed spaces as a mark of courtesy to people as I know there are those out there who are still genuinely worried about this stuff. But I would not for a second criticise anyone next to me who didn't wear a mask. That is their personal choice.
On Friday night I was at a Suede concert at Rock City (Fecking amazing by the way). 3,000 people in a tight packed space, all pogoing away, singing at the top of their voices and having a brilliant time with the band absolutely loving every second of it. Not once did I even think about any concern about masks, infections or anything else related to Covid. That is done. I am double jabbed, will get my booster and have recently had Covid caught from my son via school. If, a year or so down the line I catch it again as the effects of all of that have worn off and this time die from it then that is, I am afraid, just life (or death). I refuse now to live my life in fear over something that is now just as likely as me dying from normal flu or a car crash.
Masks, lockdowns and distancing were all vitally important at the time. I agreed with them all and was content to abide by them. That is now done. Life may still be a bit less safe than before November 2019 but I don't care any more. Life is, anyway, too short to worry about such things.
On Tuesday I am going with my son and wife to watch Public Service Broadcasting again at Rock City. It will be his first concert and that is more important to me than any of this stuff.
Well said
As a society we will all, soon, need to move on. Yes there is probably increased risk, and it will persist, but it cannot close down the economy, let alone normal human life
And how bad is that risk, anyhow? If these Pfizer antivirals work as well as promised, and you add them to the efficacy of the vaccines, the CFR of Covid-19 will be about 0.01%.
1 in 10,000 people that get it will die. Pretty bloody tiny, and ten times LESS lethal than flu, a disease we get every winter, and which does not affect society one jot
The elephant in the room is the loading on the health service and effect on healthcare other than for covid.
I know I keep rabbiting on about it, but that's the key element as I see it: we are putting fewer heart attack victims and stroke victims in ICUs than before due to lack of capacity (if you're in an ICU, you have a one in 25 chance of being ferried to some other ICU somewhere just to get capacity).
Elective surgeries (which are very rarely optional, simply can be timetabled rather than "in there now!") are way behind, so chronic or building acute conditions for quite a few people are going to be untreated - when they are curable or at least susceptible to intervention.
And waits for A&E are at record lengths, and response times for 999 calls and ambulances are not good at all.
I can see there being arguments for limited NPIs to try to reduce pressure from not just covid but from influenza and other transmissible diseases. I may not agree with them, but there is logic in it. My strong preference would be to make the flu jab free for all ages (at something like £10 per jab, we're talking tiny numbers on this scale) and strong encouragement to take it up, together with possible encouragement for working from home (small tax break for companies that do so?).
The way out is to permanently increase capacity. The solution to that is not trivial, but it's the best way out.
You would mandate mask wearing in England now. Okay. You would introduce a law that makes it illegal to visit pubs, bars, theatres, clubs and shops without a mask. That’s a very significant imposition.
Would you then also mandate vaccination in England from today?
?
Where did I say ban visiting pubs etc? They aren't banned up here or in Germany or in the rest of the world that hasn't been as daft as England in dropping the requirement to wear masks. England - like the rest of the developed world - should have maintained a mask mandate.
You didn't. you can't put the genie back in the bottle. Politically any new restrictions will be difficult because so many people down there think its all over. Hence the need for Plan B, Plan C, "Jabbed or Christmas gets it" etc etc
You keep asking what I think. I don't think. But I listen to what Whitty, Vallance, Van-Tam, Taylor etc think. I know nothing on this subject, I am not a doctor or a virologist or someone qualified to disagree with them. Unlike you and many on here apparently.
Jesus Christ, Jonathan Van-Tam, the "qualified" man you revere on this issue, famously said "masks are useless, my friend in Hong Kong told me" (this despite everyone in Hong Kong wearing a mask. Odd that)
He's a fricking idiot. You are pathetically grovelling to establishment half-wits. Grow a spine
You misunderstand RP, he wants the government to u-turn on plan b or c or masks regardless of what's actually happening on the ground. If England (and the rest of the UK) has hit herd immunity and we continue to see the current big drops in cases it will prove the UK government position was right (run hot in the summer and autumn, no restrictions) and that Europe was wrong (prevent spread, retain NPIs). In his small world the UK is always wrong and Europe always right. This would upend that as European countries head into lockdown 4 and the UK exits the pandemic entirely.
Just look at his bluster over the supposedly failing booster programme which has now done 10m doses. The facts don't matter to him, just that the UK is always wrong and Europe always right. Weirdly he voted leave. 🤷♂️
Max you are accusing RP of hating the UK and loving Europe just like you were with me. I think we can argue about stuff without resorting to people's lack of patriotism.
Re the 3rd jab it did start as a bit of a shambles but then got turned around pretty impressively. I saw the change in action as I was on the verge of my booster when it was all wrong and with in a couple of weeks they turned it around to become a very effective experience. The 1st two were very successful throughout I thought.
EU lovers do stick together!
The shambles was because the NHS management decided it would take complete control of the third jab rollout rather than leave it to the same people that did the initial roll out. About two weeks ago the Saj handed it all back to the private company and as if by magic people can book appointments easily and get provisioned a month in advance of their expected eligibility. If he hadn't done that we'd be relying on letters and phone calls to get appointments. Well I wouldn't because I'm not allowed one. 😭
I agree with your post, but just because we 'love' the EU doesn't mean we hate the UK. We don't.
I think it does, the EU is a hostile entity to the UK, it is no longer any kind of ally to us.
Well it doesn't because I don't hate the UK and I do like the EU. So by definition it isn't true. You really do need to stop thinking Remainers are all anti the UK. We are not. We just disagreed on leaving. Nothing more than that.
It's objectively true that the EU has an interest in the UK doing badly after Brexit.
As for unreconciled Remainers, this kind of attitude is not uncommon:
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 16m I don't know why people think this is so hard. Just ban second jobs. If it means MPs can't do shifts in A&E that's a shame. But there's a bigger issue at stake here.
My contract of employment forbids me from having a second job. That’s fairly normal I think.
You would mandate mask wearing in England now. Okay. You would introduce a law that makes it illegal to visit pubs, bars, theatres, clubs and shops without a mask. That’s a very significant imposition.
Would you then also mandate vaccination in England from today?
?
Where did I say ban visiting pubs etc? They aren't banned up here or in Germany or in the rest of the world that hasn't been as daft as England in dropping the requirement to wear masks. England - like the rest of the developed world - should have maintained a mask mandate.
You didn't. you can't put the genie back in the bottle. Politically any new restrictions will be difficult because so many people down there think its all over. Hence the need for Plan B, Plan C, "Jabbed or Christmas gets it" etc etc
You keep asking what I think. I don't think. But I listen to what Whitty, Vallance, Van-Tam, Taylor etc think. I know nothing on this subject, I am not a doctor or a virologist or someone qualified to disagree with them. Unlike you and many on here apparently.
Jesus Christ, Jonathan Van-Tam, the "qualified" man you revere on this issue, famously said "masks are useless, my friend in Hong Kong told me" (this despite everyone in Hong Kong wearing a mask. Odd that)
He's a fricking idiot. You are pathetically grovelling to establishment half-wits. Grow a spine
You misunderstand RP, he wants the government to u-turn on plan b or c or masks regardless of what's actually happening on the ground. If England (and the rest of the UK) has hit herd immunity and we continue to see the current big drops in cases it will prove the UK government position was right (run hot in the summer and autumn, no restrictions) and that Europe was wrong (prevent spread, retain NPIs). In his small world the UK is always wrong and Europe always right. This would upend that as European countries head into lockdown 4 and the UK exits the pandemic entirely.
Just look at his bluster over the supposedly failing booster programme which has now done 10m doses. The facts don't matter to him, just that the UK is always wrong and Europe always right. Weirdly he voted leave. 🤷♂️
Max you are accusing RP of hating the UK and loving Europe just like you were with me. I think we can argue about stuff without resorting to people's lack of patriotism.
Re the 3rd jab it did start as a bit of a shambles but then got turned around pretty impressively. I saw the change in action as I was on the verge of my booster when it was all wrong and with in a couple of weeks they turned it around to become a very effective experience. The 1st two were very successful throughout I thought.
EU lovers do stick together!
The shambles was because the NHS management decided it would take complete control of the third jab rollout rather than leave it to the same people that did the initial roll out. About two weeks ago the Saj handed it all back to the private company and as if by magic people can book appointments easily and get provisioned a month in advance of their expected eligibility. If he hadn't done that we'd be relying on letters and phone calls to get appointments. Well I wouldn't because I'm not allowed one. 😭
I agree with your post, but just because we 'love' the EU doesn't mean we hate the UK. We don't.
I think it does, the EU is a hostile entity to the UK, it is no longer any kind of ally to us.
Well it doesn't because I don't hate the UK and I do like the EU. So by definition it isn't true. You really do need to stop thinking Remainers are all anti the UK. We are not. We just disagreed on leaving. Nothing more than that.
It's objectively true that the EU has an interest in the UK doing badly after Brexit.
As for unreconciled Remainers, this kind of attitude is not uncommon:
You found some arseholes on Twitter! That must have taken some doing.
You would mandate mask wearing in England now. Okay. You would introduce a law that makes it illegal to visit pubs, bars, theatres, clubs and shops without a mask. That’s a very significant imposition.
Would you then also mandate vaccination in England from today?
?
Where did I say ban visiting pubs etc? They aren't banned up here or in Germany or in the rest of the world that hasn't been as daft as England in dropping the requirement to wear masks. England - like the rest of the developed world - should have maintained a mask mandate.
You didn't. you can't put the genie back in the bottle. Politically any new restrictions will be difficult because so many people down there think its all over. Hence the need for Plan B, Plan C, "Jabbed or Christmas gets it" etc etc
You keep asking what I think. I don't think. But I listen to what Whitty, Vallance, Van-Tam, Taylor etc think. I know nothing on this subject, I am not a doctor or a virologist or someone qualified to disagree with them. Unlike you and many on here apparently.
Jesus Christ, Jonathan Van-Tam, the "qualified" man you revere on this issue, famously said "masks are useless, my friend in Hong Kong told me" (this despite everyone in Hong Kong wearing a mask. Odd that)
He's a fricking idiot. You are pathetically grovelling to establishment half-wits. Grow a spine
You misunderstand RP, he wants the government to u-turn on plan b or c or masks regardless of what's actually happening on the ground. If England (and the rest of the UK) has hit herd immunity and we continue to see the current big drops in cases it will prove the UK government position was right (run hot in the summer and autumn, no restrictions) and that Europe was wrong (prevent spread, retain NPIs). In his small world the UK is always wrong and Europe always right. This would upend that as European countries head into lockdown 4 and the UK exits the pandemic entirely.
Just look at his bluster over the supposedly failing booster programme which has now done 10m doses. The facts don't matter to him, just that the UK is always wrong and Europe always right. Weirdly he voted leave. 🤷♂️
Max you are accusing RP of hating the UK and loving Europe just like you were with me. I think we can argue about stuff without resorting to people's lack of patriotism.
Re the 3rd jab it did start as a bit of a shambles but then got turned around pretty impressively. I saw the change in action as I was on the verge of my booster when it was all wrong and with in a couple of weeks they turned it around to become a very effective experience. The 1st two were very successful throughout I thought.
EU lovers do stick together!
The shambles was because the NHS management decided it would take complete control of the third jab rollout rather than leave it to the same people that did the initial roll out. About two weeks ago the Saj handed it all back to the private company and as if by magic people can book appointments easily and get provisioned a month in advance of their expected eligibility. If he hadn't done that we'd be relying on letters and phone calls to get appointments. Well I wouldn't because I'm not allowed one. 😭
I agree with your post, but just because we 'love' the EU doesn't mean we hate the UK. We don't.
I think it does, the EU is a hostile entity to the UK, it is no longer any kind of ally to us.
Ok Vlad.
I was thinking just that, plucky England and Putin's Russia against the cruel world.
You would mandate mask wearing in England now. Okay. You would introduce a law that makes it illegal to visit pubs, bars, theatres, clubs and shops without a mask. That’s a very significant imposition.
Would you then also mandate vaccination in England from today?
?
Where did I say ban visiting pubs etc? They aren't banned up here or in Germany or in the rest of the world that hasn't been as daft as England in dropping the requirement to wear masks. England - like the rest of the developed world - should have maintained a mask mandate.
You didn't. you can't put the genie back in the bottle. Politically any new restrictions will be difficult because so many people down there think its all over. Hence the need for Plan B, Plan C, "Jabbed or Christmas gets it" etc etc
You keep asking what I think. I don't think. But I listen to what Whitty, Vallance, Van-Tam, Taylor etc think. I know nothing on this subject, I am not a doctor or a virologist or someone qualified to disagree with them. Unlike you and many on here apparently.
Jesus Christ, Jonathan Van-Tam, the "qualified" man you revere on this issue, famously said "masks are useless, my friend in Hong Kong told me" (this despite everyone in Hong Kong wearing a mask. Odd that)
He's a fricking idiot. You are pathetically grovelling to establishment half-wits. Grow a spine
You misunderstand RP, he wants the government to u-turn on plan b or c or masks regardless of what's actually happening on the ground. If England (and the rest of the UK) has hit herd immunity and we continue to see the current big drops in cases it will prove the UK government position was right (run hot in the summer and autumn, no restrictions) and that Europe was wrong (prevent spread, retain NPIs). In his small world the UK is always wrong and Europe always right. This would upend that as European countries head into lockdown 4 and the UK exits the pandemic entirely.
Just look at his bluster over the supposedly failing booster programme which has now done 10m doses. The facts don't matter to him, just that the UK is always wrong and Europe always right. Weirdly he voted leave. 🤷♂️
Max you are accusing RP of hating the UK and loving Europe just like you were with me. I think we can argue about stuff without resorting to people's lack of patriotism.
Re the 3rd jab it did start as a bit of a shambles but then got turned around pretty impressively. I saw the change in action as I was on the verge of my booster when it was all wrong and with in a couple of weeks they turned it around to become a very effective experience. The 1st two were very successful throughout I thought.
EU lovers do stick together!
The shambles was because the NHS management decided it would take complete control of the third jab rollout rather than leave it to the same people that did the initial roll out. About two weeks ago the Saj handed it all back to the private company and as if by magic people can book appointments easily and get provisioned a month in advance of their expected eligibility. If he hadn't done that we'd be relying on letters and phone calls to get appointments. Well I wouldn't because I'm not allowed one. 😭
I agree with your post, but just because we 'love' the EU doesn't mean we hate the UK. We don't.
I think it does, the EU is a hostile entity to the UK, it is no longer any kind of ally to us.
Well it doesn't because I don't hate the UK and I do like the EU. So by definition it isn't true. You really do need to stop thinking Remainers are all anti the UK. We are not. We just disagreed on leaving. Nothing more than that.
It's objectively true that the EU has an interest in the UK doing badly after Brexit.
As for unreconciled Remainers, this kind of attitude is not uncommon:
You found some arseholes on Twitter! That must have taken some doing.
The sanity and good sense of Brexiters on Twitter is of course renowned.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 16m I don't know why people think this is so hard. Just ban second jobs. If it means MPs can't do shifts in A&E that's a shame. But there's a bigger issue at stake here.
My contract of employment forbids me from having a second job. That’s fairly normal I think.
It's very easy to make comments like "just ban second jobs - so what if people can't do a few shifts in A&E", but you need to factor in that for some careers in politics/as MPs can be pretty short. And if retaining competence in your base profession is forbidden then somebody who runs as an MP will struggle to return if booted out at subsequent elections. Leaving aside the sometimes somewhat self serving arguments sometimes put forward against banning second jobs, things like this are a real issue unless you want to ban (not politics!) professionals from politics.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 16m I don't know why people think this is so hard. Just ban second jobs. If it means MPs can't do shifts in A&E that's a shame. But there's a bigger issue at stake here.
My contract of employment forbids me from having a second job. That’s fairly normal I think.
You would mandate mask wearing in England now. Okay. You would introduce a law that makes it illegal to visit pubs, bars, theatres, clubs and shops without a mask. That’s a very significant imposition.
Would you then also mandate vaccination in England from today?
?
Where did I say ban visiting pubs etc? They aren't banned up here or in Germany or in the rest of the world that hasn't been as daft as England in dropping the requirement to wear masks. England - like the rest of the developed world - should have maintained a mask mandate.
You didn't. you can't put the genie back in the bottle. Politically any new restrictions will be difficult because so many people down there think its all over. Hence the need for Plan B, Plan C, "Jabbed or Christmas gets it" etc etc
You keep asking what I think. I don't think. But I listen to what Whitty, Vallance, Van-Tam, Taylor etc think. I know nothing on this subject, I am not a doctor or a virologist or someone qualified to disagree with them. Unlike you and many on here apparently.
Jesus Christ, Jonathan Van-Tam, the "qualified" man you revere on this issue, famously said "masks are useless, my friend in Hong Kong told me" (this despite everyone in Hong Kong wearing a mask. Odd that)
He's a fricking idiot. You are pathetically grovelling to establishment half-wits. Grow a spine
You misunderstand RP, he wants the government to u-turn on plan b or c or masks regardless of what's actually happening on the ground. If England (and the rest of the UK) has hit herd immunity and we continue to see the current big drops in cases it will prove the UK government position was right (run hot in the summer and autumn, no restrictions) and that Europe was wrong (prevent spread, retain NPIs). In his small world the UK is always wrong and Europe always right. This would upend that as European countries head into lockdown 4 and the UK exits the pandemic entirely.
