JERUSALEM, Nov 30 (Reuters) - The new coronavirus variant, Omicron, has been detected in two Israeli doctors, one of whom had returned from a conference in London in the past week, a spokesperson for Sheba Medical Center near Tel Aviv confirmed on Tuesday.
The two doctors had received three doses of the Pfizer/BioNtech vaccine, and so far have shown mild COVID-19 symptoms, the hospital said.
The physician who had returned from Britain had probably infected his colleague, it said.
Mr. Eagles, the allegations are very serious, and, coincidentally, totally irrelevant to the Hollywood celebrity who had a gap year as a royal.
Bollocks, this is disgraceful and a million times worse than anything alleged against the Sussexeses.
The Duke of York tried to help a Conservative donor open a bank in Monaco, according to leaked emails.
Prince Andrew corresponded with the palace in Monte Carlo and offered to raise the topic when he met Prince Albert.
The duke risks looking compromised by his relationship with David Rowland whose family bank went on to lend the British Royal £1.5 million and then wrote off the loan.
What offence do you think he is guilty of here? Or do you think it is unwise of him to get involved with any sort of business at all? Even the help-an-entrepreneur scheme backed by KPMG?
The Sussexes have also got themselves involved with a financial advice company in the US, though it is not clear exactly what they are doing. And with the film and TV industry - an industry not exactly noteworthy for its whiter than white behaviour.
Now I would not get involved with the likes of Mr Rowland and I think Andrew and Charles have been very badly advised on some of their associations. But I'd like to understand what exactly you think he has done wrong.
Isn’t the issue that Prince Andrew is essentially being bankrolled by some dodgy businessman?
The royals must be above this thing, and sadly Andrew has forfeited his royal privilege.
Charles and William have a massive job righting the ship.
Given what we know about the funding of Charles's charities, Charles is as guilty of Andrew of really unwise stupid behaviour. His behaviour is worse because he is heir to the throne. Andrew is a nothing.
The Sussexes too are irrelevant. But they are milking their royal status for money with TV companies.
None of them, frankly, are behaving well. I am a little tired of the assumption that in the family only Andrew has behaved badly, that's all
As for Dorries, it is the fact that she appears to be an ignorant and ineffective Minister which is my problem - not that she writes best-selling novels. I am a fan of what some will call low brow novels and think Pinter is a bit overrated, frankly. A very long period of silence is the best response to him.
But the arts and culture, sport and media are really important sectors of our national life and deserve a first rate Minister.
I think the difference is that it’s Andrew’s lifestyle that is being funded, not his charities.
A difference without a distinction to my mind. Charles is frankly abusing his position by allowing his staff to sell access to him. The fact that it was in return for donations to his charities does not improve matters to my mind.
Dubious people were using the royals to launder their reputation.
Charles should have known - or been advised - better.
I *know* you aren’t referring to me @Cyclefree. But somehow I feel properly told off after these posts…
Just seen an elderly-ish Chinese guy cycle past on our busy-ish road with a facemask AND a full-face plastic visor. No cycle helmet though.
Now I'm not one of those who advocates compulsory cycle helmets. Wear one - don't wear one. I don't mind, and am not consistent myself. But I'd suggest he's guarding against the wrong risk.
A bit like people are more likely to die in the car journey to the airport than in a plane crash and yet the fear is of the latter rather than the former.
You're supposed to wear seatbelts on both forms of transport! Oh, well...
Mr. Eagles, the allegations are very serious, and, coincidentally, totally irrelevant to the Hollywood celebrity who had a gap year as a royal.
Bollocks, this is disgraceful and a million times worse than anything alleged against the Sussexeses.
The Duke of York tried to help a Conservative donor open a bank in Monaco, according to leaked emails.
Prince Andrew corresponded with the palace in Monte Carlo and offered to raise the topic when he met Prince Albert.
The duke risks looking compromised by his relationship with David Rowland whose family bank went on to lend the British Royal £1.5 million and then wrote off the loan.
What offence do you think he is guilty of here? Or do you think it is unwise of him to get involved with any sort of business at all? Even the help-an-entrepreneur scheme backed by KPMG?
The Sussexes have also got themselves involved with a financial advice company in the US, though it is not clear exactly what they are doing. And with the film and TV industry - an industry not exactly noteworthy for its whiter than white behaviour.
Now I would not get involved with the likes of Mr Rowland and I think Andrew and Charles have been very badly advised on some of their associations. But I'd like to understand what exactly you think he has done wrong.
Isn’t the issue that Prince Andrew is essentially being bankrolled by some dodgy businessman?
The royals must be above this thing, and sadly Andrew has forfeited his royal privilege.
Charles and William have a massive job righting the ship.
Given what we know about the funding of Charles's charities, Charles is as guilty of Andrew of really unwise stupid behaviour. His behaviour is worse because he is heir to the throne. Andrew is a nothing.
