Howdy, Stranger!

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

Johnson drops to net minus 48% with YouGov – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited December 2021 in General
imageJohnson drops to net minus 48% with YouGov – politicalbetting.com

I’ve always argued that leader ratings are a better guide to how things stand than voting intention polls. The chart from YouGov shows the trend in Johnson’s Well/Badly ratings since he was elected leader and became PM in July 2019.

Read the full story here

«13456711

Comments

  • LennonLennon Posts: 1,578
    First?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 93,284
    edited December 2021
    Mind you Starmer only led Boris 35% to 34% with Redfield yesterday as preferred PM, by contrast Sunak led Boris 36% to 27% as preferred PM and Sunak led Starmer 38% to 34%
    https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1472992707501080581?s=20
    https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1472997747271872517?s=20
    https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1473000258980438021?s=20
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 69,349
    Na na na na na na na na na naa
    Boris is a *
    Is a *
    Boris is a *
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 3,163
    HYUFD said:

    Mind you Starmer only led Boris 35% to 34% with Redfield yesterday, by contrast Sunak led Boris 36% to 27% as preferred PM and Sunak led Starmer 38% to 34%
    https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1472992707501080581?s=20
    https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1472997747271872517?s=20
    https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1473000258980438021?s=20

    I was just about to ask about Starmer, for context. What's his net? Not nearly so bad, but still negative?
  • Beware the ides of May, Boris.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 33,472
    Selebian said:

    HYUFD said:

    Mind you Starmer only led Boris 35% to 34% with Redfield yesterday, by contrast Sunak led Boris 36% to 27% as preferred PM and Sunak led Starmer 38% to 34%
    https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1472992707501080581?s=20
    https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1472997747271872517?s=20
    https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1473000258980438021?s=20

    I was just about to ask about Starmer, for context. What's his net? Not nearly so bad, but still negative?
    He's a wet wipe and blindly goes along with everything Boris says. That seems to be the consensus among my friends. Boris has lost them, for sure, but Keir isn't winning them over. This is why I'm still pretty sure a new Tory leader has a big opportunity to turn things around. Sell the Boris agenda without being Boris.
  • LennonLennon Posts: 1,578
    edited December 2021
    FPT:
    MaxPB said:

    Anyway, my wife and I now have two negative test days in a row. We want to go and visit my sister and brother-in-law who have both also just had two negative test days in a row, what's the consensus on that? Should we go or not? Considering they've all just had COVID as well and we'll be going by car.

    Why on earth wouldn't you go? Unless money is so tight that at the extreme possibility of being caught (and how the hell would that happen anyway) you can't afford the possibility of a fine - or your sister doesn't want you to come?

    Personally, at the point that the law is beyond absurd, it is absurd to follow the law 'just because'.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 3,163
    edited December 2021

    Can't Boris rejoin the EU and then lead the campaign to quit it again? He desperately needs something to revive the old magic.

    In the good (bad) old days he'd have just started a war. Can he persuade Spain to annex Gibraltar? Even a decent French blockade of the Channel Islands could work if Johnson can break it with a Berlin-style airlift.

    Edit: Of course, ideally you need to do the war/airlift competently, which could be a problem. Losing it would probably not be a vote winner...
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 2,485
    Lennon said:

    FPT:

    MaxPB said:

    Anyway, my wife and I now have two negative test days in a row. We want to go and visit my sister and brother-in-law who have both also just had two negative test days in a row, what's the consensus on that? Should we go or not? Considering they've all just had COVID as well and we'll be going by car.

    Why on earth wouldn't you go? Unless money is so tight that at the extreme possibility of being caught (and how the hell would that happen anyway) you can't afford the possibility of a fine - or your sister doesn't want you to come?

    Personally, at the point that the law is beyond absurd, it is absurd to follow the law 'just because'.
    I've not had the dreaded two lines yet, but I know a lot of people who have. I don't know a single one of them who has reported their positive results, for precisely this reason.

    It's also why I wouldn't be surprised if the true covid numbers were running 10x higher than the official tests suggest.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 4,823
    FPT @kinabalu @OnlyLivingBoy @WhisperingOracle

    Some excellent post on the last thread guys. I mean really good.

    Re poor Comprehensives in deprived areas I agree, but this is probably a lot more to do with the issues of the area than anything else. The answer certainly isn't going back to Secondary Moderns.

    I see @HYUFD is continuing to compare stats on Grammar schools to Comprehensives and ignoring the samples are completely different because the Grammar has selected.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 17,875
    Selebian said:

    Can't Boris rejoin the EU and then lead the campaign to quit it again? He desperately needs something to revive the old magic.

    In the good (bad) old days he'd have just started a war. Can he persuade Spain to annex Gibraltar? Even a decent French blockade of the Channel Islands could work if Johnson can break it with a Berlin-style airlift.

    Edit: Of course, ideally you need to do the war/airlift competently, which could be a problem. Losing it would probably not be a vote winner...
    Airlift wouldn't do much good. Macron only need flip the leccy off, it seems, unless there are power stations on the CIs.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_Islands_Electricity_Grid
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 7,342
    edited December 2021

    I tweeted yesterday; "It's really quite an impressive achievement to be a lame-duck PM when you're just two years into your premiership with a majority of 80 and with an underwhelming opposition.". Although I was being somewhat facetious, there is a serious underlying point here: In contrast to Theresa May, for example, who had appalling ratings at a time when she didn't have a majority and was being hounded by the destructive forces of the Ultras, Boris is a fairly-recent near-landslide winner with a large majority. He should easily have the power and political prestige to dominate his party and the body politic generally.

    It turns out that this governing malarkey is damned difficult: even with a large majority you can collapse into utter shambles. Who could have predicted that a mendacious charlatan who has betrayed everyone he has had dealing with, and so commands zero personal loyalty, who can't be bothered to engage with the detail, and who has promised contradictory unicorns to every audience he's spoken to, can't hack it?

    I'm trying to think when it all started to unwind. I'd have to say the Afghanistan debacle (though it was followed by the dead-cat bounce of AUUKUS). I can't think of a single thing that went well for Boris after that.
  • Is it just coincidence that the downturn in Boris's approval seems to be around the same time as his marriage?
    Or has he got his work/life balance wrong, affecting his political judgement?
  • According to my calculations (which are SOMETIMES correct!), the "Progressive Alliance" easily, er, "won" GE 2019!

    "What is you on about, Sunil?" I hear you cry!

    Well, the Progressive Parties won 52.20% of the popular vote, the Right-wing Reactionaries won only 46.83%, and others and independents won 0.97%.

    "Show your workings".

    OK:

    Labour 32.08
    LDs 11.55
    SNP 3.88
    Greens (all UK sections) 2.70
    SF 0.57
    PC 0.48
    APNI 0.42
    SDLP 0.37
    Yorks 0.09 (yes, they are down as centre-left)
    TIGs 0.03
    PBP 0.02
    Northeast 0.01(yes, they are down as centre-left)
    Mebyon Kernow 0.01

    TOTAL 52.20%


    Conservative 43.63
    Brexit 2.01
    DUP 0.76
    UUP 0.29
    UKIP 0.07
    Aontu 0.03 (Republicans, but socially conservative)
    CPA 0.02
    EDP 0.01
    Libertarian 0.01

    TOTAL 46.83%


    OTHERS 0.97%
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 26,660
    Pulpstar said:

    Na na na na na na na na na naa
    Boris is a *
    Is a *
    Boris is a *

    Yep, he's lost the lads on the terraces and at the darts. This is the sort of thing that makes me fear for my 'still PM at Tory Conf' bet.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 93,284
    kjh said:

    FPT @kinabalu @OnlyLivingBoy @WhisperingOracle

    Some excellent post on the last thread guys. I mean really good.

    Re poor Comprehensives in deprived areas I agree, but this is probably a lot more to do with the issues of the area than anything else. The answer certainly isn't going back to Secondary Moderns.

    I see @HYUFD is continuing to compare stats on Grammar schools to Comprehensives and ignoring the samples are completely different because the Grammar has selected.

    If you lived in a deprived area 50 years ago you could go to a grammar school if intelligent.

    Now your only choice would be a comprehensive likely to be a secondary modern in all but name if you do not have wealthy parents who can send you to private school
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 3,163
    Carnyx said:

    Selebian said:

    Can't Boris rejoin the EU and then lead the campaign to quit it again? He desperately needs something to revive the old magic.

    In the good (bad) old days he'd have just started a war. Can he persuade Spain to annex Gibraltar? Even a decent French blockade of the Channel Islands could work if Johnson can break it with a Berlin-style airlift.

    Edit: Of course, ideally you need to do the war/airlift competently, which could be a problem. Losing it would probably not be a vote winner...
    Airlift wouldn't do much good. Macron only need flip the leccy off, it seems, unless there are power stations on the CIs.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_Islands_Electricity_Grid
    Good point. Airlift of a really long extension lead?

