Anyone interested in posting their predictions for the North Shropshire by-election? We had one 2 weeks ago for Old Bexley & Sidcup, with NP-MP compiling the entries on that occasion.
Very strong rebuke from Chris Whitty to people who say Covid lockdowns have somehow set back cancer or other care - common trope in right-wing press. Whitty says they have "no understanding of health", and that the claim is a "complete inversion of reality". https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/1471437931118219264/photo/1
Did Whitty really say common trope in right wing press ?
Sorry but Whitty is talking bollocks. The official figures from the NHS show that waiting times for cancer diagnosis and treatment have increased massively, as have treatments for just about everything else - a lot of it due to people being unable to see their GPs during lockdowns.
I have a lot of time for Whitty generally but on this he is clearly losing the plot.
Because of the pandemic. Not because of lockdowns. Lockdowns -> less COVID pressure -> more NHS capacity -> more ability to treat cancer/other care.
Wrong. Social distancing -> Less NHS capacity -> Less ability to treat cancer/other care.
Had there been no lockdown, there'd have been less capacity reductions, more deaths, and the NHS would now be running at full capacity and with less demand as there's zero demand from the dead.
Very strong rebuke from Chris Whitty to people who say Covid lockdowns have somehow set back cancer or other care - common trope in right-wing press. Whitty says they have "no understanding of health", and that the claim is a "complete inversion of reality". https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/1471437931118219264/photo/1
I think he's on a sticky wicket here as it's undeniable that cases of undiagnosed cancer had gone up through the pandemic and that will eventually be seen in the death figures of many of those patients.
On the other hand you can argue that if the NHS is overwhelmed by Covid people currently being treated will suffer as they will have their treatment curtailed... but I think he is wrong to so blithely dismiss those people whose loved ones have died from late and undiagnosed cancers during the pandemic.
I think you've misunderstood him. He's not saying that there hasn't been a serious knock-on effect from the pandemic on cancer and other care, he's saying that that wasn't caused by lockdowns, it was caused by the effect of the pandemic on the NHS (staff shortages, reduced capacity etc). The lockdowns weren't the cause of the problem - quite the opposite, they have helped reduce that effect by limiting the number of Covid cases at the peaks.
Again, Whitty was stating the bleedin' obvious. But it seems someone has to.
Completely agree, it is bizarre how people can't see this causal chain. Lockdowns -> less COVID -> less pressure on NHS -> more capacity to treat other diseases.
There is no such thing as less Covid. We're all going to get Covid. Chris Whitty said that.
Social distancing -> Less capacity -> more pressure on NHS -> less capacity to treat other diseases.
Abolish social distancing in the NHS, abolish isolation for those who are infected, and get on with the job of treating other diseases. Stop trying to prevent people from being infected with a virus they've already had three vaccines for and that 99% would survive with zero vaccines.
Lockdowns reduce COVID pressure in 2 ways: 1) not everyone gets COVID at once 2) shifts cases until after we have more vaccination protection and better therapeutics
Pippa Crerar @PippaCrerar · 36m Important. Whitty warns further restrictions may be needed dependent on data due between Xmas/NY.
===
As I have posted before, it's lockdown on 3rd Jan. Brace.
What's the point? Supposedly with its doubling rate we'll have all had it by Christmas Day.
So what's the point in locking down in January, once we've all had it? And if we haven't all had it, then clearly its not doubling as claimed.
We are already in a de facto lockdown as people's behaviour reacts to Whitty and his colleagues
You may be. But I can still:
1) run my business 2) see friends 3) have a pint
You see the difference? Restrictions aren't necessary.
Of course you can but you may soon be on your own
Hyperbole much?
There will be millions of people happily going about their days. Just as there will be millions complaining that the government should try and control something which is entirely out of its control.
The vast majority will fall somewhere in between. But I don't want to be stopped from going about my life because some people can't accept the realities.
It was announced in the HOC that he and his colleagues are holding a Zoom meeting with the hospitality industry this pm
Thank fuck. Will they patch Geoffrey in from the BVI?
I think this is gearing up to be his Dole falls off the stage moment. The three big stories are Covid (medical aspects) Covid (financial) and inflation, the PM is being as useful as a ruptured colostomy bag, his successors are manoeuvring like it was The Death of Stalin and little Rishi is Surfin' USA.
Very strong rebuke from Chris Whitty to people who say Covid lockdowns have somehow set back cancer or other care - common trope in right-wing press. Whitty says they have "no understanding of health", and that the claim is a "complete inversion of reality". https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/1471437931118219264/photo/1
I think he's on a sticky wicket here as it's undeniable that cases of undiagnosed cancer had gone up through the pandemic and that will eventually be seen in the death figures of many of those patients.
On the other hand you can argue that if the NHS is overwhelmed by Covid people currently being treated will suffer as they will have their treatment curtailed... but I think he is wrong to so blithely dismiss those people whose loved ones have died from late and undiagnosed cancers during the pandemic.
I think you've misunderstood him. He's not saying that there hasn't been a serious knock-on effect from the pandemic on cancer and other care, he's saying that that wasn't caused by lockdowns, it was caused by the effect of the pandemic on the NHS (staff shortages, reduced capacity etc). The lockdowns weren't the cause of the problem - quite the opposite, they have helped reduce that effect by limiting the number of Covid cases at the peaks.
Again, Whitty was stating the bleedin' obvious. But it seems someone has to.
Completely agree, it is bizarre how people can't see this causal chain. Lockdowns -> less COVID -> less pressure on NHS -> more capacity to treat other diseases.
There is no such thing as less Covid. We're all going to get Covid. Chris Whitty said that.
Social distancing -> Less capacity -> more pressure on NHS -> less capacity to treat other diseases.
Abolish social distancing in the NHS, abolish isolation for those who are infected, and get on with the job of treating other diseases. Stop trying to prevent people from being infected with a virus they've already had three vaccines for and that 99% would survive with zero vaccines.
Lockdowns reduce COVID pressure in 2 ways: 1) not everyone gets COVID at once 2) shifts cases until after we have more vaccination protection and better therapeutics
Except we've had two years of reduced capacity due to distancing.
Had we had no lockdown we would have ripped off the bandage, buried the dead and had full capacity now.
Anyone interested in posting their predictions for the North Shropshire by-election? We had one 2 weeks ago for Old Bexley & Sidcup, with NP-MP compiling the entries on that occasion.
Anyone interested in posting their predictions for the North Shropshire by-election? We had one 2 weeks ago for Old Bexley & Sidcup, with NP-MP compiling the entries on that occasion.
Anyone interested in posting their predictions for the North Shropshire by-election? We had one 2 weeks ago for Old Bexley & Sidcup, with NP-MP compiling the entries on that occasion.
Very strong rebuke from Chris Whitty to people who say Covid lockdowns have somehow set back cancer or other care - common trope in right-wing press. Whitty says they have "no understanding of health", and that the claim is a "complete inversion of reality". https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/1471437931118219264/photo/1
Did Whitty really say common trope in right wing press ?
Sorry but Whitty is talking bollocks. The official figures from the NHS show that waiting times for cancer diagnosis and treatment have increased massively, as have treatments for just about everything else - a lot of it due to people being unable to see their GPs during lockdowns.
I have a lot of time for Whitty generally but on this he is clearly losing the plot.
Because of the pandemic. Not because of lockdowns. Lockdowns -> less COVID pressure -> more NHS capacity -> more ability to treat cancer/other care.
Wrong. Social distancing -> Less NHS capacity -> Less ability to treat cancer/other care.
Had there been no lockdown, there'd have been less capacity reductions, more deaths, and the NHS would now be running at full capacity and with less demand as there's zero demand from the dead.
Go back and reread your posts from when Boris introduced the lockdowns, if I remember rightly you understood then that the purpose was to protect NHS capacity & save lives.
On topic. My first political bet, and for weeks I’ve been convinced, especially late last week the libdems would definitely have won. The election has probably come a week too late for the shock result,. Sure it would have happened last week, but the media narrative has changed completely this week. Even the mirror put out a rally round the flag front page last night, on eve of vote on wether Prime Minister should continue.
This weeks rally round the flag give Omicron both barrels narrative reminds voters what they liked about Boris in the first place, this is now front of their minds as they vote.
Rally round flag and change in media narrative week on week does impact votes cast, we have need to take these phenomena seriously in our discussions here.