The Sussexes too are irrelevant. But they are milking their royal status for money with TV companies.
None of them, frankly, are behaving well. I am a little tired of the assumption that in the family only Andrew has behaved badly, that's all
As for Dorries, it is the fact that she appears to be an ignorant and ineffective Minister which is my problem - not that she writes best-selling novels. I am a fan of what some will call low brow novels and think Pinter is a bit overrated, frankly. A very long period of silence is the best response to him.
But the arts and culture, sport and media are really important sectors of our national life and deserve a first rate Minister.
I think the difference is that it’s Andrew’s lifestyle that is being funded, not his charities.
A difference without a distinction to my mind. Charles is frankly abusing his position by allowing his staff to sell access to him. The fact that it was in return for donations to his charities does not improve matters to my mind.
Dubious people were using the royals to launder their reputation.
Charles should have known - or been advised - better.
I *know* you aren’t referring to me @Cyclefree. But somehow I feel properly told off after these posts…
If masks are so ineffective, why have medical staff been wearing them for centuries? I mean why do they bother?
Firstly, there’s a big difference between full medical kit worn properly and the hotch potch of medical and cloth masks, bandanas, noses sticking out and incessant fiddling about, taking them off to answer the phone or have a coffee and the rest that comprises the average crowd of people in a mask compulsory environment.
Secondly, covid seems to be evolving to be particularly transmissible through the air, whereas of course in a hospital there is a whole variety of germs and viruses that masks are intended to restrict. In particular you can catch covid from air droplets into your eyes, which are unprotected.
Topping is right that there appears very little obvious evidence that the different mask regimes have had much impact on transmission at all.
I'm also yet to be convinced that masks really make any difference to the overall picture. If they did then COVID rates in Wales wouldn't be higher than those in England, countries like Germany, France, Belgium, Netherlands etc... who held onto mask mandates wouldn't also have had surging case rates in the last few weeks either.
The mask stuff really feels like one of those "let's make sure we were seen to be doing something" kinds of policies geared towards the future inquiry question - "and what precise action did the government take to combat Omicron?" rather than a measure that will make any significant difference to infection, hospitalisation or death rates.
People can bang on about seatbelts or anything else under the sun, we're all going to get COVID at some point, more than once, I'm unsure what masks will particularly do to change that, they certainly won't prevent any infections from occurring and it's not even clear that they will significantly slow the progress of the virus. It's more likely that some people want to feel superior to others, more virtuous and they get off on the idea that those less virtuous than them are killing old people and running over kids because they refused to wear a seatbelt.
Colleague of mine is on her second Covid. She picked it up during lockdown first time out (she thinks from an ATM or petrol station). Not sure about this time.
I believe that second cases don't count in the daily figures. Only the first time someone tests positive does. It isn't very clear how many are catching it twice, but I have seen a couple.
In 16 years of reading and posting on PB I have never known such a significant chunk of posters completely misjudge the public mood as they have with masks and other Covid restrictions.
Polls show massive public support - right across the political spectrum.
And the fact support is so similar irrespective of which party people support shows the vast majority don't see it as a political issue. They just see it as basic common sense.
Yet a very small but vociferous minority have whipped themselves up into a state of hysteria with arguments along the lines of "freedom".
Well we're not free to not pay taxes, we're not free to not even wear seatbelts. We're not even free to choose to die (something which has no impact on anyone else at all).
Masks are such a trivial thing - putting one on for a few minutes when in a high risk situation is just basic human decency, which most people wouldn't dream of treating as some kind of political issue.
Yeah. I get it philosophically. I just don't get the visceral nature of it. To me it is a "no jacket no entry" issue.
I don't particularly mind if an individual shop enforces the rule. I object to the rule being mandated by the state. Public transport is slightly different because it's quasi-state-owned in many circumstances anyway.
If masks are so ineffective, why have medical staff been wearing them for centuries? I mean why do they bother?
Firstly, there’s a big difference between full medical kit worn properly and the hotch potch of medical and cloth masks, bandanas, noses sticking out and incessant fiddling about, taking them off to answer the phone or have a coffee and the rest that comprises the average crowd of people in a mask compulsory environment.
Secondly, covid seems to be evolving to be particularly transmissible through the air, whereas of course in a hospital there is a whole variety of germs and viruses that masks are intended to restrict. In particular you can catch covid from air droplets into your eyes, which are unprotected.
Topping is right that there appears very little obvious evidence that the different mask regimes have had much impact on transmission at all.
I'd like to take credit for that (or any, frankly) incisive analysis but I think that was @MaxPB who covered that last point.
Mr. B2, I'm inclined to agree. Masks appear to be a thing people can do to make themselves feel safer, like rubbing herms before going on a voyage. And about as effective.
If masks are so ineffective, why have medical staff been wearing them for centuries? I mean why do they bother?
