An acquaintance of mine is in his 20s. He is double vaxxed+boosted (the latter last week). His girlfriend suffers from bad asthma, and her dad is a cancer sufferer, which means she really doesn't want to get the lurgy, so they're being careful. Last week he had to work doing manual labour in enclosed spaces with another young man who is unvaccinated.
The colleague apparently doesn't want to get vaxxed because all his mates are unvaxxed, and they take the p*ss out of everyone who has been vaxxed.
I don't know how widespread that sort of thinking is, but I wonder how the government could address it? Can we stop idiotic young lads (*) being idiotic young lads?
(*) I was certainly idiotic when I was a lad, albeit in different ways to them. In some ways it's called growing up.
Increasingly less widespread as the pandemic proceeds, perhaps...
Lincoln County Georgia, which is nearly one-third Black, proposes closing 6 of 7 polling sites for 2022 after GOP took over local election board & purged Dems
I really wonder how people can look themselves in the mirror when they do this kind of thing.
Simple - they genuinely believe in Gilead. Blacks / Hispanics / Libtards / Women who work - these people are destroying the true America. So stop them voting to save the Republic.
Thinking back to the West Wing, Abbey Bartlet was quite often present during business meetings. Not all the time, but often enough to not be unheard of.
People who hate Boris or Carrie may want to grind an axe about Carrie being at a meeting, but maybe its not noteworthy to others because it isn't noteworthy.
"Hopson said: “I was talking to a [trust] chief executive who said that 40 of the midwives on their midwifery service … were saying they were not prepared to be vaccinated. Those staff, given their skills and their expertise, are not easily redeployed but they’re also extremely difficult to replace.
The trust’s chief executive “is seriously concerned about the safety of the service” because of the potential exodus of midwives.
Maternity staff quitting over compulsory jabs posed a particular challenge because of the NHS-wide shortage of midwives, Hopson said. NHS England estimates that maternity services need 2,000 more whole-time equivalent midwives, while the Royal College of Midwives (RCM) puts the figure at 2,500."
See ya.
So you'd rather have avoidable deaths in childbirth; than tolerate unvaccinated NHS staff?
If they are so selfish that they won't get vaccinated to protect not only themselves but the people they are treating, they can collect their P45s.
And we then lose a load of women and babies in childbirth. I'm happy to issue a fatwa against most people who are unvaccinated by choice. But we do need certain people to keep working.
What should have happened was what other countries have done. A campaign of public shame. Call them out for the selfish cretins they are - many would probably have Trumped and got it reluctantly.
Na, they can be shamed by being fired. No place for anti-vaxxer nutters in the NHS.
OK. Who will you be immediately replacing these midwives with once you fire them?
Lincoln County Georgia, which is nearly one-third Black, proposes closing 6 of 7 polling sites for 2022 after GOP took over local election board & purged Dems
I really wonder how people can look themselves in the mirror when they do this kind of thing.
Just to add: I am all against identity politics and all, but when I see shit like this, I ask myself "if I were a black man in Georgia, would I feel that white people were trying to screw me over?" And I think I probably would.
Today's Tuesday figure really does start to feel like behaviour change has suppressed Omicron. Being a Tuesday should have been much higher.
Will we even see a 100k reporting day?
Again, I thought there was a backlog as the numbers seemed wrong. But looking at addition day, there is a bit of stretch out - 3.7k cases added to 16th, but the biggest additions are 19th (45.7k) then 20th (22.5k), then 18th (10.8k) and that doesn't seem an unusual mix to me.
So, I think it goes in the direction that (a) Omicron is relatively low R rate, (b) but is very short generation time, so (c) suppression below 1 hasn't been that hard to achieve.*
* The converse would be to note that Boris Johnson's DNA has an R rate of 3.5-4.0 (7 or 8 kids that are half his), but with an average generation time of 40+ years, so the world isn't entirely filled with Boris Johnson's DNA yet. Omicron is pulling the exact opposite trick.
The figures create problems for everyone. If voluntary "lockdown" (we have never been locked down in this country...) is stopping the exponential spike then it makes the case for formalising it. If its a lack of testing capacity and we're going to see a catch-up explosion then it makes the case for more restrictions. With *only* 90k cases as the current stabilised level, and Christmas weekend to come along with positive tests from the people infected who haven't had symptoms yet, it's likely to go pop just as they make their decision.
Would have been far better if we had seen a huuuuuuge spike which inevitably would top out and collapse back downward. The "attack the science" commentators might want to consider that the exponential forecast would be better for no formal restrictions than this. Because the last thing we want is "lockdown".
A huge spike would lead to a lockdown.
And if voluntary is working there's absolutely no reason to go for formal, none at all.
A flattened sombrero at 90k per day could be perfect. If Omicron is really half as virulent as Delta, then that's only like having 45k in the past which we were able to handle, so now we'd have twice as many people as we were before getting through the natural immunity funnel. The more the merrier so long as we can handle it.
Its ideal if you want swathes of the economy shut down because so many people are sick. Not being in hospital doesn't mean remotely fit to work. I know you will say "they should go on normally" but happily almost everyone who isn't you disagrees.
You disagree because you're still in denial of the fact that we will all get this. You're still operating under the delusion that this can and will go away. You've got about as much chance of that working as pastors who try to "pray away the gay".
We need to learn to live with the virus, the sooner the better.
For me, you mean the entire population of this country who isn't you. No matter how many times you say the same thing, people are not knowingly going to go out to infect other people, because they are not cnuts.
There will come a day when policy changes to no longer require isolation of people with a positive test result, simply COVID is endemic and we can't be in a situation where we pay people to sit at home with the sniffles. How can you square that with what you're saying? Or are you suggesting that COVID should forever be a special case disease that we treat differently to every other one?
I am talking about Covid now. Not variant x in the future which literally is a cold. You've just had it, my wife has just had it, a lot a lot of people now have it. Its not a cold - the idea that she was going to go on teaching or to her Xmas party or frankly even drive in that state is laughable.
Nobody about from Philip is going out whilst full of Covid symptoms. Not because the law dictates that they can't, because they feel crap and they're not a Phil.
Tbf, I think the isolation period should be cut from 10 days though. The last three days seems largely pointless now that we're both clear on LFTs. I think a minimum of 5 days or when you get two negative lateral flows in a row, whichever is longer.
They were supposed to be looking at this. By the time they make a decision it will likely be all over. FWIW, I was positive for 9 days on LFTs when I had it, but others have cleared it much more quickly.
Back to boring old politics for a moment and some good polling for French President Macron today. He is now shown leading all his opponents (including Valerie Pecresse) in run-off scenarios and the latest Elabe poll as follows:
Very good for Macron and better for Le Pen and Melanchon but poor for Pecresse who, instead of challenging Macron in round one, finds herself fighting to get into the top two with Le Pen metaphorically snapping at her heels.
Pecresse still heading for the runoff and getting 49% in the runoff is hardly 'poor for Pecresse'.
In fact it would be the closest result in a French presidential runoff since 1974 when d'Estaing narrowly beat Mitterand. Plus if Macron loses a point or 2 more Pecresse will beat him! Note too if Pecresse does get to the runoff Le Pen and Zemmour voters strongly prefer her to Macron and Melenchon voters only narrowly prefer Macron. https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1473329878174945289?s=20
"Hopson said: “I was talking to a [trust] chief executive who said that 40 of the midwives on their midwifery service … were saying they were not prepared to be vaccinated. Those staff, given their skills and their expertise, are not easily redeployed but they’re also extremely difficult to replace.
The trust’s chief executive “is seriously concerned about the safety of the service” because of the potential exodus of midwives.
Maternity staff quitting over compulsory jabs posed a particular challenge because of the NHS-wide shortage of midwives, Hopson said. NHS England estimates that maternity services need 2,000 more whole-time equivalent midwives, while the Royal College of Midwives (RCM) puts the figure at 2,500."
See ya.
So you'd rather have avoidable deaths in childbirth; than tolerate unvaccinated NHS staff?
If they are so selfish that they won't get vaccinated to protect not only themselves but the people they are treating, they can collect their P45s.
And we then lose a load of women and babies in childbirth. I'm happy to issue a fatwa against most people who are unvaccinated by choice. But we do need certain people to keep working.
What should have happened was what other countries have done. A campaign of public shame. Call them out for the selfish cretins they are - many would probably have Trumped and got it reluctantly.
Na, they can be shamed by being fired. No place for anti-vaxxer nutters in the NHS.
People in the NHS should be those who believe in medicine. To have antivaxxer nutters in the NHS is like having alcoholic landlords, or bent cops, or illiterate teachers....
"Hopson said: “I was talking to a [trust] chief executive who said that 40 of the midwives on their midwifery service … were saying they were not prepared to be vaccinated. Those staff, given their skills and their expertise, are not easily redeployed but they’re also extremely difficult to replace.
The trust’s chief executive “is seriously concerned about the safety of the service” because of the potential exodus of midwives.
Maternity staff quitting over compulsory jabs posed a particular challenge because of the NHS-wide shortage of midwives, Hopson said. NHS England estimates that maternity services need 2,000 more whole-time equivalent midwives, while the Royal College of Midwives (RCM) puts the figure at 2,500."
See ya.
So you'd rather have avoidable deaths in childbirth; than tolerate unvaccinated NHS staff?
If they are so selfish that they won't get vaccinated to protect not only themselves but the people they are treating, they can collect their P45s.
And we then lose a load of women and babies in childbirth. I'm happy to issue a fatwa against most people who are unvaccinated by choice. But we do need certain people to keep working.
What should have happened was what other countries have done. A campaign of public shame. Call them out for the selfish cretins they are - many would probably have Trumped and got it reluctantly.
Na, they can be shamed by being fired. No place for anti-vaxxer nutters in the NHS.
OK. Who will you be immediately replacing these midwives with once you fire them?
Ah, they are irreplaceable?
Immediately? Yes - unless you have fully trained and experienced midwives on the subs bench ready to replace them.
Fire midwives and more women and babies die. Its that simple.
On another note - anyone still follow worldometers data? (yes, I know) For a long time, the UK has been 30th in recorded covid deaths per million popn. Ukraine and Russia have been catching up; and the other day Ukraine overtook us. But the UK is still 30th. Someone in the top 29 has either taken a load of deaths away or taken out of the list entirely, and I can't work out who. Any guesses?
I've just been sent the Raab on GMTV interview as he doggedly lies through his teeth insisting that the Downing Street garden party was a work meeting and allowed by the law.
Great news for people who want the Tories gone if the '22 are to leave Peppa in place until after they get demolished in the locals. We're down to only the most cultist devotees of Peppa believing the excuses. The longer this goes on, the worse it will get. For the Tories. Or they could remove Peppa and No Brain Raab and the rest of them and have a fighting chance of re-election.
The first point is debatable, I'm sure work was being discussed, but on the second point isn't he right? There was a twitter thread a few days ago demonstrating why it wasn't contrary to the regs.