In trying to predict the weeks narrative last Sunday, I had inflation higher than expected and BoE finally taking action with 0.17% rise - Dura Ace told me I so embarrassing myself to delete the post. But I wasn’t far out was I? 0.08% wrong. 😀
I also predicted Russia to invade UK. Truth is, why would they need to? Putin and his crew of Oligarch’s already have bought the governing party and have them in their pocket, and with their best buddy’s the Chinese own UK media, property, infrastructure, schools and universities, even breweries etc etc etc etc.
I also predicted Newcastle to upset Liverpool and Eagles to teach us a few original expletives. And predicted Boris to win his by election.
Pippa Crerar @PippaCrerar · 36m Important. Whitty warns further restrictions may be needed dependent on data due between Xmas/NY.
===
As I have posted before, it's lockdown on 3rd Jan. Brace.
What's the point? Supposedly with its doubling rate we'll have all had it by Christmas Day.
So what's the point in locking down in January, once we've all had it? And if we haven't all had it, then clearly its not doubling as claimed.
We are already in a de facto lockdown as people's behaviour reacts to Whitty and his colleagues
You may be. But I can still:
1) run my business 2) see friends 3) have a pint
You see the difference? Restrictions aren't necessary.
Of course you can but you may soon be on your own
Hyperbole much?
There will be millions of people happily going about their days. Just as there will be millions complaining that the government should try and control something which is entirely out of its control.
The vast majority will fall somewhere in between. But I don't want to be stopped from going about my life because some people can't accept the realities.
The present restrictions in England are sensible and I do not see a mandated lockdown
The point I was making is that public behaviour is very much on the cautious side and avoiding social gatherings is inevitable
It was announced in the HOC that he and his colleagues are holding a Zoom meeting with the hospitality industry this pm
Thank fuck. Will they patch Geoffrey in from the BVI?
I think this is gearing up to be his Dole falls off the stage moment. The three big stories are Covid (medical aspects) Covid (financial) and inflation, the PM is being as useful as a ruptured colostomy bag, his successors are manoeuvring like it was The Death of Stalin and little Rishi is Surfin' USA.
Johnson as a faulty colostomy bag is now my favourite ever analogy.
Very strong rebuke from Chris Whitty to people who say Covid lockdowns have somehow set back cancer or other care - common trope in right-wing press. Whitty says they have "no understanding of health", and that the claim is a "complete inversion of reality". https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/1471437931118219264/photo/1
Did Whitty really say common trope in right wing press ?
Sorry but Whitty is talking bollocks. The official figures from the NHS show that waiting times for cancer diagnosis and treatment have increased massively, as have treatments for just about everything else - a lot of it due to people being unable to see their GPs during lockdowns.
I have a lot of time for Whitty generally but on this he is clearly losing the plot.
Because of the pandemic. Not because of lockdowns. Lockdowns -> less COVID pressure -> more NHS capacity -> more ability to treat cancer/other care.
Wrong. Social distancing -> Less NHS capacity -> Less ability to treat cancer/other care.
Had there been no lockdown, there'd have been less capacity reductions, more deaths, and the NHS would now be running at full capacity and with less demand as there's zero demand from the dead.
Go back and reread your posts from when Boris introduced the lockdowns, if I remember rightly you understood then that the purpose was to protect NHS capacity & save lives.
And I was wrong to accept that. Mea culpa, I made a mistake.
I believed it when it was claimed that this would be for weeks or months, not years. Had I known it would be for years I would have said no and we should have adopted the Swedish model.
I apologise for my mistake then. @contrarian was right and I was wrong.
If I knew then what I know now I would never have supported it. If I had a TARDIS and were to be PM in March 2020 then I would have say no lockdown, no disruption to education, no measures to "protect the NHS". None of it. It was a mistake and it wasn't worth it.
Had this ended when we'd done vaccines then fair enough, but it didn't. It was a horrible mistake we'll be paying with for generations to come. We should have let the virus run its course naturally and let anyone who is afraid of it hide away.
Anyone interested in posting their predictions for the North Shropshire by-election? We had one 2 weeks ago for Old Bexley & Sidcup, with NP-MP compiling the entries on that occasion.
With zero knowledge of the ground game;
LDs 42 Cons 38 Lab. 10 Others 10
Turnout a low 30%. If turnout is high, Cons just scrape through.
Peston has a good point, the daily case number should include reinfections.
Of course the number of novel infections should still be available to view on the dashboard.
Difficult to get accurate data on that.
Not really. At the moment reinfections are excluded from (At least England's) daily count. That means you need to know who has been reinfected, via a backend link to someone's NHS number. Total infections are simply the number of positive swabs you have in a day reported; novel infections require calculation and some work.
We're all going to get it you bleeding idiot. Chris Whitty said that six months ago, so I'm not saying anything Chris Whitty hasn't already said. But I forget you're the moron who expect an "exit" from Covid.
But yes, liberty is worth more than death.
"Idiot", "moron" and no doubt more in other posts from you that I can't be bothered to read - can't you discuss the issue as though you weren't drunk? You come across like George Galloway on speed.
Philip seems to be doing some agency work on behalf of shock-jock @Leon during his holiday absence.
I excitedly revealed previous quotes and disappointed to find not me Nick is referring too 😕
Peston has a good point, the daily case number should include reinfections.
Of course the number of novel infections should still be available to view on the dashboard.
I think up to now its not been important, as it was a very low number. Its likely to be bigger now, although probably not as big as some people are assuming.
Anyone interested in posting their predictions for the North Shropshire by-election? We had one 2 weeks ago for Old Bexley & Sidcup, with NP-MP compiling the entries on that occasion.
Con 42 LD 35 Lab 15 Rewhatevers 5 Green 2 Miscellaneous nutcases 1
Peston has a good point, the daily case number should include reinfections.
Of course the number of novel infections should still be available to view on the dashboard.
I think up to now its not been important, as it was a very low number. Its likely to be bigger now, although probably not as big as some people are assuming.
If it's small we will be able to see that. Novel infections can still be (And should be) kept a record of.
The arguments against on twitter seem to be playing the man and not the ball ones against Peston himself.
One of our London offices held a staff Christmas party on Friday. Looks like it was a super spreader event.
Every event is now a superspreader event, especially in London, unless one is very lucky.
And yet the remaining few pray-the-pox-away advocates insist there should not only be no advice for people to Be Careful but all these events should happen regardless.
Of course they should!
Don't pray the pox away. Accept it, embrace it. Its here, its endemic, get your vaccine and take your chances.
So people who are ill with Covid should go out and party. Or people who's immediate family or colleagues are ill.
Riiiiight.
If they want to, if they'd party with a cold or cough, why not?
We're all getting it anyway.
You seem to have totally gone, Philip. Not a man to have alongside in the trenches. No longer picturing you as Christian Bale. What I'm seeing now is a chicken minus its head.
I think Philips's been pretty consistent that lockdowns do more harm than good. This isn't him losing his head, this is him reiterating the same point more and more insistently. To use the trenches analogy, he's in favour of leaving the trench despite the presence of enemy fire because the trench is filling with acid. He's simply taking a different view to you about which of two not particularly attractive options is the wrong one.
Instinctively I agree with him. I have to be careful, because emotionally it's the answer I want - I have kids who will be hurt by lockdowns and no-one in my family is in ill-health - am I deciding on the answer I want and then selecting the arguments to justify it? (Everyone does this to some extent). And I am also in danger on settling on this position because I have previously been against lockdown - am I simply placing too great a premium on consistency? Again, everyone does this to some extent. But thinking it through, I think I am in still in Philip's boat. To me, the main argument in favour of NPIs at the moment is the danger that we all get it at once, which would be, er inconvenient. But Chris Whitty seems(?) to be suggesting it will peak early (early Jan?) then fall quickly (we hope). To all extents and purposes we are all going to get it at once anyway. NPIs will flatten the sombrero almost not at all. But I am also glad not to be the one to have to make the decisions. It's easy for me and Philip to anonymously (or nonymously, in his case) opine on the internet on what should happen - harder when you have a job and a reputation at stake. And while it's not great to be in a state where outcomes are being dictated by what makes the decision-makers least likely to look bad, better that than being in the situation where decision-makers don't care at all what the public think.
Anyone interested in posting their predictions for the North Shropshire by-election? We had one 2 weeks ago for Old Bexley & Sidcup, with NP-MP compiling the entries on that occasion.
Peston has a good point, the daily case number should include reinfections.
Of course the number of novel infections should still be available to view on the dashboard.
I think up to now its not been important, as it was a very low number. Its likely to be bigger now, although probably not as big as some people are assuming.