    (None of the existing interconnectors seem to go that near the CIs, which makes sense, I guess - not the shortest crossing point - although there is a planned one via Alderney, which could pesumably be linked to the ohte islands too and give a choice between French and UK leccy)
  • TazTaz Posts: 3,114

    I tweeted yesterday; "It's really quite an impressive achievement to be a lame-duck PM when you're just two years into your premiership with a majority of 80 and with an underwhelming opposition.". Although I was being somewhat facetious, there is a serious underlying point here: In contrast to Theresa May, for example, who had appalling ratings at a time when she didn't have a majority and was being hounded by the destructive forces of the Ultras, Boris is a fairly-recent near-landslide winner with a large majority. He should easily have the power and political prestige to dominate his party and the body politic generally.

    It turns out that this governing malarkey is damned difficult: even with a large majority you can collapse into utter shambles. Who could have predicted that a mendacious charlatan who has betrayed everyone he has had dealing with, and so commands zero personal loyalty, who can't be bothered to engage with the detail, and who has promised contradictory unicorns to every audience he's spoken to, can't hack it?

    I'm trying to think when it all started to unwind. I'd have to say the Afghanistan debacle (though it was followed by the dead-cat bounce of AUUKUS). I can't think of a single thing that went well for Boris after that.
    That idiot and his stray cats and dogs seemed to start it
  • HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    FPT @kinabalu @OnlyLivingBoy @WhisperingOracle

    Some excellent post on the last thread guys. I mean really good.

    Re poor Comprehensives in deprived areas I agree, but this is probably a lot more to do with the issues of the area than anything else. The answer certainly isn't going back to Secondary Moderns.

    I see @HYUFD is continuing to compare stats on Grammar schools to Comprehensives and ignoring the samples are completely different because the Grammar has selected.

    If you lived in a deprived area 50 years ago you could go to a grammar school if intelligent.

    Now your only choice would be a comprehensive likely to be a secondary modern in all but name if you do not have wealthy parents who can send you to private school
    That doesn't answer the point.
  • I tweeted yesterday; "It's really quite an impressive achievement to be a lame-duck PM when you're just two years into your premiership with a majority of 80 and with an underwhelming opposition.". Although I was being somewhat facetious, there is a serious underlying point here: In contrast to Theresa May, for example, who had appalling ratings at a time when she didn't have a majority and was being hounded by the destructive forces of the Ultras, Boris is a fairly-recent near-landslide winner with a large majority. He should easily have the power and political prestige to dominate his party and the body politic generally.

    It turns out that this governing malarkey is damned difficult: even with a large majority you can collapse into utter shambles. Who could have predicted that a mendacious charlatan who has betrayed everyone he has had dealing with, and so commands zero personal loyalty, who can't be bothered to engage with the detail, and who has promised contradictory unicorns to every audience he's spoken to, can't hack it?

    I'm trying to think when it all started to unwind. I'd have to say the Afghanistan debacle (though it was followed by the dead-cat bounce of AUUKUS). I can't think of a single thing that went well for Boris after that.
    I have to admit I saw the mess over Afghanistan as more Biden's fault than Johnson's although on the detail he did certainly get a lot wrong and cost lives.

    Strange as it may seem and for all his faults, I would suggest that the departure of Cummings that marked the turning point. Whilst he was the cause of some of Johnson's problems it also looks clear to me that his presence had moderated some of Johnson's more outlandish behaviour and he generally had a good political radar, able to spot trouble and divert it. Since he left Johnson's PR operation has fallen apart utterly and he seems incapable of making a single correct decision. Cummings may turn out to have been his necessary evil.
  • Is it just coincidence that the downturn in Boris's approval seems to be around the same time as his marriage?
    Or has he got his work/life balance wrong, affecting his political judgement?

    I'm surprised Boris even wanted to get married as he seems like one of life's natural bachelor playboys. Though he is also, of course, a multiple divorcee. One of the paradoxes of Boris I think.
  • Is it just coincidence that the downturn in Boris's approval seems to be around the same time as his marriage?
    Or has he got his work/life balance wrong, affecting his political judgement?

    I'm surprised Boris even wanted to get married as he seems like one of life's natural bachelor playboys. Though he is also, of course, a multiple divorcee. One of the paradoxes of Boris I think.
    I can't imagine Carrie gave him any choice. She ain't stupid.
  • As an aside, -50 wasn't Corbyn's final approval rating. It was the last one with YouGov, but four months before Corbyn stood down as LotO; the last one overall was a -36 with Opinium in April 2020. Mori recorded a -49 in mid-March.
  • maaarshmaaarsh Posts: 3,359

    Is it just coincidence that the downturn in Boris's approval seems to be around the same time as his marriage?
    Or has he got his work/life balance wrong, affecting his political judgement?

    I'm surprised Boris even wanted to get married as he seems like one of life's natural bachelor playboys. Though he is also, of course, a multiple divorcee. One of the paradoxes of Boris I think.
    I can't imagine Carrie gave him any choice. She ain't stupid.
    If he's as poor as all that being PM, how good a settlement can she be expecting when it unravels shortly after he leaves office?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 93,284
    edited December 2021

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    FPT @kinabalu @OnlyLivingBoy @WhisperingOracle

    Some excellent post on the last thread guys. I mean really good.

    Re poor Comprehensives in deprived areas I agree, but this is probably a lot more to do with the issues of the area than anything else. The answer certainly isn't going back to Secondary Moderns.

    I see @HYUFD is continuing to compare stats on Grammar schools to Comprehensives and ignoring the samples are completely different because the Grammar has selected.

    If you lived in a deprived area 50 years ago you could go to a grammar school if intelligent.

    Now your only choice would be a comprehensive likely to be a secondary modern in all but name if you do not have wealthy parents who can send you to private school
    That doesn't answer the point.
    It does. Unless you live in a wealthy suburb or rural area (or go to a comprehensive or academy where admission is based on church attendance) comprehensives are often just renamed secondary moderns effectively.

  • I have to admit I saw the mess over Afghanistan as more Biden's fault than Johnson's although on the detail he did certainly get a lot wrong and cost lives.

    Strange as it may seem and for all his faults, I would suggest that the departure of Cummings that marked the turning point. Whilst he was the cause of some of Johnson's problems it also looks clear to me that his presence had moderated some of Johnson's more outlandish behaviour and he generally had a good political radar, able to spot trouble and divert it. Since he left Johnson's PR operation has fallen apart utterly and he seems incapable of making a single correct decision. Cummings may turn out to have been his necessary evil.

    Agree on both points, but it's fair enough to criticise the UK government on the implementation of the Afghanistan withdrawal (and of course on the utter disgrace of the Pen Farthing affair).
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 33,021
    MaxPB said:

    Selebian said:

    HYUFD said:

    Mind you Starmer only led Boris 35% to 34% with Redfield yesterday, by contrast Sunak led Boris 36% to 27% as preferred PM and Sunak led Starmer 38% to 34%
    https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1472992707501080581?s=20
    https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1472997747271872517?s=20
    https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1473000258980438021?s=20

    I was just about to ask about Starmer, for context. What's his net? Not nearly so bad, but still negative?
    He's a wet wipe and blindly goes along with everything Boris says. That seems to be the consensus among my friends. Boris has lost them, for sure, but Keir isn't winning them over. This is why I'm still pretty sure a new Tory leader has a big opportunity to turn things around. Sell the Boris agenda without being Boris.
    Just saw your post about going out before your isolation expires. My view is yes. As long as all participants are comfortable with it. People are entitled to have their own response to all this and those views should be respected.

    I have the same thing over Christmas. Niece will be 7 days in. I have said that if everyone is happy then of course she should join us (if not then we will postpone "Christmas" to when she has done the ten days).
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 4,219
    HYUFD said:

    Mind you Starmer only led Boris 35% to 34% with Redfield yesterday as preferred PM, by contrast Sunak led Boris 36% to 27% as preferred PM and Sunak led Starmer 38% to 34%
    https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1472992707501080581?s=20
    https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1472997747271872517?s=20
    https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1473000258980438021?s=20

    Surely what really matters is what Trafalgar Group's poll says?
  • RazedabodeRazedabode Posts: 1,656
    Taz said:

    I tweeted yesterday; "It's really quite an impressive achievement to be a lame-duck PM when you're just two years into your premiership with a majority of 80 and with an underwhelming opposition.". Although I was being somewhat facetious, there is a serious underlying point here: In contrast to Theresa May, for example, who had appalling ratings at a time when she didn't have a majority and was being hounded by the destructive forces of the Ultras, Boris is a fairly-recent near-landslide winner with a large majority. He should easily have the power and political prestige to dominate his party and the body politic generally.

    It turns out that this governing malarkey is damned difficult: even with a large majority you can collapse into utter shambles. Who could have predicted that a mendacious charlatan who has betrayed everyone he has had dealing with, and so commands zero personal loyalty, who can't be bothered to engage with the detail, and who has promised contradictory unicorns to every audience he's spoken to, can't hack it?

    I'm trying to think when it all started to unwind. I'd have to say the Afghanistan debacle (though it was followed by the dead-cat bounce of AUUKUS). I can't think of a single thing that went well for Boris after that.
    That idiot and his stray cats and dogs seemed to start it
    Im still not over that supposed rumour about Carrie directly getting involved in prioritising those animals.. hmm
  • I tweeted yesterday; "It's really quite an impressive achievement to be a lame-duck PM when you're just two years into your premiership with a majority of 80 and with an underwhelming opposition.". Although I was being somewhat facetious, there is a serious underlying point here: In contrast to Theresa May, for example, who had appalling ratings at a time when she didn't have a majority and was being hounded by the destructive forces of the Ultras, Boris is a fairly-recent near-landslide winner with a large majority. He should easily have the power and political prestige to dominate his party and the body politic generally.