If it is Work then you have a secondary question - why is Carrie in a business meeting with 2 senior Downing Street workers.
Because (a) it isn't a business meeting and (b) they're taking the absolute piss and (c) they still think people are gullible enough to accept any old crap as an excuse.
The problem is that no one has been able to ask 2 questions to get the point over.
Why were you in the Garden - business meeting
Why if it's a business meeting is Carrie there
At which point the cogs should start whirring.
Perhaps because for years people have been moaning about Carrie being involved with the business of government, so her being in a business meeting isn't that odd if we've already been told she is getting involved.
Why do you say "moaning"? Is there any sound constitutional reason for a corrupt manipulative and profoundly stupid thirty something to be involved in government on the basis of who gets to put their penis inside her?
I've just been sent the Raab on GMTV interview as he doggedly lies through his teeth insisting that the Downing Street garden party was a work meeting and allowed by the law.
Great news for people who want the Tories gone if the '22 are to leave Peppa in place until after they get demolished in the locals. We're down to only the most cultist devotees of Peppa believing the excuses. The longer this goes on, the worse it will get. For the Tories. Or they could remove Peppa and No Brain Raab and the rest of them and have a fighting chance of re-election.
The first point is debatable, I'm sure work was being discussed, but on the second point isn't he right? There was a twitter thread a few days ago demonstrating why it wasn't contrary to the regs.
If it is Work then you have a secondary question - why is Carrie in a business meeting with 2 senior Downing Street workers.
Perhaps because she's the PM's wife and he values her input?
Unless this was a security clearance required meeting, then what's the issue? And if it was, should it be held outdoors?
One other explanation is that it was lunch and they had paused their meeting and Carrie joined Boris for lunch
"Hopson said: “I was talking to a [trust] chief executive who said that 40 of the midwives on their midwifery service … were saying they were not prepared to be vaccinated. Those staff, given their skills and their expertise, are not easily redeployed but they’re also extremely difficult to replace.
The trust’s chief executive “is seriously concerned about the safety of the service” because of the potential exodus of midwives.
Maternity staff quitting over compulsory jabs posed a particular challenge because of the NHS-wide shortage of midwives, Hopson said. NHS England estimates that maternity services need 2,000 more whole-time equivalent midwives, while the Royal College of Midwives (RCM) puts the figure at 2,500."
See ya.
So you'd rather have avoidable deaths in childbirth; than tolerate unvaccinated NHS staff?
If they are so selfish that they won't get vaccinated to protect not only themselves but the people they are treating, they can collect their P45s.
And we then lose a load of women and babies in childbirth. I'm happy to issue a fatwa against most people who are unvaccinated by choice. But we do need certain people to keep working.
What should have happened was what other countries have done. A campaign of public shame. Call them out for the selfish cretins they are - many would probably have Trumped and got it reluctantly.
They said this about care workers, it turns out that people need to work for a living so they quietly get vaccinated.
Today's Tuesday figure really does start to feel like behaviour change has suppressed Omicron. Being a Tuesday should have been much higher.
Will we even see a 100k reporting day?
Again, I thought there was a backlog as the numbers seemed wrong. But looking at addition day, there is a bit of stretch out - 3.7k cases added to 16th, but the biggest additions are 19th (45.7k) then 20th (22.5k), then 18th (10.8k) and that doesn't seem an unusual mix to me.
So, I think it goes in the direction that (a) Omicron is relatively low R rate, (b) but is very short generation time, so (c) suppression below 1 hasn't been that hard to achieve.*
* The converse would be to note that Boris Johnson's DNA has an R rate of 3.5-4.0 (7 or 8 kids that are half his), but with an average generation time of 40+ years, so the world isn't entirely filled with Boris Johnson's DNA yet. Omicron is pulling the exact opposite trick.
The figures create problems for everyone. If voluntary "lockdown" (we have never been locked down in this country...) is stopping the exponential spike then it makes the case for formalising it. If its a lack of testing capacity and we're going to see a catch-up explosion then it makes the case for more restrictions. With *only* 90k cases as the current stabilised level, and Christmas weekend to come along with positive tests from the people infected who haven't had symptoms yet, it's likely to go pop just as they make their decision.
Would have been far better if we had seen a huuuuuuge spike which inevitably would top out and collapse back downward. The "attack the science" commentators might want to consider that the exponential forecast would be better for no formal restrictions than this. Because the last thing we want is "lockdown".
A huge spike would lead to a lockdown.
And if voluntary is working there's absolutely no reason to go for formal, none at all.
A flattened sombrero at 90k per day could be perfect. If Omicron is really half as virulent as Delta, then that's only like having 45k in the past which we were able to handle, so now we'd have twice as many people as we were before getting through the natural immunity funnel. The more the merrier so long as we can handle it.
Its ideal if you want swathes of the economy shut down because so many people are sick. Not being in hospital doesn't mean remotely fit to work. I know you will say "they should go on normally" but happily almost everyone who isn't you disagrees.
You disagree because you're still in denial of the fact that we will all get this. You're still operating under the delusion that this can and will go away. You've got about as much chance of that working as pastors who try to "pray away the gay".
We need to learn to live with the virus, the sooner the better.
For me, you mean the entire population of this country who isn't you. No matter how many times you say the same thing, people are not knowingly going to go out to infect other people, because they are not cnuts.
There will come a day when policy changes to no longer require isolation of people with a positive test result, simply COVID is endemic and we can't be in a situation where we pay people to sit at home with the sniffles. How can you square that with what you're saying? Or are you suggesting that COVID should forever be a special case disease that we treat differently to every other one?
I am talking about Covid now. Not variant x in the future which literally is a cold. You've just had it, my wife has just had it, a lot a lot of people now have it. Its not a cold - the idea that she was going to go on teaching or to her Xmas party or frankly even drive in that state is laughable.
Nobody about from Philip is going out whilst full of Covid symptoms. Not because the law dictates that they can't, because they feel crap and they're not a Phil.
Tbf, I think the isolation period should be cut from 10 days though. The last three days seems largely pointless now that we're both clear on LFTs. I think a minimum of 5 days or when you get two negative lateral flows in a row, whichever is longer.
They were supposed to be looking at this. By the time they make a decision it will likely be all over. FWIW, I was positive for 9 days on LFTs when I had it, but others have cleared it much more quickly.
Is the negative LFT reliable though? You are advised not to test for 90 days due to the possibility of false positives. Or is that just PCRs?
"Hopson said: “I was talking to a [trust] chief executive who said that 40 of the midwives on their midwifery service … were saying they were not prepared to be vaccinated. Those staff, given their skills and their expertise, are not easily redeployed but they’re also extremely difficult to replace.
The trust’s chief executive “is seriously concerned about the safety of the service” because of the potential exodus of midwives.
Maternity staff quitting over compulsory jabs posed a particular challenge because of the NHS-wide shortage of midwives, Hopson said. NHS England estimates that maternity services need 2,000 more whole-time equivalent midwives, while the Royal College of Midwives (RCM) puts the figure at 2,500."
See ya.
It seems beyond belief that 40 midwives in one trust could all be against vax. Are they winding each other up all day with conspiracy theories? It is staggering.
I suspect when it gets to Le Crunch and unemployment looms - at least 50% of them will get the jab
Could it be the "Natural Birth" types? When we were having our first, my wife and I had a look - they had a separate floor in the hospital which they (the natural birth crew) ran.
About 10 minutes of talking to my wife and I... well, the lady we were talking too was aggressively anti-science and into all kinds of kooky "natural" ideas. Utterly weird in an NHS hospital.
"Hopson said: “I was talking to a [trust] chief executive who said that 40 of the midwives on their midwifery service … were saying they were not prepared to be vaccinated. Those staff, given their skills and their expertise, are not easily redeployed but they’re also extremely difficult to replace.
The trust’s chief executive “is seriously concerned about the safety of the service” because of the potential exodus of midwives.
Maternity staff quitting over compulsory jabs posed a particular challenge because of the NHS-wide shortage of midwives, Hopson said. NHS England estimates that maternity services need 2,000 more whole-time equivalent midwives, while the Royal College of Midwives (RCM) puts the figure at 2,500."
Don't midwives have to have the Hepatitis B Vaccine?
Appalling Con splits in the new Redfield & Wilton poll:
NE Lab 61% Con 22% NW Lab 51% Con 28% W Midlands Lab 47% Con 37% E Midlands Lab 41% Con 35%
Not necessarily, the Tories can win without the North provided they win the South and Midlands.
Those Midlands numbers are not so far behind midterm they cannot be caught up
Well they are getting absolutely tonked in the West Midlands according the R and W., so where exactly in the Midlands did you have in mind?
5% behind in the East Midlands, 10% behind in the West Midlands is about the amount the Tories trail nationally, so if the Tories regain the lead nationally they will also regain the lead in the Midlands
I see the E. Midlands as easy pickings, but in the W.Midlands the Cons. look quite comprehensively behind at 10%.
Don't forget on top of all this we are facing an economic Armageddon for the next two years, which is never a good look for the incumbent.
Well if we face an economic Armageddon for the next decade even if Starmer did get in he would probably be out again within 5 years and the Tories back again
Not if we bring in PR. And Scotland stays in the UK.
I've just been sent the Raab on GMTV interview as he doggedly lies through his teeth insisting that the Downing Street garden party was a work meeting and allowed by the law.
Great news for people who want the Tories gone if the '22 are to leave Peppa in place until after they get demolished in the locals. We're down to only the most cultist devotees of Peppa believing the excuses. The longer this goes on, the worse it will get. For the Tories. Or they could remove Peppa and No Brain Raab and the rest of them and have a fighting chance of re-election.
The first point is debatable, I'm sure work was being discussed, but on the second point isn't he right? There was a twitter thread a few days ago demonstrating why it wasn't contrary to the regs.
If it is Work then you have a secondary question - why is Carrie in a business meeting with 2 senior Downing Street workers.
Because (a) it isn't a business meeting and (b) they're taking the absolute piss and (c) they still think people are gullible enough to accept any old crap as an excuse.
The problem is that no one has been able to ask 2 questions to get the point over.
Why were you in the Garden - business meeting
Why if it's a business meeting is Carrie there
At which point the cogs should start whirring.
I think you could just (just) about excuse it as giving Johnson an opportunity to spend time with his newborn.
Yeah, when my children were born my employer wouldn't have any problems with me, as the Manager, bringing alcohol into work, and bringing my wife and kids along too. It happened all the time...in some parallel universe!
If you are that easily persuaded, Johnson has a £63m invisible Garden Bridge he would like to sell you.
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.
@MikeSmithson is correct. It doesn't answer the point. As usual you just raise another point and don't address the point raised. It is a moving target.
Re your point on living in a poor area and being able to go to a grammar, this is very naïve. What actually happens is the middle class and well off in surrounding areas get tutored for the test and fill the spaces. The bright kids in the poor areas don't and they still don't get in by and large.