Firstly, there’s a big difference between full medical kit worn properly and the hotch potch of medical and cloth masks, bandanas, noses sticking out and incessant fiddling about, taking them off to answer the phone or have a coffee and the rest that comprises the average crowd of people in a mask compulsory environment.
Secondly, covid seems to be evolving to be particularly transmissible through the air, whereas of course in a hospital there is a whole variety of germs and viruses that masks are intended to restrict. In particular you can catch covid from air droplets into your eyes, which are unprotected.
Topping is right that there appears very little obvious evidence that the different mask regimes have had much impact on transmission at all.
I think they do make a difference, however, in the current scenario where the UK is a highly vaccinated and naturally immune country the net benefit of masks is going to be very, very low. We've already accepted that everyone will get COVID, anyone who thinks otherwise is the proverbial Japanese soldier fighting for imperial Japan on the isolated island. It feels as though people are still fighting that battle, that masks, social distancing, vaccine passports and the rest of it can prevent infections when we know that not to be the case, in fact with Omicron it's even less likely if the Rt is actually around the 9-10 we suspect at the moment. Every single person is going to get COVID, whether or not they think they will.
I'm also yet to be convinced that masks really make any difference to the overall picture. If they did then COVID rates in Wales wouldn't be higher than those in England, countries like Germany, France, Belgium, Netherlands etc... who held onto mask mandates wouldn't also have had surging case rates in the last few weeks either.
The mask stuff really feels like one of those "let's make sure we were seen to be doing something" kinds of policies geared towards the future inquiry question - "and what precise action did the government take to combat Omicron?" rather than a measure that will make any significant difference to infection, hospitalisation or death rates.
People can bang on about seatbelts or anything else under the sun, we're all going to get COVID at some point, more than once, I'm unsure what masks will particularly do to change that, they certainly won't prevent any infections from occurring and it's not even clear that they will significantly slow the progress of the virus. It's more likely that some people want to feel superior to others, more virtuous and they get off on the idea that those less virtuous than them are killing old people and running over kids because they refused to wear a seatbelt.
Colleague of mine is on her second Covid. She picked it up during lockdown first time out (she thinks from an ATM or petrol station). Not sure about this time.
I believe that second cases don't count in the daily figures. Only the first time someone tests positive does. It isn't very clear how many are catching it twice, but I have seen a couple.
Shouldn't we be counting reinfections somewhere really ?
I mean when there's 10.2 million official confirmed individual people recorded with it, that's over 1/7th of the population. If it goes on for long enough, we could hit 68.7 million, then there'll be noone new left to infect - but Covid might well still be going on... The total covid case count would be useful info.
If masks are so ineffective, why have medical staff been wearing them for centuries? I mean why do they bother?
There was a good segment on five live on Sunday called "Teach me a lesson".
In the mid nineteenth century a Hungarian Dr Semmelweis tried to understand why there were far more deaths in childbirth when doctors delivered a baby compared to when it was delivered by a nurse. Turns out the doctors were doing autopsies but did not realise they had to wash and sterilise their hands afterwards!
Intriguingly doctors in general did not like the stigma of being considered dirty, and instead of accepting the need to wash, condemned his findings, he lost his job and it took many more years before the changes in hygiene became widespread. He then later died of sepsis!
It just doesn't sit well for me. A bit like non-religious people getting married in church, and mentioning God in their vows, when they don't believe in God. Bit fake.
Yeah, I did that. Do I get let off because I did it for my wife and she is a believer? Our children are baptised, too.
(I do also know and get on with the vicar really well and the pre-marriage church workshops did change some things for us - complete pooling of finances where we previously had joint account only for shared bills)
Personal choice. I could not do it as I would have been making the most important commitment of my life and lying for part of it. Happily for me my wife thinks the same as me. You made your choice to make your wife happy.
I don't think I had to say anything I didn't believe in my vows. Said Amen a few times in the service, of course. The vicar is aware of my lack of belief (that was important to me).
Baptism was trickier, as I had to commit to bringing the children up in the family of God etc, but I'm subcontracting that to my wife. They know our differences in belief.
My wife also not a churchgoer, massive hypocrite, I'd say
Anyway, massive tangent so I'll stop now.
You could have opted for the "Blessing"; that's what it is there for .
Intrigued by this - surely just as hypocritical on my part (if I was hypocritical) to ask for God's blessing after the event?
It just doesn't sit well for me. A bit like non-religious people getting married in church, and mentioning God in their vows, when they don't believe in God. Bit fake.
Yeah, I did that. Do I get let off because I did it for my wife and she is a believer? Our children are baptised, too.
(I do also know and get on with the vicar really well and the pre-marriage church workshops did change some things for us - complete pooling of finances where we previously had joint account only for shared bills)
Personal choice. I could not do it as I would have been making the most important commitment of my life and lying for part of it. Happily for me my wife thinks the same as me. You made your choice to make your wife happy.
I don't think I had to say anything I didn't believe in my vows. Said Amen a few times in the service, of course. The vicar is aware of my lack of belief (that was important to me).