Just look at his bluster over the supposedly failing booster programme which has now done 10m doses. The facts don't matter to him, just that the UK is always wrong and Europe always right. Weirdly he voted leave. 🤷♂️
Max you are accusing RP of hating the UK and loving Europe just like you were with me. I think we can argue about stuff without resorting to people's lack of patriotism.
Re the 3rd jab it did start as a bit of a shambles but then got turned around pretty impressively. I saw the change in action as I was on the verge of my booster when it was all wrong and with in a couple of weeks they turned it around to become a very effective experience. The 1st two were very successful throughout I thought.
EU lovers do stick together!
The shambles was because the NHS management decided it would take complete control of the third jab rollout rather than leave it to the same people that did the initial roll out. About two weeks ago the Saj handed it all back to the private company and as if by magic people can book appointments easily and get provisioned a month in advance of their expected eligibility. If he hadn't done that we'd be relying on letters and phone calls to get appointments. Well I wouldn't because I'm not allowed one. 😭
I agree with your post, but just because we 'love' the EU doesn't mean we hate the UK. We don't.
I think it does, the EU is a hostile entity to the UK, it is no longer any kind of ally to us.
Well it doesn't because I don't hate the UK and I do like the EU. So by definition it isn't true. You really do need to stop thinking Remainers are all anti the UK. We are not. We just disagreed on leaving. Nothing more than that.
It's objectively true that the EU has an interest in the UK doing badly after Brexit.
As for unreconciled Remainers, this kind of attitude is not uncommon:
You found some arseholes on Twitter! That must have taken some doing.
The sanity and good sense of Brexiters on Twitter is of course renowned.
Let's face it, you can find any kind of idiot on Twitter. But that doesn't make it a fair representation of anything other than "there are idiots on Twitter"
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 16m I don't know why people think this is so hard. Just ban second jobs. If it means MPs can't do shifts in A&E that's a shame. But there's a bigger issue at stake here.
My contract of employment forbids me from having a second job. That’s fairly normal I think.
MPs aren't employed, though, are they?
Im not sure what your point is. “Whole time and attention” clauses are fairly standard and there’s no reason they shouldn’t apply to MPs. Maybe then they’ll actually read legislation before they vote on it.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 16m I don't know why people think this is so hard. Just ban second jobs. If it means MPs can't do shifts in A&E that's a shame. But there's a bigger issue at stake here.
My contract of employment forbids me from having a second job. That’s fairly normal I think.
MPs aren't employed, though, are they?
Im not sure what your point is. “Whole time and attention” clauses are fairly standard and there’s no reason they shouldn’t apply to MPs.
Other than they don't have a contract in which to include them! And of course, as pointed out, being a minister is a second job...
"COP26: The Royal Family's climate interventions have left no one in any doubt that they want meaningful actions from the summit
The royals have been everywhere and with their unique star appeal have helped to get pictures from this summit to a wider global audience as they've rubbed shoulders with everyone from world leaders to wealthy businessmen and high-profile campaigners.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 16m I don't know why people think this is so hard. Just ban second jobs. If it means MPs can't do shifts in A&E that's a shame. But there's a bigger issue at stake here.
My contract of employment forbids me from having a second job. That’s fairly normal I think.
MPs aren't employed, though, are they?
Im not sure what your point is. “Whole time and attention” clauses are fairly standard and there’s no reason they shouldn’t apply to MPs.
Other than they don't have a contract in which to include them! And of course, as pointed out, being a minister is a second job...
"COP26: The Royal Family's climate interventions have left no one in any doubt that they want meaningful actions from the summit
The royals have been everywhere and with their unique star appeal have helped to get pictures from this summit to a wider global audience as they've rubbed shoulders with everyone from world leaders to wealthy businessmen and high-profile campaigners.
That amount is about the same as a very small village.
What's that little caveat at the bottom, about £15k? What does that mean? If the Queen flew to Balmoral from London by helicopter, would that exceed £15k?
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 16m I don't know why people think this is so hard. Just ban second jobs. If it means MPs can't do shifts in A&E that's a shame. But there's a bigger issue at stake here.
My contract of employment forbids me from having a second job. That’s fairly normal I think.
MPs aren't employed, though, are they?
Im not sure what your point is. “Whole time and attention” clauses are fairly standard and there’s no reason they shouldn’t apply to MPs.
Other than they don't have a contract in which to include them! And of course, as pointed out, being a minister is a second job...
That point about being a minister = 2nd job is a pretty ungenerous reading of the idea. I wouldn't think anyone was pointing to that as a serious objection as opposed to just joking. There are much better objections to the idea than that.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 16m I don't know why people think this is so hard. Just ban second jobs. If it means MPs can't do shifts in A&E that's a shame. But there's a bigger issue at stake here.
My contract of employment forbids me from having a second job. That’s fairly normal I think.
MPs aren't employed, though, are they?
Im not sure what your point is. “Whole time and attention” clauses are fairly standard and there’s no reason they shouldn’t apply to MPs.
Other than they don't have a contract in which to include them! And of course, as pointed out, being a minister is a second job...
That point about being a minister = 2nd job is a pretty ungenerous reading of the idea. I wouldn't think anyone was pointing to that as a serious objection as opposed to just joking. There are much better objections to the idea than that.
But it is a serious objection. The question is what is the purpose of "banning second jobs". Is it because "an MP should be a full time job on its own"? Or just a measure imposed on a blanket basis to combat improper influences, on the basis that it is too difficult to craft more detailed rules that reasonably target the problem.
Basically, if the former then the implication is that constituents of ministers are receiving second class representation from their MPs. If (by contrast) the latter, then you are accepting that it is possible to do the job of MP in combination with other roles, but just choosing to create no exceptions to reduce potential of corruption even if it means that many perfectly innocent and justifiable second jobs fall by the wayside. Even if in some cases they may in fact enhance the quality of MPs who aren't taking such jobs just to feather their own nest in return for improper influence (or the appearance thereof).
PUBLIC NOTICE - In the USA we (or most of us anyway, and all of us in great state of WA) have FALLEN back in time one hour, with the end of daylight savings time.
Seattle time now 6:01 AM Pacific Standard Time, versus London now 2:01 PM British Quasi Time (or whatever you call it).
Edit - would someone please commit to updating this post hourly to keep it au courant?
"COP26: The Royal Family's climate interventions have left no one in any doubt that they want meaningful actions from the summit
The royals have been everywhere and with their unique star appeal have helped to get pictures from this summit to a wider global audience as they've rubbed shoulders with everyone from world leaders to wealthy businessmen and high-profile campaigners.
For those interested in what lessons the VA gubernatorial holds for the mid-terms next year, I highly recommend viewing this clip of women who voted for Youngkin.
The thesis is that white suburban moms won it for Trump in 2016, for Biden in 2020, and for Youngkin in 2021, and that the reasons this group backed Youngkin this time was:
1. Education of their kids (getting them back in school, finding ways to make up for lost education) was the number 1 issue for them, above all else head and shoulders. The Democrats did not listen and, worse, tried to make the education issue about Trump, and hence make the election national, not local. Worse still, McAuliffe campaigning with the head of the school unions on the final day - the person many mom's deem responsible for keeping their kids out of school - went down like a bucket of sick 2. Infrastructure and other DC issues of the day did not really factor into their voting decision
BUT. Had Trump campaigned for Youngkin, they would have wanted nothing to do with the ticket.
I’m back to normal now, 53 hours after the booster. My wife tells me I was hot in bed last night, but sadly I don’t think in the way I’d like it to be...
You would mandate mask wearing in England now. Okay. You would introduce a law that makes it illegal to visit pubs, bars, theatres, clubs and shops without a mask. That’s a very significant imposition.
Would you then also mandate vaccination in England from today?
?
Where did I say ban visiting pubs etc? They aren't banned up here or in Germany or in the rest of the world that hasn't been as daft as England in dropping the requirement to wear masks. England - like the rest of the developed world - should have maintained a mask mandate.
You didn't. you can't put the genie back in the bottle. Politically any new restrictions will be difficult because so many people down there think its all over. Hence the need for Plan B, Plan C, "Jabbed or Christmas gets it" etc etc
You keep asking what I think. I don't think. But I listen to what Whitty, Vallance, Van-Tam, Taylor etc think. I know nothing on this subject, I am not a doctor or a virologist or someone qualified to disagree with them. Unlike you and many on here apparently.
No. Wrong again. I didn’t even suggest you would ban pubs. You said you would impose a mask mandate, which of course would include pubs.
My question to you is would you also mandate vaccinations?
You know my position on this. I'm against vaccine passports so why would I be in favour of pinning people down to vaccinate them?
So whats your point? Here and everywhere else you need to wear a mask indoors in public buildings. You take them off when sat eating or drinking. They remain open and thriving and with less infections which means more people available to work and go out spending money. A "significant imposition" that pretty much everywhere else manages without a fuss.
Ultimately its down to who is the expert here. I am not. You apparently are. Perhaps the NHS should listen to you.
I don’t claim to be an expert, and never have. My view is that we should retain the status quo. I’ve been clear about that. I would mandate neither vaccinations nor masks, although I would advocate a stronger public campaign on vaccinations to whittle down the refuseniks.
I find your position absolutely irrational. You would mandate masks - which are a daily imposition, affect 100% of the population and have only a moderate impact. But you would not mandate vaccinations, which are a minor inconvenience, affect just 5% of the population (the unvaxxed cohort) and have a huge impact. That is a bizarre position in my view. Deeply irrational.
I'm happy to be "irrational" in your eyes. As my position is shared by much of the developed world I'll take your comments under advisement.
The rational view would of course be mandatory vaccinations AND masks until completed. Then again as vaccinations have proven to be ineffective at wholly stopping the virus (unlike some other vaccines for other viruses) we would need to retain masks even with a full mandatory vaccination programme until we had all had sufficient rounds of boosters to stop this thing.
I do love the "moderate impact" lie from you ant-maskers. It doesn't matter how much the scientists prove the significant reduction in transmission gained from the proper wearing of masks, you and your still say "not proven".
So actually what you are saying is that in practice we will maintain masks forever. No thanks.
Forever? We will get to the point where there is sufficient protection in the vaccinations most of us have had to discard them. I'd quite like to burn mine I hate them that much.
Nah we won't. This is going to be endemic and varying just like flu. The idea we will ever be rid of this thing is for the fairies. Might as well get used to it as just another of those many persistent low level threats that we live with.
If it was a low-level threat then fine. It isn't. The NHS are genuinely bricking it over how they get us all through the winter. What does seem clear is that it dissipates significantly over the summer. So we need to have a concerted drive next summer to get booster 3 / 4 into everyone's arms. A tax break or cash incentive for getting it - something. Or we really do end up stuck with this as a real problem not just another winter bug that nobody need be that worried about.
The NHS is bricking it every winter over getting us through. That is a sign of a failed system (and I say that without any commentary on how or why it is failed, we have discussed that enough in other threads).
Now personally I wear a mask in various enclosed spaces as a mark of courtesy to people as I know there are those out there who are still genuinely worried about this stuff. But I would not for a second criticise anyone next to me who didn't wear a mask. That is their personal choice.
On Friday night I was at a Suede concert at Rock City (Fecking amazing by the way). 3,000 people in a tight packed space, all pogoing away, singing at the top of their voices and having a brilliant time with the band absolutely loving every second of it. Not once did I even think about any concern about masks, infections or anything else related to Covid. That is done. I am double jabbed, will get my booster and have recently had Covid caught from my son via school. If, a year or so down the line I catch it again as the effects of all of that have worn off and this time die from it then that is, I am afraid, just life (or death). I refuse now to live my life in fear over something that is now just as likely as me dying from normal flu or a car crash.
Masks, lockdowns and distancing were all vitally important at the time. I agreed with them all and was content to abide by them. That is now done. Life may still be a bit less safe than before November 2019 but I don't care any more. Life is, anyway, too short to worry about such things.
On Tuesday I am going with my son and wife to watch Public Service Broadcasting again at Rock City. It will be his first concert and that is more important to me than any of this stuff.
Well said
As a society we will all, soon, need to move on. Yes there is probably increased risk, and it will persist, but it cannot close down the economy, let alone normal human life
And how bad is that risk, anyhow? If these Pfizer antivirals work as well as promised, and you add them to the efficacy of the vaccines, the CFR of Covid-19 will be about 0.01%.
1 in 10,000 people that get it will die. Pretty bloody tiny, and ten times LESS lethal than flu, a disease we get every winter, and which does not affect society one jot
The elephant in the room is the loading on the health service and effect on healthcare other than for covid.
I know I keep rabbiting on about it, but that's the key element as I see it: we are putting fewer heart attack victims and stroke victims in ICUs than before due to lack of capacity (if you're in an ICU, you have a one in 25 chance of being ferried to some other ICU somewhere just to get capacity).
Elective surgeries (which are very rarely optional, simply can be timetabled rather than "in there now!") are way behind, so chronic or building acute conditions for quite a few people are going to be untreated - when they are curable or at least susceptible to intervention.
And waits for A&E are at record lengths, and response times for 999 calls and ambulances are not good at all.
I can see there being arguments for limited NPIs to try to reduce pressure from not just covid but from influenza and other transmissible diseases. I may not agree with them, but there is logic in it. My strong preference would be to make the flu jab free for all ages (at something like £10 per jab, we're talking tiny numbers on this scale) and strong encouragement to take it up, together with possible encouragement for working from home (small tax break for companies that do so?).
The way out is to permanently increase capacity. The solution to that is not trivial, but it's the best way out.
Random thought. Perhaps we should set up a parallel health system for COVID (and future deadly respiratory and other highly infectious diseases) patients, as we used to have TB clinics and hospitals ...
I'm surprised that the non-English bits aren't included, especially as current net approval rating for Mr Johnson in Scxotland seems if I read it correctly to be 68% disapproving, 16% approving = net -52 percentage points. That's an awful lot of unhappy unionists. Doesn't surprise me: there is something about the posh clown act that really gets up the elderly Scottish unionist nose in my experience.
You would mandate mask wearing in England now. Okay. You would introduce a law that makes it illegal to visit pubs, bars, theatres, clubs and shops without a mask. That’s a very significant imposition.
Would you then also mandate vaccination in England from today?
?
Where did I say ban visiting pubs etc? They aren't banned up here or in Germany or in the rest of the world that hasn't been as daft as England in dropping the requirement to wear masks. England - like the rest of the developed world - should have maintained a mask mandate.
You didn't. you can't put the genie back in the bottle. Politically any new restrictions will be difficult because so many people down there think its all over. Hence the need for Plan B, Plan C, "Jabbed or Christmas gets it" etc etc
You keep asking what I think. I don't think. But I listen to what Whitty, Vallance, Van-Tam, Taylor etc think. I know nothing on this subject, I am not a doctor or a virologist or someone qualified to disagree with them. Unlike you and many on here apparently.
No. Wrong again. I didn’t even suggest you would ban pubs. You said you would impose a mask mandate, which of course would include pubs.
My question to you is would you also mandate vaccinations?
You know my position on this. I'm against vaccine passports so why would I be in favour of pinning people down to vaccinate them?
So whats your point? Here and everywhere else you need to wear a mask indoors in public buildings. You take them off when sat eating or drinking. They remain open and thriving and with less infections which means more people available to work and go out spending money. A "significant imposition" that pretty much everywhere else manages without a fuss.
Ultimately its down to who is the expert here. I am not. You apparently are. Perhaps the NHS should listen to you.
I don’t claim to be an expert, and never have. My view is that we should retain the status quo. I’ve been clear about that. I would mandate neither vaccinations nor masks, although I would advocate a stronger public campaign on vaccinations to whittle down the refuseniks.
I find your position absolutely irrational. You would mandate masks - which are a daily imposition, affect 100% of the population and have only a moderate impact. But you would not mandate vaccinations, which are a minor inconvenience, affect just 5% of the population (the unvaxxed cohort) and have a huge impact. That is a bizarre position in my view. Deeply irrational.
I'm happy to be "irrational" in your eyes. As my position is shared by much of the developed world I'll take your comments under advisement.
The rational view would of course be mandatory vaccinations AND masks until completed. Then again as vaccinations have proven to be ineffective at wholly stopping the virus (unlike some other vaccines for other viruses) we would need to retain masks even with a full mandatory vaccination programme until we had all had sufficient rounds of boosters to stop this thing.
I do love the "moderate impact" lie from you ant-maskers. It doesn't matter how much the scientists prove the significant reduction in transmission gained from the proper wearing of masks, you and your still say "not proven".
So actually what you are saying is that in practice we will maintain masks forever. No thanks.
Forever? We will get to the point where there is sufficient protection in the vaccinations most of us have had to discard them. I'd quite like to burn mine I hate them that much.
Nah we won't. This is going to be endemic and varying just like flu. The idea we will ever be rid of this thing is for the fairies. Might as well get used to it as just another of those many persistent low level threats that we live with.
If it was a low-level threat then fine. It isn't. The NHS are genuinely bricking it over how they get us all through the winter. What does seem clear is that it dissipates significantly over the summer. So we need to have a concerted drive next summer to get booster 3 / 4 into everyone's arms. A tax break or cash incentive for getting it - something. Or we really do end up stuck with this as a real problem not just another winter bug that nobody need be that worried about.