I lived in a relatively poor large village with 2 primary schools. Only one boy got into the boys grammar school and no girls to the girls grammar school. And that boy dropped out. I have no memory of even taking a test let alone getting tutored. After O levels a whole bunch of replaced those that had dropped out. The system is crap at selection and selecting at 11 is far too soon.
There are limits on how much you can tutor for 11+ and 13+ tests which are designed to test raw iq not subject knowledge as such. Indeed very often even a few bright kids from council estates got into grammar schools even without tutors and then onto Oxbridge or other top universities and professional careers. That path is not open to them to the same extent now if they live in a deprived area and just get sent to the local very average, if that, comp.
If you were well off and had a kid who was not so bright and would not pass the 11 or 13+ you could still send them private however and still do. Most wealthy parents did not send their children to secondary moderns and do not send their children to comprehensives and certainly not comprehensives or academies which are any less than Outstanding. So the rich generally don't use comprehensives anyway while the bright but poor no longer have the opportunities grammars provided. Most grammars of course also have entries at sixth form level too
a) You can tutor for IQ tests very easily. Not sure where you got it that it was difficult. There are lots of techniques.
b) In between our posts I have been chopping wood and did a rough mental calculation of how many should have got into the grammar school from my village all other things being equal (I know how many classes there were, the size of them, the fact that our village was a 3 member ward and how many councillors there were in the borough). The answer is about 25. There was 1 and he dropped out. If that doesn't give you an idea of the disparity between poor and middle class areas nothing will.
c) If you think the well off don't send their children to Comprehensives you live in a different world. I live in a well off area now. I am wealthy by most peoples measure as are most of the people I know. Nearly all use the local comprehensive, which I grant you is good, but that is not what you were saying.
d) Moving to a Grammar at sixth form is too late. The damage has been done. Many won't go who should. Many who were at the Grammar who shouldn't have been have dropped out.
Select by subject on an ongoing basis throughout the child's education.
a) You can't. IQ test results are in part based on genetics, they are difficult to tutor for unlike subject knowledge based exams.
b) And all of them would likely have gone to a sink comprehensive otherwise, at least 1 still got to a grammar.
c) If the wealthy send their kids to a comp it will only be an Outstanding comp they have bought their kids admission to by buying a house in its catchment area, meaning there are well above average house prices for that catchment area. You buy a place at an Outstanding comp or academy much like you buy a place at private school effectively or else you go to church more regularly to get a vicar's reference for a top church school.
d) Sixth form entry for A levels and top university is fine for late developers
a) you can - just allowing children to sit a few past papers so they understand how the questions work allows children to know how to answer the questions quicker allowing them more time to concentrate on more difficult questions.
You can understand the format of the questions but it is harder to prepare for the specific questions that will come up as they are logic and reasoning based, not subject knowledge based which are more tests of memory
As someone who has got 3 of 4 children into local grammars and sent the other private, I can confirm HYUFD doesn't know what he's talking about here, as well as constantly missing the point.
Tutoring makes a massive difference to ability to tackle the 11+. You see it all the time with kids that got tutored and then struggle to keep up once they're in.
It may make a marginal difference to borderline candidates but if you have an iq of 130+ you will get into a grammar school with no tutoring at all even if you live on a council estate
@HYUFD as usual you are pontificating with certainty about something on which I am guessing you have no knowledge whatsoever. It has been pointed by many on here how you can tutor for IQ tests / 11+ not least by just practicing papers, but there are many other techniques as well. I have some experience in this (as I am sure do many others on here) as it was a requirement of a development centre of one of the largest computer companies at the time at which I was a manager to take an IQ test and score at least 130. All undergraduates on the milk round had to do so before an interview. I would interview between 20 and 30 undergraduates on the milk round each year so I was very familiar with these test.
I couldn't do anything for someone who is stupid and could probably only add a point or two to a genius, but for a reasonably bright person I could probably get 10 to 20 IQ points added. Here are some ways how:
a) Just get familiar with the tests by practicing loads and getting your timing right (basic exam technique, but not something an 11 year old without tutoring has a clue about).
b) If you get a sequence of numbers and can't see the next number start subtracting each number from the next number. If the sequence doesn't become apparent then do again until it does. This takes just seconds to do and usually results in the answer. I've not seen one on an IQ test that doesn't.
c) Another common question is an arithmetic question which is too hard to do in the time but with an multiple choice answers so estimation is required. Someone with maths knowledge can do this easily, but someone who hasn't can be given about 5 easy tricks to solve these quickly.
d) Similarly a series of shapes at IQ test level is normally fairly straightforward, but again someone without the ability can be given half a dozen things to look out for in advance.
e) If you are given a True or False tests from a short paragraph and can't get it immediately you can convert it into a logical formulae (if you know how) and these tend to be so simple you can do it very quickly. I have to say that is something I find very useful to this day as I struggle to hold a lot of words in my head but can do logical formulae easily.
I could go on.
In response to the other items on your reply to me. You said 'at least one got to the grammar school'. You obviously missed the point that 'he crashed and burned'.
You also say 6th form is ok for late developers. Where did you get that from? It certainly wasn't for me. I missed out on so much. It was worse for others who were good enough but didn't get the chance. Also what about all those who pass the 11+ and then crash and burn because it isn't appropriate?
You cannot tutor for raw IQ tests of logic and reasoning to the same level as you can tutor for subject knowledge tests. In any case a pupil with a high IQ from a council estate would easily pass an IQ test tutored or not, the fact a few average IQ middle class pupils might scrape a pass at 11 pass after being heavily tutored does not make much difference to the former.
As opposed to all pupils crashing and burning at a sink comprehensive, at least grammar schools offered those with high IQs from deprived areas a chance to get on.
Sixth form entry offers a chance for those who are late developers and do well at GCSEs the fact you hated sixth form would probably have applied whichever school you went to
Once again - practice makes perfect. If you've never seen an IQ paper before and never been taught how to get the timing right you are at a major time disadvantage to someone who knows how the paper works so can say this is a question of type X and I use this set of logic to get the answer.
Thinking back to the West Wing, Abbey Bartlet was quite often present during business meetings. Not all the time, but often enough to not be unheard of.
People who hate Boris or Carrie may want to grind an axe about Carrie being at a meeting, but maybe its not noteworthy to others because it isn't noteworthy.
The First Lady is the holder of an official office, the First Lady's office. We don't have anything like that.
Lincoln County Georgia, which is nearly one-third Black, proposes closing 6 of 7 polling sites for 2022 after GOP took over local election board & purged Dems
I really wonder how people can look themselves in the mirror when they do this kind of thing.
This is being repeated across Georgia - the state house passed a law to basically sweep away existing locally select election officials and replace them with centrally selected GOP operatives.
"Hopson said: “I was talking to a [trust] chief executive who said that 40 of the midwives on their midwifery service … were saying they were not prepared to be vaccinated. Those staff, given their skills and their expertise, are not easily redeployed but they’re also extremely difficult to replace.
The trust’s chief executive “is seriously concerned about the safety of the service” because of the potential exodus of midwives.
Maternity staff quitting over compulsory jabs posed a particular challenge because of the NHS-wide shortage of midwives, Hopson said. NHS England estimates that maternity services need 2,000 more whole-time equivalent midwives, while the Royal College of Midwives (RCM) puts the figure at 2,500."
See ya.
So you'd rather have avoidable deaths in childbirth; than tolerate unvaccinated NHS staff?
If they are so selfish that they won't get vaccinated to protect not only themselves but the people they are treating, they can collect their P45s.
And we then lose a load of women and babies in childbirth. I'm happy to issue a fatwa against most people who are unvaccinated by choice. But we do need certain people to keep working.
What should have happened was what other countries have done. A campaign of public shame. Call them out for the selfish cretins they are - many would probably have Trumped and got it reluctantly.
Na, they can be shamed by being fired. No place for anti-vaxxer nutters in the NHS.
OK. Who will you be immediately replacing these midwives with once you fire them?
Ah, they are irreplaceable?
Immediately? Yes - unless you have fully trained and experienced midwives on the subs bench ready to replace them.
Fire midwives and more women and babies die. Its that simple.
You are massively overreacting. The total number that would actually quit is probably what, a hundred or so? The numbers of midwives has decreased by about 500 in the last six months.
"Hopson said: “I was talking to a [trust] chief executive who said that 40 of the midwives on their midwifery service … were saying they were not prepared to be vaccinated. Those staff, given their skills and their expertise, are not easily redeployed but they’re also extremely difficult to replace.
The trust’s chief executive “is seriously concerned about the safety of the service” because of the potential exodus of midwives.
Maternity staff quitting over compulsory jabs posed a particular challenge because of the NHS-wide shortage of midwives, Hopson said. NHS England estimates that maternity services need 2,000 more whole-time equivalent midwives, while the Royal College of Midwives (RCM) puts the figure at 2,500."
See ya.
So you'd rather have avoidable deaths in childbirth; than tolerate unvaccinated NHS staff?
If they are so selfish that they won't get vaccinated to protect not only themselves but the people they are treating, they can collect their P45s.
And we then lose a load of women and babies in childbirth. I'm happy to issue a fatwa against most people who are unvaccinated by choice. But we do need certain people to keep working.
What should have happened was what other countries have done. A campaign of public shame. Call them out for the selfish cretins they are - many would probably have Trumped and got it reluctantly.
Na, they can be shamed by being fired. No place for anti-vaxxer nutters in the NHS.
OK. Who will you be immediately replacing these midwives with once you fire them?
Ah, they are irreplaceable?
Immediately? Yes - unless you have fully trained and experienced midwives on the subs bench ready to replace them.
Fire midwives and more women and babies die. Its that simple.
What's better - an unvaxxed midwife (or nurse, or other medical professional) or no midwife at all?
I would say on balance an unvaxxed midwife. But it is not entirely clear cut. It may be that the calculus is such that the number of deaths due to the spread of the virus due to that midwife being unvaxxed is greater than the number of deaths from not having a midwife.
Instinctively I would say better to have the midwife though.
Appalling Con splits in the new Redfield & Wilton poll:
NE Lab 61% Con 22% NW Lab 51% Con 28% W Midlands Lab 47% Con 37% E Midlands Lab 41% Con 35%
Not necessarily, the Tories can win without the North provided they win the South and Midlands.
Those Midlands numbers are not so far behind midterm they cannot be caught up
Well they are getting absolutely tonked in the West Midlands according the R and W., so where exactly in the Midlands did you have in mind?
5% behind in the East Midlands, 10% behind in the West Midlands is about the amount the Tories trail nationally, so if the Tories regain the lead nationally they will also regain the lead in the Midlands
I see the E. Midlands as easy pickings, but in the W.Midlands the Cons. look quite comprehensively behind at 10%.
Don't forget on top of all this we are facing an economic Armageddon for the next two years, which is never a good look for the incumbent.
Well if we face an economic Armageddon for the next decade even if Starmer did get in he would probably be out again within 5 years and the Tories back again
Not if we bring in PR. And Scotland stays in the UK.