Baptism was trickier, as I had to commit to bringing the children up in the family of God etc, but I'm subcontracting that to my wife. They know our differences in belief.
My wife also not a churchgoer, massive hypocrite, I'd say
Anyway, massive tangent so I'll stop now.
You could have opted for the "Blessing"; that's what it is there for .
Intrigued by this - surely just as hypocritical on my part (if I was hypocritical) to ask for God's blessing after the event?
Horses for courses.
A baptism involves the parents making promises about how they will raise their child, and some expectations.
A blessing / thanksgiving does not.
CofE would see it as ministering to the more core, and fringe communities, offering options for both, as the Church sees itself as having a relation to the whole community.
Classic Anglican theology sees infant baptism as placing expectation on the community as to the child's upbringing, with the child confirming or denying that when they are able to decide for themselves.
Baptists by contrast would see the decision as delayed until "stage 2".
You also of course get to have your own view about "God / god", and the opportunity to think and talk about it, and about parenthood, first. Suspect that you will also get the chance to write parts of your own service, should you wish.
So if you are uncomfortable with any commitment, but still want a ceremony of some sort to mark the point in your family's life, then a Thanksgiving is one thing to go for. It can also be a convenient way to manage expectations from family with feeling too hypocritical .
Or you could roll your own in your garden, or get some wiccans in a copse with a BHS celebrant.
I'm also yet to be convinced that masks really make any difference to the overall picture. If they did then COVID rates in Wales wouldn't be higher than those in England, countries like Germany, France, Belgium, Netherlands etc... who held onto mask mandates wouldn't also have had surging case rates in the last few weeks either.
The mask stuff really feels like one of those "let's make sure we were seen to be doing something" kinds of policies geared towards the future inquiry question - "and what precise action did the government take to combat Omicron?" rather than a measure that will make any significant difference to infection, hospitalisation or death rates.
People can bang on about seatbelts or anything else under the sun, we're all going to get COVID at some point, more than once, I'm unsure what masks will particularly do to change that, they certainly won't prevent any infections from occurring and it's not even clear that they will significantly slow the progress of the virus. It's more likely that some people want to feel superior to others, more virtuous and they get off on the idea that those less virtuous than them are killing old people and running over kids because they refused to wear a seatbelt.
Colleague of mine is on her second Covid. She picked it up during lockdown first time out (she thinks from an ATM or petrol station). Not sure about this time.
I believe that second cases don't count in the daily figures. Only the first time someone tests positive does. It isn't very clear how many are catching it twice, but I have seen a couple.
Shouldn't we be counting reinfections somewhere really ?
I mean when there's 10.2 million official confirmed individual people recorded with it, that's over 1/7th of the population. If it goes on for long enough, we could hit 68.7 million, then there'll be noone new left to infect - but Covid might well still be going on... The total covid case count would be useful info.
We don't have data from the first wave but the ONS does have a series for England with non-overlapping dates for COVID infections.
Yes, interesting thread. Thanks for posting. What there certainly doesn't seem to be is any evidence that it's any worse than delta (so far). Indeed, as cases are outpacing delta, but admissions are only in line with beta, that provides some early evidence that it might be milder.
Shamelessly cherry picked from the thread:
• For cases to be rising faster while admissions are on same pace may hint at a lower proportion of severe disease
• Share of patients in ICU currently much lower than same stage of Delta wave, but may change if cases spread from being mainly young. Or may not, which would suggest T and B cells kicking in 🤞
Crucial bit of information missing. Previous wave was basically no vaccination and first time infection.
Currently the spread is overwhelming in 10-30 age group, especially students, in which vaccination and / or immunity from previous infection is very high.
Now hospitalisation is currently overwhelmingly unvaxxed, but remember these are very young people who shouldn't be in hospital anyway.
Summary from SA academic who specialises in this....very infectious, vaccine protection might well be low / very easy to be reinfected. Unknown at the moment the result of that in terms of severity too early to judge from hospital numbers.
Well maybe, but you are prone to the pessimistic and I am simply reporting what the thread says. There's more in the attendant FT article, which I can't post because of copyright – but well worth looking at the quotes from Wenseleers, Jassat and Pillay.
Contrary to what "Charles" said, the United States abolished the slave trade at the same time Britain did, in 1807, though the American law did not take effect until January 1st, 1808, for Constitutional reasons: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_abolition_of_slavery_and_serfdom. There was, if I recall correctly, just 7 days between the laws passage in the two nations, so the actions were, apparently, independent.
In 1820, the United States navy began assisting Britain's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Africa_Squadron, in suppressing the slave trade. The 1842 Webster-Ashburton Treaty, among other things, provided for better coordination between the two navies.
(After 1820, the United States navy often acted as a junior partner to the Royal Navy around the world, though anyone who said so at the time might have been challenged to a duel by an American naval officer.)