The NHS is bricking it every winter over getting us through. That is a sign of a failed system (and I say that without any commentary on how or why it is failed, we have discussed that enough in other threads).
Now personally I wear a mask in various enclosed spaces as a mark of courtesy to people as I know there are those out there who are still genuinely worried about this stuff. But I would not for a second criticise anyone next to me who didn't wear a mask. That is their personal choice.
On Friday night I was at a Suede concert at Rock City (Fecking amazing by the way). 3,000 people in a tight packed space, all pogoing away, singing at the top of their voices and having a brilliant time with the band absolutely loving every second of it. Not once did I even think about any concern about masks, infections or anything else related to Covid. That is done. I am double jabbed, will get my booster and have recently had Covid caught from my son via school. If, a year or so down the line I catch it again as the effects of all of that have worn off and this time die from it then that is, I am afraid, just life (or death). I refuse now to live my life in fear over something that is now just as likely as me dying from normal flu or a car crash.
Masks, lockdowns and distancing were all vitally important at the time. I agreed with them all and was content to abide by them. That is now done. Life may still be a bit less safe than before November 2019 but I don't care any more. Life is, anyway, too short to worry about such things.
On Tuesday I am going with my son and wife to watch Public Service Broadcasting again at Rock City. It will be his first concert and that is more important to me than any of this stuff.
Well said
As a society we will all, soon, need to move on. Yes there is probably increased risk, and it will persist, but it cannot close down the economy, let alone normal human life
And how bad is that risk, anyhow? If these Pfizer antivirals work as well as promised, and you add them to the efficacy of the vaccines, the CFR of Covid-19 will be about 0.01%.
1 in 10,000 people that get it will die. Pretty bloody tiny, and ten times LESS lethal than flu, a disease we get every winter, and which does not affect society one jot
The elephant in the room is the loading on the health service and effect on healthcare other than for covid.
I know I keep rabbiting on about it, but that's the key element as I see it: we are putting fewer heart attack victims and stroke victims in ICUs than before due to lack of capacity (if you're in an ICU, you have a one in 25 chance of being ferried to some other ICU somewhere just to get capacity).
Elective surgeries (which are very rarely optional, simply can be timetabled rather than "in there now!") are way behind, so chronic or building acute conditions for quite a few people are going to be untreated - when they are curable or at least susceptible to intervention.
And waits for A&E are at record lengths, and response times for 999 calls and ambulances are not good at all.
I can see there being arguments for limited NPIs to try to reduce pressure from not just covid but from influenza and other transmissible diseases. I may not agree with them, but there is logic in it. My strong preference would be to make the flu jab free for all ages (at something like £10 per jab, we're talking tiny numbers on this scale) and strong encouragement to take it up, together with possible encouragement for working from home (small tax break for companies that do so?).
The way out is to permanently increase capacity. The solution to that is not trivial, but it's the best way out.
Random thought. Perhaps we should set up a parallel health system for COVID (and future deadly respiratory and other highly infectious diseases) patients, as we used to have TB clinics and hospitals ...
My small burgh used to have its own separate little fever hospital for things like scarlet fever, smallpox, etc. (I was helping out a medical historian recently about it, as it happens). Basically just a physically separate building, about the size of a detached domestic house today, to get infectious children out of their families and homes till they were safe to have back, etc.
You would mandate mask wearing in England now. Okay. You would introduce a law that makes it illegal to visit pubs, bars, theatres, clubs and shops without a mask. That’s a very significant imposition.
Would you then also mandate vaccination in England from today?
?
Where did I say ban visiting pubs etc? They aren't banned up here or in Germany or in the rest of the world that hasn't been as daft as England in dropping the requirement to wear masks. England - like the rest of the developed world - should have maintained a mask mandate.
You didn't. you can't put the genie back in the bottle. Politically any new restrictions will be difficult because so many people down there think its all over. Hence the need for Plan B, Plan C, "Jabbed or Christmas gets it" etc etc
You keep asking what I think. I don't think. But I listen to what Whitty, Vallance, Van-Tam, Taylor etc think. I know nothing on this subject, I am not a doctor or a virologist or someone qualified to disagree with them. Unlike you and many on here apparently.
No. Wrong again. I didn’t even suggest you would ban pubs. You said you would impose a mask mandate, which of course would include pubs.
My question to you is would you also mandate vaccinations?
You know my position on this. I'm against vaccine passports so why would I be in favour of pinning people down to vaccinate them?
So whats your point? Here and everywhere else you need to wear a mask indoors in public buildings. You take them off when sat eating or drinking. They remain open and thriving and with less infections which means more people available to work and go out spending money. A "significant imposition" that pretty much everywhere else manages without a fuss.
Ultimately its down to who is the expert here. I am not. You apparently are. Perhaps the NHS should listen to you.
I don’t claim to be an expert, and never have. My view is that we should retain the status quo. I’ve been clear about that. I would mandate neither vaccinations nor masks, although I would advocate a stronger public campaign on vaccinations to whittle down the refuseniks.
I find your position absolutely irrational. You would mandate masks - which are a daily imposition, affect 100% of the population and have only a moderate impact. But you would not mandate vaccinations, which are a minor inconvenience, affect just 5% of the population (the unvaxxed cohort) and have a huge impact. That is a bizarre position in my view. Deeply irrational.
I'm happy to be "irrational" in your eyes. As my position is shared by much of the developed world I'll take your comments under advisement.
The rational view would of course be mandatory vaccinations AND masks until completed. Then again as vaccinations have proven to be ineffective at wholly stopping the virus (unlike some other vaccines for other viruses) we would need to retain masks even with a full mandatory vaccination programme until we had all had sufficient rounds of boosters to stop this thing.
I do love the "moderate impact" lie from you ant-maskers. It doesn't matter how much the scientists prove the significant reduction in transmission gained from the proper wearing of masks, you and your still say "not proven".
So actually what you are saying is that in practice we will maintain masks forever. No thanks.
Forever? We will get to the point where there is sufficient protection in the vaccinations most of us have had to discard them. I'd quite like to burn mine I hate them that much.
Nah we won't. This is going to be endemic and varying just like flu. The idea we will ever be rid of this thing is for the fairies. Might as well get used to it as just another of those many persistent low level threats that we live with.
If it was a low-level threat then fine. It isn't. The NHS are genuinely bricking it over how they get us all through the winter. What does seem clear is that it dissipates significantly over the summer. So we need to have a concerted drive next summer to get booster 3 / 4 into everyone's arms. A tax break or cash incentive for getting it - something. Or we really do end up stuck with this as a real problem not just another winter bug that nobody need be that worried about.
The NHS is bricking it every winter over getting us through. That is a sign of a failed system (and I say that without any commentary on how or why it is failed, we have discussed that enough in other threads).
Now personally I wear a mask in various enclosed spaces as a mark of courtesy to people as I know there are those out there who are still genuinely worried about this stuff. But I would not for a second criticise anyone next to me who didn't wear a mask. That is their personal choice.
On Friday night I was at a Suede concert at Rock City (Fecking amazing by the way). 3,000 people in a tight packed space, all pogoing away, singing at the top of their voices and having a brilliant time with the band absolutely loving every second of it. Not once did I even think about any concern about masks, infections or anything else related to Covid. That is done. I am double jabbed, will get my booster and have recently had Covid caught from my son via school. If, a year or so down the line I catch it again as the effects of all of that have worn off and this time die from it then that is, I am afraid, just life (or death). I refuse now to live my life in fear over something that is now just as likely as me dying from normal flu or a car crash.
Masks, lockdowns and distancing were all vitally important at the time. I agreed with them all and was content to abide by them. That is now done. Life may still be a bit less safe than before November 2019 but I don't care any more. Life is, anyway, too short to worry about such things.
On Tuesday I am going with my son and wife to watch Public Service Broadcasting again at Rock City. It will be his first concert and that is more important to me than any of this stuff.
Well said
As a society we will all, soon, need to move on. Yes there is probably increased risk, and it will persist, but it cannot close down the economy, let alone normal human life
And how bad is that risk, anyhow? If these Pfizer antivirals work as well as promised, and you add them to the efficacy of the vaccines, the CFR of Covid-19 will be about 0.01%.
1 in 10,000 people that get it will die. Pretty bloody tiny, and ten times LESS lethal than flu, a disease we get every winter, and which does not affect society one jot
The elephant in the room is the loading on the health service and effect on healthcare other than for covid.
I know I keep rabbiting on about it, but that's the key element as I see it: we are putting fewer heart attack victims and stroke victims in ICUs than before due to lack of capacity (if you're in an ICU, you have a one in 25 chance of being ferried to some other ICU somewhere just to get capacity).
Elective surgeries (which are very rarely optional, simply can be timetabled rather than "in there now!") are way behind, so chronic or building acute conditions for quite a few people are going to be untreated - when they are curable or at least susceptible to intervention.
And waits for A&E are at record lengths, and response times for 999 calls and ambulances are not good at all.
I can see there being arguments for limited NPIs to try to reduce pressure from not just covid but from influenza and other transmissible diseases. I may not agree with them, but there is logic in it. My strong preference would be to make the flu jab free for all ages (at something like £10 per jab, we're talking tiny numbers on this scale) and strong encouragement to take it up, together with possible encouragement for working from home (small tax break for companies that do so?).
The way out is to permanently increase capacity. The solution to that is not trivial, but it's the best way out.
Random thought. Perhaps we should set up a parallel health system for COVID (and future deadly respiratory and other highly infectious diseases) patients, as we used to have TB clinics and hospitals ...
I floated the same idea a couple of weeks ago and Foxy said the trouble is that treating Covid patients cuts across so many disciplines and levels of expertise that this is unlikely to be feasible or beneficial. I think I'm quoting him accurately.
You would mandate mask wearing in England now. Okay. You would introduce a law that makes it illegal to visit pubs, bars, theatres, clubs and shops without a mask. That’s a very significant imposition.
Would you then also mandate vaccination in England from today?
?
Where did I say ban visiting pubs etc? They aren't banned up here or in Germany or in the rest of the world that hasn't been as daft as England in dropping the requirement to wear masks. England - like the rest of the developed world - should have maintained a mask mandate.
You didn't. you can't put the genie back in the bottle. Politically any new restrictions will be difficult because so many people down there think its all over. Hence the need for Plan B, Plan C, "Jabbed or Christmas gets it" etc etc
You keep asking what I think. I don't think. But I listen to what Whitty, Vallance, Van-Tam, Taylor etc think. I know nothing on this subject, I am not a doctor or a virologist or someone qualified to disagree with them. Unlike you and many on here apparently.
No. Wrong again. I didn’t even suggest you would ban pubs. You said you would impose a mask mandate, which of course would include pubs.
My question to you is would you also mandate vaccinations?
You know my position on this. I'm against vaccine passports so why would I be in favour of pinning people down to vaccinate them?
So whats your point? Here and everywhere else you need to wear a mask indoors in public buildings. You take them off when sat eating or drinking. They remain open and thriving and with less infections which means more people available to work and go out spending money. A "significant imposition" that pretty much everywhere else manages without a fuss.
Ultimately its down to who is the expert here. I am not. You apparently are. Perhaps the NHS should listen to you.
I don’t claim to be an expert, and never have. My view is that we should retain the status quo. I’ve been clear about that. I would mandate neither vaccinations nor masks, although I would advocate a stronger public campaign on vaccinations to whittle down the refuseniks.
I find your position absolutely irrational. You would mandate masks - which are a daily imposition, affect 100% of the population and have only a moderate impact. But you would not mandate vaccinations, which are a minor inconvenience, affect just 5% of the population (the unvaxxed cohort) and have a huge impact. That is a bizarre position in my view. Deeply irrational.
I'm happy to be "irrational" in your eyes. As my position is shared by much of the developed world I'll take your comments under advisement.
The rational view would of course be mandatory vaccinations AND masks until completed. Then again as vaccinations have proven to be ineffective at wholly stopping the virus (unlike some other vaccines for other viruses) we would need to retain masks even with a full mandatory vaccination programme until we had all had sufficient rounds of boosters to stop this thing.
I do love the "moderate impact" lie from you ant-maskers. It doesn't matter how much the scientists prove the significant reduction in transmission gained from the proper wearing of masks, you and your still say "not proven".
So actually what you are saying is that in practice we will maintain masks forever. No thanks.
Forever? We will get to the point where there is sufficient protection in the vaccinations most of us have had to discard them. I'd quite like to burn mine I hate them that much.
Nah we won't. This is going to be endemic and varying just like flu. The idea we will ever be rid of this thing is for the fairies. Might as well get used to it as just another of those many persistent low level threats that we live with.
If it was a low-level threat then fine. It isn't. The NHS are genuinely bricking it over how they get us all through the winter. What does seem clear is that it dissipates significantly over the summer. So we need to have a concerted drive next summer to get booster 3 / 4 into everyone's arms. A tax break or cash incentive for getting it - something. Or we really do end up stuck with this as a real problem not just another winter bug that nobody need be that worried about.
The NHS is bricking it every winter over getting us through. That is a sign of a failed system (and I say that without any commentary on how or why it is failed, we have discussed that enough in other threads).
Now personally I wear a mask in various enclosed spaces as a mark of courtesy to people as I know there are those out there who are still genuinely worried about this stuff. But I would not for a second criticise anyone next to me who didn't wear a mask. That is their personal choice.
On Friday night I was at a Suede concert at Rock City (Fecking amazing by the way). 3,000 people in a tight packed space, all pogoing away, singing at the top of their voices and having a brilliant time with the band absolutely loving every second of it. Not once did I even think about any concern about masks, infections or anything else related to Covid. That is done. I am double jabbed, will get my booster and have recently had Covid caught from my son via school. If, a year or so down the line I catch it again as the effects of all of that have worn off and this time die from it then that is, I am afraid, just life (or death). I refuse now to live my life in fear over something that is now just as likely as me dying from normal flu or a car crash.
Masks, lockdowns and distancing were all vitally important at the time. I agreed with them all and was content to abide by them. That is now done. Life may still be a bit less safe than before November 2019 but I don't care any more. Life is, anyway, too short to worry about such things.
On Tuesday I am going with my son and wife to watch Public Service Broadcasting again at Rock City. It will be his first concert and that is more important to me than any of this stuff.
Well said
As a society we will all, soon, need to move on. Yes there is probably increased risk, and it will persist, but it cannot close down the economy, let alone normal human life
And how bad is that risk, anyhow? If these Pfizer antivirals work as well as promised, and you add them to the efficacy of the vaccines, the CFR of Covid-19 will be about 0.01%.
1 in 10,000 people that get it will die. Pretty bloody tiny, and ten times LESS lethal than flu, a disease we get every winter, and which does not affect society one jot
The elephant in the room is the loading on the health service and effect on healthcare other than for covid.
I know I keep rabbiting on about it, but that's the key element as I see it: we are putting fewer heart attack victims and stroke victims in ICUs than before due to lack of capacity (if you're in an ICU, you have a one in 25 chance of being ferried to some other ICU somewhere just to get capacity).
Elective surgeries (which are very rarely optional, simply can be timetabled rather than "in there now!") are way behind, so chronic or building acute conditions for quite a few people are going to be untreated - when they are curable or at least susceptible to intervention.
And waits for A&E are at record lengths, and response times for 999 calls and ambulances are not good at all.
I can see there being arguments for limited NPIs to try to reduce pressure from not just covid but from influenza and other transmissible diseases. I may not agree with them, but there is logic in it. My strong preference would be to make the flu jab free for all ages (at something like £10 per jab, we're talking tiny numbers on this scale) and strong encouragement to take it up, together with possible encouragement for working from home (small tax break for companies that do so?).
The way out is to permanently increase capacity. The solution to that is not trivial, but it's the best way out.
Random thought. Perhaps we should set up a parallel health system for COVID (and future deadly respiratory and other highly infectious diseases) patients, as we used to have TB clinics and hospitals ...
What do you do with non-Covid patients with Covid?
For those interested in what lessons the VA gubernatorial holds for the mid-terms next year, I highly recommend viewing this clip of women who voted for Youngkin.
The thesis is that white suburban moms won it for Trump in 2016, for Biden in 2020, and for Youngkin in 2021, and that the reasons this group backed Youngkin this time was:
1. Education of their kids (getting them back in school, finding ways to make up for lost education) was the number 1 issue for them, above all else head and shoulders. The Democrats did not listen and, worse, tried to make the education issue about Trump, and hence make the election national, not local. Worse still, McAuliffe campaigning with the head of the school unions on the final day - the person many mom's deem responsible for keeping their kids out of school - went down like a bucket of sick 2. Infrastructure and other DC issues of the day did not really factor into their voting decision
BUT. Had Trump campaigned for Youngkin, they would have wanted nothing to do with the ticket.
Yes. Yes. And double (or rather triple) Yes re: You Know Who.
Also this from PBer's 2nd favorite news source after BBC
NYT ($) - Democrats Thought They Bottomed Out in Rural, White America. It Wasn’t the Bottom. Republicans ran up the margins in rural Virginia counties, the latest sign that Democrats, as one lawmaker put it, “continue to tank in small-town America.”