If he brings in PR the Labour party would split anyway with Corbynites starting their own party and some Tories would join RefUK so 2 party politics no longer applies
An acquaintance of mine is in his 20s. He is double vaxxed+boosted (the latter last week). His girlfriend suffers from bad asthma, and her dad is a cancer sufferer, which means she really doesn't want to get the lurgy, so they're being careful. Last week he had to work doing manual labour in enclosed spaces with another young man who is unvaccinated.
The colleague apparently doesn't want to get vaxxed because all his mates are unvaxxed, and they take the p*ss out of everyone who has been vaxxed.
I don't know how widespread that sort of thinking is, but I wonder how the government could address it? Can we stop idiotic young lads (*) being idiotic young lads?
(*) I was certainly idiotic when I was a lad, albeit in different ways to them. In some ways it's called growing up.
Increasingly less widespread as the pandemic proceeds, perhaps...
It wouldn't surprise me if everyone else is quietly vaccinated but pretending not to be to impress the gang.
Today's Tuesday figure really does start to feel like behaviour change has suppressed Omicron. Being a Tuesday should have been much higher.
Will we even see a 100k reporting day?
Again, I thought there was a backlog as the numbers seemed wrong. But looking at addition day, there is a bit of stretch out - 3.7k cases added to 16th, but the biggest additions are 19th (45.7k) then 20th (22.5k), then 18th (10.8k) and that doesn't seem an unusual mix to me.
So, I think it goes in the direction that (a) Omicron is relatively low R rate, (b) but is very short generation time, so (c) suppression below 1 hasn't been that hard to achieve.*
* The converse would be to note that Boris Johnson's DNA has an R rate of 3.5-4.0 (7 or 8 kids that are half his), but with an average generation time of 40+ years, so the world isn't entirely filled with Boris Johnson's DNA yet. Omicron is pulling the exact opposite trick.
The figures create problems for everyone. If voluntary "lockdown" (we have never been locked down in this country...) is stopping the exponential spike then it makes the case for formalising it. If its a lack of testing capacity and we're going to see a catch-up explosion then it makes the case for more restrictions. With *only* 90k cases as the current stabilised level, and Christmas weekend to come along with positive tests from the people infected who haven't had symptoms yet, it's likely to go pop just as they make their decision.
Would have been far better if we had seen a huuuuuuge spike which inevitably would top out and collapse back downward. The "attack the science" commentators might want to consider that the exponential forecast would be better for no formal restrictions than this. Because the last thing we want is "lockdown".
A huge spike would lead to a lockdown.
And if voluntary is working there's absolutely no reason to go for formal, none at all.
A flattened sombrero at 90k per day could be perfect. If Omicron is really half as virulent as Delta, then that's only like having 45k in the past which we were able to handle, so now we'd have twice as many people as we were before getting through the natural immunity funnel. The more the merrier so long as we can handle it.
Its ideal if you want swathes of the economy shut down because so many people are sick. Not being in hospital doesn't mean remotely fit to work. I know you will say "they should go on normally" but happily almost everyone who isn't you disagrees.
You disagree because you're still in denial of the fact that we will all get this. You're still operating under the delusion that this can and will go away. You've got about as much chance of that working as pastors who try to "pray away the gay".
We need to learn to live with the virus, the sooner the better.
For me, you mean the entire population of this country who isn't you. No matter how many times you say the same thing, people are not knowingly going to go out to infect other people, because they are not cnuts.
No, not the entire population of the country who isn't me. I'm fully expecting to get the virus myself one day and as I've said I put my trust in the vaccines. I've had my three jabs, now when I get it it, I get it. I don't especially care when I get it.
People may not knowingly go out to infect others, but we should ASAP get into a position where people can unknowingly do so (because they're asymptomatic and not testing) and then after that it needs to be a personal choice whether people go out as opposed to a matter of law.
I've been out with a cough or a cold before and its never seemed weird to do so. Covid will ultimately need to become in the same bracket as that.
Do you think you could please take a little bell with you to tinkle? I really hate being sneezed on by people who come out with all their bugs.
Do you think it should be against the law to leave your house for ten days when you have any cough or cold?
Ten days? Not that long for normal colds and the like, but I would certainly keep clear of other people, particularly the elderly, and get my wife to do the food shopping etc. Always have.
Appalling Con splits in the new Redfield & Wilton poll:
NE Lab 61% Con 22% NW Lab 51% Con 28% W Midlands Lab 47% Con 37% E Midlands Lab 41% Con 35%
Not necessarily, the Tories can win without the North provided they win the South and Midlands.
Those Midlands numbers are not so far behind midterm they cannot be caught up
Well they are getting absolutely tonked in the West Midlands according the R and W., so where exactly in the Midlands did you have in mind?
5% behind in the East Midlands, 10% behind in the West Midlands is about the amount the Tories trail nationally, so if the Tories regain the lead nationally they will also regain the lead in the Midlands
I see the E. Midlands as easy pickings, but in the W.Midlands the Cons. look quite comprehensively behind at 10%.
Don't forget on top of all this we are facing an economic Armageddon for the next two years, which is never a good look for the incumbent.
Well if we face an economic Armageddon for the next decade even if Starmer did get in he would probably be out again within 5 years and the Tories back again
I've just been sent the Raab on GMTV interview as he doggedly lies through his teeth insisting that the Downing Street garden party was a work meeting and allowed by the law.
Great news for people who want the Tories gone if the '22 are to leave Peppa in place until after they get demolished in the locals. We're down to only the most cultist devotees of Peppa believing the excuses. The longer this goes on, the worse it will get. For the Tories. Or they could remove Peppa and No Brain Raab and the rest of them and have a fighting chance of re-election.
The first point is debatable, I'm sure work was being discussed, but on the second point isn't he right? There was a twitter thread a few days ago demonstrating why it wasn't contrary to the regs.
If it is Work then you have a secondary question - why is Carrie in a business meeting with 2 senior Downing Street workers.
Because (a) it isn't a business meeting and (b) they're taking the absolute piss and (c) they still think people are gullible enough to accept any old crap as an excuse.
The problem is that no one has been able to ask 2 questions to get the point over.
Why were you in the Garden - business meeting
Why if it's a business meeting is Carrie there
At which point the cogs should start whirring.
I think you could just (just) about excuse it as giving Johnson an opportunity to spend time with his newborn.
Yeah, when my children were born my employer wouldn't have any problems with me, as the Manager, bringing alcohol into work, and bringing my wife and kids along too. It happened all the time...in some parallel universe!
If you are that easily persuaded, Johnson has a £63m invisible Garden Bridge he would like to sell you.
Well, when work is your home it may be a bit different.
Interesting thread on case hospitalisation rates (though annoyingly he's typoed all through and called it CFR) in NSW in Australia, using it as a unique test case: fully vaxxed population with virtually no prior infection, so can compare Delta and Omicron like for like.
For those with an interest here's the report of the HoC Women & Equalities Committee on the Reform of the Gender Recognition Act. It recommends a streamlined legal gender change process based on self-id.
You cannot tutor for raw IQ tests of logic and reasoning to the same level as you can tutor for subject knowledge tests. In any case a pupil with a high IQ from a council estate would easily pass an IQ test tutored or not, the fact a few average IQ middle class pupils might scrape a pass at 11 pass after being heavily tutored does not make much difference to the former.
As opposed to all pupils crashing and burning at a sink comprehensive, at least grammar schools offered those with high IQs from deprived areas a chance to get on.
Sixth form entry offers a chance for those who are late developers and do well at GCSEs the fact you hated sixth form would probably have applied whichever school you went to
That's completely and demonstrably false. IQ tests are a learnable skill like any other academic skill.
Williams driver Nicholas Latifi says he received "extreme" death threats after his crash at the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix led to Max Verstappen controversially winning the Formula 1 world title.
Latifi, 26, crashed with five laps remaining, resulting in the safety car being deployed.
The race was then resumed with one lap to go, in which Verstappen passed Lewis Hamilton to win the race and the title.
In a statement, Canadian Latifi said he had received "a lot of hate and abuse".
He revealed: "Going back to the race weekend, as soon as the chequered flag dropped, I knew how things were likely to play out on social media.
"The fact that I felt it would be best if I deleted Instagram and Twitter on my phone for a few days says all we need to know about how cruel the online world can be.
"The ensuing hate, abuse, and threats on social media were not really a surprise to me as it's just the stark reality of the world we live in right now. I'm no stranger to being talked about negatively online, I think every sports person who competes on the world stage knows they're under extreme scrutiny and this comes with the territory sometimes.
"But as we've seen time and time again, across all different sports, it only takes one incident at the wrong time to have things completely blown out of proportion - and bring out the worst in people who are so-called 'fans' of the sport. What shocked me was the extreme tone of the hate, abuse, and even the death threats I received."
Thinking back to the West Wing, Abbey Bartlet was quite often present during business meetings. Not all the time, but often enough to not be unheard of.
People who hate Boris or Carrie may want to grind an axe about Carrie being at a meeting, but maybe its not noteworthy to others because it isn't noteworthy.
The First Lady is the holder of an official office, the First Lady's office. We don't have anything like that.
Not officially, and officially we don't have a President but the PM has been unofficially Presidential for decades and unofficially I expect their significant others have had an unofficial role for decades too.
People used to moan about Cherie Blair getting involved too.
Does every person in that picture working there have to be an official office holder?
I've just been sent the Raab on GMTV interview as he doggedly lies through his teeth insisting that the Downing Street garden party was a work meeting and allowed by the law.
Great news for people who want the Tories gone if the '22 are to leave Peppa in place until after they get demolished in the locals. We're down to only the most cultist devotees of Peppa believing the excuses. The longer this goes on, the worse it will get. For the Tories. Or they could remove Peppa and No Brain Raab and the rest of them and have a fighting chance of re-election.
The first point is debatable, I'm sure work was being discussed, but on the second point isn't he right? There was a twitter thread a few days ago demonstrating why it wasn't contrary to the regs.
If it is Work then you have a secondary question - why is Carrie in a business meeting with 2 senior Downing Street workers.
Because (a) it isn't a business meeting and (b) they're taking the absolute piss and (c) they still think people are gullible enough to accept any old crap as an excuse.
The problem is that no one has been able to ask 2 questions to get the point over.
Why were you in the Garden - business meeting
Why if it's a business meeting is Carrie there
At which point the cogs should start whirring.
I think you could just (just) about excuse it as giving Johnson an opportunity to spend time with his newborn.
Yeah, when my children were born my employer wouldn't have any problems with me, as the Manager, bringing alcohol into work, and bringing my wife and kids along too. It happened all the time...in some parallel universe!
If you are that easily persuaded, Johnson has a £63m invisible Garden Bridge he would like to sell you.
Well, when work is your home it may be a bit different.
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.
@MikeSmithson is correct. It doesn't answer the point. As usual you just raise another point and don't address the point raised. It is a moving target.
Re your point on living in a poor area and being able to go to a grammar, this is very naïve. What actually happens is the middle class and well off in surrounding areas get tutored for the test and fill the spaces. The bright kids in the poor areas don't and they still don't get in by and large.