From the early data it looks like a 10% symptomatic reinfection rate within 6 months of the last one for Omicron.
Indications at this stage now appear to show many Labour and Green voters switching late and if this is correct there could be a comfortable win for the Lib Dems, given the expected extensive fall in Con support at the ballot box. If these sources are incorrect then the Tories to hold, only caveat is that the sources have been accurate in the past. There is always a first time of course.
We're all going to get it you bleeding idiot. Chris Whitty said that six months ago, so I'm not saying anything Chris Whitty hasn't already said. But I forget you're the moron who expect an "exit" from Covid.
But yes, liberty is worth more than death.
"Idiot", "moron" and no doubt more in other posts from you that I can't be bothered to read - can't you discuss the issue as though you weren't drunk? You come across like George Galloway on speed.
Phillip has been subject to a fair bit of abuse from another poster here. So let's be fair here. Surely it is encumbent on all posters here to not act like the Gorgeous one on drugs.
Peston has a good point, the daily case number should include reinfections.
Of course the number of novel infections should still be available to view on the dashboard.
Difficult to get accurate data on that.
Not really. At the moment reinfections are excluded from (At least England's) daily count. That means you need to know who has been reinfected, via a backend link to someone's NHS number. Total infections are simply the number of positive swabs you have in a day reported; novel infections require calculation and some work.
But it might be a re-infection where the previous infection wasn't recorded.
One of our London offices held a staff Christmas party on Friday. Looks like it was a super spreader event.
Every event is now a superspreader event, especially in London, unless one is very lucky.
And yet the remaining few pray-the-pox-away advocates insist there should not only be no advice for people to Be Careful but all these events should happen regardless.
Of course they should!
Don't pray the pox away. Accept it, embrace it. Its here, its endemic, get your vaccine and take your chances.
So people who are ill with Covid should go out and party. Or people who's immediate family or colleagues are ill.
Riiiiight.
If they want to, if they'd party with a cold or cough, why not?
We're all getting it anyway.
You seem to have totally gone, Philip. Not a man to have alongside in the trenches. No longer picturing you as Christian Bale. What I'm seeing now is a chicken minus its head.
I think Philips's been pretty consistent that lockdowns do more harm than good. This isn't him losing his head, this is him reiterating the same point more and more insistently. To use the trenches analogy, he's in favour of leaving the trench despite the presence of enemy fire because the trench is filling with acid. He's simply taking a different view to you about which of two not particularly attractive options is the wrong one.
Instinctively I agree with him. I have to be careful, because emotionally it's the answer I want - I have kids who will be hurt by lockdowns and no-one in my family is in ill-health - am I deciding on the answer I want and then selecting the arguments to justify it? (Everyone does this to some extent). And I am also in danger on settling on this position because I have previously been against lockdown - am I simply placing too great a premium on consistency? Again, everyone does this to some extent. But thinking it through, I think I am in still in Philip's boat. To me, the main argument in favour of NPIs at the moment is the danger that we all get it at once, which would be, er inconvenient. But Chris Whitty seems(?) to be suggesting it will peak early (early Jan?) then fall quickly (we hope). To all extents and purposes we are all going to get it at once anyway. NPIs will flatten the sombrero almost not at all. But I am also glad not to be the one to have to make the decisions. It's easy for me and Philip to anonymously (or nonymously, in his case) opine on the internet on what should happen - harder when you have a job and a reputation at stake. And while it's not great to be in a state where outcomes are being dictated by what makes the decision-makers least likely to look bad, better that than being in the situation where decision-makers don't care at all what the public think.
When he was a paid up Johnson fanboi he was up for lockdown 1 as I recall.
Indications at this stage now appear to show many Labour and Green voters switching late and if this is correct there could be a comfortable win for the Lib Dems, given the expected extensive fall in Con support at the ballot box. If these sources are incorrect then the Tories to hold, only caveat is that the sources have been accurate in the past. There is always a first time of course.
Tactical voting happening once again. I would be shocked if Labour voters don't go to the Lib Dems
Peston has a good point, the daily case number should include reinfections.
Of course the number of novel infections should still be available to view on the dashboard.
Difficult to get accurate data on that.
Not really. At the moment reinfections are excluded from (At least England's) daily count. That means you need to know who has been reinfected, via a backend link to someone's NHS number. Total infections are simply the number of positive swabs you have in a day reported; novel infections require calculation and some work.
Total infections will include a lot of double counting from people who are testing daily and keep getting positives, though - I assume the reason for excluding reinfections is that otherwise you'd need to assume something like "count it if they didn't record another positive test within three months before this one, otherwise don't" and that's too complicated to process?
I've just tested positive so that's Christmas probably fucked
Ah mate, hope it's not too bad, you should be good for the 25th, though not sure if you've got to travel anywhere beforehand. Get well soon! Fwiw, I've still yet to have any symptoms since the day after my booster dose, the most frustrating part is being locked up.
Anyone interested in posting their predictions for the North Shropshire by-election? We had one 2 weeks ago for Old Bexley & Sidcup, with NP-MP compiling the entries on that occasion.
Lib Dem - 45 - winning here Tory - 38 Labour - 7 Re-whatever - 5 The rest - 5
Peston has a good point, the daily case number should include reinfections.
Of course the number of novel infections should still be available to view on the dashboard.
Difficult to get accurate data on that.
Not really. At the moment reinfections are excluded from (At least England's) daily count. That means you need to know who has been reinfected, via a backend link to someone's NHS number. Total infections are simply the number of positive swabs you have in a day reported; novel infections require calculation and some work.
Total infections will include a lot of double counting from people who are testing daily and keep getting positives, though - I assume the reason for excluding reinfections is that otherwise you'd need to assume something like "count it if they didn't record another positive test within three months before this one, otherwise don't" and that's too complicated to process?
One of our London offices held a staff Christmas party on Friday. Looks like it was a super spreader event.
Every event is now a superspreader event, especially in London, unless one is very lucky.
And yet the remaining few pray-the-pox-away advocates insist there should not only be no advice for people to Be Careful but all these events should happen regardless.
Of course they should!
Don't pray the pox away. Accept it, embrace it. Its here, its endemic, get your vaccine and take your chances.
So people who are ill with Covid should go out and party. Or people who's immediate family or colleagues are ill.
Riiiiight.
If they want to, if they'd party with a cold or cough, why not?
We're all getting it anyway.
You seem to have totally gone, Philip. Not a man to have alongside in the trenches. No longer picturing you as Christian Bale. What I'm seeing now is a chicken minus its head.
I think Philips's been pretty consistent that lockdowns do more harm than good. This isn't him losing his head, this is him reiterating the same point more and more insistently. To use the trenches analogy, he's in favour of leaving the trench despite the presence of enemy fire because the trench is filling with acid. He's simply taking a different view to you about which of two not particularly attractive options is the wrong one.
Instinctively I agree with him. I have to be careful, because emotionally it's the answer I want - I have kids who will be hurt by lockdowns and no-one in my family is in ill-health - am I deciding on the answer I want and then selecting the arguments to justify it? (Everyone does this to some extent). And I am also in danger on settling on this position because I have previously been against lockdown - am I simply placing too great a premium on consistency? Again, everyone does this to some extent. But thinking it through, I think I am in still in Philip's boat. To me, the main argument in favour of NPIs at the moment is the danger that we all get it at once, which would be, er inconvenient. But Chris Whitty seems(?) to be suggesting it will peak early (early Jan?) then fall quickly (we hope). To all extents and purposes we are all going to get it at once anyway. NPIs will flatten the sombrero almost not at all. But I am also glad not to be the one to have to make the decisions. It's easy for me and Philip to anonymously (or nonymously, in his case) opine on the internet on what should happen - harder when you have a job and a reputation at stake. And while it's not great to be in a state where outcomes are being dictated by what makes the decision-makers least likely to look bad, better that than being in the situation where decision-makers don't care at all what the public think.
When he was a paid up Johnson fanboi he was up for lockdown 1 as I recall.
And I've put my hand up and said I was wrong to support it.
We all make mistakes, I'm happy to own mine.
Had I known it would last for years, I wouldn't have.
Indications at this stage now appear to show many Labour and Green voters switching late and if this is correct there could be a comfortable win for the Lib Dems, given the expected extensive fall in Con support at the ballot box. If these sources are incorrect then the Tories to hold, only caveat is that the sources have been accurate in the past. There is always a first time of course.
Tactical voting happening once again. I would be shocked if Labour voters don't go to the Lib Dems
Peston has a good point, the daily case number should include reinfections.