    It turns out that this governing malarkey is damned difficult: even with a large majority you can collapse into utter shambles. Who could have predicted that a mendacious charlatan who has betrayed everyone he has had dealing with, and so commands zero personal loyalty, who can't be bothered to engage with the detail, and who has promised contradictory unicorns to every audience he's spoken to, can't hack it?

    I'm trying to think when it all started to unwind. I'd have to say the Afghanistan debacle (though it was followed by the dead-cat bounce of AUUKUS). I can't think of a single thing that went well for Boris after that.
    No, it was Paterson.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 33,021
    edited December 2021
    On topic. I'm not sure sure. This is mid term blues and there is plenty of time for Boris to turn it around.

    I'm with @kinabalu, ditzy a view as it is, that Boris will be here for the next conference.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 93,284
    edited December 2021
    maaarsh said:

    Is it just coincidence that the downturn in Boris's approval seems to be around the same time as his marriage?
    Or has he got his work/life balance wrong, affecting his political judgement?

    I'm surprised Boris even wanted to get married as he seems like one of life's natural bachelor playboys. Though he is also, of course, a multiple divorcee. One of the paradoxes of Boris I think.
    I can't imagine Carrie gave him any choice. She ain't stupid.
    If he's as poor as all that being PM, how good a settlement can she be expecting when it unravels shortly after he leaves office?
    Perhaps she could do a Jackie Onassis and marry a billionaire?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 33,021

    Is it just coincidence that the downturn in Boris's approval seems to be around the same time as his marriage?
    Or has he got his work/life balance wrong, affecting his political judgement?

    I'm surprised Boris even wanted to get married as he seems like one of life's natural bachelor playboys. Though he is also, of course, a multiple divorcee. One of the paradoxes of Boris I think.
    Hates saying no and is a bit weak. Wouldn't be the only bloke like that, that said.
  • TazTaz Posts: 3,114

    Taz said:

    I tweeted yesterday; "It's really quite an impressive achievement to be a lame-duck PM when you're just two years into your premiership with a majority of 80 and with an underwhelming opposition.". Although I was being somewhat facetious, there is a serious underlying point here: In contrast to Theresa May, for example, who had appalling ratings at a time when she didn't have a majority and was being hounded by the destructive forces of the Ultras, Boris is a fairly-recent near-landslide winner with a large majority. He should easily have the power and political prestige to dominate his party and the body politic generally.

    It turns out that this governing malarkey is damned difficult: even with a large majority you can collapse into utter shambles. Who could have predicted that a mendacious charlatan who has betrayed everyone he has had dealing with, and so commands zero personal loyalty, who can't be bothered to engage with the detail, and who has promised contradictory unicorns to every audience he's spoken to, can't hack it?

    I'm trying to think when it all started to unwind. I'd have to say the Afghanistan debacle (though it was followed by the dead-cat bounce of AUUKUS). I can't think of a single thing that went well for Boris after that.
    That idiot and his stray cats and dogs seemed to start it
    Im still not over that supposed rumour about Carrie directly getting involved in prioritising those animals.. hmm
    No, and it all feeds into the narrative about her influence over him which has never been thoroughly denied.
  • Is it just coincidence that the downturn in Boris's approval seems to be around the same time as his marriage?
    Or has he got his work/life balance wrong, affecting his political judgement?

    I'm surprised Boris even wanted to get married as he seems like one of life's natural bachelor playboys. Though he is also, of course, a multiple divorcee. One of the paradoxes of Boris I think.
    Johnson has been divorced as many times as all previous prime ministers combined. Time left to set the record outright, too.
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 2,485
    Selebian said:

    Carnyx said:

    Selebian said:

    Can't Boris rejoin the EU and then lead the campaign to quit it again? He desperately needs something to revive the old magic.

    In the good (bad) old days he'd have just started a war. Can he persuade Spain to annex Gibraltar? Even a decent French blockade of the Channel Islands could work if Johnson can break it with a Berlin-style airlift.

    Edit: Of course, ideally you need to do the war/airlift competently, which could be a problem. Losing it would probably not be a vote winner...
    Airlift wouldn't do much good. Macron only need flip the leccy off, it seems, unless there are power stations on the CIs.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_Islands_Electricity_Grid
    Good point. Airlift of a really long extension lead?

    (None of the existing interconnectors seem to go that near the CIs, which makes sense, I guess - not the shortest crossing point - although there is a planned one via Alderney, which could pesumably be linked to the ohte islands too and give a choice between French and UK leccy)
    Presumably this would be a casus belli for us to retake Normandy. That is, of course, if we could spare the tanks from the Scottish front.
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 3,000
    maaarsh said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    I think the next tranche of South Africa's excess deaths data is due out today or tomorrow, covering iirc up to 5/12.

    Last week's showed a doubling of excess deaths from 1000 to 2000 per week, which sounded concerning atv that stage.

    But there was lots of room for doubt in that data:

    1. Excess deaths have been running near 1000 per week even in between COVID waves, suggesting some of this excess death is due to wider societal strain rather than pure COVID death count.
    2. The baseline lurches down a bit for the week in question - week 48 (again iirc) seems like a low death week over the last 5 years. It means the actual death count only went up by a couple of hundred to turn 1000 xs into 2000 xs.
    3. That excess deaths were 20x those reported in hospitals was wildly above previous multipliers.

    My best guess is that, of the 2000 excess deaths, perhaps only about 300-500 were excess deaths attributable to Omicron. But this week's figures will be a stern test of that, or a higher, attribution to Omicron.

    Nah, doubling was the 1 before last. Last week had largely flat excess deaths, and less excess death than the national average in the Gauteng epicentre.
    Thanks Maarsh.

    Looked again having looked last Wednesday. It was the w/e 5/12 I was quoting which was around 1700.

    Excess deaths for w/e 11/12 (I was a week out) remains around the 1800 mark from a 1000 baseline.

    https://www.samrc.ac.za/sites/default/files/files/2021-12-15/weekly11Dec2021.pdf

    The doubt has been an absolute bugger for the decision makers faced with massive case numbers, a highly uncertain impact multiplier, but just hints that it's going to be OK.

    Yes, up to date with SA, I think it's going to be OK at still credible worst case.

    I note Italy made the exact same no new curbs yet decision last night as we did.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 44,985

    Is it just coincidence that the downturn in Boris's approval seems to be around the same time as his marriage?
    Or has he got his work/life balance wrong, affecting his political judgement?

    I'm surprised Boris even wanted to get married as he seems like one of life's natural bachelor playboys. Though he is also, of course, a multiple divorcee. One of the paradoxes of Boris I think.
    Johnson has been divorced as many times as all previous prime ministers combined. Time left to set the record outright, too.
    I thought he'd been divorced twice?

    If so who's the other PM to have been divorced (after Eden)?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 69,349
    HYUFD said:

    maaarsh said:

    Is it just coincidence that the downturn in Boris's approval seems to be around the same time as his marriage?
    Or has he got his work/life balance wrong, affecting his political judgement?

    I'm surprised Boris even wanted to get married as he seems like one of life's natural bachelor playboys. Though he is also, of course, a multiple divorcee. One of the paradoxes of Boris I think.
    I can't imagine Carrie gave him any choice. She ain't stupid.
    If he's as poor as all that being PM, how good a settlement can she be expecting when it unravels shortly after he leaves office?
    Perhaps she could do a Jackie Onassis and marry a billionaire?
    Which Lord could you possibly have in mind.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 36,074
    FPT: While everyone is distracted by small stories like a new variant of the pandemic virus, the big stories are going past under the radar…

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/12/21/ftse-100-markets-live-news-pound-share-price-latest/

    “Gas prices have surged to a fresh record high after Russia halted flows to Europe via a key pipeline.

    “The amount of gas entering Germany’s Mallnow compressor station, where the Yamal-Europe pipeline terminates, dropped to zero early on Tuesday and Russian gas began flowing east towards Poland.

    “The drop in supplies will force European countries to keep withdrawing supplies from their already depleted stockpiles.

    “This is being compounded by freezing temperatures across the continent, which are driving up demand and inflating prices.

    “Benchmark European prices jumped as much as 11pc, while the UK equivalent rose 10pc, with both hitting new all-time highs.”

    This is going to be a massive story over the winter, as energy bills and petrol prices continue to go up.
  • That moment at the World Darts when everyone stood in unison, spontaneously, chanting 'F*ck off Boris Johnson' is quite telling, I feel.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 33,472
    Pro_Rata said:

    maaarsh said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    I think the next tranche of South Africa's excess deaths data is due out today or tomorrow, covering iirc up to 5/12.

    Last week's showed a doubling of excess deaths from 1000 to 2000 per week, which sounded concerning atv that stage.

    But there was lots of room for doubt in that data:

    1. Excess deaths have been running near 1000 per week even in between COVID waves, suggesting some of this excess death is due to wider societal strain rather than pure COVID death count.
    2. The baseline lurches down a bit for the week in question - week 48 (again iirc) seems like a low death week over the last 5 years. It means the actual death count only went up by a couple of hundred to turn 1000 xs into 2000 xs.
    3. That excess deaths were 20x those reported in hospitals was wildly above previous multipliers.