You would mandate mask wearing in England now. Okay. You would introduce a law that makes it illegal to visit pubs, bars, theatres, clubs and shops without a mask. That’s a very significant imposition.
Would you then also mandate vaccination in England from today?
?
Where did I say ban visiting pubs etc? They aren't banned up here or in Germany or in the rest of the world that hasn't been as daft as England in dropping the requirement to wear masks. England - like the rest of the developed world - should have maintained a mask mandate.
You didn't. you can't put the genie back in the bottle. Politically any new restrictions will be difficult because so many people down there think its all over. Hence the need for Plan B, Plan C, "Jabbed or Christmas gets it" etc etc
You keep asking what I think. I don't think. But I listen to what Whitty, Vallance, Van-Tam, Taylor etc think. I know nothing on this subject, I am not a doctor or a virologist or someone qualified to disagree with them. Unlike you and many on here apparently.
No. Wrong again. I didn’t even suggest you would ban pubs. You said you would impose a mask mandate, which of course would include pubs.
My question to you is would you also mandate vaccinations?
You know my position on this. I'm against vaccine passports so why would I be in favour of pinning people down to vaccinate them?
So whats your point? Here and everywhere else you need to wear a mask indoors in public buildings. You take them off when sat eating or drinking. They remain open and thriving and with less infections which means more people available to work and go out spending money. A "significant imposition" that pretty much everywhere else manages without a fuss.
Ultimately its down to who is the expert here. I am not. You apparently are. Perhaps the NHS should listen to you.
I don’t claim to be an expert, and never have. My view is that we should retain the status quo. I’ve been clear about that. I would mandate neither vaccinations nor masks, although I would advocate a stronger public campaign on vaccinations to whittle down the refuseniks.
I find your position absolutely irrational. You would mandate masks - which are a daily imposition, affect 100% of the population and have only a moderate impact. But you would not mandate vaccinations, which are a minor inconvenience, affect just 5% of the population (the unvaxxed cohort) and have a huge impact. That is a bizarre position in my view. Deeply irrational.
I'm happy to be "irrational" in your eyes. As my position is shared by much of the developed world I'll take your comments under advisement.
The rational view would of course be mandatory vaccinations AND masks until completed. Then again as vaccinations have proven to be ineffective at wholly stopping the virus (unlike some other vaccines for other viruses) we would need to retain masks even with a full mandatory vaccination programme until we had all had sufficient rounds of boosters to stop this thing.
I do love the "moderate impact" lie from you ant-maskers. It doesn't matter how much the scientists prove the significant reduction in transmission gained from the proper wearing of masks, you and your still say "not proven".
So actually what you are saying is that in practice we will maintain masks forever. No thanks.
Forever? We will get to the point where there is sufficient protection in the vaccinations most of us have had to discard them. I'd quite like to burn mine I hate them that much.
Nah we won't. This is going to be endemic and varying just like flu. The idea we will ever be rid of this thing is for the fairies. Might as well get used to it as just another of those many persistent low level threats that we live with.
If it was a low-level threat then fine. It isn't. The NHS are genuinely bricking it over how they get us all through the winter. What does seem clear is that it dissipates significantly over the summer. So we need to have a concerted drive next summer to get booster 3 / 4 into everyone's arms. A tax break or cash incentive for getting it - something. Or we really do end up stuck with this as a real problem not just another winter bug that nobody need be that worried about.
The NHS is bricking it every winter over getting us through. That is a sign of a failed system (and I say that without any commentary on how or why it is failed, we have discussed that enough in other threads).
Now personally I wear a mask in various enclosed spaces as a mark of courtesy to people as I know there are those out there who are still genuinely worried about this stuff. But I would not for a second criticise anyone next to me who didn't wear a mask. That is their personal choice.
On Friday night I was at a Suede concert at Rock City (Fecking amazing by the way). 3,000 people in a tight packed space, all pogoing away, singing at the top of their voices and having a brilliant time with the band absolutely loving every second of it. Not once did I even think about any concern about masks, infections or anything else related to Covid. That is done. I am double jabbed, will get my booster and have recently had Covid caught from my son via school. If, a year or so down the line I catch it again as the effects of all of that have worn off and this time die from it then that is, I am afraid, just life (or death). I refuse now to live my life in fear over something that is now just as likely as me dying from normal flu or a car crash.
Masks, lockdowns and distancing were all vitally important at the time. I agreed with them all and was content to abide by them. That is now done. Life may still be a bit less safe than before November 2019 but I don't care any more. Life is, anyway, too short to worry about such things.
On Tuesday I am going with my son and wife to watch Public Service Broadcasting again at Rock City. It will be his first concert and that is more important to me than any of this stuff.
Well said
As a society we will all, soon, need to move on. Yes there is probably increased risk, and it will persist, but it cannot close down the economy, let alone normal human life
And how bad is that risk, anyhow? If these Pfizer antivirals work as well as promised, and you add them to the efficacy of the vaccines, the CFR of Covid-19 will be about 0.01%.
1 in 10,000 people that get it will die. Pretty bloody tiny, and ten times LESS lethal than flu, a disease we get every winter, and which does not affect society one jot
The elephant in the room is the loading on the health service and effect on healthcare other than for covid.
I know I keep rabbiting on about it, but that's the key element as I see it: we are putting fewer heart attack victims and stroke victims in ICUs than before due to lack of capacity (if you're in an ICU, you have a one in 25 chance of being ferried to some other ICU somewhere just to get capacity).
Elective surgeries (which are very rarely optional, simply can be timetabled rather than "in there now!") are way behind, so chronic or building acute conditions for quite a few people are going to be untreated - when they are curable or at least susceptible to intervention.
And waits for A&E are at record lengths, and response times for 999 calls and ambulances are not good at all.
I can see there being arguments for limited NPIs to try to reduce pressure from not just covid but from influenza and other transmissible diseases. I may not agree with them, but there is logic in it. My strong preference would be to make the flu jab free for all ages (at something like £10 per jab, we're talking tiny numbers on this scale) and strong encouragement to take it up, together with possible encouragement for working from home (small tax break for companies that do so?).
The way out is to permanently increase capacity. The solution to that is not trivial, but it's the best way out.
As a matter of interest, on my hospitals dashboard last week we had 120 or so covid inpatients and 15 or so with flu or RSV.
You would mandate mask wearing in England now. Okay. You would introduce a law that makes it illegal to visit pubs, bars, theatres, clubs and shops without a mask. That’s a very significant imposition.
Would you then also mandate vaccination in England from today?
?
Where did I say ban visiting pubs etc? They aren't banned up here or in Germany or in the rest of the world that hasn't been as daft as England in dropping the requirement to wear masks. England - like the rest of the developed world - should have maintained a mask mandate.
You didn't. you can't put the genie back in the bottle. Politically any new restrictions will be difficult because so many people down there think its all over. Hence the need for Plan B, Plan C, "Jabbed or Christmas gets it" etc etc
You keep asking what I think. I don't think. But I listen to what Whitty, Vallance, Van-Tam, Taylor etc think. I know nothing on this subject, I am not a doctor or a virologist or someone qualified to disagree with them. Unlike you and many on here apparently.
Jesus Christ, Jonathan Van-Tam, the "qualified" man you revere on this issue, famously said "masks are useless, my friend in Hong Kong told me" (this despite everyone in Hong Kong wearing a mask. Odd that)
He's a fricking idiot. You are pathetically grovelling to establishment half-wits. Grow a spine
You misunderstand RP, he wants the government to u-turn on plan b or c or masks regardless of what's actually happening on the ground. If England (and the rest of the UK) has hit herd immunity and we continue to see the current big drops in cases it will prove the UK government position was right (run hot in the summer and autumn, no restrictions) and that Europe was wrong (prevent spread, retain NPIs). In his small world the UK is always wrong and Europe always right. This would upend that as European countries head into lockdown 4 and the UK exits the pandemic entirely.
Just look at his bluster over the supposedly failing booster programme which has now done 10m doses. The facts don't matter to him, just that the UK is always wrong and Europe always right. Weirdly he voted leave. 🤷♂️
Max you are accusing RP of hating the UK and loving Europe just like you were with me. I think we can argue about stuff without resorting to people's lack of patriotism.
Re the 3rd jab it did start as a bit of a shambles but then got turned around pretty impressively. I saw the change in action as I was on the verge of my booster when it was all wrong and with in a couple of weeks they turned it around to become a very effective experience. The 1st two were very successful throughout I thought.
EU lovers do stick together!
The shambles was because the NHS management decided it would take complete control of the third jab rollout rather than leave it to the same people that did the initial roll out. About two weeks ago the Saj handed it all back to the private company and as if by magic people can book appointments easily and get provisioned a month in advance of their expected eligibility. If he hadn't done that we'd be relying on letters and phone calls to get appointments. Well I wouldn't because I'm not allowed one. 😭
I agree with your post, but just because we 'love' the EU doesn't mean we hate the UK. We don't.
I think it does, the EU is a hostile entity to the UK, it is no longer any kind of ally to us.
Ok Vlad.
I was thinking just that, plucky England and Putin's Russia against the cruel world.
Boris is getting there. Apparently his attitude over the Paterson affair showed a refreshingly Vlad-like ruthlessness.
You would mandate mask wearing in England now. Okay. You would introduce a law that makes it illegal to visit pubs, bars, theatres, clubs and shops without a mask. That’s a very significant imposition.
Would you then also mandate vaccination in England from today?
?
Where did I say ban visiting pubs etc? They aren't banned up here or in Germany or in the rest of the world that hasn't been as daft as England in dropping the requirement to wear masks. England - like the rest of the developed world - should have maintained a mask mandate.
You didn't. you can't put the genie back in the bottle. Politically any new restrictions will be difficult because so many people down there think its all over. Hence the need for Plan B, Plan C, "Jabbed or Christmas gets it" etc etc
You keep asking what I think. I don't think. But I listen to what Whitty, Vallance, Van-Tam, Taylor etc think. I know nothing on this subject, I am not a doctor or a virologist or someone qualified to disagree with them. Unlike you and many on here apparently.
No. Wrong again. I didn’t even suggest you would ban pubs. You said you would impose a mask mandate, which of course would include pubs.
My question to you is would you also mandate vaccinations?
You know my position on this. I'm against vaccine passports so why would I be in favour of pinning people down to vaccinate them?
So whats your point? Here and everywhere else you need to wear a mask indoors in public buildings. You take them off when sat eating or drinking. They remain open and thriving and with less infections which means more people available to work and go out spending money. A "significant imposition" that pretty much everywhere else manages without a fuss.
Ultimately its down to who is the expert here. I am not. You apparently are. Perhaps the NHS should listen to you.
I don’t claim to be an expert, and never have. My view is that we should retain the status quo. I’ve been clear about that. I would mandate neither vaccinations nor masks, although I would advocate a stronger public campaign on vaccinations to whittle down the refuseniks.
I find your position absolutely irrational. You would mandate masks - which are a daily imposition, affect 100% of the population and have only a moderate impact. But you would not mandate vaccinations, which are a minor inconvenience, affect just 5% of the population (the unvaxxed cohort) and have a huge impact. That is a bizarre position in my view. Deeply irrational.
I'm happy to be "irrational" in your eyes. As my position is shared by much of the developed world I'll take your comments under advisement.
The rational view would of course be mandatory vaccinations AND masks until completed. Then again as vaccinations have proven to be ineffective at wholly stopping the virus (unlike some other vaccines for other viruses) we would need to retain masks even with a full mandatory vaccination programme until we had all had sufficient rounds of boosters to stop this thing.
I do love the "moderate impact" lie from you ant-maskers. It doesn't matter how much the scientists prove the significant reduction in transmission gained from the proper wearing of masks, you and your still say "not proven".
So actually what you are saying is that in practice we will maintain masks forever. No thanks.
Forever? We will get to the point where there is sufficient protection in the vaccinations most of us have had to discard them. I'd quite like to burn mine I hate them that much.
Nah we won't. This is going to be endemic and varying just like flu. The idea we will ever be rid of this thing is for the fairies. Might as well get used to it as just another of those many persistent low level threats that we live with.
If it was a low-level threat then fine. It isn't. The NHS are genuinely bricking it over how they get us all through the winter. What does seem clear is that it dissipates significantly over the summer. So we need to have a concerted drive next summer to get booster 3 / 4 into everyone's arms. A tax break or cash incentive for getting it - something. Or we really do end up stuck with this as a real problem not just another winter bug that nobody need be that worried about.
The NHS is bricking it every winter over getting us through. That is a sign of a failed system (and I say that without any commentary on how or why it is failed, we have discussed that enough in other threads).
Now personally I wear a mask in various enclosed spaces as a mark of courtesy to people as I know there are those out there who are still genuinely worried about this stuff. But I would not for a second criticise anyone next to me who didn't wear a mask. That is their personal choice.
On Friday night I was at a Suede concert at Rock City (Fecking amazing by the way). 3,000 people in a tight packed space, all pogoing away, singing at the top of their voices and having a brilliant time with the band absolutely loving every second of it. Not once did I even think about any concern about masks, infections or anything else related to Covid. That is done. I am double jabbed, will get my booster and have recently had Covid caught from my son via school. If, a year or so down the line I catch it again as the effects of all of that have worn off and this time die from it then that is, I am afraid, just life (or death). I refuse now to live my life in fear over something that is now just as likely as me dying from normal flu or a car crash.
Masks, lockdowns and distancing were all vitally important at the time. I agreed with them all and was content to abide by them. That is now done. Life may still be a bit less safe than before November 2019 but I don't care any more. Life is, anyway, too short to worry about such things.
On Tuesday I am going with my son and wife to watch Public Service Broadcasting again at Rock City. It will be his first concert and that is more important to me than any of this stuff.
Well said
As a society we will all, soon, need to move on. Yes there is probably increased risk, and it will persist, but it cannot close down the economy, let alone normal human life
And how bad is that risk, anyhow? If these Pfizer antivirals work as well as promised, and you add them to the efficacy of the vaccines, the CFR of Covid-19 will be about 0.01%.
1 in 10,000 people that get it will die. Pretty bloody tiny, and ten times LESS lethal than flu, a disease we get every winter, and which does not affect society one jot
The elephant in the room is the loading on the health service and effect on healthcare other than for covid.
I know I keep rabbiting on about it, but that's the key element as I see it: we are putting fewer heart attack victims and stroke victims in ICUs than before due to lack of capacity (if you're in an ICU, you have a one in 25 chance of being ferried to some other ICU somewhere just to get capacity).
Elective surgeries (which are very rarely optional, simply can be timetabled rather than "in there now!") are way behind, so chronic or building acute conditions for quite a few people are going to be untreated - when they are curable or at least susceptible to intervention.
And waits for A&E are at record lengths, and response times for 999 calls and ambulances are not good at all.
I can see there being arguments for limited NPIs to try to reduce pressure from not just covid but from influenza and other transmissible diseases. I may not agree with them, but there is logic in it. My strong preference would be to make the flu jab free for all ages (at something like £10 per jab, we're talking tiny numbers on this scale) and strong encouragement to take it up, together with possible encouragement for working from home (small tax break for companies that do so?).
The way out is to permanently increase capacity. The solution to that is not trivial, but it's the best way out.
Random thought. Perhaps we should set up a parallel health system for COVID (and future deadly respiratory and other highly infectious diseases) patients, as we used to have TB clinics and hospitals ...
I floated the same idea a couple of weeks ago and Foxy said the trouble is that treating Covid patients cuts across so many disciplines and levels of expertise that this is unlikely to be feasible or beneficial. I think I'm quoting him accurately.
Yes, it really is quite a complex condition. I think that a Covid ward or two and an ICU are going to be fairly standard for a while yet.
You would mandate mask wearing in England now. Okay. You would introduce a law that makes it illegal to visit pubs, bars, theatres, clubs and shops without a mask. That’s a very significant imposition.
Would you then also mandate vaccination in England from today?
?
Where did I say ban visiting pubs etc? They aren't banned up here or in Germany or in the rest of the world that hasn't been as daft as England in dropping the requirement to wear masks. England - like the rest of the developed world - should have maintained a mask mandate.
You didn't. you can't put the genie back in the bottle. Politically any new restrictions will be difficult because so many people down there think its all over. Hence the need for Plan B, Plan C, "Jabbed or Christmas gets it" etc etc
You keep asking what I think. I don't think. But I listen to what Whitty, Vallance, Van-Tam, Taylor etc think. I know nothing on this subject, I am not a doctor or a virologist or someone qualified to disagree with them. Unlike you and many on here apparently.
No. Wrong again. I didn’t even suggest you would ban pubs. You said you would impose a mask mandate, which of course would include pubs.
My question to you is would you also mandate vaccinations?
You know my position on this. I'm against vaccine passports so why would I be in favour of pinning people down to vaccinate them?
So whats your point? Here and everywhere else you need to wear a mask indoors in public buildings. You take them off when sat eating or drinking. They remain open and thriving and with less infections which means more people available to work and go out spending money. A "significant imposition" that pretty much everywhere else manages without a fuss.
Ultimately its down to who is the expert here. I am not. You apparently are. Perhaps the NHS should listen to you.
I don’t claim to be an expert, and never have. My view is that we should retain the status quo. I’ve been clear about that. I would mandate neither vaccinations nor masks, although I would advocate a stronger public campaign on vaccinations to whittle down the refuseniks.