I wonder what people here would be saying if Corbyn had advocated civil disobedience for laws he didn't like
Depends what the law is. I think masks are utterly pointless unless you're in hard lockdown and doing everything possible to get cases under control. For that reason, I will not wear one no matter what the idiots in Westminster say.
Really??? Whether to obey the law depends on your view on whether it's a good idea? "The idiots in Westminster" are our democratically-elected government, specifically elected to pass laws that apply to us all. I was fine with talking on my mobile while driving and did a huge amount of work that way, and genuinely don't think it distracted me - less than fiddling with the car radio. The only reason I no longer do it is that a law has been passed. Should I ignore it?
Of course we should disobey laws we believe are total nonsense. All the people who for example think cannabis shouldn't be criminalised do it everytime they light up.
For example if our elected representatives to use an extreme example passed a law saying you had to slap a ginger haired person everytime you saw one would you really do it? I know I wouldn't. To many of us mask wearing seems pretty much as pointless.
No, I agree with civil disobedience if the law instructs me to harm others, but it's a big deal, and pointlessness is not remotely close to that threshold - in fact I'd argue that it trivialises what is an important stand on principle when invoked to prevent real atrocities. What was striking was tlg's casualness - "don'r agree with those idiots so I'm not gonna do it".
Mr. Eagles, the allegations are very serious, and, coincidentally, totally irrelevant to the Hollywood celebrity who had a gap year as a royal.
Bollocks, this is disgraceful and a million times worse than anything alleged against the Sussexeses.
The Duke of York tried to help a Conservative donor open a bank in Monaco, according to leaked emails.
Prince Andrew corresponded with the palace in Monte Carlo and offered to raise the topic when he met Prince Albert.
The duke risks looking compromised by his relationship with David Rowland whose family bank went on to lend the British Royal £1.5 million and then wrote off the loan.
There is no good commercial reason for lending to princes
Does he have to declare a written off loan as income ? If not, there's a good tax avoidance reason.
I don’t know but would be surprised.
If anything it would be caught under GAAR I suspect. But I’ve never delved into the murky world of tax structuring because I have to be like Caesar’s wife.
Mr. Eagles, the allegations are very serious, and, coincidentally, totally irrelevant to the Hollywood celebrity who had a gap year as a royal.
Bollocks, this is disgraceful and a million times worse than anything alleged against the Sussexeses.
The Duke of York tried to help a Conservative donor open a bank in Monaco, according to leaked emails.
Prince Andrew corresponded with the palace in Monte Carlo and offered to raise the topic when he met Prince Albert.
The duke risks looking compromised by his relationship with David Rowland whose family bank went on to lend the British Royal £1.5 million and then wrote off the loan.
There is no good commercial reason for lending to princes
Does he have to declare a written off loan as income ? If not, there's a good tax avoidance reason.
I don’t know but would be surprised.
If anything it would be caught under GAAR I suspect. But I’ve never delved into the murky world of tax structuring because I have to be like Caesar’s wife.
Mr. Eagles, the allegations are very serious, and, coincidentally, totally irrelevant to the Hollywood celebrity who had a gap year as a royal.
Bollocks, this is disgraceful and a million times worse than anything alleged against the Sussexeses.
The Duke of York tried to help a Conservative donor open a bank in Monaco, according to leaked emails.
Prince Andrew corresponded with the palace in Monte Carlo and offered to raise the topic when he met Prince Albert.
The duke risks looking compromised by his relationship with David Rowland whose family bank went on to lend the British Royal £1.5 million and then wrote off the loan.
There is no good commercial reason for lending to princes
{Fugger has entered the chat}
Indeed, there is a long history that suggests that lending money to Royals (of any country) is a very good way to ensure you never see that money again.
Indeed. You have very little ability to enforce security. And they know that.
Anecdotal - All two staffed and three out of four staff masked up when I got my lunch 20 minutes ago from the Tesco Fuel shop. Complete 180 compared to last time I went in.
Never like doing it but sometimes you have to so i broke the law today by not wearing a facemask over my face in a shop. Glad somebody else in there with me was also doing. The state has no right to impose dictaks like this and especially so that is has next to no consequence in controlling a pandemic
If you have Covid, and someone in the shop gets sick and dies as a result of you being in there, it could be that you've killed them.
Answer this then - covid willl be here for the rest of your lifetime - when will your argument not hold sway then - are you going to support the govenment telling people to wear masks forever?
Do you also drive without an MOT? Insurance perhaps?
Is this going to be a never ending survey of which laws I obey and which i dont? It was once the law in Germany that Jews had to wear a yellow star- Are you telling me laws have to be obeyed because they are well the law? Cue some knob talking about godwins law no doubt
Just for the record, "Godwin's Law" hasn't actually been passed by Parliament, so you don't have to follow it - and certainly not as assiduously as you did in the above post.
True.
On the other hand, the Law of Gravity is viciously enforced. With no discretion.