    My best guess is that, of the 2000 excess deaths, perhaps only about 300-500 were excess deaths attributable to Omicron. But this week's figures will be a stern test of that, or a higher, attribution to Omicron.

    Nah, doubling was the 1 before last. Last week had largely flat excess deaths, and less excess death than the national average in the Gauteng epicentre.
    Thanks Maarsh.

    Looked again having looked last Wednesday. It was the w/e 5/12 I was quoting which was around 1700.

    Excess deaths for w/e 11/12 (I was a week out) remains around the 1800 mark from a 1000 baseline.

    https://www.samrc.ac.za/sites/default/files/files/2021-12-15/weekly11Dec2021.pdf

    The doubt has been an absolute bugger for the decision makers faced with massive case numbers, a highly uncertain impact multiplier, but just hints that it's going to be OK.

    Yes, up to date with SA, I think it's going to be OK at still credible worst case.

    I note Italy made the exact same no new curbs yet decision last night as we did.
    I think the panic over the last couple of weeks is going to look very silly on the other side of the new year. The incoming data from Omicron is very positive indeed, especially for people with some level of pre-existing immunity.
  • ydoethur said:

    Is it just coincidence that the downturn in Boris's approval seems to be around the same time as his marriage?
    Or has he got his work/life balance wrong, affecting his political judgement?

    I'm surprised Boris even wanted to get married as he seems like one of life's natural bachelor playboys. Though he is also, of course, a multiple divorcee. One of the paradoxes of Boris I think.
    Johnson has been divorced as many times as all previous prime ministers combined. Time left to set the record outright, too.
    I thought he'd been divorced twice?

    If so who's the other PM to have been divorced (after Eden)?
    The Duke of Grafton, 1769. He needed an Act of Parliament to do it.
  • eekeek Posts: 17,710
    Sandpit said:

    FPT: While everyone is distracted by small stories like a new variant of the pandemic virus, the big stories are going past under the radar…

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/12/21/ftse-100-markets-live-news-pound-share-price-latest/

    “Gas prices have surged to a fresh record high after Russia halted flows to Europe via a key pipeline.

    “The amount of gas entering Germany’s Mallnow compressor station, where the Yamal-Europe pipeline terminates, dropped to zero early on Tuesday and Russian gas began flowing east towards Poland.

    “The drop in supplies will force European countries to keep withdrawing supplies from their already depleted stockpiles.

    “This is being compounded by freezing temperatures across the continent, which are driving up demand and inflating prices.

    “Benchmark European prices jumped as much as 11pc, while the UK equivalent rose 10pc, with both hitting new all-time highs.”

    This is going to be a massive story over the winter, as energy bills and petrol prices continue to go up.

    The story won't hit UK consumers though as electricity and Gas prices are capped until April.
  • eekeek Posts: 17,710
    £1bn from Rishi for hospitality firms
  • RobDRobD Posts: 56,656
    Heathener said:

    That moment at the World Darts when everyone stood in unison, spontaneously, chanting 'F*ck off Boris Johnson' is quite telling, I feel.

    Spontaneously? They didn’t all just decide at that moment to do it.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 9,651

    According to my calculations (which are SOMETIMES correct!), the "Progressive Alliance" easily, er, "won" GE 2019!

    "What is you on about, Sunil?" I hear you cry!

    Well, the Progressive Parties won 52.20% of the popular vote, the Right-wing Reactionaries won only 46.83%, and others and independents won 0.97%.

    Oh yes, the "Progressive Alliance" - wheeled out every so often.

    In this incarnation, it's an anti-Conservative alliance as it was in 1992 and 1997 but in 2010 it was an anti-Labour alliance. The cynic might term it the "it's our turn to put our snouts in the trough" alliance.

    Maybe but it's never going to happen - formally at any rate.

    It may well happen informally as in 1997 and 2010 when electors worked out for themselves which was the best way to give the governing party a real kicking.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 44,985

    ydoethur said:

    Is it just coincidence that the downturn in Boris's approval seems to be around the same time as his marriage?
    Or has he got his work/life balance wrong, affecting his political judgement?

    I'm surprised Boris even wanted to get married as he seems like one of life's natural bachelor playboys. Though he is also, of course, a multiple divorcee. One of the paradoxes of Boris I think.
    Johnson has been divorced as many times as all previous prime ministers combined. Time left to set the record outright, too.
    I thought he'd been divorced twice?

    If so who's the other PM to have been divorced (after Eden)?
    The Duke of Grafton, 1769. He needed an Act of Parliament to do it.
    Thanks. Not somebody I know much about.
  • Sandpit said:

    FPT: While everyone is distracted by small stories like a new variant of the pandemic virus, the big stories are going past under the radar…

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/12/21/ftse-100-markets-live-news-pound-share-price-latest/

    “Gas prices have surged to a fresh record high after Russia halted flows to Europe via a key pipeline.

    “The amount of gas entering Germany’s Mallnow compressor station, where the Yamal-Europe pipeline terminates, dropped to zero early on Tuesday and Russian gas began flowing east towards Poland.

    “The drop in supplies will force European countries to keep withdrawing supplies from their already depleted stockpiles.

    “This is being compounded by freezing temperatures across the continent, which are driving up demand and inflating prices.

    “Benchmark European prices jumped as much as 11pc, while the UK equivalent rose 10pc, with both hitting new all-time highs.”

    This is going to be a massive story over the winter, as energy bills and petrol prices continue to go up.

    It's going to be a massive story because Putin is preparing the ground to invade Ukraine, banking on using gas supplies to keep Europe quiet enough in response.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 36,074
    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    FPT: While everyone is distracted by small stories like a new variant of the pandemic virus, the big stories are going past under the radar…

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/12/21/ftse-100-markets-live-news-pound-share-price-latest/

    “Gas prices have surged to a fresh record high after Russia halted flows to Europe via a key pipeline.

    “The amount of gas entering Germany’s Mallnow compressor station, where the Yamal-Europe pipeline terminates, dropped to zero early on Tuesday and Russian gas began flowing east towards Poland.

    “The drop in supplies will force European countries to keep withdrawing supplies from their already depleted stockpiles.

    “This is being compounded by freezing temperatures across the continent, which are driving up demand and inflating prices.

    “Benchmark European prices jumped as much as 11pc, while the UK equivalent rose 10pc, with both hitting new all-time highs.”

    This is going to be a massive story over the winter, as energy bills and petrol prices continue to go up.

    The story won't hit UK consumers though as electricity and Gas prices are capped until April.
    So they’ll go up in one big jump, just before the local elections?

    (Assuming providers don’t keep going bust in the meantime).
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 44,985
    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    FPT: While everyone is distracted by small stories like a new variant of the pandemic virus, the big stories are going past under the radar…

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/12/21/ftse-100-markets-live-news-pound-share-price-latest/

    “Gas prices have surged to a fresh record high after Russia halted flows to Europe via a key pipeline.

    “The amount of gas entering Germany’s Mallnow compressor station, where the Yamal-Europe pipeline terminates, dropped to zero early on Tuesday and Russian gas began flowing east towards Poland.

    “The drop in supplies will force European countries to keep withdrawing supplies from their already depleted stockpiles.

    “This is being compounded by freezing temperatures across the continent, which are driving up demand and inflating prices.

    “Benchmark European prices jumped as much as 11pc, while the UK equivalent rose 10pc, with both hitting new all-time highs.”

    This is going to be a massive story over the winter, as energy bills and petrol prices continue to go up.

    The story won't hit UK consumers though as electricity and Gas prices are capped until April.
    Depends on how many energy suppliers fold in the meanwhile, however.
  • I tweeted yesterday; "It's really quite an impressive achievement to be a lame-duck PM when you're just two years into your premiership with a majority of 80 and with an underwhelming opposition.". Although I was being somewhat facetious, there is a serious underlying point here: In contrast to Theresa May, for example, who had appalling ratings at a time when she didn't have a majority and was being hounded by the destructive forces of the Ultras, Boris is a fairly-recent near-landslide winner with a large majority. He should easily have the power and political prestige to dominate his party and the body politic generally.

    It turns out that this governing malarkey is damned difficult: even with a large majority you can collapse into utter shambles. Who could have predicted that a mendacious charlatan who has betrayed everyone he has had dealings with, and so commands zero personal loyalty, who can't be bothered to engage with the detail, and who has promised contradictory unicorns to every audience he's spoken to, can't hack it?

    Also quite an achievement to trash your ratings during the pandemic; as I understand it most leaders have had a boost with a bit of subsequent up and down. Of course people like Trump and Bolsonaro are examples who have really gone down the toilet. I'm sure no comparisons should be made..
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 36,074

    Sandpit said:

    FPT: While everyone is distracted by small stories like a new variant of the pandemic virus, the big stories are going past under the radar…

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/12/21/ftse-100-markets-live-news-pound-share-price-latest/

    “Gas prices have surged to a fresh record high after Russia halted flows to Europe via a key pipeline.