I find your position absolutely irrational. You would mandate masks - which are a daily imposition, affect 100% of the population and have only a moderate impact. But you would not mandate vaccinations, which are a minor inconvenience, affect just 5% of the population (the unvaxxed cohort) and have a huge impact. That is a bizarre position in my view. Deeply irrational.
I'm happy to be "irrational" in your eyes. As my position is shared by much of the developed world I'll take your comments under advisement.
The rational view would of course be mandatory vaccinations AND masks until completed. Then again as vaccinations have proven to be ineffective at wholly stopping the virus (unlike some other vaccines for other viruses) we would need to retain masks even with a full mandatory vaccination programme until we had all had sufficient rounds of boosters to stop this thing.
I do love the "moderate impact" lie from you ant-maskers. It doesn't matter how much the scientists prove the significant reduction in transmission gained from the proper wearing of masks, you and your still say "not proven".
So actually what you are saying is that in practice we will maintain masks forever. No thanks.
Forever? We will get to the point where there is sufficient protection in the vaccinations most of us have had to discard them. I'd quite like to burn mine I hate them that much.
Nah we won't. This is going to be endemic and varying just like flu. The idea we will ever be rid of this thing is for the fairies. Might as well get used to it as just another of those many persistent low level threats that we live with.
If it was a low-level threat then fine. It isn't. The NHS are genuinely bricking it over how they get us all through the winter. What does seem clear is that it dissipates significantly over the summer. So we need to have a concerted drive next summer to get booster 3 / 4 into everyone's arms. A tax break or cash incentive for getting it - something. Or we really do end up stuck with this as a real problem not just another winter bug that nobody need be that worried about.
The NHS is bricking it every winter over getting us through. That is a sign of a failed system (and I say that without any commentary on how or why it is failed, we have discussed that enough in other threads).
Now personally I wear a mask in various enclosed spaces as a mark of courtesy to people as I know there are those out there who are still genuinely worried about this stuff. But I would not for a second criticise anyone next to me who didn't wear a mask. That is their personal choice.
On Friday night I was at a Suede concert at Rock City (Fecking amazing by the way). 3,000 people in a tight packed space, all pogoing away, singing at the top of their voices and having a brilliant time with the band absolutely loving every second of it. Not once did I even think about any concern about masks, infections or anything else related to Covid. That is done. I am double jabbed, will get my booster and have recently had Covid caught from my son via school. If, a year or so down the line I catch it again as the effects of all of that have worn off and this time die from it then that is, I am afraid, just life (or death). I refuse now to live my life in fear over something that is now just as likely as me dying from normal flu or a car crash.
Masks, lockdowns and distancing were all vitally important at the time. I agreed with them all and was content to abide by them. That is now done. Life may still be a bit less safe than before November 2019 but I don't care any more. Life is, anyway, too short to worry about such things.
On Tuesday I am going with my son and wife to watch Public Service Broadcasting again at Rock City. It will be his first concert and that is more important to me than any of this stuff.
Well said
As a society we will all, soon, need to move on. Yes there is probably increased risk, and it will persist, but it cannot close down the economy, let alone normal human life
And how bad is that risk, anyhow? If these Pfizer antivirals work as well as promised, and you add them to the efficacy of the vaccines, the CFR of Covid-19 will be about 0.01%.
1 in 10,000 people that get it will die. Pretty bloody tiny, and ten times LESS lethal than flu, a disease we get every winter, and which does not affect society one jot
The elephant in the room is the loading on the health service and effect on healthcare other than for covid.
I know I keep rabbiting on about it, but that's the key element as I see it: we are putting fewer heart attack victims and stroke victims in ICUs than before due to lack of capacity (if you're in an ICU, you have a one in 25 chance of being ferried to some other ICU somewhere just to get capacity).
Elective surgeries (which are very rarely optional, simply can be timetabled rather than "in there now!") are way behind, so chronic or building acute conditions for quite a few people are going to be untreated - when they are curable or at least susceptible to intervention.
And waits for A&E are at record lengths, and response times for 999 calls and ambulances are not good at all.
I can see there being arguments for limited NPIs to try to reduce pressure from not just covid but from influenza and other transmissible diseases. I may not agree with them, but there is logic in it. My strong preference would be to make the flu jab free for all ages (at something like £10 per jab, we're talking tiny numbers on this scale) and strong encouragement to take it up, together with possible encouragement for working from home (small tax break for companies that do so?).
The way out is to permanently increase capacity. The solution to that is not trivial, but it's the best way out.
As a matter of interest, on my hospitals dashboard last week we had 120 or so covid inpatients and 15 or so with flu or RSV.
BTW, and also FYI Foxy, thank you and your colleagues worldwide once again for all you've been doing for all of us!
"COP26: The Royal Family's climate interventions have left no one in any doubt that they want meaningful actions from the summit
The royals have been everywhere and with their unique star appeal have helped to get pictures from this summit to a wider global audience as they've rubbed shoulders with everyone from world leaders to wealthy businessmen and high-profile campaigners.
That amount is about the same as a very small village.
Please present your data in the correct form for celebrity preachers, units of Emma Thompson.
I make one Emma Thompson unnecessary return from LAX to LHR in her pyjamas in First Class to address an Extinction Rebellion demo, instead of using the available video link, about 8.5 tonnes of C02.
Ignoring any intermediate use of steaming products from Goop.
So the entire working Royal Family official travel on this basis is about 80 Emma Thompson vanity weekends.
The state of play Leader Ratings wise, between Boris and Sir Keir
Dark Blue is Boris Gross Positives, Light Blue his Net Satisfaction, and the same in Red for Sir Keir. As I have been saying, in Electoral Cycles there is ebb and flow - For a long while Sr Keir led on Net Satisfaction, then Boris was walking it, now it it is more level.
I don't think the government's spin campaign is working for once, despite a fairly compliant media. As well as Eustice, I've heard several MPs and Ministers on the airwaves repeatedly asserting two mistruths (and not being challenged on them enough by a fairly compliant BBC, which is clearly now fearful of upsetting Dorries):
a) Paterson may not have had a fair hearing and we need an appeal system built in to the process. b) Last week's vote on changing the system wasn't meant to be about the Paterson case; it's a pity that it was perceived as such.
Now, both a) and b) are utterly false, but that wouldn't matter normally. The problem is that not only do the public not believe it, quite a lot of backbench Tory MPs also don't believe it, largely because it's bollocks. Once the inquisitors (the press, the NAO, Labour, Stone) get their teeth into Randox's Covid contracts, and others, it could get worse.
I'm beginning to think, for the first time, that Starmer's boring statesmanship may increasingly seem attractive in contrast to Boris's dissembling.
Last sentence, ditto. I've been pessimistic for a long time on the chance of Starmer besting Johnson come the GE, and I still am but not quite so much now. Definite change in my assessment over the last few days. The betting markets give him a decent chance and I'm coming round to agreeing. It's one thing Johnson having charisma but having ONLY charisma isn't a great basis for a long multi-term premiership. That "Boris" brand is starting to look a bit tacky and there might come a point when people feel cheapened by association with it. Sorry, there WILL come that point, we've always known this, but what I mean is it might be coming sooner than I'd previously been thinking. When the seagulls follow the trawler it's because they sense sardines are about to be tossed into the sea. One of the many things Eric meant by this was, once it starts to go it's amazing how quickly it's gone. Please let this be so.
For those interested in what lessons the VA gubernatorial holds for the mid-terms next year, I highly recommend viewing this clip of women who voted for Youngkin.
The thesis is that white suburban moms won it for Trump in 2016, for Biden in 2020, and for Youngkin in 2021, and that the reasons this group backed Youngkin this time was:
1. Education of their kids (getting them back in school, finding ways to make up for lost education) was the number 1 issue for them, above all else head and shoulders. The Democrats did not listen and, worse, tried to make the education issue about Trump, and hence make the election national, not local. Worse still, McAuliffe campaigning with the head of the school unions on the final day - the person many mom's deem responsible for keeping their kids out of school - went down like a bucket of sick 2. Infrastructure and other DC issues of the day did not really factor into their voting decision
BUT. Had Trump campaigned for Youngkin, they would have wanted nothing to do with the ticket.
Yes. Yes. And double (or rather triple) Yes re: You Know Who.
Also this from PBer's 2nd favorite news source after BBC
NYT ($) - Democrats Thought They Bottomed Out in Rural, White America. It Wasn’t the Bottom. Republicans ran up the margins in rural Virginia counties, the latest sign that Democrats, as one lawmaker put it, “continue to tank in small-town America.”
Thanks for adding that last piece, SSI. I am running a number of workshops remotely training people in the life sciences (researchers, hospital infection control people, diagnostic lab workers, vaccine production staff) how to be more effective biosafety officers. One of the 'currencies' we try to get them to recognize and use is inclusion/exclusion.
It strikes me that that might be an element of what is now happening in white rural America voting for the GOP (as it probably has happened with the black vote nationally the other way - to the Dems): namely that the vote has become so overwhelmingly for the one party that not voting for that party carries with it an element of social opprobrium and exclusion, thereby pushing more and more of the 'stragglers' to vote for the party of overwhelming choice, and piling even more pressure on the remaining hold outs.
Trivia for PB quiz setters. Who was the last US Civil War combatant to die of his wounds ?
Without googling - Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain?
Impressive, but then again you have a slight advantage. And the year ?
Fun fact I picked up reading "The Killer Angels"; date was IIRC sometime in what they used to call the 'Gay '90s' when I was a kid (long before 1990!)
He died in 1914, which is extraordinary since he was thought unlikely to survive more than a day or so. Quite the writer, who left his own trail of Civil War accounts and myths (sometimes hard to distinguish between the two).
The beauty of the English language is it's a mongrel and there are several ways to say the same things. It problem is it gives us different registers and people get judged unconsciously on the basis of which words they use. For example "to buy" / "to purchase".
That's an interesting point that I'd not consciously thought about but use all the time in my spare-time translation/revision work. I was revising someone's translation yesterday of an Austrian Government statement. The translation was fine, but it routinely used everyday language - abbreviations like "we're" and "it'd", "got" instead of "received", ""thought about" instead of "considered", etc. Without even thinking about it I changed it to the more formal usage everywhere, on the basis that this is what a government would want. Just being old-fashioned, perhaps actulaly making public statements less accessible, or bein gappropriate to the subject?
The Times article on Yorkshire CCC used "checkered" rather than "chequered" - First thing on a Sunday morning I had to "check" the correct spelling. Americanised
It also said that Gary Ballance and Azeem Rafiq often used unsvaoury language to address each other in a jokey way ("Zimbo" and "P-word" I would imagine). Apparently they were good friends and holidayed together at Ballance's place in South Africa. Not what I expected to read given what I had seen reported
You would mandate mask wearing in England now. Okay. You would introduce a law that makes it illegal to visit pubs, bars, theatres, clubs and shops without a mask. That’s a very significant imposition.
Would you then also mandate vaccination in England from today?
?
Where did I say ban visiting pubs etc? They aren't banned up here or in Germany or in the rest of the world that hasn't been as daft as England in dropping the requirement to wear masks. England - like the rest of the developed world - should have maintained a mask mandate.
You didn't. you can't put the genie back in the bottle. Politically any new restrictions will be difficult because so many people down there think its all over. Hence the need for Plan B, Plan C, "Jabbed or Christmas gets it" etc etc
You keep asking what I think. I don't think. But I listen to what Whitty, Vallance, Van-Tam, Taylor etc think. I know nothing on this subject, I am not a doctor or a virologist or someone qualified to disagree with them. Unlike you and many on here apparently.
No. Wrong again. I didn’t even suggest you would ban pubs. You said you would impose a mask mandate, which of course would include pubs.
My question to you is would you also mandate vaccinations?
You know my position on this. I'm against vaccine passports so why would I be in favour of pinning people down to vaccinate them?
So whats your point? Here and everywhere else you need to wear a mask indoors in public buildings. You take them off when sat eating or drinking. They remain open and thriving and with less infections which means more people available to work and go out spending money. A "significant imposition" that pretty much everywhere else manages without a fuss.
Ultimately its down to who is the expert here. I am not. You apparently are. Perhaps the NHS should listen to you.
I don’t claim to be an expert, and never have. My view is that we should retain the status quo. I’ve been clear about that. I would mandate neither vaccinations nor masks, although I would advocate a stronger public campaign on vaccinations to whittle down the refuseniks.
I find your position absolutely irrational. You would mandate masks - which are a daily imposition, affect 100% of the population and have only a moderate impact. But you would not mandate vaccinations, which are a minor inconvenience, affect just 5% of the population (the unvaxxed cohort) and have a huge impact. That is a bizarre position in my view. Deeply irrational.
I'm happy to be "irrational" in your eyes. As my position is shared by much of the developed world I'll take your comments under advisement.
The rational view would of course be mandatory vaccinations AND masks until completed. Then again as vaccinations have proven to be ineffective at wholly stopping the virus (unlike some other vaccines for other viruses) we would need to retain masks even with a full mandatory vaccination programme until we had all had sufficient rounds of boosters to stop this thing.
I do love the "moderate impact" lie from you ant-maskers. It doesn't matter how much the scientists prove the significant reduction in transmission gained from the proper wearing of masks, you and your still say "not proven".
So actually what you are saying is that in practice we will maintain masks forever. No thanks.
Forever? We will get to the point where there is sufficient protection in the vaccinations most of us have had to discard them. I'd quite like to burn mine I hate them that much.
Nah we won't. This is going to be endemic and varying just like flu. The idea we will ever be rid of this thing is for the fairies. Might as well get used to it as just another of those many persistent low level threats that we live with.
If it was a low-level threat then fine. It isn't. The NHS are genuinely bricking it over how they get us all through the winter. What does seem clear is that it dissipates significantly over the summer. So we need to have a concerted drive next summer to get booster 3 / 4 into everyone's arms. A tax break or cash incentive for getting it - something. Or we really do end up stuck with this as a real problem not just another winter bug that nobody need be that worried about.
The NHS is bricking it every winter over getting us through. That is a sign of a failed system (and I say that without any commentary on how or why it is failed, we have discussed that enough in other threads).
Now personally I wear a mask in various enclosed spaces as a mark of courtesy to people as I know there are those out there who are still genuinely worried about this stuff. But I would not for a second criticise anyone next to me who didn't wear a mask. That is their personal choice.
On Friday night I was at a Suede concert at Rock City (Fecking amazing by the way). 3,000 people in a tight packed space, all pogoing away, singing at the top of their voices and having a brilliant time with the band absolutely loving every second of it. Not once did I even think about any concern about masks, infections or anything else related to Covid. That is done. I am double jabbed, will get my booster and have recently had Covid caught from my son via school. If, a year or so down the line I catch it again as the effects of all of that have worn off and this time die from it then that is, I am afraid, just life (or death). I refuse now to live my life in fear over something that is now just as likely as me dying from normal flu or a car crash.
Masks, lockdowns and distancing were all vitally important at the time. I agreed with them all and was content to abide by them. That is now done. Life may still be a bit less safe than before November 2019 but I don't care any more. Life is, anyway, too short to worry about such things.
On Tuesday I am going with my son and wife to watch Public Service Broadcasting again at Rock City. It will be his first concert and that is more important to me than any of this stuff.
Well said
As a society we will all, soon, need to move on. Yes there is probably increased risk, and it will persist, but it cannot close down the economy, let alone normal human life
And how bad is that risk, anyhow? If these Pfizer antivirals work as well as promised, and you add them to the efficacy of the vaccines, the CFR of Covid-19 will be about 0.01%.
1 in 10,000 people that get it will die. Pretty bloody tiny, and ten times LESS lethal than flu, a disease we get every winter, and which does not affect society one jot
The elephant in the room is the loading on the health service and effect on healthcare other than for covid.
I know I keep rabbiting on about it, but that's the key element as I see it: we are putting fewer heart attack victims and stroke victims in ICUs than before due to lack of capacity (if you're in an ICU, you have a one in 25 chance of being ferried to some other ICU somewhere just to get capacity).
Elective surgeries (which are very rarely optional, simply can be timetabled rather than "in there now!") are way behind, so chronic or building acute conditions for quite a few people are going to be untreated - when they are curable or at least susceptible to intervention.
And waits for A&E are at record lengths, and response times for 999 calls and ambulances are not good at all.
I can see there being arguments for limited NPIs to try to reduce pressure from not just covid but from influenza and other transmissible diseases. I may not agree with them, but there is logic in it. My strong preference would be to make the flu jab free for all ages (at something like £10 per jab, we're talking tiny numbers on this scale) and strong encouragement to take it up, together with possible encouragement for working from home (small tax break for companies that do so?).
The way out is to permanently increase capacity. The solution to that is not trivial, but it's the best way out.
Random thought. Perhaps we should set up a parallel health system for COVID (and future deadly respiratory and other highly infectious diseases) patients, as we used to have TB clinics and hospitals ...
I floated the same idea a couple of weeks ago and Foxy said the trouble is that treating Covid patients cuts across so many disciplines and levels of expertise that this is unlikely to be feasible or beneficial. I think I'm quoting him accurately.
Yes, it really is quite a complex condition. I think that a Covid ward or two and an ICU are going to be fairly standard for a while yet.