I lived in a relatively poor large village with 2 primary schools. Only one boy got into the boys grammar school and no girls to the girls grammar school. And that boy dropped out. I have no memory of even taking a test let alone getting tutored. After O levels a whole bunch of replaced those that had dropped out. The system is crap at selection and selecting at 11 is far too soon.
There are limits on how much you can tutor for 11+ and 13+ tests which are designed to test raw iq not subject knowledge as such. Indeed very often even a few bright kids from council estates got into grammar schools even without tutors and then onto Oxbridge or other top universities and professional careers. That path is not open to them to the same extent now if they live in a deprived area and just get sent to the local very average, if that, comp.
If you were well off and had a kid who was not so bright and would not pass the 11 or 13+ you could still send them private however and still do. Most wealthy parents did not send their children to secondary moderns and do not send their children to comprehensives and certainly not comprehensives or academies which are any less than Outstanding. So the rich generally don't use comprehensives anyway while the bright but poor no longer have the opportunities grammars provided. Most grammars of course also have entries at sixth form level too
a) You can tutor for IQ tests very easily. Not sure where you got it that it was difficult. There are lots of techniques.
b) In between our posts I have been chopping wood and did a rough mental calculation of how many should have got into the grammar school from my village all other things being equal (I know how many classes there were, the size of them, the fact that our village was a 3 member ward and how many councillors there were in the borough). The answer is about 25. There was 1 and he dropped out. If that doesn't give you an idea of the disparity between poor and middle class areas nothing will.
c) If you think the well off don't send their children to Comprehensives you live in a different world. I live in a well off area now. I am wealthy by most peoples measure as are most of the people I know. Nearly all use the local comprehensive, which I grant you is good, but that is not what you were saying.
d) Moving to a Grammar at sixth form is too late. The damage has been done. Many won't go who should. Many who were at the Grammar who shouldn't have been have dropped out.
Select by subject on an ongoing basis throughout the child's education.
a) You can't. IQ test results are in part based on genetics, they are difficult to tutor for unlike subject knowledge based exams.
b) And all of them would likely have gone to a sink comprehensive otherwise, at least 1 still got to a grammar.
c) If the wealthy send their kids to a comp it will only be an Outstanding comp they have bought their kids admission to by buying a house in its catchment area, meaning there are well above average house prices for that catchment area. You buy a place at an Outstanding comp or academy much like you buy a place at private school effectively or else you go to church more regularly to get a vicar's reference for a top church school.
d) Sixth form entry for A levels and top university is fine for late developers
a) you can - just allowing children to sit a few past papers so they understand how the questions work allows children to know how to answer the questions quicker allowing them more time to concentrate on more difficult questions.
You can understand the format of the questions but it is harder to prepare for the specific questions that will come up as they are logic and reasoning based, not subject knowledge based which are more tests of memory
As someone who has got 3 of 4 children into local grammars and sent the other private, I can confirm HYUFD doesn't know what he's talking about here, as well as constantly missing the point.
Tutoring makes a massive difference to ability to tackle the 11+. You see it all the time with kids that got tutored and then struggle to keep up once they're in.
It may make a marginal difference to borderline candidates but if you have an iq of 130+ you will get into a grammar school with no tutoring at all even if you live on a council estate
@HYUFD as usual you are pontificating with certainty about something on which I am guessing you have no knowledge whatsoever. It has been pointed by many on here how you can tutor for IQ tests / 11+ not least by just practicing papers, but there are many other techniques as well. I have some experience in this (as I am sure do many others on here) as it was a requirement of a development centre of one of the largest computer companies at the time at which I was a manager to take an IQ test and score at least 130. All undergraduates on the milk round had to do so before an interview. I would interview between 20 and 30 undergraduates on the milk round each year so I was very familiar with these test.
I couldn't do anything for someone who is stupid and could probably only add a point or two to a genius, but for a reasonably bright person I could probably get 10 to 20 IQ points added. Here are some ways how:
a) Just get familiar with the tests by practicing loads and getting your timing right (basic exam technique, but not something an 11 year old without tutoring has a clue about).
b) If you get a sequence of numbers and can't see the next number start subtracting each number from the next number. If the sequence doesn't become apparent then do again until it does. This takes just seconds to do and usually results in the answer. I've not seen one on an IQ test that doesn't.
c) Another common question is an arithmetic question which is too hard to do in the time but with an multiple choice answers so estimation is required. Someone with maths knowledge can do this easily, but someone who hasn't can be given about 5 easy tricks to solve these quickly.
d) Similarly a series of shapes at IQ test level is normally fairly straightforward, but again someone without the ability can be given half a dozen things to look out for in advance.
e) If you are given a True or False tests from a short paragraph and can't get it immediately you can convert it into a logical formulae (if you know how) and these tend to be so simple you can do it very quickly. I have to say that is something I find very useful to this day as I struggle to hold a lot of words in my head but can do logical formulae easily.
I could go on.
In response to the other items on your reply to me. You said 'at least one got to the grammar school'. You obviously missed the point that 'he crashed and burned'.
You also say 6th form is ok for late developers. Where did you get that from? It certainly wasn't for me. I missed out on so much. It was worse for others who were good enough but didn't get the chance. Also what about all those who pass the 11+ and then crash and burn because it isn't appropriate?
You cannot tutor for raw IQ tests of logic and reasoning to the same level as you can tutor for subject knowledge tests. In any case a pupil with a high IQ from a council estate would easily pass an IQ test tutored or not, the fact a few average IQ middle class pupils might scrape a pass at 11 pass after being heavily tutored does not make much difference to the former.
As opposed to all pupils crashing and burning at a sink comprehensive, at least grammar schools offered those with high IQs from deprived areas a chance to get on.
Sixth form entry offers a chance for those who are late developers and do well at GCSEs the fact you hated sixth form would probably have applied whichever school you went to
Once again - practice makes perfect. If you've never seen an IQ paper before and never been taught how to get the timing right you are at a major time disadvantage to someone who knows how the paper works so can say this is a question of type X and I use this set of logic to get the answer.
If you have a high IQ you will easily pass an IQ test by definition as it is a test of logic and reasoning not memory or subject knowledge.
Therefore poor pupils of high IQ from deprived areas would almost certainly get into a grammar school, absent a grammar their only choice is often a sink school
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.
@MikeSmithson is correct. It doesn't answer the point. As usual you just raise another point and don't address the point raised. It is a moving target.
Re your point on living in a poor area and being able to go to a grammar, this is very naïve. What actually happens is the middle class and well off in surrounding areas get tutored for the test and fill the spaces. The bright kids in the poor areas don't and they still don't get in by and large.
I lived in a relatively poor large village with 2 primary schools. Only one boy got into the boys grammar school and no girls to the girls grammar school. And that boy dropped out. I have no memory of even taking a test let alone getting tutored. After O levels a whole bunch of replaced those that had dropped out. The system is crap at selection and selecting at 11 is far too soon.
There are limits on how much you can tutor for 11+ and 13+ tests which are designed to test raw iq not subject knowledge as such. Indeed very often even a few bright kids from council estates got into grammar schools even without tutors and then onto Oxbridge or other top universities and professional careers. That path is not open to them to the same extent now if they live in a deprived area and just get sent to the local very average, if that, comp.
If you were well off and had a kid who was not so bright and would not pass the 11 or 13+ you could still send them private however and still do. Most wealthy parents did not send their children to secondary moderns and do not send their children to comprehensives and certainly not comprehensives or academies which are any less than Outstanding. So the rich generally don't use comprehensives anyway while the bright but poor no longer have the opportunities grammars provided. Most grammars of course also have entries at sixth form level too
a) You can tutor for IQ tests very easily. Not sure where you got it that it was difficult. There are lots of techniques.
b) In between our posts I have been chopping wood and did a rough mental calculation of how many should have got into the grammar school from my village all other things being equal (I know how many classes there were, the size of them, the fact that our village was a 3 member ward and how many councillors there were in the borough). The answer is about 25. There was 1 and he dropped out. If that doesn't give you an idea of the disparity between poor and middle class areas nothing will.
c) If you think the well off don't send their children to Comprehensives you live in a different world. I live in a well off area now. I am wealthy by most peoples measure as are most of the people I know. Nearly all use the local comprehensive, which I grant you is good, but that is not what you were saying.
d) Moving to a Grammar at sixth form is too late. The damage has been done. Many won't go who should. Many who were at the Grammar who shouldn't have been have dropped out.
Select by subject on an ongoing basis throughout the child's education.
a) You can't. IQ test results are in part based on genetics, they are difficult to tutor for unlike subject knowledge based exams.
b) And all of them would likely have gone to a sink comprehensive otherwise, at least 1 still got to a grammar.
c) If the wealthy send their kids to a comp it will only be an Outstanding comp they have bought their kids admission to by buying a house in its catchment area, meaning there are well above average house prices for that catchment area. You buy a place at an Outstanding comp or academy much like you buy a place at private school effectively or else you go to church more regularly to get a vicar's reference for a top church school.
d) Sixth form entry for A levels and top university is fine for late developers
a) you can - just allowing children to sit a few past papers so they understand how the questions work allows children to know how to answer the questions quicker allowing them more time to concentrate on more difficult questions.
You can understand the format of the questions but it is harder to prepare for the specific questions that will come up as they are logic and reasoning based, not subject knowledge based which are more tests of memory
As someone who has got 3 of 4 children into local grammars and sent the other private, I can confirm HYUFD doesn't know what he's talking about here, as well as constantly missing the point.
Tutoring makes a massive difference to ability to tackle the 11+. You see it all the time with kids that got tutored and then struggle to keep up once they're in.
It may make a marginal difference to borderline candidates but if you have an iq of 130+ you will get into a grammar school with no tutoring at all even if you live on a council estate
@HYUFD as usual you are pontificating with certainty about something on which I am guessing you have no knowledge whatsoever. It has been pointed by many on here how you can tutor for IQ tests / 11+ not least by just practicing papers, but there are many other techniques as well. I have some experience in this (as I am sure do many others on here) as it was a requirement of a development centre of one of the largest computer companies at the time at which I was a manager to take an IQ test and score at least 130. All undergraduates on the milk round had to do so before an interview. I would interview between 20 and 30 undergraduates on the milk round each year so I was very familiar with these test.
I couldn't do anything for someone who is stupid and could probably only add a point or two to a genius, but for a reasonably bright person I could probably get 10 to 20 IQ points added. Here are some ways how:
a) Just get familiar with the tests by practicing loads and getting your timing right (basic exam technique, but not something an 11 year old without tutoring has a clue about).
b) If you get a sequence of numbers and can't see the next number start subtracting each number from the next number. If the sequence doesn't become apparent then do again until it does. This takes just seconds to do and usually results in the answer. I've not seen one on an IQ test that doesn't.
c) Another common question is an arithmetic question which is too hard to do in the time but with an multiple choice answers so estimation is required. Someone with maths knowledge can do this easily, but someone who hasn't can be given about 5 easy tricks to solve these quickly.
d) Similarly a series of shapes at IQ test level is normally fairly straightforward, but again someone without the ability can be given half a dozen things to look out for in advance.
e) If you are given a True or False tests from a short paragraph and can't get it immediately you can convert it into a logical formulae (if you know how) and these tend to be so simple you can do it very quickly. I have to say that is something I find very useful to this day as I struggle to hold a lot of words in my head but can do logical formulae easily.