Of course the number of novel infections should still be available to view on the dashboard.
Difficult to get accurate data on that.
Not really. At the moment reinfections are excluded from (At least England's) daily count. That means you need to know who has been reinfected, via a backend link to someone's NHS number. Total infections are simply the number of positive swabs you have in a day reported; novel infections require calculation and some work.
But it might be a re-infection where the previous infection wasn't recorded.
Well that will be counted as a new infection in the data. The data isn't perfect, but excluding a second infection from the case numbers after a previous one make the case numbers frankly incorrect.
Anyone interested in posting their predictions for the North Shropshire by-election? We had one 2 weeks ago for Old Bexley & Sidcup, with NP-MP compiling the entries on that occasion.
With zero knowledge of the ground game;
LDs 42 Cons 38 Lab. 10 Others 10
Turnout a low 30%. If turnout is high, Cons just scrape through.
Lib Dems winning here according to one poster upthread.
Very strong rebuke from Chris Whitty to people who say Covid lockdowns have somehow set back cancer or other care - common trope in right-wing press. Whitty says they have "no understanding of health", and that the claim is a "complete inversion of reality". https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/1471437931118219264/photo/1
Did Whitty really say common trope in right wing press ?
Sorry but Whitty is talking bollocks. The official figures from the NHS show that waiting times for cancer diagnosis and treatment have increased massively, as have treatments for just about everything else - a lot of it due to people being unable to see their GPs during lockdowns.
I have a lot of time for Whitty generally but on this he is clearly losing the plot.
Because of the pandemic. Not because of lockdowns. Lockdowns -> less COVID pressure -> more NHS capacity -> more ability to treat cancer/other care.
Wrong. Social distancing -> Less NHS capacity -> Less ability to treat cancer/other care.
Had there been no lockdown, there'd have been less capacity reductions, more deaths, and the NHS would now be running at full capacity and with less demand as there's zero demand from the dead.
Go back and reread your posts from when Boris introduced the lockdowns, if I remember rightly you understood then that the purpose was to protect NHS capacity & save lives.
And I was wrong to accept that. Mea culpa, I made a mistake.
I believed it when it was claimed that this would be for weeks or months, not years. Had I known it would be for years I would have said no and we should have adopted the Swedish model.
I apologise for my mistake then. @contrarian was right and I was wrong.
If I knew then what I know now I would never have supported it. If I had a TARDIS and were to be PM in March 2020 then I would have say no lockdown, no disruption to education, no measures to "protect the NHS". None of it. It was a mistake and it wasn't worth it.
Had this ended when we'd done vaccines then fair enough, but it didn't. It was a horrible mistake we'll be paying with for generations to come. We should have let the virus run its course naturally and let anyone who is afraid of it hide away.
Fair enough - you've changed your view. But you're speaking from frustration rather than logic I think.
The lockdowns saved tens of thousands of lives, and massively reduced the pressures on the NHS compared to otherwise.
The businesses affected, mostly in hospitality and entertainment, really don’t like that situation though. Many of them would rather be ordered closed by government, as government would then be obliged to support them financially.
Peston has a good point, the daily case number should include reinfections.
Of course the number of novel infections should still be available to view on the dashboard.
Difficult to get accurate data on that.
Not really. At the moment reinfections are excluded from (At least England's) daily count. That means you need to know who has been reinfected, via a backend link to someone's NHS number. Total infections are simply the number of positive swabs you have in a day reported; novel infections require calculation and some work.
Total infections will include a lot of double counting from people who are testing daily and keep getting positives, though - I assume the reason for excluding reinfections is that otherwise you'd need to assume something like "count it if they didn't record another positive test within three months before this one, otherwise don't" and that's too complicated to process?
It's surely not beyond the wit of the entire Gov't IT infrastructure to {Exclude cases within 20 days of a previous case} The welsh count reinfections at the moment so the datasets aren't even homomorphic.
I've just tested positive so that's Christmas probably fucked
Don't worry, once every one in the country has it on the 24th we can then end quaranteen as a pointless load of bollocks.
One of my daughters had to train somebody who had a negative LFT. After a few days the trainee had another test and showed positive. At this point she admitted that initially she had had TWO tests, one positive, one negative and decided that the negative one was right.
So now my daughter's Xmas may well be stuffed thanks to this thoughtless moron...
Sounds like some sort of deal done behind the scenes again, really not good for the sport.
No, I think they had little option but to take the high road. Carrying on with the action would have been a disaster for them, win or lose.
Definitely. It would have looked OTT and any 'win' wouldn't have been. They played it spot on. Consensus that it was unfair is established. Sport is littered with such. It's a perverse part of the attraction in a sense. F1 21 will be talked about for years.
In 30 or 40 years’ time, I’ll be able to tell my young grandkids that I was there, on that fateful evening in Abu Dhabi…
Indications at this stage now appear to show many Labour and Green voters switching late and if this is correct there could be a comfortable win for the Lib Dems, given the expected extensive fall in Con support at the ballot box. If these sources are incorrect then the Tories to hold, only caveat is that the sources have been accurate in the past. There is always a first time of course.
Tactical voting happening once again. I would be shocked if Labour voters don't go to the Lib Dems
Why would a single Labour voter there miss out on having a big beaming happy Christmas, having spanked Boris hard on his huge majority as he went to take his customary seat.
Why should the Labour candidate vote for themselves and spurn this opportunity. Rationally speaking, Labour should get zero votes tonight.
Very strong rebuke from Chris Whitty to people who say Covid lockdowns have somehow set back cancer or other care - common trope in right-wing press. Whitty says they have "no understanding of health", and that the claim is a "complete inversion of reality". https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/1471437931118219264/photo/1
Did Whitty really say common trope in right wing press ?
Sorry but Whitty is talking bollocks. The official figures from the NHS show that waiting times for cancer diagnosis and treatment have increased massively, as have treatments for just about everything else - a lot of it due to people being unable to see their GPs during lockdowns.
I have a lot of time for Whitty generally but on this he is clearly losing the plot.
Because of the pandemic. Not because of lockdowns. Lockdowns -> less COVID pressure -> more NHS capacity -> more ability to treat cancer/other care.
Wrong. Social distancing -> Less NHS capacity -> Less ability to treat cancer/other care.
Had there been no lockdown, there'd have been less capacity reductions, more deaths, and the NHS would now be running at full capacity and with less demand as there's zero demand from the dead.
Go back and reread your posts from when Boris introduced the lockdowns, if I remember rightly you understood then that the purpose was to protect NHS capacity & save lives.
And I was wrong to accept that. Mea culpa, I made a mistake.
I believed it when it was claimed that this would be for weeks or months, not years. Had I known it would be for years I would have said no and we should have adopted the Swedish model.
I apologise for my mistake then. @contrarian was right and I was wrong.
If I knew then what I know now I would never have supported it. If I had a TARDIS and were to be PM in March 2020 then I would have say no lockdown, no disruption to education, no measures to "protect the NHS". None of it. It was a mistake and it wasn't worth it.
Had this ended when we'd done vaccines then fair enough, but it didn't. It was a horrible mistake we'll be paying with for generations to come. We should have let the virus run its course naturally and let anyone who is afraid of it hide away.
Fair enough - you've changed your view. But you're speaking from frustration rather than logic I think.
The lockdowns saved tens of thousands of lives, and massively reduced the pressures on the NHS compared to otherwise.
They may have reduced the pressures on the NHS at the time for a few weeks, which is when it would have been a good idea, but two years of COVID distancing and messing around has increased the pressure overall.
Plus the COVID wave was dragged out then as a result to the point its still ongoing now, meaning the pressure was never lifted.
Had the COVID wave happened in sharped peaks the NHS would have struggled and more would have died of Covid, but then afterwards the NHS would have gotten back to normal and we wouldn't have been keeping the NHS from doing its day job the rest of the time.
One of our London offices held a staff Christmas party on Friday. Looks like it was a super spreader event.
Every event is now a superspreader event, especially in London, unless one is very lucky.
And yet the remaining few pray-the-pox-away advocates insist there should not only be no advice for people to Be Careful but all these events should happen regardless.
Of course they should!
Don't pray the pox away. Accept it, embrace it. Its here, its endemic, get your vaccine and take your chances.
So people who are ill with Covid should go out and party. Or people who's immediate family or colleagues are ill.
Riiiiight.
If they want to, if they'd party with a cold or cough, why not?
We're all getting it anyway.