I know it's only a subset of Conservative activists, but to have Truss, Frost, Trevelyan and Dorries as the top four suggests they have lost the plot.
I'd think the same if an equivalent Labour survey in 2019 had Pidcock, Burgon, Abbott and Lavery in the top four positions - which was plausible back then.
Two out of four have done an absolutely fantastic job.
The third I'm not sure about, the fourth is simply amusing because of how apoplectic she drives opponents.
Cabinets are a team building exercise and most PMs seem to find it useful to have a Minister for stupidity who makes everyone else feel better about themselves. Its a morale thing, I think. After the departure of Williamson there was a vacancy and Mad Nad seems destined to fill it.
Culture is something Britain is very good at. An example of soft power. Media is vital in the world we live in. And sport too matters.
All 3 deserve a Cabinet Minister of real clout, intelligence and standing not the office joke. This government has cut spending on arts education thus styming opportunities for the young. Culture is not an optional extra. It is vital to a rounded education, an intelligent nation, a country's well being, a country which punches above its weight. That a government led by a man who boasts about his knowledge of the classics and had one of the best educations money can buy should appoint an ignorant dimwit like Dorries to the role is depressing.
Why do we no longer aspire to anything beyond the second-rate at best?
As for the Shadow Cabinet, pleased about Streeting and Philippson. Let's see what they make of their new roles. Cooper has been forensic in her demolition of Patel in Select Committees. But she now has the infinitely harder task of coming up with a migration/refugee policy which is both popular and effective. Is she up to it?
As for Lammy, am in 2 minds about him. He can be very good on some things. But he can also be an arse on others. His recent statements about womens bodies and women "hoarding rights" like dinosaurs has marked him down considerably in my eyes.
Starmer has not been good at choosing people so far. His initial instincts have been poor and he has had to make quite a few changes in 2 years. That is not a great sign of someone who is good at assessing people. May be it is because he felt forced to do so. I'm not sure about that. Still let's see.
Yet Dorries is a best selling author.
It may not be an aspect of culture some are interested in but culture should encompass the widest range of things and isn't only for those with a knowledge of the classics and expensive educations.
Of course - but do you really claim that Dorries' interest in culture is anywhere near so broad ?
I wouldn't know and don't care.
But it reeks of the snobbishness which considers Harold Pinter more important than Coronation Street.
Many of the things now regarded as cultural exports from the Beatles to football were looked down on not long ago.
And it still happens - Iron Maiden have been a huge UK cultural export for decades but you'll struggle to find references to them in the media's cultural sections.
And if you go back to Shakespeare wasn't he sneered at for having 'little Latin and no Greek' ? Or you might say for not having a broad interest in culture.
Nadine doesn’t need to be Alan Yentob. But she could start by not calling journalists “fuckwits” on Twitter.
She also appears - judging by her comments about Ch 4 - to not have the slightest clue what she’s doing.
Exaggeration?
I think she called one journo - James O'Brien - a "public school fuckwit", which seems fair enough and very defensible for accuracy in the knockabout commentary stakes.
That might be your level for ministerial gravitas, it’s not mine.
Given that Dorries has had a fairly dedicated band of abuse-trolls for many years, I'm inclined to cut her some slack on stuff she tweeted 5 years ago.
Also, swapping out "James O Brien" for "journalists" does not meet my level for having a go at a politician ;-) .
Sample: "Many just cannot swallow that. It seems inconceivable that a white cop would snuff out the life of a white guy in the same way. What Chauvin did seems to recapitulate so much about how white people and black people have always interacted in this country.
But our sense here is impressionistic, and the impressionistic is no more valuable here than it is in whites’ impressions that a black person is “suspicious” or underqualified or angry or is less susceptible to pain.
And the simple truth is that a white guy named Tony Timpa died under very similar conditions at the hands of the cops a few years before Floyd did."
And that killing was also recorded. And you find the recording with a simple search.
"Mainstream" journalists in the United States are obsessed with race and, from what I can tell from here, that obsession is, if anything, amplified by the Guardian and the BBC, and other news organizations inclined to be bigoted toward the United States.
Anecdotal - All two staffed and three out of four staff masked up when I got my lunch 20 minutes ago from the Tesco Fuel shop. Complete 180 compared to last time I went in.
Never like doing it but sometimes you have to so i broke the law today by not wearing a facemask over my face in a shop. Glad somebody else in there with me was also doing. The state has no right to impose dictaks like this and especially so that is has next to no consequence in controlling a pandemic
If you have Covid, and someone in the shop gets sick and dies as a result of you being in there, it could be that you've killed them.
Answer this then - covid willl be here for the rest of your lifetime - when will your argument not hold sway then - are you going to support the govenment telling people to wear masks forever?
Do you also drive without an MOT? Insurance perhaps?