    “The amount of gas entering Germany’s Mallnow compressor station, where the Yamal-Europe pipeline terminates, dropped to zero early on Tuesday and Russian gas began flowing east towards Poland.

    “The drop in supplies will force European countries to keep withdrawing supplies from their already depleted stockpiles.

    “This is being compounded by freezing temperatures across the continent, which are driving up demand and inflating prices.

    “Benchmark European prices jumped as much as 11pc, while the UK equivalent rose 10pc, with both hitting new all-time highs.”

    This is going to be a massive story over the winter, as energy bills and petrol prices continue to go up.

    It's going to be a massive story because Putin is preparing the ground to invade Ukraine, banking on using gas supplies to keep Europe quiet enough in response.
    Sadly, yes.
  • TimTTimT Posts: 5,188
    edited December 2021
    FPT:
    TimT Posts: 4,808
    8:04AM
    Philip_Thompson said:
    » show previous quotes
    But that's not common sense.

    Yes you may want to highlight the detail of the worst case but you can't "forget about" the rest. That's not their choice to make.

    If the models show things would probably be fine, but there's a worst case scenario where it's awful, then the politicians should get all that information.

    If the models show things are definitely awful, and there's no positive scenario to show, then the politicians should get all that information.

    If the modellers choose to disregard any scenarios that aren't catastrophic then there's no distinction between those two cases when there really should be!

    What the politicians choose to do with the information is for them. But they should get the full oversight not just a cherry picked version.




    In managing risks in conditions of ignorance, you can forget about the scenarios that require no action, as the default is no action. What you are concerned about is whether action needs to be taken, because a failure to take timely action is by its nature a fall back to the default of no action.

    Thus, in conditions of ignorance and one or more scenarios that contain high consequence hazards* (not risks - we are avoiding numbers as we are in the zone of ignorance) that potentially would result in Never Events, you do just concentrate on those scenarios with such hazards and potential Never Event consequences.

    * For those who don't know the vocabulary, a hazard is something that can cause harm, regardless of probability; and risk is a numerical calculation of probability x impact, which requires numerical values for both p and I
  • eekeek Posts: 17,710
    ydoethur said:

    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    FPT: While everyone is distracted by small stories like a new variant of the pandemic virus, the big stories are going past under the radar…

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/12/21/ftse-100-markets-live-news-pound-share-price-latest/

    “Gas prices have surged to a fresh record high after Russia halted flows to Europe via a key pipeline.

    “The amount of gas entering Germany’s Mallnow compressor station, where the Yamal-Europe pipeline terminates, dropped to zero early on Tuesday and Russian gas began flowing east towards Poland.

    “The drop in supplies will force European countries to keep withdrawing supplies from their already depleted stockpiles.

    “This is being compounded by freezing temperatures across the continent, which are driving up demand and inflating prices.

    “Benchmark European prices jumped as much as 11pc, while the UK equivalent rose 10pc, with both hitting new all-time highs.”

    This is going to be a massive story over the winter, as energy bills and petrol prices continue to go up.

    The story won't hit UK consumers though as electricity and Gas prices are capped until April.
    Depends on how many energy suppliers fold in the meanwhile, however.
    If more energy suppliers fold - the Government won't be able to do anything except pick up the bill.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 21,866

    I tweeted yesterday; "It's really quite an impressive achievement to be a lame-duck PM when you're just two years into your premiership with a majority of 80 and with an underwhelming opposition.". Although I was being somewhat facetious, there is a serious underlying point here: In contrast to Theresa May, for example, who had appalling ratings at a time when she didn't have a majority and was being hounded by the destructive forces of the Ultras, Boris is a fairly-recent near-landslide winner with a large majority. He should easily have the power and political prestige to dominate his party and the body politic generally.

    It turns out that this governing malarkey is damned difficult: even with a large majority you can collapse into utter shambles. Who could have predicted that a mendacious charlatan who has betrayed everyone he has had dealings with, and so commands zero personal loyalty, who can't be bothered to engage with the detail, and who has promised contradictory unicorns to every audience he's spoken to, can't hack it?

    Also quite an achievement to trash your ratings during the pandemic; as I understand it most leaders have had a boost with a bit of subsequent up and down. Of course people like Trump and Bolsonaro are examples who have really gone down the toilet. I'm sure no comparisons should be made..
    The last time the Cons were polling badly was winter last year - apparently people don't like it when there is a raging pandemic and short days. So there is scope for recovery yet.
  • Is it just coincidence that the downturn in Boris's approval seems to be around the same time as his marriage?
    Or has he got his work/life balance wrong, affecting his political judgement?

    My view is that Boris was a tool (well, still is, but you know…) to get us out of the EU. That’s what people wanted; that’s what he did. Attitudes to Boris beyond that were ambivalent in 2019 save that people quite liked his go-getting levelling up punchy optimism.

    He got the first job done and that was the first point where he faced a crossroads. Could he adapt to now governing post-Brexit Britain and maintain that popular support? The answer is no. Covid came along and masked (no pun intended) his failures for a little while (people gave him a bit of a pass for the initial failures in covid response, unprecedented situation, etc etc). But now he’s been found out. He did the job he was elected to do, got Brexit over the line, but he can’t govern the country. Levelling up has floundered. Optimism is gone, replaced by green waffle (worthy ambition but not really what people expected) and covid doom.

    Boris was perhaps always going to be found lacking eventually. He’s not an administrator or a leader. He’s a blunt force object and morally questionable individual who served his purpose and has shown he’s not adapted and is not up to the job of post-Brexit leadership. Perhaps to use a Churchill analogy to reference his political hero: he won us the war but we didn’t want him to govern us in the peace that followed thereafter.
  • eekeek Posts: 17,710
    Sandpit said:

    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    FPT: While everyone is distracted by small stories like a new variant of the pandemic virus, the big stories are going past under the radar…

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/12/21/ftse-100-markets-live-news-pound-share-price-latest/

    “Gas prices have surged to a fresh record high after Russia halted flows to Europe via a key pipeline.

    “The amount of gas entering Germany’s Mallnow compressor station, where the Yamal-Europe pipeline terminates, dropped to zero early on Tuesday and Russian gas began flowing east towards Poland.

    “The drop in supplies will force European countries to keep withdrawing supplies from their already depleted stockpiles.

    “This is being compounded by freezing temperatures across the continent, which are driving up demand and inflating prices.

    “Benchmark European prices jumped as much as 11pc, while the UK equivalent rose 10pc, with both hitting new all-time highs.”

    This is going to be a massive story over the winter, as energy bills and petrol prices continue to go up.

    The story won't hit UK consumers though as electricity and Gas prices are capped until April.
    So they’ll go up in one big jump, just before the local elections?

    (Assuming providers don’t keep going bust in the meantime).
    Yep - by the May local elections

    Inflation will be higher
    Your pay packet is 1% lower
    pay rises will be low because of the other 1% tax increase
    And your gas electric bill will be 40% minimum higher.

    It's going to be blood bath for whoever is in power.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 33,472
    £1bn is just enough to make it seem like the government are doing something but not enough to actually make a difference.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 69,349
    edited December 2021

    I tweeted yesterday; "It's really quite an impressive achievement to be a lame-duck PM when you're just two years into your premiership with a majority of 80 and with an underwhelming opposition.". Although I was being somewhat facetious, there is a serious underlying point here: In contrast to Theresa May, for example, who had appalling ratings at a time when she didn't have a majority and was being hounded by the destructive forces of the Ultras, Boris is a fairly-recent near-landslide winner with a large majority. He should easily have the power and political prestige to dominate his party and the body politic generally.

    It turns out that this governing malarkey is damned difficult: even with a large majority you can collapse into utter shambles. Who could have predicted that a mendacious charlatan who has betrayed everyone he has had dealings with, and so commands zero personal loyalty, who can't be bothered to engage with the detail, and who has promised contradictory unicorns to every audience he's spoken to, can't hack it?

    Governing is harder and easier at different times. Now May, she had a genuinely difficult job - Brexit was extremely de novo divisive, and she had an extremely divided parliament (Her own fault but an understandable error). Boris (politically) solved the Brexit issue by screwing over his DUP allies and having help from parliament to force a favourable General Election. It was a bit of very good politics.
    Now, whilst governing isn't THAT easy - the balance is essentially getting it right between the treasury and the NHS, whilst we're in a pandemic the Gov't gets a very large amount of leeway to do as it sees fit. All Boris needed to do was follow the letter and spirit of his own rules and he'd be ahead in the polls not near Corbyn's ratings.
    Sunak's ratings are fine, Boris' are not.
  • eekeek Posts: 17,710
    MaxPB said:

    £1bn is just enough to make it seem like the government are doing something but not enough to actually make a difference.

    It's £6k per venue so designed to make the payments straightforward.
  • SandraMcSandraMc Posts: 278

    Is it just coincidence that the downturn in Boris's approval seems to be around the same time as his marriage?
    Or has he got his work/life balance wrong, affecting his political judgement?

    If he had stayed with Marina, he wouldn't have had to fork out for an expensive divorce settlement. He would have a high earning wife, plus I can't see Marina as the type to enthuse about gold wallpaper. His kids would all be grown up and there would be no crying babies at night to distract him. You would have to have a heart of stone not to laugh at the way Boris has brought problems on himself.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 33,472
    eek said:

    MaxPB said:

    £1bn is just enough to make it seem like the government are doing something but not enough to actually make a difference.