Yep, I get that. And that is what happened to a certain extent with Ebola in West Africa. Separate wards or buildings were used, pulling in medical staff from the main health service capacity, albeit with a level of extra training on Ebola and protective measures.
I think what this pandemic has demonstrated clearly (in the US at least) is the massive under capacity in pulmologists.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 16m I don't know why people think this is so hard. Just ban second jobs. If it means MPs can't do shifts in A&E that's a shame. But there's a bigger issue at stake here.
My contract of employment forbids me from having a second job. That’s fairly normal I think.
Does your contract also include a provision that means you have to reapply for the job at unspecified intervals, but no more than five years apart?
Being an MP is NOT a job, it is an elected position.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 16m I don't know why people think this is so hard. Just ban second jobs. If it means MPs can't do shifts in A&E that's a shame. But there's a bigger issue at stake here.
My contract of employment forbids me from having a second job. That’s fairly normal I think.
Does your contract also include a provision that means you have to reapply for the job at unspecified intervals, but no more than five years apart?
Being an MP is NOT a job, it is an elected position.
The state of play Leader Ratings wise, between Boris and Sir Keir
Dark Blue is Boris Gross Positives, Light Blue his Net Satisfaction, and the same in Red for Sir Keir. As I have been saying, in Electoral Cycles there is ebb and flow - For a long while Sr Keir led on Net Satisfaction, then Boris was walking it, now it it is more level.
You'd never have guessed
I think I can explain Johnson's fluctuating net positives. Perception was, he invented and procured Covid busting vaccines that the rest of our former EU colleagues singularity and as an alliance failed so to do. There was more than a grain of truth in this statement and as the incumbent he rightly took the spoils. He needs something equally impressive to repeat the pattern. I can't imagine what that might be. I wait with bated breath. It's not beyond the realms of possibility that whatever it will be, it might come to pass.
On the other hand Starmer is dreary, but in the near future dreary might be of the moment.
The state of play Leader Ratings wise, between Boris and Sir Keir
Dark Blue is Boris Gross Positives, Light Blue his Net Satisfaction, and the same in Red for Sir Keir. As I have been saying, in Electoral Cycles there is ebb and flow - For a long while Sr Keir led on Net Satisfaction, then Boris was walking it, now it it is more level.
You'd never have guessed
I think I can explain Johnson's fluctuating net positives. Perception was, he invented and procured Covid busting vaccines that the rest of our former EU colleagues singularity and as an alliance failed so to do. There was more than a grain of truth in this statement and as the incumbent he rightly took the spoils. He needs something equally impressive to repeat the pattern. I can't imagine what that might be. I wait with bated breath. It's not beyond the realms of possibility that whatever it will be, it might come to pass.
On the other hand Starmer is dreary, but in the near future dreary might be of the moment.
"... in the near future dreary might be of the moment". That has been the hope all along.
I have actually missed out the last YouGov for Sir Keir there, where he scored -40 (20/60)
The women in Labour's Shad Cab have so much more zip and energy about them. I am amazed Labour went for an old, white, man again.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 16m I don't know why people think this is so hard. Just ban second jobs. If it means MPs can't do shifts in A&E that's a shame. But there's a bigger issue at stake here.
My contract of employment forbids me from having a second job. That’s fairly normal I think.
Does your contract also include a provision that means you have to reapply for the job at unspecified intervals, but no more than five years apart?
Being an MP is NOT a job, it is an elected position.
What are they technically?
Office-holders?
I assume so. Making it a job would raise all sorts of interesting points when it came to trying to get rid of them at, say, an election…
The beauty of the English language is it's a mongrel and there are several ways to say the same things. It problem is it gives us different registers and people get judged unconsciously on the basis of which words they use. For example "to buy" / "to purchase".
That's an interesting point that I'd not consciously thought about but use all the time in my spare-time translation/revision work. I was revising someone's translation yesterday of an Austrian Government statement. The translation was fine, but it routinely used everyday language - abbreviations like "we're" and "it'd", "got" instead of "received", ""thought about" instead of "considered", etc. Without even thinking about it I changed it to the more formal usage everywhere, on the basis that this is what a government would want. Just being old-fashioned, perhaps actulaly making public statements less accessible, or bein gappropriate to the subject?
The Times article on Yorkshire CCC used "checkered" rather than "chequered" - First thing on a Sunday morning I had to "check" the correct spelling. Americanised
It also said that Gary Ballance and Azeem Rafiq often used unsvaoury language to address each other in a jokey way ("Zimbo" and "P-word" I would imagine). Apparently they were good friends and holidayed together at Ballance's place in South Africa. Not what I expected to read given what I had seen reported
The reporting on the Ballance 'apology' was amazing.
Actually reading it, what he really thinks is very clear.
The beauty of the English language is it's a mongrel and there are several ways to say the same things. It problem is it gives us different registers and people get judged unconsciously on the basis of which words they use. For example "to buy" / "to purchase".
That's an interesting point that I'd not consciously thought about but use all the time in my spare-time translation/revision work. I was revising someone's translation yesterday of an Austrian Government statement. The translation was fine, but it routinely used everyday language - abbreviations like "we're" and "it'd", "got" instead of "received", ""thought about" instead of "considered", etc. Without even thinking about it I changed it to the more formal usage everywhere, on the basis that this is what a government would want. Just being old-fashioned, perhaps actulaly making public statements less accessible, or bein gappropriate to the subject?
The Times article on Yorkshire CCC used "checkered" rather than "chequered" - First thing on a Sunday morning I had to "check" the correct spelling. Americanised
It also said that Gary Ballance and Azeem Rafiq often used unsvaoury language to address each other in a jokey way ("Zimbo" and "P-word" I would imagine). Apparently they were good friends and holidayed together at Ballance's place in South Africa. Not what I expected to read given what I had seen reported
The reporting on the Ballance 'apology' was amazing.
Actually reading it, what he really thinks is very clear.
Blimey yeah, I am reading it now. Ballance considered Rafiq his "best mate in cricket", and someone he "cared deeply for".
"this was a situation where best friends said offensive things to each other which, outside of that context, would be considered wholly inappropriate," added Ballance.
"I regret that these exchanges took place but at no time did I believe or understand that it had caused Rafa distress.
"If I had believed that then I would have stopped immediately. He was my best mate in cricket and I cared deeply for him. To my knowledge, it has never been alleged that I reduced Rafa to tears.""
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 16m I don't know why people think this is so hard. Just ban second jobs. If it means MPs can't do shifts in A&E that's a shame. But there's a bigger issue at stake here.
My contract of employment forbids me from having a second job. That’s fairly normal I think.
It's very easy to make comments like "just ban second jobs - so what if people can't do a few shifts in A&E", but you need to factor in that for some careers in politics/as MPs can be pretty short. And if retaining competence in your base profession is forbidden then somebody who runs as an MP will struggle to return if booted out at subsequent elections. Leaving aside the sometimes somewhat self serving arguments sometimes put forward against banning second jobs, things like this are a real issue unless you want to ban (not politics!) professionals from politics.
Yes, that's a real issue in some professions. When I was elected in 1997 I was a senior IT manager. When I lost in 2010 my IT knowledge would be best described as "quaint".
Should I have been doing some IT on the side to keep up? I don't think that would really work. Part of the solution was and is the final salary pension scheme, which has given me £10K/year based on 13 years' contributions, which isn't a fortune but a useful buffer. And the Parliamentary expeience opened up new career possibilities - I'm quite sure my post-Parliament jobs were mainly because my employers felt I understood how Ministers and Parliament work.But it's definitely a lottery, and I'm conscious that I've been lucky.
Bottom line, I think, is transparency. If an MP has substantial side-earnings, their opponent is entitled to question whether their minds are on the job. If they can persuade voters that they could do both without harm, fair enough?
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 16m I don't know why people think this is so hard. Just ban second jobs. If it means MPs can't do shifts in A&E that's a shame. But there's a bigger issue at stake here.
My contract of employment forbids me from having a second job. That’s fairly normal I think.
Does your contract also include a provision that means you have to reapply for the job at unspecified intervals, but no more than five years apart?
Being an MP is NOT a job, it is an elected position.
Some academic contracts do, at least in the humanities.
Impressive victory, yet no signs yet that Governor-Elect Youngkins is the next Woodrow Wilson. But you never know . . .
SSI. Do you think Paul Ryan would ever make a return to national politics? He strikes me as a telegenic, articulate, conservative non-Trumpster who could hold the conservative base and might be more than acceptable to Independents and suburban white Moms.
IIRC, his ostensible reason for resigning the Speaker position was family. Presumably his kids are grown now ... (actually, 16, 18, 19 so they will all be adult by 2024)
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 16m I don't know why people think this is so hard. Just ban second jobs. If it means MPs can't do shifts in A&E that's a shame. But there's a bigger issue at stake here.
My contract of employment forbids me from having a second job. That’s fairly normal I think.
Does your contract also include a provision that means you have to reapply for the job at unspecified intervals, but no more than five years apart?
Being an MP is NOT a job, it is an elected position.
You would mandate mask wearing in England now. Okay. You would introduce a law that makes it illegal to visit pubs, bars, theatres, clubs and shops without a mask. That’s a very significant imposition.
Would you then also mandate vaccination in England from today?
?
Where did I say ban visiting pubs etc? They aren't banned up here or in Germany or in the rest of the world that hasn't been as daft as England in dropping the requirement to wear masks. England - like the rest of the developed world - should have maintained a mask mandate.
You didn't. you can't put the genie back in the bottle. Politically any new restrictions will be difficult because so many people down there think its all over. Hence the need for Plan B, Plan C, "Jabbed or Christmas gets it" etc etc
You keep asking what I think. I don't think. But I listen to what Whitty, Vallance, Van-Tam, Taylor etc think. I know nothing on this subject, I am not a doctor or a virologist or someone qualified to disagree with them. Unlike you and many on here apparently.
Jesus Christ, Jonathan Van-Tam, the "qualified" man you revere on this issue, famously said "masks are useless, my friend in Hong Kong told me" (this despite everyone in Hong Kong wearing a mask. Odd that)
He's a fricking idiot. You are pathetically grovelling to establishment half-wits. Grow a spine
You misunderstand RP, he wants the government to u-turn on plan b or c or masks regardless of what's actually happening on the ground. If England (and the rest of the UK) has hit herd immunity and we continue to see the current big drops in cases it will prove the UK government position was right (run hot in the summer and autumn, no restrictions) and that Europe was wrong (prevent spread, retain NPIs). In his small world the UK is always wrong and Europe always right. This would upend that as European countries head into lockdown 4 and the UK exits the pandemic entirely.
Just look at his bluster over the supposedly failing booster programme which has now done 10m doses. The facts don't matter to him, just that the UK is always wrong and Europe always right. Weirdly he voted leave. 🤷♂️
Max you are accusing RP of hating the UK and loving Europe just like you were with me. I think we can argue about stuff without resorting to people's lack of patriotism.
Re the 3rd jab it did start as a bit of a shambles but then got turned around pretty impressively. I saw the change in action as I was on the verge of my booster when it was all wrong and with in a couple of weeks they turned it around to become a very effective experience. The 1st two were very successful throughout I thought.
EU lovers do stick together!
The shambles was because the NHS management decided it would take complete control of the third jab rollout rather than leave it to the same people that did the initial roll out. About two weeks ago the Saj handed it all back to the private company and as if by magic people can book appointments easily and get provisioned a month in advance of their expected eligibility. If he hadn't done that we'd be relying on letters and phone calls to get appointments. Well I wouldn't because I'm not allowed one. 😭
I agree with your post, but just because we 'love' the EU doesn't mean we hate the UK. We don't.
I think it does, the EU is a hostile entity to the UK, it is no longer any kind of ally to us.
Well it doesn't because I don't hate the UK and I do like the EU. So by definition it isn't true. You really do need to stop thinking Remainers are all anti the UK. We are not. We just disagreed on leaving. Nothing more than that.
It's similar to the "Boris haters are rooting for lots of Covid deaths and a massive recession so as to bring him down" - ie the false association of disliking British government policy with traitorously rooting against Britain and its people. Arrant smeary nonsense.
You would mandate mask wearing in England now. Okay. You would introduce a law that makes it illegal to visit pubs, bars, theatres, clubs and shops without a mask. That’s a very significant imposition.
Would you then also mandate vaccination in England from today?
?
Where did I say ban visiting pubs etc? They aren't banned up here or in Germany or in the rest of the world that hasn't been as daft as England in dropping the requirement to wear masks. England - like the rest of the developed world - should have maintained a mask mandate.
You didn't. you can't put the genie back in the bottle. Politically any new restrictions will be difficult because so many people down there think its all over. Hence the need for Plan B, Plan C, "Jabbed or Christmas gets it" etc etc
You keep asking what I think. I don't think. But I listen to what Whitty, Vallance, Van-Tam, Taylor etc think. I know nothing on this subject, I am not a doctor or a virologist or someone qualified to disagree with them. Unlike you and many on here apparently.
Jesus Christ, Jonathan Van-Tam, the "qualified" man you revere on this issue, famously said "masks are useless, my friend in Hong Kong told me" (this despite everyone in Hong Kong wearing a mask. Odd that)
He's a fricking idiot. You are pathetically grovelling to establishment half-wits. Grow a spine
You misunderstand RP, he wants the government to u-turn on plan b or c or masks regardless of what's actually happening on the ground. If England (and the rest of the UK) has hit herd immunity and we continue to see the current big drops in cases it will prove the UK government position was right (run hot in the summer and autumn, no restrictions) and that Europe was wrong (prevent spread, retain NPIs). In his small world the UK is always wrong and Europe always right. This would upend that as European countries head into lockdown 4 and the UK exits the pandemic entirely.
Just look at his bluster over the supposedly failing booster programme which has now done 10m doses. The facts don't matter to him, just that the UK is always wrong and Europe always right. Weirdly he voted leave. 🤷♂️
Max you are accusing RP of hating the UK and loving Europe just like you were with me. I think we can argue about stuff without resorting to people's lack of patriotism.
Re the 3rd jab it did start as a bit of a shambles but then got turned around pretty impressively. I saw the change in action as I was on the verge of my booster when it was all wrong and with in a couple of weeks they turned it around to become a very effective experience. The 1st two were very successful throughout I thought.
EU lovers do stick together!
The shambles was because the NHS management decided it would take complete control of the third jab rollout rather than leave it to the same people that did the initial roll out. About two weeks ago the Saj handed it all back to the private company and as if by magic people can book appointments easily and get provisioned a month in advance of their expected eligibility. If he hadn't done that we'd be relying on letters and phone calls to get appointments. Well I wouldn't because I'm not allowed one. 😭
I agree with your post, but just because we 'love' the EU doesn't mean we hate the UK. We don't.
I think it does, the EU is a hostile entity to the UK, it is no longer any kind of ally to us.
Well it doesn't because I don't hate the UK and I do like the EU. So by definition it isn't true. You really do need to stop thinking Remainers are all anti the UK. We are not. We just disagreed on leaving. Nothing more than that.
It's similar to the "Boris haters are rooting for lots of Covid deaths and a massive recession so as to bring him down" - ie the false association of disliking British government policy with traitorously rooting against Britain and its people. Arrant smeary nonsense.
Blimey the nerve was more than touched!
What do you want me to call Sir Keir? I'll do it, I'm sorry. I hate to be such a bad person, you can set the rules
You would mandate mask wearing in England now. Okay. You would introduce a law that makes it illegal to visit pubs, bars, theatres, clubs and shops without a mask. That’s a very significant imposition.
Would you then also mandate vaccination in England from today?
?
Where did I say ban visiting pubs etc? They aren't banned up here or in Germany or in the rest of the world that hasn't been as daft as England in dropping the requirement to wear masks. England - like the rest of the developed world - should have maintained a mask mandate.
You didn't. you can't put the genie back in the bottle. Politically any new restrictions will be difficult because so many people down there think its all over. Hence the need for Plan B, Plan C, "Jabbed or Christmas gets it" etc etc
You keep asking what I think. I don't think. But I listen to what Whitty, Vallance, Van-Tam, Taylor etc think. I know nothing on this subject, I am not a doctor or a virologist or someone qualified to disagree with them. Unlike you and many on here apparently.
Jesus Christ, Jonathan Van-Tam, the "qualified" man you revere on this issue, famously said "masks are useless, my friend in Hong Kong told me" (this despite everyone in Hong Kong wearing a mask. Odd that)
He's a fricking idiot. You are pathetically grovelling to establishment half-wits. Grow a spine
You misunderstand RP, he wants the government to u-turn on plan b or c or masks regardless of what's actually happening on the ground. If England (and the rest of the UK) has hit herd immunity and we continue to see the current big drops in cases it will prove the UK government position was right (run hot in the summer and autumn, no restrictions) and that Europe was wrong (prevent spread, retain NPIs). In his small world the UK is always wrong and Europe always right. This would upend that as European countries head into lockdown 4 and the UK exits the pandemic entirely.
Just look at his bluster over the supposedly failing booster programme which has now done 10m doses. The facts don't matter to him, just that the UK is always wrong and Europe always right. Weirdly he voted leave. 🤷♂️
Max you are accusing RP of hating the UK and loving Europe just like you were with me. I think we can argue about stuff without resorting to people's lack of patriotism.