You seem to have totally gone, Philip. Not a man to have alongside in the trenches. No longer picturing you as Christian Bale. What I'm seeing now is a chicken minus its head.
I think Philips's been pretty consistent that lockdowns do more harm than good. This isn't him losing his head, this is him reiterating the same point more and more insistently. To use the trenches analogy, he's in favour of leaving the trench despite the presence of enemy fire because the trench is filling with acid. He's simply taking a different view to you about which of two not particularly attractive options is the wrong one.
Instinctively I agree with him. I have to be careful, because emotionally it's the answer I want - I have kids who will be hurt by lockdowns and no-one in my family is in ill-health - am I deciding on the answer I want and then selecting the arguments to justify it? (Everyone does this to some extent). And I am also in danger on settling on this position because I have previously been against lockdown - am I simply placing too great a premium on consistency? Again, everyone does this to some extent. But thinking it through, I think I am in still in Philip's boat. To me, the main argument in favour of NPIs at the moment is the danger that we all get it at once, which would be, er inconvenient. But Chris Whitty seems(?) to be suggesting it will peak early (early Jan?) then fall quickly (we hope). To all extents and purposes we are all going to get it at once anyway. NPIs will flatten the sombrero almost not at all. But I am also glad not to be the one to have to make the decisions. It's easy for me and Philip to anonymously (or nonymously, in his case) opine on the internet on what should happen - harder when you have a job and a reputation at stake. And while it's not great to be in a state where outcomes are being dictated by what makes the decision-makers least likely to look bad, better that than being in the situation where decision-makers don't care at all what the public think.
When he was a paid up Johnson fanboi he was up for lockdown 1 as I recall.
And I've put my hand up and said I was wrong to support it.
We all make mistakes, I'm happy to own mine.
Had I known it would last for years, I wouldn't have.
I look forward to your conceding that Johnson isn't in fact, as you have asserted, the best post war PM, but the worst.
Very strong rebuke from Chris Whitty to people who say Covid lockdowns have somehow set back cancer or other care - common trope in right-wing press. Whitty says they have "no understanding of health", and that the claim is a "complete inversion of reality". https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/1471437931118219264/photo/1
Did Whitty really say common trope in right wing press ?
Sorry but Whitty is talking bollocks. The official figures from the NHS show that waiting times for cancer diagnosis and treatment have increased massively, as have treatments for just about everything else - a lot of it due to people being unable to see their GPs during lockdowns.
I have a lot of time for Whitty generally but on this he is clearly losing the plot.
Because of the pandemic. Not because of lockdowns. Lockdowns -> less COVID pressure -> more NHS capacity -> more ability to treat cancer/other care.
Wrong. Social distancing -> Less NHS capacity -> Less ability to treat cancer/other care.
Had there been no lockdown, there'd have been less capacity reductions, more deaths, and the NHS would now be running at full capacity and with less demand as there's zero demand from the dead.
Go back and reread your posts from when Boris introduced the lockdowns, if I remember rightly you understood then that the purpose was to protect NHS capacity & save lives.
At some stage, PT migrated from liberal skeptic of govt restrictions to full on moonbat.
I've just tested positive so that's Christmas probably fucked
Don't worry, once every one in the country has it on the 24th we can then end quaranteen as a pointless load of bollocks.
One of my daughters had to train somebody who had a negative LFT. After a few days the trainee had another test and showed positive. At this point she admitted that initially she had had TWO tests, one positive, one negative and decided that the negative one was right.
So now my daughter's Xmas may well be stuffed thanks to this thoughtless moron...
FFS - people are fecking stupid. My sympathies for her.
Sounds like some sort of deal done behind the scenes again, really not good for the sport.
No, I think they had little option but to take the high road. Carrying on with the action would have been a disaster for them, win or lose.
Definitely. It would have looked OTT and any 'win' wouldn't have been. They played it spot on. Consensus that it was unfair is established. Sport is littered with such. It's a perverse part of the attraction in a sense. F1 21 will be talked about for years.
In 30 or 40 years’ time, I’ll be able to tell my young grandkids that I was there, on that fateful evening in Abu Dhabi…
The day Lewis was robbed of the championship and then gracefully retired.
Toto Wolff seems to be dropping hints that Lewis will not be returning next season.
Hamilton was knighted this week, which seems a bit premature if he plans to drive next year. But why should Mercedes drop him? Maybe the year after if young George is up to snuff.
A relative of the UK's 'first Omicron victim' told LBC that his healthy stepfather died after being taken in by anti-vaxxer "conspiracy theories" and refusing a Covid jab.
I've just tested positive so that's Christmas probably fucked
Don't worry, once every one in the country has it on the 24th we can then end quaranteen as a pointless load of bollocks.
One of my daughters had to train somebody who had a negative LFT. After a few days the trainee had another test and showed positive. At this point she admitted that initially she had had TWO tests, one positive, one negative and decided that the negative one was right.
So now my daughter's Xmas may well be stuffed thanks to this thoughtless moron...
The Gov't need to REALLY REALLY emphasise that if you get a positive LFT - even if you have other negative ones that you really really will be positive. The "accuracy" of LFTs is all about false negatives.
Very strong rebuke from Chris Whitty to people who say Covid lockdowns have somehow set back cancer or other care - common trope in right-wing press. Whitty says they have "no understanding of health", and that the claim is a "complete inversion of reality". https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/1471437931118219264/photo/1
Did Whitty really say common trope in right wing press ?
Sorry but Whitty is talking bollocks. The official figures from the NHS show that waiting times for cancer diagnosis and treatment have increased massively, as have treatments for just about everything else - a lot of it due to people being unable to see their GPs during lockdowns.
I have a lot of time for Whitty generally but on this he is clearly losing the plot.
Because of the pandemic. Not because of lockdowns. Lockdowns -> less COVID pressure -> more NHS capacity -> more ability to treat cancer/other care.
Wrong. Social distancing -> Less NHS capacity -> Less ability to treat cancer/other care.
Had there been no lockdown, there'd have been less capacity reductions, more deaths, and the NHS would now be running at full capacity and with less demand as there's zero demand from the dead.
Go back and reread your posts from when Boris introduced the lockdowns, if I remember rightly you understood then that the purpose was to protect NHS capacity & save lives.
At some stage, PT migrated from liberal skeptic of govt restrictions to full on moonbat.
No I'm not a moonbat.
Moonbats are the antivaxxers or Covid denialists.
I fully accept Covid is real. I fully Covid is dangerous. I fully accept Covid vaccines are wise. I fully accept people are going to die from Covid.
I simply don't accept that the price of restrictions are worth the benefits of it. That's not moonbat, that's a price/benefit analysis.
Very strong rebuke from Chris Whitty to people who say Covid lockdowns have somehow set back cancer or other care - common trope in right-wing press. Whitty says they have "no understanding of health", and that the claim is a "complete inversion of reality". https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/1471437931118219264/photo/1
Did Whitty really say common trope in right wing press ?
Sorry but Whitty is talking bollocks. The official figures from the NHS show that waiting times for cancer diagnosis and treatment have increased massively, as have treatments for just about everything else - a lot of it due to people being unable to see their GPs during lockdowns.
I have a lot of time for Whitty generally but on this he is clearly losing the plot.
Because of the pandemic. Not because of lockdowns. Lockdowns -> less COVID pressure -> more NHS capacity -> more ability to treat cancer/other care.
Wrong. Social distancing -> Less NHS capacity -> Less ability to treat cancer/other care.
Had there been no lockdown, there'd have been less capacity reductions, more deaths, and the NHS would now be running at full capacity and with less demand as there's zero demand from the dead.
Go back and reread your posts from when Boris introduced the lockdowns, if I remember rightly you understood then that the purpose was to protect NHS capacity & save lives.
That was indeed the purpose and of course it is legitimate to say that it probably did given death rates would have been far higher without the lockdowns. But to do as Whitty did this morning and claim there have been no adverse effects from lockdown on cancer rates just doesn't fit the facts.
Edit. I got caught by a phone call and posted before I had finished.
Moreover I would suggest it is entirely possible that as Philip suggests we may come out the other side of this and find that the 'cure' including lockdown has killed more people than the virus itself.
Anyone interested in posting their predictions for the North Shropshire by-election? We had one 2 weeks ago for Old Bexley & Sidcup, with NP-MP compiling the entries on that occasion.
Lib Dem - 45 - winning here Tory - 38 Labour - 7 Re-whatever - 5 The rest - 5
I've just tested positive so that's Christmas probably fucked
Is there anybody in London who doesn't have covid at the moment? Seems like every London based PBer has it.