    It's £6k per venue so designed to make the payments straightforward.
    £6k for a small pub vs £6k for a theatre seems a bit mad.
  • eekeek Posts: 17,710
    MaxPB said:

    eek said:

    MaxPB said:

    £1bn is just enough to make it seem like the government are doing something but not enough to actually make a difference.

    It's £6k per venue so designed to make the payments straightforward.
    £6k for a small pub vs £6k for a theatre seems a bit mad.
    You don't expect careful thinking from the Treasury do you?

    See my point yesterday - the pay being offered isn't high enough to get decent people round here (Darlington) let alone in central London.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 31,040
    edited December 2021
    Alistair said:

    I tweeted yesterday; "It's really quite an impressive achievement to be a lame-duck PM when you're just two years into your premiership with a majority of 80 and with an underwhelming opposition.". Although I was being somewhat facetious, there is a serious underlying point here: In contrast to Theresa May, for example, who had appalling ratings at a time when she didn't have a majority and was being hounded by the destructive forces of the Ultras, Boris is a fairly-recent near-landslide winner with a large majority. He should easily have the power and political prestige to dominate his party and the body politic generally.

    It turns out that this governing malarkey is damned difficult: even with a large majority you can collapse into utter shambles. Who could have predicted that a mendacious charlatan who has betrayed everyone he has had dealings with, and so commands zero personal loyalty, who can't be bothered to engage with the detail, and who has promised contradictory unicorns to every audience he's spoken to, can't hack it?

    Also quite an achievement to trash your ratings during the pandemic; as I understand it most leaders have had a boost with a bit of subsequent up and down. Of course people like Trump and Bolsonaro are examples who have really gone down the toilet. I'm sure no comparisons should be made..
    The last time the Cons were polling badly was winter last year - apparently people don't like it when there is a raging pandemic and short days. So there is scope for recovery yet.
    Not impossible I guess but I think 'the one rule for them' stuff has real, lasting impact, particularly when there are photos & video to stick in the memory.

    This is the first time I recall the line being used.


  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 44,985
    MaxPB said:

    eek said:

    MaxPB said:

    £1bn is just enough to make it seem like the government are doing something but not enough to actually make a difference.

    It's £6k per venue so designed to make the payments straightforward.
    £6k for a small pub vs £6k for a theatre seems a bit mad.
    The Dog and Partridge at Calf Heath will be laughing but the Bristol Old Vic won't be.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 33,021
    MaxPB said:

    £1bn is just enough to make it seem like the government are doing something but not enough to actually make a difference.

    Lab should have asked for £2bn.
  • I tweeted yesterday; "It's really quite an impressive achievement to be a lame-duck PM when you're just two years into your premiership with a majority of 80 and with an underwhelming opposition.". Although I was being somewhat facetious, there is a serious underlying point here: In contrast to Theresa May, for example, who had appalling ratings at a time when she didn't have a majority and was being hounded by the destructive forces of the Ultras, Boris is a fairly-recent near-landslide winner with a large majority. He should easily have the power and political prestige to dominate his party and the body politic generally.

    It turns out that this governing malarkey is damned difficult: even with a large majority you can collapse into utter shambles. Who could have predicted that a mendacious charlatan who has betrayed everyone he has had dealings with, and so commands zero personal loyalty, who can't be bothered to engage with the detail, and who has promised contradictory unicorns to every audience he's spoken to, can't hack it?

    I think the issue is we've had ten years worth of "events" in a two year period.

    Boris handled the early big calls largely right for the first two years but he seems broken by events now.

    He's scared of every shadow, jumping at cases rather than hospitalisations and unsure and not at all sure footed anymore. He needs to be replaced now, even if he was good in the past.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 33,021
    SandraMc said:

    Is it just coincidence that the downturn in Boris's approval seems to be around the same time as his marriage?
    Or has he got his work/life balance wrong, affecting his political judgement?

    If he had stayed with Marina, he wouldn't have had to fork out for an expensive divorce settlement. He would have a high earning wife, plus I can't see Marina as the type to enthuse about gold wallpaper. His kids would all be grown up and there would be no crying babies at night to distract him. You would have to have a heart of stone not to laugh at the way Boris has brought problems on himself.
    Maybe he's in love.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 24,988
    edited December 2021
    TimT said:

    FPT:
    TimT Posts: 4,808
    8:04AM
    Philip_Thompson said:
    » show previous quotes
    But that's not common sense.

    Yes you may want to highlight the detail of the worst case but you can't "forget about" the rest. That's not their choice to make.

    If the models show things would probably be fine, but there's a worst case scenario where it's awful, then the politicians should get all that information.

    If the models show things are definitely awful, and there's no positive scenario to show, then the politicians should get all that information.

    If the modellers choose to disregard any scenarios that aren't catastrophic then there's no distinction between those two cases when there really should be!

    What the politicians choose to do with the information is for them. But they should get the full oversight not just a cherry picked version.




    In managing risks in conditions of ignorance, you can forget about the scenarios that require no action, as the default is no action. What you are concerned about is whether action needs to be taken, because a failure to take timely action is by its nature a fall back to the default of no action.

    Thus, in conditions of ignorance and one or more scenarios that contain high consequence hazards* (not risks - we are avoiding numbers as we are in the zone of ignorance) that potentially would result in Never Events, you do just concentrate on those scenarios with such hazards and potential Never Event consequences.

    * For those who don't know the vocabulary, a hazard is something that can cause harm, regardless of probability; and risk is a numerical calculation of probability x impact, which requires numerical values for both p and I

    And yet in industry - where I have spent 30 years involved in risk management as part of exploration teams - you always include the scenarios which require no action. Indeed the whole basis of a risk matrix is that you try and reduce risks to the ALARP level by looking at what, if any, mitigations are necessary to counter potential hazards. Within in that you always include all possible hazards, even those which are already mitigated to effectively no risk to show that you have taken them into account.

    By only including inputs which lead to the need for action you are forcing the decision makers to take action where it may not be necessary, or worse where the consequences of action are worse than the consequences of inaction.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 33,472
    TOPPING said:

    MaxPB said:

    £1bn is just enough to make it seem like the government are doing something but not enough to actually make a difference.

    Lab should have asked for £2bn.
    Yup and a formula based on rateable value rather than a flat rate payment. It seems mad that theatres will get the same £6k as the Dog and Duck.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 56,656
    MaxPB said:

    TOPPING said:

    MaxPB said:

    £1bn is just enough to make it seem like the government are doing something but not enough to actually make a difference.

    Lab should have asked for £2bn.
    Yup and a formula based on rateable value rather than a flat rate payment. It seems mad that theatres will get the same £6k as the Dog and Duck.
    I read it as “up to” £6k, so they might not be.
  • MaxPB said:

    eek said:

    MaxPB said:

    £1bn is just enough to make it seem like the government are doing something but not enough to actually make a difference.

    It's £6k per venue so designed to make the payments straightforward.
    £6k for a small pub vs £6k for a theatre seems a bit mad.
    According to the BBC theatres and museums will be handled separately with a different scheme.

    £6k will be a decent chunk of change for most pubs, hopefully it helps out Miss @Cyclefree Jr.

    Grants rather than loans too.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 56,656
    MaxPB said:

    TOPPING said:

    MaxPB said:

    £1bn is just enough to make it seem like the government are doing something but not enough to actually make a difference.

    Lab should have asked for £2bn.
    Yup and a formula based on rateable value rather than a flat rate payment. It seems mad that theatres will get the same £6k as the Dog and Duck.
    From the Telegraph

    The cash awards will vary according to the size of the business with those with a rateable value of more than £51,000 eligible for the full £6,000, those between £15,000 and £51,000 being offered £4,000 and smaller operations getting £2,666.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 33,472
    RobD said:

    MaxPB said:

    TOPPING said:

    MaxPB said:

    £1bn is just enough to make it seem like the government are doing something but not enough to actually make a difference.

    Lab should have asked for £2bn.
    Yup and a formula based on rateable value rather than a flat rate payment. It seems mad that theatres will get the same £6k as the Dog and Duck.
    I read it as “up to” £6k, so they might not be.
    Yes, just seen the detail it is based in rateable value which is fair, the maximum just seems a bit paltry for some larger businesses out there who now have no footfall.
  • I have to admit I saw the mess over Afghanistan as more Biden's fault than Johnson's although on the detail he did certainly get a lot wrong and cost lives.

    Strange as it may seem and for all his faults, I would suggest that the departure of Cummings that marked the turning point. Whilst he was the cause of some of Johnson's problems it also looks clear to me that his presence had moderated some of Johnson's more outlandish behaviour and he generally had a good political radar, able to spot trouble and divert it. Since he left Johnson's PR operation has fallen apart utterly and he seems incapable of making a single correct decision. Cummings may turn out to have been his necessary evil.