Re the 3rd jab it did start as a bit of a shambles but then got turned around pretty impressively. I saw the change in action as I was on the verge of my booster when it was all wrong and with in a couple of weeks they turned it around to become a very effective experience. The 1st two were very successful throughout I thought.
EU lovers do stick together!
The shambles was because the NHS management decided it would take complete control of the third jab rollout rather than leave it to the same people that did the initial roll out. About two weeks ago the Saj handed it all back to the private company and as if by magic people can book appointments easily and get provisioned a month in advance of their expected eligibility. If he hadn't done that we'd be relying on letters and phone calls to get appointments. Well I wouldn't because I'm not allowed one. 😭
I agree with your post, but just because we 'love' the EU doesn't mean we hate the UK. We don't.
I think it does, the EU is a hostile entity to the UK, it is no longer any kind of ally to us.
Well it doesn't because I don't hate the UK and I do like the EU. So by definition it isn't true. You really do need to stop thinking Remainers are all anti the UK. We are not. We just disagreed on leaving. Nothing more than that.
It's similar to the "Boris haters are rooting for lots of Covid deaths and a massive recession so as to bring him down" - ie the false association of disliking British government policy with traitorously rooting against Britain and its people. Arrant smeary nonsense.
I don't think it's a fair attack as it applies to pretty much any policy agreement, but I also think it's obvious from human nature that people who disagree with a major decision want it to be shown to be wrong, and will feel some element of chagrin if it turns out successfully. As I say, given it can work in any direction on any decision, I don't think it's fair to say that makes someone anti anything, but it's there. Most tories probably feared the minimum wage would cause unemployment, and felt slightly less joy at their being wrong on this than Labour voters did.
First Lib Dem leaflet going through doors in North Shropshire! Predictably they say they are the main challengers based on the May 21 District Council elections,, amazingly there is a bar chart!!!! . Well wel,l who would have thought that?
Times Radio @TimesRadio · 1h "Boris Johnson doesn't believe in throwing people under a bus."
George Eustice, environment secretary, on the Prime Minister's loyalty after the Owen Paterson lobbying scandal.
===
Genuine
Suspect Eustice will find out sooner rather than later that Johnson throws people under buses for a hobby.
Crazy. A hole, and he's still digging. There's clearly no-one whatsoever in Downing Street challenging Johnson's way of dealing with this, and they could be down ten points, not four, within a month or two, if they carry on like that.
Its a good question to ask. Would the Tory vote go up or down if Boris was axed?
Yes it's a great question. Only the public can get rid of Johnson but there's 2 ways they can do it. At the GE, obviously, but also before, since if he starts to poll as a clear liability the party might ditch him.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 16m I don't know why people think this is so hard. Just ban second jobs. If it means MPs can't do shifts in A&E that's a shame. But there's a bigger issue at stake here.
My contract of employment forbids me from having a second job. That’s fairly normal I think.
MPs aren't employed, though, are they?
Im not sure what your point is. “Whole time and attention” clauses are fairly standard and there’s no reason they shouldn’t apply to MPs.
Other than they don't have a contract in which to include them! And of course, as pointed out, being a minister is a second job...
That point about being a minister = 2nd job is a pretty ungenerous reading of the idea. I wouldn't think anyone was pointing to that as a serious objection as opposed to just joking. There are much better objections to the idea than that.
But it is a serious objection. The question is what is the purpose of "banning second jobs". Is it because "an MP should be a full time job on its own"? Or just a measure imposed on a blanket basis to combat improper influences, on the basis that it is too difficult to craft more detailed rules that reasonably target the problem.
Basically, if the former then the implication is that constituents of ministers are receiving second class representation from their MPs. If (by contrast) the latter, then you are accepting that it is possible to do the job of MP in combination with other roles, but just choosing to create no exceptions to reduce potential of corruption even if it means that many perfectly innocent and justifiable second jobs fall by the wayside. Even if in some cases they may in fact enhance the quality of MPs who aren't taking such jobs just to feather their own nest in return for improper influence (or the appearance thereof).
I was taking Hodges point to be about split loyalties. Personally I'm not as worried about hours in the day so much as I am about who an MP represents.
Impressive victory, yet no signs yet that Governor-Elect Youngkins is the next Woodrow Wilson. But you never know . . .
SSI. Do you think Paul Ryan would ever make a return to national politics? He strikes me as a telegenic, articulate, conservative non-Trumpster who could hold the conservative base and might be more than acceptable to Independents and suburban white Moms.
IIRC, his ostensible reason for resigning the Speaker position was family. Presumably his kids are grown now ... (actually, 16, 18, 19 so they will all be adult by 2024)
An arch-corporatist like Paul Ryan is never going to hold the Trumpian base. Nor is someone that wants to slash federal spending on healthcare, childcare and pensions going to win suburban moms.
You would mandate mask wearing in England now. Okay. You would introduce a law that makes it illegal to visit pubs, bars, theatres, clubs and shops without a mask. That’s a very significant imposition.
Would you then also mandate vaccination in England from today?
?
Where did I say ban visiting pubs etc? They aren't banned up here or in Germany or in the rest of the world that hasn't been as daft as England in dropping the requirement to wear masks. England - like the rest of the developed world - should have maintained a mask mandate.
You didn't. you can't put the genie back in the bottle. Politically any new restrictions will be difficult because so many people down there think its all over. Hence the need for Plan B, Plan C, "Jabbed or Christmas gets it" etc etc
You keep asking what I think. I don't think. But I listen to what Whitty, Vallance, Van-Tam, Taylor etc think. I know nothing on this subject, I am not a doctor or a virologist or someone qualified to disagree with them. Unlike you and many on here apparently.
No. Wrong again. I didn’t even suggest you would ban pubs. You said you would impose a mask mandate, which of course would include pubs.
My question to you is would you also mandate vaccinations?
You know my position on this. I'm against vaccine passports so why would I be in favour of pinning people down to vaccinate them?
So whats your point? Here and everywhere else you need to wear a mask indoors in public buildings. You take them off when sat eating or drinking. They remain open and thriving and with less infections which means more people available to work and go out spending money. A "significant imposition" that pretty much everywhere else manages without a fuss.
Ultimately its down to who is the expert here. I am not. You apparently are. Perhaps the NHS should listen to you.
I don’t claim to be an expert, and never have. My view is that we should retain the status quo. I’ve been clear about that. I would mandate neither vaccinations nor masks, although I would advocate a stronger public campaign on vaccinations to whittle down the refuseniks.
I find your position absolutely irrational. You would mandate masks - which are a daily imposition, affect 100% of the population and have only a moderate impact. But you would not mandate vaccinations, which are a minor inconvenience, affect just 5% of the population (the unvaxxed cohort) and have a huge impact. That is a bizarre position in my view. Deeply irrational.
I'm happy to be "irrational" in your eyes. As my position is shared by much of the developed world I'll take your comments under advisement.
The rational view would of course be mandatory vaccinations AND masks until completed. Then again as vaccinations have proven to be ineffective at wholly stopping the virus (unlike some other vaccines for other viruses) we would need to retain masks even with a full mandatory vaccination programme until we had all had sufficient rounds of boosters to stop this thing.
I do love the "moderate impact" lie from you ant-maskers. It doesn't matter how much the scientists prove the significant reduction in transmission gained from the proper wearing of masks, you and your still say "not proven".
So actually what you are saying is that in practice we will maintain masks forever. No thanks.
Forever? We will get to the point where there is sufficient protection in the vaccinations most of us have had to discard them. I'd quite like to burn mine I hate them that much.
Nah we won't. This is going to be endemic and varying just like flu. The idea we will ever be rid of this thing is for the fairies. Might as well get used to it as just another of those many persistent low level threats that we live with.
If it was a low-level threat then fine. It isn't. The NHS are genuinely bricking it over how they get us all through the winter. What does seem clear is that it dissipates significantly over the summer. So we need to have a concerted drive next summer to get booster 3 / 4 into everyone's arms. A tax break or cash incentive for getting it - something. Or we really do end up stuck with this as a real problem not just another winter bug that nobody need be that worried about.
The NHS is bricking it every winter over getting us through. That is a sign of a failed system (and I say that without any commentary on how or why it is failed, we have discussed that enough in other threads).
Now personally I wear a mask in various enclosed spaces as a mark of courtesy to people as I know there are those out there who are still genuinely worried about this stuff. But I would not for a second criticise anyone next to me who didn't wear a mask. That is their personal choice.
On Friday night I was at a Suede concert at Rock City (Fecking amazing by the way). 3,000 people in a tight packed space, all pogoing away, singing at the top of their voices and having a brilliant time with the band absolutely loving every second of it. Not once did I even think about any concern about masks, infections or anything else related to Covid. That is done. I am double jabbed, will get my booster and have recently had Covid caught from my son via school. If, a year or so down the line I catch it again as the effects of all of that have worn off and this time die from it then that is, I am afraid, just life (or death). I refuse now to live my life in fear over something that is now just as likely as me dying from normal flu or a car crash.
Masks, lockdowns and distancing were all vitally important at the time. I agreed with them all and was content to abide by them. That is now done. Life may still be a bit less safe than before November 2019 but I don't care any more. Life is, anyway, too short to worry about such things.
On Tuesday I am going with my son and wife to watch Public Service Broadcasting again at Rock City. It will be his first concert and that is more important to me than any of this stuff.
Well said
As a society we will all, soon, need to move on. Yes there is probably increased risk, and it will persist, but it cannot close down the economy, let alone normal human life
And how bad is that risk, anyhow? If these Pfizer antivirals work as well as promised, and you add them to the efficacy of the vaccines, the CFR of Covid-19 will be about 0.01%.
Unfortunately it may not work like that. The trial of the Pfizer pill was done with unvaccinated subjects, so we don't know the extent of the overlap between the (say) 10% percent for whom the vaccine is ineffective and the 10% for whom the pill is ineffective. It could be anything between 0 and 10%.
For those interested in what lessons the VA gubernatorial holds for the mid-terms next year, I highly recommend viewing this clip of women who voted for Youngkin.
The thesis is that white suburban moms won it for Trump in 2016, for Biden in 2020, and for Youngkin in 2021, and that the reasons this group backed Youngkin this time was:
1. Education of their kids (getting them back in school, finding ways to make up for lost education) was the number 1 issue for them, above all else head and shoulders. The Democrats did not listen and, worse, tried to make the education issue about Trump, and hence make the election national, not local. Worse still, McAuliffe campaigning with the head of the school unions on the final day - the person many mom's deem responsible for keeping their kids out of school - went down like a bucket of sick 2. Infrastructure and other DC issues of the day did not really factor into their voting decision
BUT. Had Trump campaigned for Youngkin, they would have wanted nothing to do with the ticket.
Begs the obvious question - how is Donald Trump going to keep his distance from the GOP candidate for WH24 if the GOP candidate is Donald Trump? Would this even be philosophically possible let alone practically?
The state of play Leader Ratings wise, between Boris and Sir Keir
Dark Blue is Boris Gross Positives, Light Blue his Net Satisfaction, and the same in Red for Sir Keir. As I have been saying, in Electoral Cycles there is ebb and flow - For a long while Sr Keir led on Net Satisfaction, then Boris was walking it, now it it is more level.
You'd never have guessed
I think I can explain Johnson's fluctuating net positives. Perception was, he invented and procured Covid busting vaccines that the rest of our former EU colleagues singularity and as an alliance failed so to do. There was more than a grain of truth in this statement and as the incumbent he rightly took the spoils. He needs something equally impressive to repeat the pattern. I can't imagine what that might be. I wait with bated breath. It's not beyond the realms of possibility that whatever it will be, it might come to pass.
On the other hand Starmer is dreary, but in the near future dreary might be of the moment.
"... in the near future dreary might be of the moment". That has been the hope all along.
I have actually missed out the last YouGov for Sir Keir there, where he scored -40 (20/60)
The women in Labour's Shad Cab have so much more zip and energy about them. I am amazed Labour went for an old, white, man again.
The beauty of the English language is it's a mongrel and there are several ways to say the same things. It problem is it gives us different registers and people get judged unconsciously on the basis of which words they use. For example "to buy" / "to purchase".
That's an interesting point that I'd not consciously thought about but use all the time in my spare-time translation/revision work. I was revising someone's translation yesterday of an Austrian Government statement. The translation was fine, but it routinely used everyday language - abbreviations like "we're" and "it'd", "got" instead of "received", ""thought about" instead of "considered", etc. Without even thinking about it I changed it to the more formal usage everywhere, on the basis that this is what a government would want. Just being old-fashioned, perhaps actulaly making public statements less accessible, or bein gappropriate to the subject?
The Times article on Yorkshire CCC used "checkered" rather than "chequered" - First thing on a Sunday morning I had to "check" the correct spelling. Americanised
It also said that Gary Ballance and Azeem Rafiq often used unsvaoury language to address each other in a jokey way ("Zimbo" and "P-word" I would imagine). Apparently they were good friends and holidayed together at Ballance's place in South Africa. Not what I expected to read given what I had seen reported
The state of play Leader Ratings wise, between Boris and Sir Keir
Dark Blue is Boris Gross Positives, Light Blue his Net Satisfaction, and the same in Red for Sir Keir. As I have been saying, in Electoral Cycles there is ebb and flow - For a long while Sr Keir led on Net Satisfaction, then Boris was walking it, now it it is more level.
You'd never have guessed
I think I can explain Johnson's fluctuating net positives. Perception was, he invented and procured Covid busting vaccines that the rest of our former EU colleagues singularity and as an alliance failed so to do. There was more than a grain of truth in this statement and as the incumbent he rightly took the spoils. He needs something equally impressive to repeat the pattern. I can't imagine what that might be. I wait with bated breath. It's not beyond the realms of possibility that whatever it will be, it might come to pass.
On the other hand Starmer is dreary, but in the near future dreary might be of the moment.
"... in the near future dreary might be of the moment". That has been the hope all along.
I have actually missed out the last YouGov for Sir Keir there, where he scored -40 (20/60)
The women in Labour's Shad Cab have so much more zip and energy about them. I am amazed Labour went for an old, white, man again.
Less of the old. He's younger than me!
59, not that old actually I suppose. I thought he was in his early 60s
The beauty of the English language is it's a mongrel and there are several ways to say the same things. It problem is it gives us different registers and people get judged unconsciously on the basis of which words they use. For example "to buy" / "to purchase".
That's an interesting point that I'd not consciously thought about but use all the time in my spare-time translation/revision work. I was revising someone's translation yesterday of an Austrian Government statement. The translation was fine, but it routinely used everyday language - abbreviations like "we're" and "it'd", "got" instead of "received", ""thought about" instead of "considered", etc. Without even thinking about it I changed it to the more formal usage everywhere, on the basis that this is what a government would want. Just being old-fashioned, perhaps actulaly making public statements less accessible, or bein gappropriate to the subject?
The Times article on Yorkshire CCC used "checkered" rather than "chequered" - First thing on a Sunday morning I had to "check" the correct spelling. Americanised
It also said that Gary Ballance and Azeem Rafiq often used unsvaoury language to address each other in a jokey way ("Zimbo" and "P-word" I would imagine). Apparently they were good friends and holidayed together at Ballance's place in South Africa. Not what I expected to read given what I had seen reported
The reporting on the Ballance 'apology' was amazing.
Actually reading it, what he really thinks is very clear.
The beauty of the English language is it's a mongrel and there are several ways to say the same things. It problem is it gives us different registers and people get judged unconsciously on the basis of which words they use. For example "to buy" / "to purchase".
That's an interesting point that I'd not consciously thought about but use all the time in my spare-time translation/revision work. I was revising someone's translation yesterday of an Austrian Government statement. The translation was fine, but it routinely used everyday language - abbreviations like "we're" and "it'd", "got" instead of "received", ""thought about" instead of "considered", etc. Without even thinking about it I changed it to the more formal usage everywhere, on the basis that this is what a government would want. Just being old-fashioned, perhaps actulaly making public statements less accessible, or bein gappropriate to the subject?
The Times article on Yorkshire CCC used "checkered" rather than "chequered" - First thing on a Sunday morning I had to "check" the correct spelling. Americanised
It also said that Gary Ballance and Azeem Rafiq often used unsvaoury language to address each other in a jokey way ("Zimbo" and "P-word" I would imagine). Apparently they were good friends and holidayed together at Ballance's place in South Africa. Not what I expected to read given what I had seen reported
The reporting on the Ballance 'apology' was amazing.
Actually reading it, what he really thinks is very clear.
Impressive victory, yet no signs yet that Governor-Elect Youngkins is the next Woodrow Wilson. But you never know . . .
SSI. Do you think Paul Ryan would ever make a return to national politics? He strikes me as a telegenic, articulate, conservative non-Trumpster who could hold the conservative base and might be more than acceptable to Independents and suburban white Moms.
IIRC, his ostensible reason for resigning the Speaker position was family. Presumably his kids are grown now ... (actually, 16, 18, 19 so they will all be adult by 2024)
If Paul Ryan manages to get himself elected US Senator from Wisconsin (not that I've seen anything indicating he's even thinking about running) then he MIGHT be in the frame. But would still be a long shot nationally, as most politicos & pundits & perfect voter types consider him to be (for some reason) a loser, often in multiple ways.