Is this going to be a never ending survey of which laws I obey and which i dont? It was once the law in Germany that Jews had to wear a yellow star- Are you telling me laws have to be obeyed because they are well the law? Cue some knob talking about godwins law no doubt
In a democracy individuals should actively resist certain laws because the laws are wrong. Other laws will be widely ignored because they are trivial and burdensome. Other laws will be widely ignored through ignorance.
Not sure why any of that is vaguely controversial so it is unfair you are getting grief on that.
However whether a legal obligation to wear a mask in certain public spaces, which is not enforced anyway, is something worthy of getting so upset about is a different matter.
I think the state telling you to cover your face is a pretty big deal, actually. I understand the reason for it, though I'm somewhat sceptical. But understanding the reason doesn't make it a small thing. We used to look down on this sort of thing when Middle Eastern states made their women do it.
Doing it for reasons of modesty would be a big issue. Doing it for 3 weeks whilst we wait to see if a new disease is particularly bad? Nah.
No, I don't think the reason for it changes how big a deal it is.
I view it as like a benefit/cost ratio.
The cost in liberty to the state telling you to cover your face is massive. To me, if the benefit is 'because God says' then the benefit is zero and so the benefit/cost ratio is zero divided by a large number i.e. zero. I accept for the purposes of this argument that other see the benefits differently. So there had better be a bloody good benefit to justfiy the liberty cost in being required to cover your face. As it happens, it is claimed that the benefit is significant - i.e. it's stops a potentially deadly disease spreading. So it needs some consideration. My view is that a) the evidence is somewhat equivocal on this, and b) in a population with a high level of antibodies the benefit is in any case lower, so it doesn't meet my (admittedly unusally high) bar for being enough to merit the costs. Because mandating masking remains a big deal.
If masks are so ineffective, why have medical staff been wearing them for centuries? I mean why do they bother?
Different settings. We are comparing a clinical operation room with strict protocols, with Joe/Joanna Public who are often putting the mask on as a token, taking it off when going outside, wearing it with the nose exposed, or as a chin warmer.
There is no doubt that correctly worn masks work. What we have asked the public to do is not that.
Its obvious that the big levers are closing schools and WFH and if that fails full fat lockdown. All the other stuff really is Covid Theatre. Its also sadly extremely divisive. Many people cannot see the problem with masks, but many, if not most, actively hate them. I wear them where requested, and am happy to do so, mainly to help reassure more vulnerable people. I don't think they are keeping me any safer. The three vaccine shots are doing that.
It's strange. It's both a horrifically fascinating and politically relevant combination. I feel strangely drawn to watching it, like a 1970's crime drama shot in seedy and smoke-filled back rooms.
Sounds great. Like watching two snails engaging in foreplay
IIRC (and I have no idea why I would know this) snail foreplay (an indeed copulation) is a weirdly protracted affair.
I also recall (and this sounds very dubious now I come to write it) that snails (or perhaps slugs) can choose to reproduce sexually or asexually; generally those north of Hardian's wall choose the latter while those to the south choose the former. Probably needs some corroboration before you go citing it in any papers you might write, now I come to think about it in more detail.
Sounds great. Like watching two snails engaging in foreplay
IIRC (and I have no idea why I would know this) snail foreplay (an indeed copulation) is a weirdly protracted affair.
I also recall (and this sounds very dubious now I come to write it) that snails (or perhaps slugs) can choose to reproduce sexually or asexually; generally those north of Hardian's wall choose the latter while those to the south choose the former. Probably needs some corroboration before you go citing it in any papers you might write, now I come to think about it in more detail.
A little known fact but if anyone would know about snail copulation it would be on PB
Anecdotal - All two staffed and three out of four staff masked up when I got my lunch 20 minutes ago from the Tesco Fuel shop. Complete 180 compared to last time I went in.
Never like doing it but sometimes you have to so i broke the law today by not wearing a facemask over my face in a shop. Glad somebody else in there with me was also doing. The state has no right to impose dictaks like this and especially so that is has next to no consequence in controlling a pandemic
If you have Covid, and someone in the shop gets sick and dies as a result of you being in there, it could be that you've killed them.
You really are sanctimonious aren't you.
The common cold can kill, the flu can kill. If you get behind the wheel and are in an accident it can kill. If you're riding a bus, that can kill.
There's risk in life. Is your solution we all develop agoraphobia and live off Amazon for the rest of our lives?
No, my solution is that we start with the science that masks work, and that for most people wearing them in a shop is no real imposition at all. You might save a life by doing it, so it's worth considering. I'm not the one putting spotty teenage libertarian ideology over the lives of strangers, and what I have said is exactly true. If you give someone Covid because Ideology Says No, and they die, then you killed them. Can you live with that? That's up to you. But as a statement of fact, it's true.
Masks are a real imposition so everything that follows did so from a false premise.
Comments
Secondly, covid seems to be evolving to be particularly transmissible through the air, whereas of course in a hospital there is a whole variety of germs and viruses that masks are intended to restrict. In particular you can catch covid from air droplets into your eyes, which are unprotected.