    Agree on both points, but it's fair enough to criticise the UK government on the implementation of the Afghanistan withdrawal (and of course on the utter disgrace of the Pen Farthing affair).
    Oh yes. I am full of criticism for Johnson over many aspects of his handling and the decision making. I think I was only pointing out that I do not consider Afghanistan to be the point at which it all started to go wrong. Rightly or wrongly I am not sure how much it really impacted public perception.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 26,660
    edited December 2021

    I tweeted yesterday; "It's really quite an impressive achievement to be a lame-duck PM when you're just two years into your premiership with a majority of 80 and with an underwhelming opposition.". Although I was being somewhat facetious, there is a serious underlying point here: In contrast to Theresa May, for example, who had appalling ratings at a time when she didn't have a majority and was being hounded by the destructive forces of the Ultras, Boris is a fairly-recent near-landslide winner with a large majority. He should easily have the power and political prestige to dominate his party and the body politic generally.

    It turns out that this governing malarkey is damned difficult: even with a large majority you can collapse into utter shambles. Who could have predicted that a mendacious charlatan who has betrayed everyone he has had dealing with, and so commands zero personal loyalty, who can't be bothered to engage with the detail, and who has promised contradictory unicorns to every audience he's spoken to, can't hack it?

    I'm trying to think when it all started to unwind. I'd have to say the Afghanistan debacle (though it was followed by the dead-cat bounce of AUUKUS). I can't think of a single thing that went well for Boris after that.
    Paterson.

    Afghanistan didn't go well but everything was driven by Biden without input from anywhere else. Apart from the dogs rescue, most PMs couldn't have done much differently.

    But Paterson exposed the extent to which he put himself and his friends above the rules, how he couldn't really read the public mood, and how when he was in trouble, his first instinct was to cut and run and leave others dangling. The loss of respect he suffered from that episode, among both MPs and public, was the tipping point.
    I agree. Paterson.

    And btw I want to make this point. Very common – ever more so as time passes – to try and explain Johnson’s success as ‘Cos Corbyn”.

    This is valid but it’s far from the whole story. It may be over now – let’s hope so – but this bloke has been genuinely popular with the public.

    Remember why he got the Tory leadership? He got it because polls told the selectorate that with him at the helm (although ‘lol’ at him helming anything) the Tory Party would do great in an election. Anybody else, forget it. This is why they picked him. Nothing to do with Brexit purity. Could have had plenty of others with more of that. They picked him because he was POPULAR.

    He now stands revealed as what it’s always been obvious to many (inc most Tory MPs) that he is – utterly unfit for any sort of high political office. That’s good but it’s such a bummer that it happened in the first place.

    And for this, to paraphrase Jacko, blame it on the Corbyn, blame it on the Brexit, blame it on the Tories, but don’t forget the public.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 56,656
    MaxPB said:

    RobD said:

    MaxPB said:

    TOPPING said:

    MaxPB said:

    £1bn is just enough to make it seem like the government are doing something but not enough to actually make a difference.

    Lab should have asked for £2bn.
    Yup and a formula based on rateable value rather than a flat rate payment. It seems mad that theatres will get the same £6k as the Dog and Duck.
    I read it as “up to” £6k, so they might not be.
    Yes, just seen the detail it is based in rateable value which is fair, the maximum just seems a bit paltry for some larger businesses out there who now have no footfall.
    Agreed. After all, what’s a few billion extra on the national debt at this point.
  • ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Is it just coincidence that the downturn in Boris's approval seems to be around the same time as his marriage?
    Or has he got his work/life balance wrong, affecting his political judgement?

    I'm surprised Boris even wanted to get married as he seems like one of life's natural bachelor playboys. Though he is also, of course, a multiple divorcee. One of the paradoxes of Boris I think.
    Johnson has been divorced as many times as all previous prime ministers combined. Time left to set the record outright, too.
    I thought he'd been divorced twice?

    If so who's the other PM to have been divorced (after Eden)?
    The Duke of Grafton, 1769. He needed an Act of Parliament to do it.
    Thanks. Not somebody I know much about.
    No, I had to look it up myself just now. I could remember the stat but not the detail.
  • MISTYMISTY Posts: 139
    MaxPB said:

    RobD said:

    MaxPB said:

    TOPPING said:

    MaxPB said:

    £1bn is just enough to make it seem like the government are doing something but not enough to actually make a difference.

    Lab should have asked for £2bn.
    Yup and a formula based on rateable value rather than a flat rate payment. It seems mad that theatres will get the same £6k as the Dog and Duck.
    I read it as “up to” £6k, so they might not be.
    Yes, just seen the detail it is based in rateable value which is fair, the maximum just seems a bit paltry for some larger businesses out there who now have no footfall.
    If Sunak is generous then that opens the door for the lockdown fanatics....??

    Well if we can afford another lockdown, lets have one...?
  • TimT said:

    FPT:
    TimT Posts: 4,808
    8:04AM
    Philip_Thompson said:
    » show previous quotes
    But that's not common sense.

    Yes you may want to highlight the detail of the worst case but you can't "forget about" the rest. That's not their choice to make.

    If the models show things would probably be fine, but there's a worst case scenario where it's awful, then the politicians should get all that information.

    If the models show things are definitely awful, and there's no positive scenario to show, then the politicians should get all that information.

    If the modellers choose to disregard any scenarios that aren't catastrophic then there's no distinction between those two cases when there really should be!

    What the politicians choose to do with the information is for them. But they should get the full oversight not just a cherry picked version.




    In managing risks in conditions of ignorance, you can forget about the scenarios that require no action, as the default is no action. What you are concerned about is whether action needs to be taken, because a failure to take timely action is by its nature a fall back to the default of no action.

    Thus, in conditions of ignorance and one or more scenarios that contain high consequence hazards* (not risks - we are avoiding numbers as we are in the zone of ignorance) that potentially would result in Never Events, you do just concentrate on those scenarios with such hazards and potential Never Event consequences.

    * For those who don't know the vocabulary, a hazard is something that can cause harm, regardless of probability; and risk is a numerical calculation of probability x impact, which requires numerical values for both p and I

    And yet in industry - where I have spent 30 years involved in risk management as part of exploration teams - you always include the scenarios which require no action. Indeed the whole basis of a risk matrix is that you try and reduce risks to the ALARP level by looking at what, if any, mitigations are necessary to counter potential hazards. Within in that you always include all possible hazards, even those which are already mitigated to effectively no risk to show that you have taken them into account.

    By only including inputs which lead to the need for action you are forcing the decision makers to take action where it may not be necessary, or worse where the consequences of action are worse than the consequences of inaction.
    Absolutely 100% agreed.

    To take no action is in itself an action sometimes. To preclude that information is not being honest.

    Furthermore given the damage of restrictions, taking action which damages lives and livelihoods when it isn't required should be a "Never Event" on your risk matrix too. For the modellers to withhold that information is them deciding what actions should be taken, which is what has frequently been accused. They should provide the full information and let the politicians decide what action to take.
  • Breaking news Sweden: ongoing PM press conference

    Tough new restrictions + huge new financial support

    Begin tomorrow 23/12

    Expected Intensive Care peak mid-January
  • theProletheProle Posts: 592
    Sandpit said:

    FPT: While everyone is distracted by small stories like a new variant of the pandemic virus, the big stories are going past under the radar…

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/12/21/ftse-100-markets-live-news-pound-share-price-latest/

    “Gas prices have surged to a fresh record high after Russia halted flows to Europe via a key pipeline.

    “The amount of gas entering Germany’s Mallnow compressor station, where the Yamal-Europe pipeline terminates, dropped to zero early on Tuesday and Russian gas began flowing east towards Poland.

    “The drop in supplies will force European countries to keep withdrawing supplies from their already depleted stockpiles.

    “This is being compounded by freezing temperatures across the continent, which are driving up demand and inflating prices.

    “Benchmark European prices jumped as much as 11pc, while the UK equivalent rose 10pc, with both hitting new all-time highs.”

    This is going to be a massive story over the winter, as energy bills and petrol prices continue to go up.

    I don't think people have yet realised what's going to hit them over this. I've a modest well insulated terrace which thanks to my price fix currently costs about £50 a month to heat (+hot water) with a gas combi boiler.
    I'm assuming my supplier must have hedged pretty well as the current wholesale spot prices are about 4x what I'll paying, and they've not gone under yet.

    I'm not poor, but I don't have £2-3k pa extra of spare disposable income to chuck at the heating bill next winter, nor I suspect can many other people afford the proportionate increase (bigger or older homes are going to be far harder hit).

    As for the poor fools on electric heating, the mind boggles are to what they are meant to do.

    The government are between a rock and a hard place on this - they've closed all the coal fire power stations, refused to build any nuclear and refused to allow fracking, which has meant that the only option to keep the lights on is imported gas. They've managed to end up meddling in the market via the price cap - thus ensuring everyone blames them for all the bad outcomes - whilst setting up a situation in which all the outcomes are bad.

    The secondary economic hit is going to be pretty spectacular too, as tons of discretionary spending suddenly disappears and becomes spending on imports of gas.