I could go on.
In response to the other items on your reply to me. You said 'at least one got to the grammar school'. You obviously missed the point that 'he crashed and burned'.
You also say 6th form is ok for late developers. Where did you get that from? It certainly wasn't for me. I missed out on so much. It was worse for others who were good enough but didn't get the chance. Also what about all those who pass the 11+ and then crash and burn because it isn't appropriate?
You cannot tutor for raw IQ tests of logic and reasoning to the same level as you can tutor for subject knowledge tests. In any case a pupil with a high IQ from a council estate would easily pass an IQ test tutored or not, the fact a few average IQ middle class pupils might scrape a pass at 11 pass after being heavily tutored does not make much difference to the former.
As opposed to all pupils crashing and burning at a sink comprehensive, at least grammar schools offered those with high IQs from deprived areas a chance to get on.
Sixth form entry offers a chance for those who are late developers and do well at GCSEs the fact you hated sixth form would probably have applied whichever school you went to
Once again - practice makes perfect. If you've never seen an IQ paper before and never been taught how to get the timing right you are at a major time disadvantage to someone who knows how the paper works so can say this is a question of type X and I use this set of logic to get the answer.
You arer quite right. It's actually true for any examination, of course, and those parents who can afford to pay (and do so) for tutors in such things, or schools which specialise in such things, gain a huge advantage for their children.
South African scientists - hailed for their discovery of Omicron - are investigating the "highly plausible hypothesis" that the emergence of new Covid-19 variants could be linked, in some cases, to mutations taking place inside infected people whose immune systems have already been weakened by other factors, including, though not limited to, untreated HIV.
Researchers have already observed that Covid-19 can linger for many months in patients who are HIV positive but who have, for varying reasons, not been taking the medicines that would enable them to lead healthy lives. . . . . Two cases of particular interest have now been detected in South African hospitals. One woman continued to test positive for Covid-19 for almost eight months, earlier this year, while the virus underwent more than 30 genetic shifts.
Professor Tulio de Oliveira, who leads the team that confirmed the discovery of Omicron, noted that "10 to 15" similar cases had been found in other parts of the world, including the UK.
"It's a very rare event. But it is a plausible explanation that individuals that are immuno-suppressed… can basically be a source of virus evolution," he said. . . .
You cannot tutor for raw IQ tests of logic and reasoning to the same level as you can tutor for subject knowledge tests. In any case a pupil with a high IQ from a council estate would easily pass an IQ test tutored or not, the fact a few average IQ middle class pupils might scrape a pass at 11 pass after being heavily tutored does not make much difference to the former.
As opposed to all pupils crashing and burning at a sink comprehensive, at least grammar schools offered those with high IQs from deprived areas a chance to get on.
Sixth form entry offers a chance for those who are late developers and do well at GCSEs the fact you hated sixth form would probably have applied whichever school you went to
That's completely and demonstrably false. IQ tests are a learnable skill like any other academic skill.
Nope, over half of IQ is determined by genetics and cannot be learnt.
Thinking back to the West Wing, Abbey Bartlet was quite often present during business meetings. Not all the time, but often enough to not be unheard of.
People who hate Boris or Carrie may want to grind an axe about Carrie being at a meeting, but maybe its not noteworthy to others because it isn't noteworthy.
Yeah, televised popular fiction about another country is an infallible guide here.
You say "People who hate Boris or Carrie" as if this were a foible like not liking marmite. It's more like dislliking the Ceausescu, or Benito n Clara.
Today's Tuesday figure really does start to feel like behaviour change has suppressed Omicron. Being a Tuesday should have been much higher.
Will we even see a 100k reporting day?
Again, I thought there was a backlog as the numbers seemed wrong. But looking at addition day, there is a bit of stretch out - 3.7k cases added to 16th, but the biggest additions are 19th (45.7k) then 20th (22.5k), then 18th (10.8k) and that doesn't seem an unusual mix to me.
So, I think it goes in the direction that (a) Omicron is relatively low R rate, (b) but is very short generation time, so (c) suppression below 1 hasn't been that hard to achieve.*
* The converse would be to note that Boris Johnson's DNA has an R rate of 3.5-4.0 (7 or 8 kids that are half his), but with an average generation time of 40+ years, so the world isn't entirely filled with Boris Johnson's DNA yet. Omicron is pulling the exact opposite trick.
The figures create problems for everyone. If voluntary "lockdown" (we have never been locked down in this country...) is stopping the exponential spike then it makes the case for formalising it. If its a lack of testing capacity and we're going to see a catch-up explosion then it makes the case for more restrictions. With *only* 90k cases as the current stabilised level, and Christmas weekend to come along with positive tests from the people infected who haven't had symptoms yet, it's likely to go pop just as they make their decision.
Would have been far better if we had seen a huuuuuuge spike which inevitably would top out and collapse back downward. The "attack the science" commentators might want to consider that the exponential forecast would be better for no formal restrictions than this. Because the last thing we want is "lockdown".
A huge spike would lead to a lockdown.
And if voluntary is working there's absolutely no reason to go for formal, none at all.
A flattened sombrero at 90k per day could be perfect. If Omicron is really half as virulent as Delta, then that's only like having 45k in the past which we were able to handle, so now we'd have twice as many people as we were before getting through the natural immunity funnel. The more the merrier so long as we can handle it.
Its ideal if you want swathes of the economy shut down because so many people are sick. Not being in hospital doesn't mean remotely fit to work. I know you will say "they should go on normally" but happily almost everyone who isn't you disagrees.
You disagree because you're still in denial of the fact that we will all get this. You're still operating under the delusion that this can and will go away. You've got about as much chance of that working as pastors who try to "pray away the gay".
We need to learn to live with the virus, the sooner the better.
For me, you mean the entire population of this country who isn't you. No matter how many times you say the same thing, people are not knowingly going to go out to infect other people, because they are not cnuts.
No, not the entire population of the country who isn't me. I'm fully expecting to get the virus myself one day and as I've said I put my trust in the vaccines. I've had my three jabs, now when I get it it, I get it. I don't especially care when I get it.
People may not knowingly go out to infect others, but we should ASAP get into a position where people can unknowingly do so (because they're asymptomatic and not testing) and then after that it needs to be a personal choice whether people go out as opposed to a matter of law.
I've been out with a cough or a cold before and its never seemed weird to do so. Covid will ultimately need to become in the same bracket as that.
Do you think you could please take a little bell with you to tinkle? I really hate being sneezed on by people who come out with all their bugs.
Do you think it should be against the law to leave your house for ten days when you have any cough or cold?
Ten days? Not that long for normal colds and the like, but I would certainly keep clear of other people, particularly the elderly, and get my wife to do the food shopping etc. Always have.
Not me. I was always taught to cover your mouth when you need to cough or sneeze, not to stay at home when you need to.
Today's Tuesday figure really does start to feel like behaviour change has suppressed Omicron. Being a Tuesday should have been much higher.
Will we even see a 100k reporting day?
Again, I thought there was a backlog as the numbers seemed wrong. But looking at addition day, there is a bit of stretch out - 3.7k cases added to 16th, but the biggest additions are 19th (45.7k) then 20th (22.5k), then 18th (10.8k) and that doesn't seem an unusual mix to me.
So, I think it goes in the direction that (a) Omicron is relatively low R rate, (b) but is very short generation time, so (c) suppression below 1 hasn't been that hard to achieve.*
* The converse would be to note that Boris Johnson's DNA has an R rate of 3.5-4.0 (7 or 8 kids that are half his), but with an average generation time of 40+ years, so the world isn't entirely filled with Boris Johnson's DNA yet. Omicron is pulling the exact opposite trick.
The figures create problems for everyone. If voluntary "lockdown" (we have never been locked down in this country...) is stopping the exponential spike then it makes the case for formalising it. If its a lack of testing capacity and we're going to see a catch-up explosion then it makes the case for more restrictions. With *only* 90k cases as the current stabilised level, and Christmas weekend to come along with positive tests from the people infected who haven't had symptoms yet, it's likely to go pop just as they make their decision.
Would have been far better if we had seen a huuuuuuge spike which inevitably would top out and collapse back downward. The "attack the science" commentators might want to consider that the exponential forecast would be better for no formal restrictions than this. Because the last thing we want is "lockdown".
A huge spike would lead to a lockdown.
And if voluntary is working there's absolutely no reason to go for formal, none at all.
A flattened sombrero at 90k per day could be perfect. If Omicron is really half as virulent as Delta, then that's only like having 45k in the past which we were able to handle, so now we'd have twice as many people as we were before getting through the natural immunity funnel. The more the merrier so long as we can handle it.
Its ideal if you want swathes of the economy shut down because so many people are sick. Not being in hospital doesn't mean remotely fit to work. I know you will say "they should go on normally" but happily almost everyone who isn't you disagrees.
You disagree because you're still in denial of the fact that we will all get this. You're still operating under the delusion that this can and will go away. You've got about as much chance of that working as pastors who try to "pray away the gay".
We need to learn to live with the virus, the sooner the better.
For me, you mean the entire population of this country who isn't you. No matter how many times you say the same thing, people are not knowingly going to go out to infect other people, because they are not cnuts.
No, not the entire population of the country who isn't me. I'm fully expecting to get the virus myself one day and as I've said I put my trust in the vaccines. I've had my three jabs, now when I get it it, I get it. I don't especially care when I get it.
People may not knowingly go out to infect others, but we should ASAP get into a position where people can unknowingly do so (because they're asymptomatic and not testing) and then after that it needs to be a personal choice whether people go out as opposed to a matter of law.
I've been out with a cough or a cold before and its never seemed weird to do so. Covid will ultimately need to become in the same bracket as that.
Yes, the entire population who isn't you. Nobody is going out knowingly whilst sick with Covid. It is not "a cough and a cold".
With the amount of vaccinations and previous infection it's going to be that way for huge swathes of the population. My colleagues would both have carried on coming into the office if it wasn't notifiable.
We know that double vaxxed is not "its just a cold" for most people because the government is making a herculean effort to get boosters into arms immediately. Once we are all triple jabbed and we have more data we can assess again.
Are there stats to back up that claim? I thought even with only two jabs the majority of cases were asymptomatic.
Yes, I think for most double vaxxed people it is 'just a cold' - or even less.
We're a nation of nearly 70 million people, so there will be a LOT of people for whom it is worse than 'just a cold' in absolute terms. But most double jabbed people will recover without incident in a week or so.