The anecdotage over the last month does suggest a considerably higher rate of infection than anything previously on PB.
I think its becoming pretty clear double jabbed isn't now offering much protection from infection.
Infection is not the issue, hospitalisation is and double vaccination still protects against that which would be the only reason for further restrictions. Boosters also help avoid symptomatic Covid.
Tory MPs targetting the Chief Medical Officer for giving life-saving advice instead of their PM for muddying this advice and their Chancellor for making zero provision to prepare for what was coming, so utterly inevitably and obviously, to anyone but the most sclerotic denier. https://twitter.com/sturdyAlex/status/1471461811631316997
One of our London offices held a staff Christmas party on Friday. Looks like it was a super spreader event.
Every event is now a superspreader event, especially in London, unless one is very lucky.
And yet the remaining few pray-the-pox-away advocates insist there should not only be no advice for people to Be Careful but all these events should happen regardless.
Of course they should!
Don't pray the pox away. Accept it, embrace it. Its here, its endemic, get your vaccine and take your chances.
So people who are ill with Covid should go out and party. Or people who's immediate family or colleagues are ill.
Riiiiight.
If they want to, if they'd party with a cold or cough, why not?
We're all getting it anyway.
You seem to have totally gone, Philip. Not a man to have alongside in the trenches. No longer picturing you as Christian Bale. What I'm seeing now is a chicken minus its head.
I think Philips's been pretty consistent that lockdowns do more harm than good. This isn't him losing his head, this is him reiterating the same point more and more insistently. To use the trenches analogy, he's in favour of leaving the trench despite the presence of enemy fire because the trench is filling with acid. He's simply taking a different view to you about which of two not particularly attractive options is the wrong one.
Instinctively I agree with him. I have to be careful, because emotionally it's the answer I want - I have kids who will be hurt by lockdowns and no-one in my family is in ill-health - am I deciding on the answer I want and then selecting the arguments to justify it? (Everyone does this to some extent). And I am also in danger on settling on this position because I have previously been against lockdown - am I simply placing too great a premium on consistency? Again, everyone does this to some extent. But thinking it through, I think I am in still in Philip's boat. To me, the main argument in favour of NPIs at the moment is the danger that we all get it at once, which would be, er inconvenient. But Chris Whitty seems(?) to be suggesting it will peak early (early Jan?) then fall quickly (we hope). To all extents and purposes we are all going to get it at once anyway. NPIs will flatten the sombrero almost not at all. But I am also glad not to be the one to have to make the decisions. It's easy for me and Philip to anonymously (or nonymously, in his case) opine on the internet on what should happen - harder when you have a job and a reputation at stake. And while it's not great to be in a state where outcomes are being dictated by what makes the decision-makers least likely to look bad, better that than being in the situation where decision-makers don't care at all what the public think.
I still support pre-vaccine lockdowns. For me, the cost/benefit is still in their favour. Doesn't mean I'm right, but on my situation and values it's right for me.
Post-vaccine, I generally do not. I can see (not necessarily accept, but certainly see) an argument for a short lockdown to get to X% boosters (of a very small number of weeks - up to two, say) but I'd want to be convinced that pretty dire things were going to happen otherwise (of course by the time the evidence is in it could be too late).
What you say emotion and personal circumstances is apt. I and my immediate family unit are all low risk. My concern has been for parents and parents in law who, in various ways, were quie high risk. Once they were vaccinated, I relaxed. Now they're triple vaccinated I'm still pretty relaxed.
The businesses affected, mostly in hospitality and entertainment, really don’t like that situation though. Many of them would rather be ordered closed by government, as government would then be obliged to support them financially.
It’s true - what Big G is proposing does hang the businesses ordering stock, opening their doors, out to dry (I won’t use the Boris bad language version of same thing)
Sounds like some sort of deal done behind the scenes again, really not good for the sport.
No, I think they had little option but to take the high road. Carrying on with the action would have been a disaster for them, win or lose.
Definitely. It would have looked OTT and any 'win' wouldn't have been. They played it spot on. Consensus that it was unfair is established. Sport is littered with such. It's a perverse part of the attraction in a sense. F1 21 will be talked about for years.
In 30 or 40 years’ time, I’ll be able to tell my young grandkids that I was there, on that fateful evening in Abu Dhabi…
The day Lewis was robbed of the championship and then gracefully retired.
Toto Wolff seems to be dropping hints that Lewis will not be returning next season.
Hamilton was knighted this week, which seems a bit premature if he plans to drive next year. But why should Mercedes drop him? Maybe the year after if young George is up to snuff.
It's not Mercedes dropping him, the question is more will Lewis retire - which he may do if the car isn't good enough or because he wants to spend more time doing other things.
Equally it could just be Mercedes applying pressure to F1 - think what the sport may look like in Lewis isn't there,
Mr. JohnL, I agree with the general principle a sportsman should only be knighted after he's retired but given both Andy Murray and Chris Hoy got knighted while still active I fear that the precedent has been set.
Presume we've already covered the fact that the 1 death that 'put paid to the idea this was a milder variant' was a 70something anti-vaxxer.
Not many tears being shed for him in my house.
Where did you see that?
See Carlotta's post for link.
Given they've only managed to find 15 omicron hospital patients so far, wouldn't be surprised if he had a bit of delta as well, but who really cares if he didn't take basic steps to protect himself.
The businesses affected, mostly in hospitality and entertainment, really don’t like that situation though. Many of them would rather be ordered closed by government, as government would then be obliged to support them financially.
That's the issue - when ordered to close hospitality / entertainment receive Government money to cover their costs.
No Government order and it's just survival of those who have enough money to keep on going.
Interesting Israel not seeing any real uptick in cases. Now is that their booster programe or restrictions or got lucky not much omicron (yet)?
Probably the later - evidence now very strong that it spreads like nobodies business.
But the evidence that it's not causing a big healthcare problem where it becomes dominant is also sufficiently strong that if it pointed in the other direction we would all be under house arrest.
We're all going to get it you bleeding idiot. Chris Whitty said that six months ago, so I'm not saying anything Chris Whitty hasn't already said. But I forget you're the moron who expect an "exit" from Covid.
But yes, liberty is worth more than death.
"Idiot", "moron" and no doubt more in other posts from you that I can't be bothered to read - can't you discuss the issue as though you weren't drunk? You come across like George Galloway on speed.
No.
You snipped out the post I was responding to which was "Which as usual is you advocating that Other People die so that you can have "liberty"."
If Rochdale wants to keep falsely claiming I am advocating that Other People die, then I'm content to call him a moron in reply. I'll be civilised with anyone that is civilised themselves.
I note you don't call him out, only me for responding to him. Funny that!
Didn't see that and I agree he goes OTT too (he's an LD, innit ). But attributing barmy views to people is marginally less bad than calling them names.
But why? First of all, .25% is hardly likely to turn spenders into savers. Secondly, this is not classic inflation but is largely driven by Covid disrupting supply chains and fuel prices going through the roof. Thirdly, there is risk of skewering economic recovery.
I've just tested positive so that's Christmas probably fucked
Don't worry, once every one in the country has it on the 24th we can then end quaranteen as a pointless load of bollocks.
One of my daughters had to train somebody who had a negative LFT. After a few days the trainee had another test and showed positive. At this point she admitted that initially she had had TWO tests, one positive, one negative and decided that the negative one was right.
So now my daughter's Xmas may well be stuffed thanks to this thoughtless moron...
The Gov't need to REALLY REALLY emphasise that if you get a positive LFT - even if you have other negative ones that you really really will be positive. The "accuracy" of LFTs is all about false negatives.
That was my understanding as well and I sought and obtained the adjournment of a jury trial on that basis. There is a non minimal chance that a negative result is wrong, especially if self administered, but there is almost no chance that a positive test is wrong.
Very strong rebuke from Chris Whitty to people who say Covid lockdowns have somehow set back cancer or other care - common trope in right-wing press. Whitty says they have "no understanding of health", and that the claim is a "complete inversion of reality". https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/1471437931118219264/photo/1
Did Whitty really say common trope in right wing press ?
Sorry but Whitty is talking bollocks. The official figures from the NHS show that waiting times for cancer diagnosis and treatment have increased massively, as have treatments for just about everything else - a lot of it due to people being unable to see their GPs during lockdowns.
I have a lot of time for Whitty generally but on this he is clearly losing the plot.