    I can't really see a way of for them now either, other than crossing their fingers and praying that American frackers bail them out by going mad and exporting vast amounts of LNG.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 44,985

    Breaking news Sweden: ongoing PM press conference

    Tough new restrictions + huge new financial support

    Begin tomorrow 23/12

    Expected Intensive Care peak mid-January

    That's disturbing, as given the earlier laissez-alle approach you should have high levels of prior infection. What's driving this?
  • Alistair said:

    I tweeted yesterday; "It's really quite an impressive achievement to be a lame-duck PM when you're just two years into your premiership with a majority of 80 and with an underwhelming opposition.". Although I was being somewhat facetious, there is a serious underlying point here: In contrast to Theresa May, for example, who had appalling ratings at a time when she didn't have a majority and was being hounded by the destructive forces of the Ultras, Boris is a fairly-recent near-landslide winner with a large majority. He should easily have the power and political prestige to dominate his party and the body politic generally.

    It turns out that this governing malarkey is damned difficult: even with a large majority you can collapse into utter shambles. Who could have predicted that a mendacious charlatan who has betrayed everyone he has had dealings with, and so commands zero personal loyalty, who can't be bothered to engage with the detail, and who has promised contradictory unicorns to every audience he's spoken to, can't hack it?

    Also quite an achievement to trash your ratings during the pandemic; as I understand it most leaders have had a boost with a bit of subsequent up and down. Of course people like Trump and Bolsonaro are examples who have really gone down the toilet. I'm sure no comparisons should be made..
    The last time the Cons were polling badly was winter last year - apparently people don't like it when there is a raging pandemic and short days. So there is scope for recovery yet.
    Not impossible I guess but I think 'the one rule for them' stuff has real, lasting impact, particularly when there are photos & video to stick in the memory.

    This is the first time I recall the line being used.


    Scottish Tories must regret opening their big fat gobs. A little contrition is in order.
  • eekeek Posts: 17,710
    theProle said:

    Sandpit said:

    FPT: While everyone is distracted by small stories like a new variant of the pandemic virus, the big stories are going past under the radar…

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/12/21/ftse-100-markets-live-news-pound-share-price-latest/

    “Gas prices have surged to a fresh record high after Russia halted flows to Europe via a key pipeline.

    “The amount of gas entering Germany’s Mallnow compressor station, where the Yamal-Europe pipeline terminates, dropped to zero early on Tuesday and Russian gas began flowing east towards Poland.

    “The drop in supplies will force European countries to keep withdrawing supplies from their already depleted stockpiles.

    “This is being compounded by freezing temperatures across the continent, which are driving up demand and inflating prices.

    “Benchmark European prices jumped as much as 11pc, while the UK equivalent rose 10pc, with both hitting new all-time highs.”

    This is going to be a massive story over the winter, as energy bills and petrol prices continue to go up.

    I don't think people have yet realised what's going to hit them over this. I've a modest well insulated terrace which thanks to my price fix currently costs about £50 a month to heat (+hot water) with a gas combi boiler.
    I'm assuming my supplier must have hedged pretty well as the current wholesale spot prices are about 4x what I'll paying, and they've not gone under yet.

    I'm not poor, but I don't have £2-3k pa extra of spare disposable income to chuck at the heating bill next winter, nor I suspect can many other people afford the proportionate increase (bigger or older homes are going to be far harder hit).

    As for the poor fools on electric heating, the mind boggles are to what they are meant to do.

    The government are between a rock and a hard place on this - they've closed all the coal fire power stations, refused to build any nuclear and refused to allow fracking, which has meant that the only option to keep the lights on is imported gas. They've managed to end up meddling in the market via the price cap - thus ensuring everyone blames them for all the bad outcomes - whilst setting up a situation in which all the outcomes are bad.

    The secondary economic hit is going to be pretty spectacular too, as tons of discretionary spending suddenly disappears and becomes spending on imports of gas.

    I can't really see a way of for them now either, other than crossing their fingers and praying that American frackers bail them out by going mad and exporting vast amounts of LNG.
    I don't believe the ships required to allow us to import enough LNG exist.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 38,321
    The graphs suggest that he sank significantly once the pandemic came along and he had a grown up crisis to deal with, and has been lifted subsequently by the beginning of the vaccine rollout, which had nothing to do with him. Once people adjusted to vaccinations being a normal part of life, it’s been a steady decline.
  • Just listened to Rishi announcing his 1 billion support package and he comes across so reassuring and competently

    Come on conservative mps, put him in the top job
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 93,284
    @BetteMidler
    What #JoeManchin, who represents a population smaller than Brooklyn, has done to the rest of America, who wants to move forward, not backward, like his state, is horrible. He sold us out. He wants us all to be just like his state, West Virginia. Poor, illiterate and strung out.
    https://twitter.com/BetteMidler/status/1472955243935711236?s=20
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,255

    TimT said:

    FPT:
    TimT Posts: 4,808
    8:04AM
    Philip_Thompson said:
    » show previous quotes
    But that's not common sense.

    Yes you may want to highlight the detail of the worst case but you can't "forget about" the rest. That's not their choice to make.

    If the models show things would probably be fine, but there's a worst case scenario where it's awful, then the politicians should get all that information.

    If the models show things are definitely awful, and there's no positive scenario to show, then the politicians should get all that information.

    If the modellers choose to disregard any scenarios that aren't catastrophic then there's no distinction between those two cases when there really should be!

    What the politicians choose to do with the information is for them. But they should get the full oversight not just a cherry picked version.




    In managing risks in conditions of ignorance, you can forget about the scenarios that require no action, as the default is no action. What you are concerned about is whether action needs to be taken, because a failure to take timely action is by its nature a fall back to the default of no action.

    Thus, in conditions of ignorance and one or more scenarios that contain high consequence hazards* (not risks - we are avoiding numbers as we are in the zone of ignorance) that potentially would result in Never Events, you do just concentrate on those scenarios with such hazards and potential Never Event consequences.

    * For those who don't know the vocabulary, a hazard is something that can cause harm, regardless of probability; and risk is a numerical calculation of probability x impact, which requires numerical values for both p and I

    And yet in industry - where I have spent 30 years involved in risk management as part of exploration teams - you always include the scenarios which require no action. Indeed the whole basis of a risk matrix is that you try and reduce risks to the ALARP level by looking at what, if any, mitigations are necessary to counter potential hazards. Within in that you always include all possible hazards, even those which are already mitigated to effectively no risk to show that you have taken them into account.

    By only including inputs which lead to the need for action you are forcing the decision makers to take action where it may not be necessary, or worse where the consequences of action are worse than the consequences of inaction.
    I have a limited workload, so I can spend all day here and repeat until blue in the face: it is not the case that the models exclude favourable outcomes. To the best of my understanding, they include all possible outcomes, based on a starting set of policy decisions:

    For example: if the scenario/policy is "no action", the model estimates cases, hospitalisations, deaths etc for a range of possible values of viral transmission, severity, immune escape etc. This includes, for example, the possibility that Omicron is both more and less severe than Delta. All outcomes are considered, on a probability weighted basis to reflect how likely they are. The output is then summarised as a range of possible outcomes, eg max deaths will be somewhere from 600-6k per day, depending on what the actual state of the real world is.

    The model is then re-run for different policy decisions, eg partial or total lockdown. Similar output is obtained.

    It is not meaningful to run "scenarios" in which severe outcomes are excluded, for the exact reason you stated - "you always include all possible hazards, even those which are already mitigated". The idea that they are excluded is based on an extremely unfortunate -but predictable - misunderstanding between a journalist and a modeller, on Twitter. This is a good example of why Twitter is the wrong platform to have these debates, because misunderstandings like this are so easy.

    The issue that should be being raised is primarily that the SAGE modellers have biased their best estimates for the parameters too high, by excluding data sources that indicate optimism. They have attempted to counter this by including lots of secondary uncertainty, to reflect that they don't really know which sources are credible and which aren't. Unfortunately, this is irrelevant, because attention from certain parts of the media, and policymakers, has focused entirely on the upper end of the ranges of model output produced, without proper context that it isn't likely at all to happen.

    In short, there are undoubtedly legitimate criticisms to be made of the modelling, and more transparency would help identify what those should be, and help better target the models to be more practically useful. However, many of the principle criticisms being repeated on here are wrong, and based on misunderstanding how the model works.
  • ydoethur said:

    Breaking news Sweden: ongoing PM press conference

    Tough new restrictions + huge new financial support

    Begin tomorrow 23/12

    Expected Intensive Care peak mid-January

    That's disturbing, as given the earlier laissez-alle approach you should have high levels of prior infection. What's driving this?
    I’m really not qualified to say. I find it all a bit confusing.

    Sweden certainly seems to be doing a lot better than Norway, whereas the opposite was true last year.

    My gut feeling is that prior infection is really not helping much. We know several people that have had Covid19 twice.

    None of us, to our knowledge, have had it.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 21,301

    ydoethur said:

    Breaking news Sweden: ongoing PM press conference

    Tough new restrictions + huge new financial support

    Begin tomorrow 23/12

    Expected Intensive Care peak mid-January

    That's disturbing, as given the earlier laissez-alle approach you should have high levels of prior infection. What's driving this?
    I’m really not qualified to say. I find it all a bit confusing.

    Sweden certainly seems to be doing a lot better than Norway, whereas the opposite was true last year.

    My gut feeling is that prior infection is really not helping much. We know several people that have had Covid19 twice.

    None of us, to our knowledge, have had it.
    I know a couple of people who had it twice. What we don't know is, are there many people getting it once and not being too ill and then getting omicron and being very ill?
This discussion has been closed.