It's clearly not just a cold. Most people I know who've had it, even the Omicron variant recently, have been laid low for a couple of days at least (one or two lucky people have been entirely asymptomatic). But fatality rates for the triple vaccinated are now pretty much the same as flu. Flu itself, despite the cute and domesticated name, is a nasty bugger of a disease. It carried off a couple of elderly members of my family a few years ago.
The trouble is the false binary that is set up by the modern culture war. You have to choose sides: Covid is the DESTROYER OF WORLDS, or "just a cold". Milder is equated with completely harmless, severe is read to mean hospitals overwhelmed.
That's a really good point. I was floored for a week with COVID and it blitzed my immune system sufficiently that I've got a secondary ear infection that I can't get rid off. Fair enough I didn't need to go to hospital but it's an experience I never want to repeat and I'll take any measures to ensure that
Lincoln County Georgia, which is nearly one-third Black, proposes closing 6 of 7 polling sites for 2022 after GOP took over local election board & purged Dems
I really wonder how people can look themselves in the mirror when they do this kind of thing.
Simple - they genuinely believe in Gilead. Blacks / Hispanics / Libtards / Women who work - these people are destroying the true America. So stop them voting to save the Republic.
Alternatively, it's seen as all within the rules of the game in America. It's what you do when you have power because you think the other lot would do it too. Not a great place for a democracy to be, but using the levers of power to your advantage like this has always gone on in the USA. See also redistricting: http://www.redistrictinggame.org/
Williams driver Nicholas Latifi says he received "extreme" death threats after his crash at the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix led to Max Verstappen controversially winning the Formula 1 world title.
Latifi, 26, crashed with five laps remaining, resulting in the safety car being deployed.
The race was then resumed with one lap to go, in which Verstappen passed Lewis Hamilton to win the race and the title.
In a statement, Canadian Latifi said he had received "a lot of hate and abuse".
He revealed: "Going back to the race weekend, as soon as the chequered flag dropped, I knew how things were likely to play out on social media.
"The fact that I felt it would be best if I deleted Instagram and Twitter on my phone for a few days says all we need to know about how cruel the online world can be.
"The ensuing hate, abuse, and threats on social media were not really a surprise to me as it's just the stark reality of the world we live in right now. I'm no stranger to being talked about negatively online, I think every sports person who competes on the world stage knows they're under extreme scrutiny and this comes with the territory sometimes.
"But as we've seen time and time again, across all different sports, it only takes one incident at the wrong time to have things completely blown out of proportion - and bring out the worst in people who are so-called 'fans' of the sport. What shocked me was the extreme tone of the hate, abuse, and even the death threats I received."
You cannot tutor for raw IQ tests of logic and reasoning to the same level as you can tutor for subject knowledge tests. In any case a pupil with a high IQ from a council estate would easily pass an IQ test tutored or not, the fact a few average IQ middle class pupils might scrape a pass at 11 pass after being heavily tutored does not make much difference to the former.
As opposed to all pupils crashing and burning at a sink comprehensive, at least grammar schools offered those with high IQs from deprived areas a chance to get on.
Sixth form entry offers a chance for those who are late developers and do well at GCSEs the fact you hated sixth form would probably have applied whichever school you went to
That's completely and demonstrably false. IQ tests are a learnable skill like any other academic skill.
Nope, over half of IQ is determined by genetics and cannot be learnt
I'm not sure that's true. There's lots of evidence that one can get better and better at IQ tests by learning the patterns inherent in them.
That doesn't mean you're more intelligent - it means you're better at getting good scores on IQ tests.
Thinking back to the West Wing, Abbey Bartlet was quite often present during business meetings. Not all the time, but often enough to not be unheard of.
People who hate Boris or Carrie may want to grind an axe about Carrie being at a meeting, but maybe its not noteworthy to others because it isn't noteworthy.
The First Lady is the holder of an official office, the First Lady's office. We don't have anything like that.
Not officially, and officially we don't have a President but the PM has been unofficially Presidential for decades and unofficially I expect their significant others have had an unofficial role for decades too.
People used to moan about Cherie Blair getting involved too.
Does every person in that picture working there have to be an official office holder?
No maybe not but official titles count, quite simply Carrie shouldn't have been there if it was a business meeting or if she was there and it wasn't one then say so. Her presence is inappropriate at a government meeting, she's not elected or employed by the state.
I All genuine F1 fans will condemn this abuse, Latifi doesn't deserve it, Michael Masi on the other hand....
I did have a moment of wondering the other day what the reaction would have been like had it been an Alpha Tauri in the wall rather than a Mercedes-engined car.
For those with an interest here's the report of the HoC Women & Equalities Committee on the Reform of the Gender Recognition Act. It recommends a streamlined legal gender change process based on self-id.
"Hopson said: “I was talking to a [trust] chief executive who said that 40 of the midwives on their midwifery service … were saying they were not prepared to be vaccinated. Those staff, given their skills and their expertise, are not easily redeployed but they’re also extremely difficult to replace.
The trust’s chief executive “is seriously concerned about the safety of the service” because of the potential exodus of midwives.
Maternity staff quitting over compulsory jabs posed a particular challenge because of the NHS-wide shortage of midwives, Hopson said. NHS England estimates that maternity services need 2,000 more whole-time equivalent midwives, while the Royal College of Midwives (RCM) puts the figure at 2,500."
See ya.
So you'd rather have avoidable deaths in childbirth; than tolerate unvaccinated NHS staff?
If they are so selfish that they won't get vaccinated to protect not only themselves but the people they are treating, they can collect their P45s.
And we then lose a load of women and babies in childbirth. I'm happy to issue a fatwa against most people who are unvaccinated by choice. But we do need certain people to keep working.
What should have happened was what other countries have done. A campaign of public shame. Call them out for the selfish cretins they are - many would probably have Trumped and got it reluctantly.
They said this about care workers, it turns out that people need to work for a living so they quietly get vaccinated.
There is a significant difference between a midwife and a care worker...
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.
@MikeSmithson is correct. It doesn't answer the point. As usual you just raise another point and don't address the point raised. It is a moving target.
Re your point on living in a poor area and being able to go to a grammar, this is very naïve. What actually happens is the middle class and well off in surrounding areas get tutored for the test and fill the spaces. The bright kids in the poor areas don't and they still don't get in by and large.
I lived in a relatively poor large village with 2 primary schools. Only one boy got into the boys grammar school and no girls to the girls grammar school. And that boy dropped out. I have no memory of even taking a test let alone getting tutored. After O levels a whole bunch of replaced those that had dropped out. The system is crap at selection and selecting at 11 is far too soon.
There are limits on how much you can tutor for 11+ and 13+ tests which are designed to test raw iq not subject knowledge as such. Indeed very often even a few bright kids from council estates got into grammar schools even without tutors and then onto Oxbridge or other top universities and professional careers. That path is not open to them to the same extent now if they live in a deprived area and just get sent to the local very average, if that, comp.
If you were well off and had a kid who was not so bright and would not pass the 11 or 13+ you could still send them private however and still do. Most wealthy parents did not send their children to secondary moderns and do not send their children to comprehensives and certainly not comprehensives or academies which are any less than Outstanding. So the rich generally don't use comprehensives anyway while the bright but poor no longer have the opportunities grammars provided. Most grammars of course also have entries at sixth form level too
a) You can tutor for IQ tests very easily. Not sure where you got it that it was difficult. There are lots of techniques.
b) In between our posts I have been chopping wood and did a rough mental calculation of how many should have got into the grammar school from my village all other things being equal (I know how many classes there were, the size of them, the fact that our village was a 3 member ward and how many councillors there were in the borough). The answer is about 25. There was 1 and he dropped out. If that doesn't give you an idea of the disparity between poor and middle class areas nothing will.
c) If you think the well off don't send their children to Comprehensives you live in a different world. I live in a well off area now. I am wealthy by most peoples measure as are most of the people I know. Nearly all use the local comprehensive, which I grant you is good, but that is not what you were saying.
d) Moving to a Grammar at sixth form is too late. The damage has been done. Many won't go who should. Many who were at the Grammar who shouldn't have been have dropped out.
Select by subject on an ongoing basis throughout the child's education.
a) You can't. IQ test results are in part based on genetics, they are difficult to tutor for unlike subject knowledge based exams.
b) And all of them would likely have gone to a sink comprehensive otherwise, at least 1 still got to a grammar.
c) If the wealthy send their kids to a comp it will only be an Outstanding comp they have bought their kids admission to by buying a house in its catchment area, meaning there are well above average house prices for that catchment area. You buy a place at an Outstanding comp or academy much like you buy a place at private school effectively or else you go to church more regularly to get a vicar's reference for a top church school.
d) Sixth form entry for A levels and top university is fine for late developers
a) you can - just allowing children to sit a few past papers so they understand how the questions work allows children to know how to answer the questions quicker allowing them more time to concentrate on more difficult questions.
You can understand the format of the questions but it is harder to prepare for the specific questions that will come up as they are logic and reasoning based, not subject knowledge based which are more tests of memory
As someone who has got 3 of 4 children into local grammars and sent the other private, I can confirm HYUFD doesn't know what he's talking about here, as well as constantly missing the point.
Tutoring makes a massive difference to ability to tackle the 11+. You see it all the time with kids that got tutored and then struggle to keep up once they're in.
It may make a marginal difference to borderline candidates but if you have an iq of 130+ you will get into a grammar school with no tutoring at all even if you live on a council estate
@HYUFD as usual you are pontificating with certainty about something on which I am guessing you have no knowledge whatsoever. It has been pointed by many on here how you can tutor for IQ tests / 11+ not least by just practicing papers, but there are many other techniques as well. I have some experience in this (as I am sure do many others on here) as it was a requirement of a development centre of one of the largest computer companies at the time at which I was a manager to take an IQ test and score at least 130. All undergraduates on the milk round had to do so before an interview. I would interview between 20 and 30 undergraduates on the milk round each year so I was very familiar with these test.
I couldn't do anything for someone who is stupid and could probably only add a point or two to a genius, but for a reasonably bright person I could probably get 10 to 20 IQ points added. Here are some ways how:
a) Just get familiar with the tests by practicing loads and getting your timing right (basic exam technique, but not something an 11 year old without tutoring has a clue about).
b) If you get a sequence of numbers and can't see the next number start subtracting each number from the next number. If the sequence doesn't become apparent then do again until it does. This takes just seconds to do and usually results in the answer. I've not seen one on an IQ test that doesn't.
c) Another common question is an arithmetic question which is too hard to do in the time but with an multiple choice answers so estimation is required. Someone with maths knowledge can do this easily, but someone who hasn't can be given about 5 easy tricks to solve these quickly.
d) Similarly a series of shapes at IQ test level is normally fairly straightforward, but again someone without the ability can be given half a dozen things to look out for in advance.
e) If you are given a True or False tests from a short paragraph and can't get it immediately you can convert it into a logical formulae (if you know how) and these tend to be so simple you can do it very quickly. I have to say that is something I find very useful to this day as I struggle to hold a lot of words in my head but can do logical formulae easily.
I could go on.