BTW, think that one reason that Glen Youngkins did even better in rural Virginia in 2021 than You Know Who in 2020, was because the new Governor-Elect is NOT an out-and-out Putinist, but instead almost your standard model more-or-less mainstream conservative GOP candidate for Governor.
This relative lack of extremism and/or toxicity helped win Youngkins votes, in rural as well as suburban Virginia that were - and perhaps still are - unavailable to The Donald. True across the US but methinks esp. true in the Old Dominion, where respect for decorum & propriety is historically & culturally elevated compared with the coarser, grubbier states to the north (yeah you), south (them!) and west (me).
The beauty of the English language is it's a mongrel and there are several ways to say the same things. It problem is it gives us different registers and people get judged unconsciously on the basis of which words they use. For example "to buy" / "to purchase".
That's an interesting point that I'd not consciously thought about but use all the time in my spare-time translation/revision work. I was revising someone's translation yesterday of an Austrian Government statement. The translation was fine, but it routinely used everyday language - abbreviations like "we're" and "it'd", "got" instead of "received", ""thought about" instead of "considered", etc. Without even thinking about it I changed it to the more formal usage everywhere, on the basis that this is what a government would want. Just being old-fashioned, perhaps actulaly making public statements less accessible, or bein gappropriate to the subject?
The Times article on Yorkshire CCC used "checkered" rather than "chequered" - First thing on a Sunday morning I had to "check" the correct spelling. Americanised
It also said that Gary Ballance and Azeem Rafiq often used unsvaoury language to address each other in a jokey way ("Zimbo" and "P-word" I would imagine). Apparently they were good friends and holidayed together at Ballance's place in South Africa. Not what I expected to read given what I had seen reported
First Lib Dem leaflet going through doors in North Shropshire! Predictably they say they are the main challengers based on the May 21 District Council elections,, amazingly there is a bar chart!!!! . Well wel,l who would have thought that?
The elections held in May this year are a bit more up to date than the general election of 2019. So the Lib Dems are the main challengers to the Tories in North Shropshire. Labour is doomed to come third at best...... Good, innit?
The beauty of the English language is it's a mongrel and there are several ways to say the same things. It problem is it gives us different registers and people get judged unconsciously on the basis of which words they use. For example "to buy" / "to purchase".
That's an interesting point that I'd not consciously thought about but use all the time in my spare-time translation/revision work. I was revising someone's translation yesterday of an Austrian Government statement. The translation was fine, but it routinely used everyday language - abbreviations like "we're" and "it'd", "got" instead of "received", ""thought about" instead of "considered", etc. Without even thinking about it I changed it to the more formal usage everywhere, on the basis that this is what a government would want. Just being old-fashioned, perhaps actulaly making public statements less accessible, or bein gappropriate to the subject?
The Times article on Yorkshire CCC used "checkered" rather than "chequered" - First thing on a Sunday morning I had to "check" the correct spelling. Americanised
It also said that Gary Ballance and Azeem Rafiq often used unsvaoury language to address each other in a jokey way ("Zimbo" and "P-word" I would imagine). Apparently they were good friends and holidayed together at Ballance's place in South Africa. Not what I expected to read given what I had seen reported
The reporting on the Ballance 'apology' was amazing.
Actually reading it, what he really thinks is very clear.
Blimey yeah, I am reading it now. Ballance considered Rafiq his "best mate in cricket", and someone he "cared deeply for".
"this was a situation where best friends said offensive things to each other which, outside of that context, would be considered wholly inappropriate," added Ballance.
"I regret that these exchanges took place but at no time did I believe or understand that it had caused Rafa distress.
"If I had believed that then I would have stopped immediately. He was my best mate in cricket and I cared deeply for him. To my knowledge, it has never been alleged that I reduced Rafa to tears.""
For those interested in what lessons the VA gubernatorial holds for the mid-terms next year, I highly recommend viewing this clip of women who voted for Youngkin.
The thesis is that white suburban moms won it for Trump in 2016, for Biden in 2020, and for Youngkin in 2021, and that the reasons this group backed Youngkin this time was:
1. Education of their kids (getting them back in school, finding ways to make up for lost education) was the number 1 issue for them, above all else head and shoulders. The Democrats did not listen and, worse, tried to make the education issue about Trump, and hence make the election national, not local. Worse still, McAuliffe campaigning with the head of the school unions on the final day - the person many mom's deem responsible for keeping their kids out of school - went down like a bucket of sick 2. Infrastructure and other DC issues of the day did not really factor into their voting decision
BUT. Had Trump campaigned for Youngkin, they would have wanted nothing to do with the ticket.
Begs the obvious question - how is Donald Trump going to keep his distance from the GOP candidate for WH24 if the GOP candidate is Donald Trump? Would this even be philosophically possible let alone practically?
LOL It means that if Trump is the candidate, the GOP most likely loses badly unless (and they are very capable in this regard) the Dems shoot themselves in both feet and through the head.
You would mandate mask wearing in England now. Okay. You would introduce a law that makes it illegal to visit pubs, bars, theatres, clubs and shops without a mask. That’s a very significant imposition.
Would you then also mandate vaccination in England from today?
?
Where did I say ban visiting pubs etc? They aren't banned up here or in Germany or in the rest of the world that hasn't been as daft as England in dropping the requirement to wear masks. England - like the rest of the developed world - should have maintained a mask mandate.
You didn't. you can't put the genie back in the bottle. Politically any new restrictions will be difficult because so many people down there think its all over. Hence the need for Plan B, Plan C, "Jabbed or Christmas gets it" etc etc
You keep asking what I think. I don't think. But I listen to what Whitty, Vallance, Van-Tam, Taylor etc think. I know nothing on this subject, I am not a doctor or a virologist or someone qualified to disagree with them. Unlike you and many on here apparently.
Jesus Christ, Jonathan Van-Tam, the "qualified" man you revere on this issue, famously said "masks are useless, my friend in Hong Kong told me" (this despite everyone in Hong Kong wearing a mask. Odd that)
He's a fricking idiot. You are pathetically grovelling to establishment half-wits. Grow a spine
You misunderstand RP, he wants the government to u-turn on plan b or c or masks regardless of what's actually happening on the ground. If England (and the rest of the UK) has hit herd immunity and we continue to see the current big drops in cases it will prove the UK government position was right (run hot in the summer and autumn, no restrictions) and that Europe was wrong (prevent spread, retain NPIs). In his small world the UK is always wrong and Europe always right. This would upend that as European countries head into lockdown 4 and the UK exits the pandemic entirely.
Just look at his bluster over the supposedly failing booster programme which has now done 10m doses. The facts don't matter to him, just that the UK is always wrong and Europe always right. Weirdly he voted leave. 🤷♂️
Max you are accusing RP of hating the UK and loving Europe just like you were with me. I think we can argue about stuff without resorting to people's lack of patriotism.
Re the 3rd jab it did start as a bit of a shambles but then got turned around pretty impressively. I saw the change in action as I was on the verge of my booster when it was all wrong and with in a couple of weeks they turned it around to become a very effective experience. The 1st two were very successful throughout I thought.
EU lovers do stick together!
The shambles was because the NHS management decided it would take complete control of the third jab rollout rather than leave it to the same people that did the initial roll out. About two weeks ago the Saj handed it all back to the private company and as if by magic people can book appointments easily and get provisioned a month in advance of their expected eligibility. If he hadn't done that we'd be relying on letters and phone calls to get appointments. Well I wouldn't because I'm not allowed one. 😭
I agree with your post, but just because we 'love' the EU doesn't mean we hate the UK. We don't.
I think it does, the EU is a hostile entity to the UK, it is no longer any kind of ally to us.
Och, just as in 39-45 you'll probably be safe enough in neutral Switzerland.
They don't half talk some utter horse manure, deranged.
The state of play Leader Ratings wise, between Boris and Sir Keir
Dark Blue is Boris Gross Positives, Light Blue his Net Satisfaction, and the same in Red for Sir Keir. As I have been saying, in Electoral Cycles there is ebb and flow - For a long while Sr Keir led on Net Satisfaction, then Boris was walking it, now it it is more level.
You'd never have guessed
I think I can explain Johnson's fluctuating net positives. Perception was, he invented and procured Covid busting vaccines that the rest of our former EU colleagues singularity and as an alliance failed so to do. There was more than a grain of truth in this statement and as the incumbent he rightly took the spoils. He needs something equally impressive to repeat the pattern. I can't imagine what that might be. I wait with bated breath. It's not beyond the realms of possibility that whatever it will be, it might come to pass.
On the other hand Starmer is dreary, but in the near future dreary might be of the moment.
"... in the near future dreary might be of the moment". That has been the hope all along.
I have actually missed out the last YouGov for Sir Keir there, where he scored -40 (20/60)
The women in Labour's Shad Cab have so much more zip and energy about them. I am amazed Labour went for an old, white, man again.
Less of the old. He's younger than me!
59, not that old actually I suppose. I thought he was in his early 60s
Comments
At least it wasn't "gotten".
The best subtle misuse of an apostrophe I have seen for ages was on France24 this week in a subtitle:
"France's lagging behind its environmental goals."
https://www.france24.com/en/tv-shows/france-in-focus/20211105-reaching-carbon-neutrality-why-france-lags-behind-on-its-environmental-goals
Both the founder and the description put me in mind of Throbbing Gristle.
As a society we will all, soon, need to move on. Yes there is probably increased risk, and it will persist, but it cannot close down the economy, let alone normal human life
And how bad is that risk, anyhow? If these Pfizer antivirals work as well as promised, and you add them to the efficacy of the vaccines, the CFR of Covid-19 will be about 0.01%.
1 in 10,000 people that get it will die. Pretty bloody tiny, and ten times LESS lethal than flu, a disease we get every winter, and which does not affect society one jot
These are constituency changes in 2019.
Let us assume, again, the CFR of Covid-19 is 0.01% in the face of antivirals and vaccines
What does that mean for deaths? The UK has a population of around 70m. If we are all exposed to Covid in a year that means 7,000 deaths. 0.01%
600,000 Britons die in an average year, anyway
Unless there are horrible new variants - vaccine escape - or the antivirals fail, the ongoing risk of Covid will be absolutely marginal
Yes I know there are numerous queries over the maths - it is fag packet maths - but it gives a sense of the "danger"
I wonder if they'll let him out for Poppymas, maybe with an electronic tag?
I know I keep rabbiting on about it, but that's the key element as I see it: we are putting fewer heart attack victims and stroke victims in ICUs than before due to lack of capacity (if you're in an ICU, you have a one in 25 chance of being ferried to some other ICU somewhere just to get capacity).
Elective surgeries (which are very rarely optional, simply can be timetabled rather than "in there now!") are way behind, so chronic or building acute conditions for quite a few people are going to be untreated - when they are curable or at least susceptible to intervention.
And waits for A&E are at record lengths, and response times for 999 calls and ambulances are not good at all.
I can see there being arguments for limited NPIs to try to reduce pressure from not just covid but from influenza and other transmissible diseases. I may not agree with them, but there is logic in it. My strong preference would be to make the flu jab free for all ages (at something like £10 per jab, we're talking tiny numbers on this scale) and strong encouragement to take it up, together with possible encouragement for working from home (small tax break for companies that do so?).
The way out is to permanently increase capacity. The solution to that is not trivial, but it's the best way out.
As for unreconciled Remainers, this kind of attitude is not uncommon:
https://www.theecoexperts.co.uk/blog/royal-family-carbon-footprint
That amount is about the same as a very small village.
I can't find any odds on nominee and only bookies that list him as winner is BF and I have a bit on at 130.
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/11/05/politics/2022-midterm-lessons-republicans-virginia/index.html
and
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/youngkin-2024-speculation-virginia-election-victory
Basically, if the former then the implication is that constituents of ministers are receiving second class representation from their MPs. If (by contrast) the latter, then you are accepting that it is possible to do the job of MP in combination with other roles, but just choosing to create no exceptions to reduce potential of corruption even if it means that many perfectly innocent and justifiable second jobs fall by the wayside. Even if in some cases they may in fact enhance the quality of MPs who aren't taking such jobs just to feather their own nest in return for improper influence (or the appearance thereof).
Seattle time now 6:01 AM Pacific Standard Time, versus London now 2:01 PM British Quasi Time (or whatever you call it).
Edit - would someone please commit to updating this post hourly to keep it au courant?
Edit2 - see what I mean?!?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWawMg-alKs
The thesis is that white suburban moms won it for Trump in 2016, for Biden in 2020, and for Youngkin in 2021, and that the reasons this group backed Youngkin this time was:
1. Education of their kids (getting them back in school, finding ways to make up for lost education) was the number 1 issue for them, above all else head and shoulders. The Democrats did not listen and, worse, tried to make the education issue about Trump, and hence make the election national, not local. Worse still, McAuliffe campaigning with the head of the school unions on the final day - the person many mom's deem responsible for keeping their kids out of school - went down like a bucket of sick
2. Infrastructure and other DC issues of the day did not really factor into their voting decision
BUT. Had Trump campaigned for Youngkin, they would have wanted nothing to do with the ticket.
Who was the last US Civil War combatant to die of his wounds ?
Impressive victory, yet no signs yet that Governor-Elect Youngkins is the next Woodrow Wilson. But you never know . . .
Wales and NI aren't quite so bad.
Also this from PBer's 2nd favorite news source after BBC
NYT ($) - Democrats Thought They Bottomed Out in Rural, White America. It Wasn’t the Bottom.
Republicans ran up the margins in rural Virginia counties, the latest sign that Democrats, as one lawmaker put it, “continue to tank in small-town America.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/06/us/rural-vote-democrats-virginia.html
Lord knows where we'd all be without you.
And the year ?
Ignoring any intermediate use of steaming products from Goop.
So the entire working Royal Family official travel on this basis is about 80 Emma Thompson vanity weekends.
Dark Blue is Boris Gross Positives, Light Blue his Net Satisfaction, and the same in Red for Sir Keir. As I have been saying, in Electoral Cycles there is ebb and flow - For a long while Sr Keir led on Net Satisfaction, then Boris was walking it, now it it is more level.
You'd never have guessed
It strikes me that that might be an element of what is now happening in white rural America voting for the GOP (as it probably has happened with the black vote nationally the other way - to the Dems): namely that the vote has become so overwhelmingly for the one party that not voting for that party carries with it an element of social opprobrium and exclusion, thereby pushing more and more of the 'stragglers' to vote for the party of overwhelming choice, and piling even more pressure on the remaining hold outs.
Quite the writer, who left his own trail of Civil War accounts and myths (sometimes hard to distinguish between the two).
It also said that Gary Ballance and Azeem Rafiq often used unsvaoury language to address each other in a jokey way ("Zimbo" and "P-word" I would imagine). Apparently they were good friends and holidayed together at Ballance's place in South Africa. Not what I expected to read given what I had seen reported
I think what this pandemic has demonstrated clearly (in the US at least) is the massive under capacity in pulmologists.
Being an MP is NOT a job, it is an elected position.
Office-holders?
On the other hand Starmer is dreary, but in the near future dreary might be of the moment.
I have actually missed out the last YouGov for Sir Keir there, where he scored -40 (20/60)
The women in Labour's Shad Cab have so much more zip and energy about them. I am amazed Labour went for an old, white, man again.
Actually reading it, what he really thinks is very clear.
"this was a situation where best friends said offensive things to each other which, outside of that context, would be considered wholly inappropriate," added Ballance.
"I regret that these exchanges took place but at no time did I believe or understand that it had caused Rafa distress.
"If I had believed that then I would have stopped immediately. He was my best mate in cricket and I cared deeply for him. To my knowledge, it has never been alleged that I reduced Rafa to tears.""
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/59155576
Very different to what I had assumed - I thought as a Rhodesian, Balance was just a racist
Should I have been doing some IT on the side to keep up? I don't think that would really work. Part of the solution was and is the final salary pension scheme, which has given me £10K/year based on 13 years' contributions, which isn't a fortune but a useful buffer. And the Parliamentary expeience opened up new career possibilities - I'm quite sure my post-Parliament jobs were mainly because my employers felt I understood how Ministers and Parliament work.But it's definitely a lottery, and I'm conscious that I've been lucky.
Bottom line, I think, is transparency. If an MP has substantial side-earnings, their opponent is entitled to question whether their minds are on the job. If they can persuade voters that they could do both without harm, fair enough?
IIRC, his ostensible reason for resigning the Speaker position was family. Presumably his kids are grown now ... (actually, 16, 18, 19 so they will all be adult by 2024)
What do you want me to call Sir Keir? I'll do it, I'm sorry. I hate to be such a bad person, you can set the rules
Predictably they say they are the main challengers based on the May 21 District Council elections,, amazingly there is a bar chart!!!! . Well wel,l who would have thought that?
Doesn't read to me like someone who considers themselves justly bang to rights by an innocent injured party.
BTW, think that one reason that Glen Youngkins did even better in rural Virginia in 2021 than You Know Who in 2020, was because the new Governor-Elect is NOT an out-and-out Putinist, but instead almost your standard model more-or-less mainstream conservative GOP candidate for Governor.
This relative lack of extremism and/or toxicity helped win Youngkins votes, in rural as well as suburban Virginia that were - and perhaps still are - unavailable to The Donald. True across the US but methinks esp. true in the Old Dominion, where respect for decorum & propriety is historically & culturally elevated compared with the coarser, grubbier states to the north (yeah you), south (them!) and west (me).