Because of the pandemic. Not because of lockdowns. Lockdowns -> less COVID pressure -> more NHS capacity -> more ability to treat cancer/other care.
Wrong. Social distancing -> Less NHS capacity -> Less ability to treat cancer/other care.
Had there been no lockdown, there'd have been less capacity reductions, more deaths, and the NHS would now be running at full capacity and with less demand as there's zero demand from the dead.
Go back and reread your posts from when Boris introduced the lockdowns, if I remember rightly you understood then that the purpose was to protect NHS capacity & save lives.
And I was wrong to accept that. Mea culpa, I made a mistake.
I believed it when it was claimed that this would be for weeks or months, not years. Had I known it would be for years I would have said no and we should have adopted the Swedish model.
I apologise for my mistake then. @contrarian was right and I was wrong.
If I knew then what I know now I would never have supported it. If I had a TARDIS and were to be PM in March 2020 then I would have say no lockdown, no disruption to education, no measures to "protect the NHS". None of it. It was a mistake and it wasn't worth it.
Had this ended when we'd done vaccines then fair enough, but it didn't. It was a horrible mistake we'll be paying with for generations to come. We should have let the virus run its course naturally and let anyone who is afraid of it hide away.
Fair enough - you've changed your view. But you're speaking from frustration rather than logic I think.
The lockdowns saved tens of thousands of lives, and massively reduced the pressures on the NHS compared to otherwise.
My position on all this is as follows. Do I want to agree to the end of liberty and a biosurveillance state to control a virus with a less than 1% fatality rate? No I don't. But the public overwhelmingly do, so I reluctantly go along with it.
Very strong rebuke from Chris Whitty to people who say Covid lockdowns have somehow set back cancer or other care - common trope in right-wing press. Whitty says they have "no understanding of health", and that the claim is a "complete inversion of reality". https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/1471437931118219264/photo/1
Did Whitty really say common trope in right wing press ?
I think that he is losing patience.
So - why are there documented cases of people who missed early cancer diagnosis who have died who probably shouldn't have?
Unless he is arguing some technical point that it wasn't the actual lockdown it was people's reluctance to come forward even though the GP was available and so was the hospital?
There is no evidence at all that more people are dying of cancer yet. Its a bit like the statistics we were discussing yesterday that showed that all of the isolation and depression of lockdown seems to have reduced suicides, not increased them.
I do wonder whether Covid will have directly averted some cancer deaths in the sense of getting there first. The link seems to be underlying cause. If you have terminal (or uncertain prognosis) cancer but with some time to live, but die from an acute infection of Covid then Covid will go down as the underlying cause I would have thought. For cancer to be underlying cause there would have to be a more direct link (say you're immuno-compromised and die from an infection that would not normally be serious, but I'm not sure that would be applied for Covid).
Edit: still no evidene of increased cancer deaths, of course. But some of those could take some time to show up if e.g. missed screening/opportunities to diagnose. Cancer can take some time, particularly if there is some treatment, even a bit late (e.g. surgical removal of the primary but it turns out to have spread)
Just a moment's search found that in April 2019 200,000 people were referred to a consultant with a suspected cancer. In April 2020 that was less than 80,000. So there are 120,000 people in one month who should have been seen by a specialist to check if they had cancer but were not. The idea this is not adversely affecting outcomes is ludicrous.
Yes, I agree. The age profile would be interesting. It is possible that some of those missing referrals are for people killed by Covid instead (i.e. before they got the symptoms that led to referral) but on any back of the envelope calculation that can only account for a smallish minority. There must be tens of thousands who simply didn't get to the doctor, put it off, or were missed due to phone rather than in person appointments. Another interesting thing would be the outcome of those referrals - if the share of referrals resulting in a cancer diagnosis has gone up then it may be that although fewer were referred, they were better selected. However, I do fear that won't turn out to be the case.
Three anecdotes from the outside world: 1) Took the car for an MOT on Tuesday. As requested by the sign on the door, put my mask on as I went into the garage office when I went to pick it up. 'No need for that' the proprietor cheerfully assured me. 'You're the only one all day who's bothered'. He was cheerfully belligerent in his opposition to any more covid measures 'or this place won't be running any longer'. He'd had his booster jab because his dad had told him he had to or he wouldn't be coming for Christmas dinner.
2) Conversation with a friend of mine at school drop-off yesterday. He embodies the red wall. Historically labour from a working class family, he's been less and less enamoured of them over the last ten years and was repelled by Corbyn. Thinks Starmer is a berk. But his view on the current shenanigans was as follows (read this in a broad, incredulous, Mancunian accent): "do you not think they've gone absolutely way over the top to this latest one? Is he [Boris] just trying to get sacked? He's just doing f*ck-up after f*ck-up."
3) My youngest's infant school did her nativity play yesterday. I cannot conceive of anyone who could care more about the edcuation, welfare, wellbeing and happiness of the children in his care than the headmaster of this school. It is really, really important to him that normality continues for the children in that school. Anyway, I was really pleased it went ahead: it is my tenth, and last, nativity play as a parent - they don't do it in the junior's. And it was brilliant. And my youngest - who is a complicated little character: neither the competent, reliable demeanour of my oldest or the confident, outgoing character of my middle daughter - had one line, and was barely audible, and fidgeted throughout, but despite her nerves she did it, and she sang the songs and followed the cues, and I was prouder of her than I ever was of either of the older two's objectively much better performances. So anyway, well done to the school for going ahead regardless. Parents had to be masked (much to the apologies of the head, who reported it as a condition from DfE and TRafford public health for these to go ahead) but a small price to pay for such a momentous event. But I reported my joy at this to colleagues later in the day, and there was quite a lot of surprise and some disapproval that the event had been allowed to take place. It's a public sector organisation, with quite a lot of keenness for lockdown, and I didn't getthe impression that hostility was aimed at me personally - but there was more than a bit of the hint that the school were being selfish and/or self-indulgent in going ahead with a nativity play. Which I think is a shame.
I've just tested positive so that's Christmas probably fucked
Is there anybody in London who doesn't have covid at the moment? Seems like every London based PBer has it.
The anecdotage over the last month does suggest a considerably higher rate of infection than anything previously on PB.
I think its becoming pretty clear double jabbed isn't now offering much protection from infection.
But lots of people are experiencing pretty mild symptoms. So thats a good thing.
Exactly. However the other day I was ridiculed for suggesting that the vaccine certificate for entry to events was pointless now. No it is worse than pointless as it creates spreading events. Just typical that it was a good idea when the Govt didn't mandate it and they do mandate it now when it isn't working.
We're all going to get it you bleeding idiot. Chris Whitty said that six months ago, so I'm not saying anything Chris Whitty hasn't already said. But I forget you're the moron who expect an "exit" from Covid.
But yes, liberty is worth more than death.
"Idiot", "moron" and no doubt more in other posts from you that I can't be bothered to read - can't you discuss the issue as though you weren't drunk? You come across like George Galloway on speed.
No.
You snipped out the post I was responding to which was "Which as usual is you advocating that Other People die so that you can have "liberty"."
If Rochdale wants to keep falsely claiming I am advocating that Other People die, then I'm content to call him a moron in reply. I'll be civilised with anyone that is civilised themselves.
I note you don't call him out, only me for responding to him. Funny that!
Didn't see that and I agree he goes OTT too (he's an LD, innit ). But attributing barmy views to people is marginally less bad than calling them names.
I thought he was now supporting the SNP as of the last week or so.
Comments
Had there been no lockdown, there'd have been less capacity reductions, more deaths, and the NHS would now be running at full capacity and with less demand as there's zero demand from the dead.
1) not everyone gets COVID at once
2) shifts cases until after we have more vaccination protection and better therapeutics
There will be millions of people happily going about their days. Just as there will be millions complaining that the government should try and control something which is entirely out of its control.
The vast majority will fall somewhere in between. But I don't want to be stopped from going about my life because some people can't accept the realities.
I think this is gearing up to be his Dole falls off the stage moment. The three big stories are Covid (medical aspects) Covid (financial) and inflation, the PM is being as useful as a ruptured colostomy bag, his successors are manoeuvring like it was The Death of Stalin and little Rishi is Surfin' USA.
Had we had no lockdown we would have ripped off the bandage, buried the dead and had full capacity now.
Con: 40%
LibDem: 37%
Lab: 13%
Reform: 4%
Bits'n'bobs: 6%
Maybe Lab higher.
LDs 42
Lab. 10
Others 5
Turnout 45%
Of course the number of novel infections should still be available to view on the dashboard.