Topping is right that there appears very little obvious evidence that the different mask regimes have had much impact on transmission at all.
Public transport is slightly different because it's quasi-state-owned in many circumstances anyway.
I mean when there's 10.2 million official confirmed individual people recorded with it, that's over 1/7th of the population. If it goes on for long enough, we could hit 68.7 million, then there'll be noone new left to infect - but Covid might well still be going on...
The total covid case count would be useful info.
In the mid nineteenth century a Hungarian Dr Semmelweis tried to understand why there were far more deaths in childbirth when doctors delivered a baby compared to when it was delivered by a nurse. Turns out the doctors were doing autopsies but did not realise they had to wash and sterilise their hands afterwards!
Intriguingly doctors in general did not like the stigma of being considered dirty, and instead of accepting the need to wash, condemned his findings, he lost his job and it took many more years before the changes in hygiene became widespread. He then later died of sepsis!
Intrigued by this - surely just as hypocritical on my part (if I was hypocritical) to ask for God's blessing after the event?
Njojjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjojjjjjjj jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj Horses for courses.
A baptism involves the parents making promises about how they will raise their child, and some expectations.
A blessing / thanksgiving does not.
CofE would see it as ministering to the more core, and fringe communities, offering options for both, as the Church sees itself as having a relation to the whole community.
Classic Anglican theology sees infant baptism as placing expectation on the community as to the child's upbringing, with the child confirming or denying that when they are able to decide for themselves.
Baptists by contrast would see the decision as delayed until "stage 2".
You also of course get to have your own view about "God / god", and the opportunity to think and talk about it, and about parenthood, first. Suspect that you will also get the chance to write parts of your own service, should you wish.
So if you are uncomfortable with any commitment, but still want a ceremony of some sort to mark the point in your family's life, then a Thanksgiving is one thing to go for. It can also be a convenient way to manage expectations from family with feeling too hypocritical
Or you could roll your own in your garden, or get some wiccans in a copse with a BHS celebrant.
In 1820, the United States navy began assisting Britain's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Africa_Squadron, in suppressing the slave trade. The 1842 Webster-Ashburton Treaty, among other things, provided for better coordination between the two navies.
(After 1820, the United States navy often acted as a junior partner to the Royal Navy around the world, though anyone who said so at the time might have been challenged to a duel by an American naval officer.)
If anything it would be caught under GAAR I suspect. But I’ve never delved into the murky world of tax structuring because I have to be like Caesar’s wife.
And it should have been "without feeling too hypocritical".
On the other hand, the Law of Gravity is viciously enforced. With no discretion.
Also, swapping out "James O Brien" for "journalists" does not meet my level for having a go at a politician ;-) .
Sample: "Many just cannot swallow that. It seems inconceivable that a white cop would snuff out the life of a white guy in the same way. What Chauvin did seems to recapitulate so much about how white people and black people have always interacted in this country.
But our sense here is impressionistic, and the impressionistic is no more valuable here than it is in whites’ impressions that a black person is “suspicious” or underqualified or angry or is less susceptible to pain.
And the simple truth is that a white guy named Tony Timpa died under very similar conditions at the hands of the cops a few years before Floyd did."
And that killing was also recorded. And you find the recording with a simple search.
"Mainstream" journalists in the United States are obsessed with race and, from what I can tell from here, that obsession is, if anything, amplified by the Guardian and the BBC, and other news organizations inclined to be bigoted toward the United States.
I view it as like a benefit/cost ratio.
The cost in liberty to the state telling you to cover your face is massive. To me, if the benefit is 'because God says' then the benefit is zero and so the benefit/cost ratio is zero divided by a large number i.e. zero. I accept for the purposes of this argument that other see the benefits differently.
So there had better be a bloody good benefit to justfiy the liberty cost in being required to cover your face. As it happens, it is claimed that the benefit is significant - i.e. it's stops a potentially deadly disease spreading. So it needs some consideration. My view is that a) the evidence is somewhat equivocal on this, and b) in a population with a high level of antibodies the benefit is in any case lower, so it doesn't meet my (admittedly unusally high) bar for being enough to merit the costs. Because mandating masking remains a big deal.
There is no doubt that correctly worn masks work. What we have asked the public to do is not that.
Its obvious that the big levers are closing schools and WFH and if that fails full fat lockdown. All the other stuff really is Covid Theatre. Its also sadly extremely divisive. Many people cannot see the problem with masks, but many, if not most, actively hate them. I wear them where requested, and am happy to do so, mainly to help reassure more vulnerable people. I don't think they are keeping me any safer. The three vaccine shots are doing that.
This thread should now be less popular than Boris
I also recall (and this sounds very dubious now I come to write it) that snails (or perhaps slugs) can choose to reproduce sexually or asexually; generally those north of Hardian's wall choose the latter while those to the south choose the former.
Probably needs some corroboration before you go citing it in any papers you might write, now I come to think about it in more detail.