I also predicted Russia to invade UK. Truth is, why would they need to? Putin and his crew of Oligarch’s already have bought the governing party and have them in their pocket, and with their best buddy’s the Chinese own UK media, property, infrastructure, schools and universities, even breweries etc etc etc etc.
I also predicted Newcastle to upset Liverpool and Eagles to teach us a few original expletives. And predicted Boris to win his by election.
I ❤️ Dura Ace so I won’t say anymore 🙂
The point I was making is that public behaviour is very much on the cautious side and avoiding social gatherings is inevitable
Thankyou.
I believed it when it was claimed that this would be for weeks or months, not years. Had I known it would be for years I would have said no and we should have adopted the Swedish model.
I apologise for my mistake then. @contrarian was right and I was wrong.
If I knew then what I know now I would never have supported it. If I had a TARDIS and were to be PM in March 2020 then I would have say no lockdown, no disruption to education, no measures to "protect the NHS". None of it. It was a mistake and it wasn't worth it.
Had this ended when we'd done vaccines then fair enough, but it didn't. It was a horrible mistake we'll be paying with for generations to come. We should have let the virus run its course naturally and let anyone who is afraid of it hide away.
LDs 42
Cons 38
Lab. 10
Others 10
Turnout a low 30%. If turnout is high, Cons just scrape through.
Total infections are simply the number of positive swabs you have in a day reported; novel infections require calculation and some work.
LD 35
Lab 15
Rewhatevers 5
Green 2
Miscellaneous nutcases 1
The arguments against on twitter seem to be playing the man and not the ball ones against Peston himself.
To use the trenches analogy, he's in favour of leaving the trench despite the presence of enemy fire because the trench is filling with acid. He's simply taking a different view to you about which of two not particularly attractive options is the wrong one.
Instinctively I agree with him. I have to be careful, because emotionally it's the answer I want - I have kids who will be hurt by lockdowns and no-one in my family is in ill-health - am I deciding on the answer I want and then selecting the arguments to justify it? (Everyone does this to some extent). And I am also in danger on settling on this position because I have previously been against lockdown - am I simply placing too great a premium on consistency? Again, everyone does this to some extent.
But thinking it through, I think I am in still in Philip's boat. To me, the main argument in favour of NPIs at the moment is the danger that we all get it at once, which would be, er inconvenient. But Chris Whitty seems(?) to be suggesting it will peak early (early Jan?) then fall quickly (we hope). To all extents and purposes we are all going to get it at once anyway. NPIs will flatten the sombrero almost not at all.
But I am also glad not to be the one to have to make the decisions. It's easy for me and Philip to anonymously (or nonymously, in his case) opine on the internet on what should happen - harder when you have a job and a reputation at stake. And while it's not great to be in a state where outcomes are being dictated by what makes the decision-makers least likely to look bad, better that than being in the situation where decision-makers don't care at all what the public think.
https://twitter.com/Smyth_Chris/status/1471440412153896961
Get well, or well if you're asymptomatic -ve soon.
Tory - 38
Labour - 7
Re-whatever - 5
The rest - 5
We all make mistakes, I'm happy to own mine.
Had I known it would last for years, I wouldn't have.
Coughing and feeling unwell in general, not the worst thing I've had
The lockdowns saved tens of thousands of lives, and massively reduced the pressures on the NHS compared to otherwise.
But presumably you can rationally if not legally plan a uge Christmas shindig with fellow +s? Or would you be cross-infecting omi and delta?
Good luck anyway
The businesses affected, mostly in hospitality and entertainment, really don’t like that situation though. Many of them would rather be ordered closed by government, as government would then be obliged to support them financially.
The welsh count reinfections at the moment so the datasets aren't even homomorphic.
So now my daughter's Xmas may well be stuffed thanks to this thoughtless moron...
Not many tears being shed for him in my house.
Why should the Labour candidate vote for themselves and spurn this opportunity. Rationally speaking, Labour should get zero votes tonight.
My dad is due his test result tomorrow.
Plus the COVID wave was dragged out then as a result to the point its still ongoing now, meaning the pressure was never lifted.
Had the COVID wave happened in sharped peaks the NHS would have struggled and more would have died of Covid, but then afterwards the NHS would have gotten back to normal and we wouldn't have been keeping the NHS from doing its day job the rest of the time.
You are indeed entitled to change your mind.
LOL and gd rddnc.
@NickFerrariLBC https://twitter.com/LBC/status/1471437581489475586?s=20
If you aren't vaccinated, you better pray to your god, because your getting in the next couple if weeks.
The "accuracy" of LFTs is all about false negatives.
https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1471451021327179776?s=20
Treat yourself to some proper Manuka honey, it’s good for well being.
Moonbats are the antivaxxers or Covid denialists.
I fully accept Covid is real. I fully Covid is dangerous. I fully accept Covid vaccines are wise. I fully accept people are going to die from Covid.
I simply don't accept that the price of restrictions are worth the benefits of it. That's not moonbat, that's a price/benefit analysis.
Edit. I got caught by a phone call and posted before I had finished.
Moreover I would suggest it is entirely possible that as Philip suggests we may come out the other side of this and find that the 'cure' including lockdown has killed more people than the virus itself.
The first UK death from Omicron was unvacinnated
https://twitter.com/JamesAALongman/status/1471447559449292800?s=19
https://twitter.com/sturdyAlex/status/1471461811631316997
Post-vaccine, I generally do not. I can see (not necessarily accept, but certainly see) an argument for a short lockdown to get to X% boosters (of a very small number of weeks - up to two, say) but I'd want to be convinced that pretty dire things were going to happen otherwise (of course by the time the evidence is in it could be too late).
What you say emotion and personal circumstances is apt. I and my immediate family unit are all low risk. My concern has been for parents and parents in law who, in various ways, were quie high risk. Once they were vaccinated, I relaxed. Now they're triple vaccinated I'm still pretty relaxed.
Equally it could just be Mercedes applying pressure to F1 - think what the sport may look like in Lewis isn't there,
Given they've only managed to find 15 omicron hospital patients so far, wouldn't be surprised if he had a bit of delta as well, but who really cares if he didn't take basic steps to protect himself.
No Government order and it's just survival of those who have enough money to keep on going.
But the evidence that it's not causing a big healthcare problem where it becomes dominant is also sufficiently strong that if it pointed in the other direction we would all be under house arrest.
Why would Labour take Big John back?
1) Took the car for an MOT on Tuesday. As requested by the sign on the door, put my mask on as I went into the garage office when I went to pick it up. 'No need for that' the proprietor cheerfully assured me. 'You're the only one all day who's bothered'. He was cheerfully belligerent in his opposition to any more covid measures 'or this place won't be running any longer'. He'd had his booster jab because his dad had told him he had to or he wouldn't be coming for Christmas dinner.
2) Conversation with a friend of mine at school drop-off yesterday. He embodies the red wall. Historically labour from a working class family, he's been less and less enamoured of them over the last ten years and was repelled by Corbyn. Thinks Starmer is a berk. But his view on the current shenanigans was as follows (read this in a broad, incredulous, Mancunian accent): "do you not think they've gone absolutely way over the top to this latest one? Is he [Boris] just trying to get sacked? He's just doing f*ck-up after f*ck-up."
3) My youngest's infant school did her nativity play yesterday. I cannot conceive of anyone who could care more about the edcuation, welfare, wellbeing and happiness of the children in his care than the headmaster of this school. It is really, really important to him that normality continues for the children in that school. Anyway, I was really pleased it went ahead: it is my tenth, and last, nativity play as a parent - they don't do it in the junior's. And it was brilliant. And my youngest - who is a complicated little character: neither the competent, reliable demeanour of my oldest or the confident, outgoing character of my middle daughter - had one line, and was barely audible, and fidgeted throughout, but despite her nerves she did it, and she sang the songs and followed the cues, and I was prouder of her than I ever was of either of the older two's objectively much better performances.
So anyway, well done to the school for going ahead regardless. Parents had to be masked (much to the apologies of the head, who reported it as a condition from DfE and TRafford public health for these to go ahead) but a small price to pay for such a momentous event.
But I reported my joy at this to colleagues later in the day, and there was quite a lot of surprise and some disapproval that the event had been allowed to take place. It's a public sector organisation, with quite a lot of keenness for lockdown, and I didn't getthe impression that hostility was aimed at me personally - but there was more than a bit of the hint that the school were being selfish and/or self-indulgent in going ahead with a nativity play. Which I think is a shame.