In response to the other items on your reply to me. You said 'at least one got to the grammar school'. You obviously missed the point that 'he crashed and burned'.
You also say 6th form is ok for late developers. Where did you get that from? It certainly wasn't for me. I missed out on so much. It was worse for others who were good enough but didn't get the chance. Also what about all those who pass the 11+ and then crash and burn because it isn't appropriate?
You cannot tutor for raw IQ tests of logic and reasoning to the same level as you can tutor for subject knowledge tests. In any case a pupil with a high IQ from a council estate would easily pass an IQ test tutored or not, the fact a few average IQ middle class pupils might scrape a pass at 11 pass after being heavily tutored does not make much difference to the former.
As opposed to all pupils crashing and burning at a sink comprehensive, at least grammar schools offered those with high IQs from deprived areas a chance to get on.
Sixth form entry offers a chance for those who are late developers and do well at GCSEs the fact you hated sixth form would probably have applied whichever school you went to
Where on earth did you get the idea that I hated the 6th form grammar school? I didn't I loved it. I also had a very good secondary school prior to that. You seem to read stuff into posts that aren't there. The problem is that by selecting at 11 I missed stuff that was only available at the grammar school and the grammar school boys missed stuff that was only available at the secondary school. Pointless separation and also doesn't allow for streaming by subject properly across all the pupils.
If you don't think you can tutor for the 11+ how do you explain my example from a poor area with only 1 getting into the Grammar school whereas all things being equal it should have been 20 - 25. It is not a few, it is a lot. The idea that you think Grammar schools are not in anyway heavily biased towards well off parents is just bizarre. They are very heavily weighted against poor areas.
"Hopson said: “I was talking to a [trust] chief executive who said that 40 of the midwives on their midwifery service … were saying they were not prepared to be vaccinated. Those staff, given their skills and their expertise, are not easily redeployed but they’re also extremely difficult to replace.
The trust’s chief executive “is seriously concerned about the safety of the service” because of the potential exodus of midwives.
Maternity staff quitting over compulsory jabs posed a particular challenge because of the NHS-wide shortage of midwives, Hopson said. NHS England estimates that maternity services need 2,000 more whole-time equivalent midwives, while the Royal College of Midwives (RCM) puts the figure at 2,500."
See ya.
So you'd rather have avoidable deaths in childbirth; than tolerate unvaccinated NHS staff?
If they are so selfish that they won't get vaccinated to protect not only themselves but the people they are treating, they can collect their P45s.
And we then lose a load of women and babies in childbirth. I'm happy to issue a fatwa against most people who are unvaccinated by choice. But we do need certain people to keep working.
What should have happened was what other countries have done. A campaign of public shame. Call them out for the selfish cretins they are - many would probably have Trumped and got it reluctantly.
They said this about care workers, it turns out that people need to work for a living so they quietly get vaccinated.
There is a significant difference between a midwife and a care worker...
Aren't midwives older and thus more at risk from Covid?
Thinking back to the West Wing, Abbey Bartlet was quite often present during business meetings. Not all the time, but often enough to not be unheard of.
People who hate Boris or Carrie may want to grind an axe about Carrie being at a meeting, but maybe its not noteworthy to others because it isn't noteworthy.
The First Lady is the holder of an official office, the First Lady's office. We don't have anything like that.
Not officially, and officially we don't have a President but the PM has been unofficially Presidential for decades and unofficially I expect their significant others have had an unofficial role for decades too.
People used to moan about Cherie Blair getting involved too.
Does every person in that picture working there have to be an official office holder?
No maybe not but official titles count, quite simply Carrie shouldn't have been there if it was a business meeting or if she was there and it wasn't one then say so. Her presence is inappropriate at a government meeting, she's not elected or employed by the state.
Is everyone else in that photo elected or employed by the state? Honest question.
You cannot tutor for raw IQ tests of logic and reasoning to the same level as you can tutor for subject knowledge tests. In any case a pupil with a high IQ from a council estate would easily pass an IQ test tutored or not, the fact a few average IQ middle class pupils might scrape a pass at 11 pass after being heavily tutored does not make much difference to the former.
As opposed to all pupils crashing and burning at a sink comprehensive, at least grammar schools offered those with high IQs from deprived areas a chance to get on.
Sixth form entry offers a chance for those who are late developers and do well at GCSEs the fact you hated sixth form would probably have applied whichever school you went to
That's completely and demonstrably false. IQ tests are a learnable skill like any other academic skill.
Nope, over half of IQ is determined by genetics and cannot be learnt
I'm not sure that's true. There's lots of evidence that one can get better and better at IQ tests by learning the patterns inherent in them.
That doesn't mean you're more intelligent - it means you're better at getting good scores on IQ tests.
Here you go: a study by "Cassidy et al. performed several months of an intensive training intervention based on RFT on fifteen children aged 11 to 12 in order to improve their understanding of the relations Same, Opposite and More and Less. The results were... a 23 IQ points rise on average"
That's a pretty massive increase in IQ scores based a on a few months training in their spare time.
Did they really all become dramatically more intelligent? Or did they simply get better at doing IQ tests?
"Hopson said: “I was talking to a [trust] chief executive who said that 40 of the midwives on their midwifery service … were saying they were not prepared to be vaccinated. Those staff, given their skills and their expertise, are not easily redeployed but they’re also extremely difficult to replace.
The trust’s chief executive “is seriously concerned about the safety of the service” because of the potential exodus of midwives.
Maternity staff quitting over compulsory jabs posed a particular challenge because of the NHS-wide shortage of midwives, Hopson said. NHS England estimates that maternity services need 2,000 more whole-time equivalent midwives, while the Royal College of Midwives (RCM) puts the figure at 2,500."
See ya.
So you'd rather have avoidable deaths in childbirth; than tolerate unvaccinated NHS staff?
If they are so selfish that they won't get vaccinated to protect not only themselves but the people they are treating, they can collect their P45s.
And we then lose a load of women and babies in childbirth. I'm happy to issue a fatwa against most people who are unvaccinated by choice. But we do need certain people to keep working.
What should have happened was what other countries have done. A campaign of public shame. Call them out for the selfish cretins they are - many would probably have Trumped and got it reluctantly.
They said this about care workers, it turns out that people need to work for a living so they quietly get vaccinated.
There is a significant difference between a midwife and a care worker...
Sure, but what else are they going to do? It's not as if they can just waltz into a job somewhere else and aiui most of the private sector healthcare companies already have no jab no job mandates.
Thinking back to the West Wing, Abbey Bartlet was quite often present during business meetings. Not all the time, but often enough to not be unheard of.
People who hate Boris or Carrie may want to grind an axe about Carrie being at a meeting, but maybe its not noteworthy to others because it isn't noteworthy.
The First Lady is the holder of an official office, the First Lady's office. We don't have anything like that.
Not officially, and officially we don't have a President but the PM has been unofficially Presidential for decades and unofficially I expect their significant others have had an unofficial role for decades too.
People used to moan about Cherie Blair getting involved too.
Does every person in that picture working there have to be an official office holder?
We’ll agree to disagree on that one. There’s been plenty of reports, suggesting that Mrs Johnson is at best getting in the way of work in Downing St, and by nature of her previous job working in PR for the party.
That she is seen as interfering, but without a formal role, is a large part of the disfunction that has been coming from No.10.
Cummings still hasn’t been replaced, because no-one who’s any good wants to work as top advisor to the PM, when someone else is clearly the top advisor to the PM.
Lincoln County Georgia, which is nearly one-third Black, proposes closing 6 of 7 polling sites for 2022 after GOP took over local election board & purged Dems
I really wonder how people can look themselves in the mirror when they do this kind of thing.
Just to add: I am all against identity politics and all, but when I see shit like this, I ask myself "if I were a black man in Georgia, would I feel that white people were trying to screw me over?" And I think I probably would.
Yep, I think an ideal world is one in which there is no need for identity politics. And for the most part, I think identity politics are damaging to society and demeaning to the identity they purport to serve.
However ... Sometimes (at least in the US), something happens to hit you over the head.
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.
@MikeSmithson is correct. It doesn't answer the point. As usual you just raise another point and don't address the point raised. It is a moving target.
Re your point on living in a poor area and being able to go to a grammar, this is very naïve. What actually happens is the middle class and well off in surrounding areas get tutored for the test and fill the spaces. The bright kids in the poor areas don't and they still don't get in by and large.
I lived in a relatively poor large village with 2 primary schools. Only one boy got into the boys grammar school and no girls to the girls grammar school. And that boy dropped out. I have no memory of even taking a test let alone getting tutored. After O levels a whole bunch of replaced those that had dropped out. The system is crap at selection and selecting at 11 is far too soon.
There are limits on how much you can tutor for 11+ and 13+ tests which are designed to test raw iq not subject knowledge as such. Indeed very often even a few bright kids from council estates got into grammar schools even without tutors and then onto Oxbridge or other top universities and professional careers. That path is not open to them to the same extent now if they live in a deprived area and just get sent to the local very average, if that, comp.
If you were well off and had a kid who was not so bright and would not pass the 11 or 13+ you could still send them private however and still do. Most wealthy parents did not send their children to secondary moderns and do not send their children to comprehensives and certainly not comprehensives or academies which are any less than Outstanding. So the rich generally don't use comprehensives anyway while the bright but poor no longer have the opportunities grammars provided. Most grammars of course also have entries at sixth form level too
a) You can tutor for IQ tests very easily. Not sure where you got it that it was difficult. There are lots of techniques.
b) In between our posts I have been chopping wood and did a rough mental calculation of how many should have got into the grammar school from my village all other things being equal (I know how many classes there were, the size of them, the fact that our village was a 3 member ward and how many councillors there were in the borough). The answer is about 25. There was 1 and he dropped out. If that doesn't give you an idea of the disparity between poor and middle class areas nothing will.
c) If you think the well off don't send their children to Comprehensives you live in a different world. I live in a well off area now. I am wealthy by most peoples measure as are most of the people I know. Nearly all use the local comprehensive, which I grant you is good, but that is not what you were saying.
d) Moving to a Grammar at sixth form is too late. The damage has been done. Many won't go who should. Many who were at the Grammar who shouldn't have been have dropped out.
Select by subject on an ongoing basis throughout the child's education.
a) You can't. IQ test results are in part based on genetics, they are difficult to tutor for unlike subject knowledge based exams.
b) And all of them would likely have gone to a sink comprehensive otherwise, at least 1 still got to a grammar.
c) If the wealthy send their kids to a comp it will only be an Outstanding comp they have bought their kids admission to by buying a house in its catchment area, meaning there are well above average house prices for that catchment area. You buy a place at an Outstanding comp or academy much like you buy a place at private school effectively or else you go to church more regularly to get a vicar's reference for a top church school.
d) Sixth form entry for A levels and top university is fine for late developers
a) you can - just allowing children to sit a few past papers so they understand how the questions work allows children to know how to answer the questions quicker allowing them more time to concentrate on more difficult questions.
You can understand the format of the questions but it is harder to prepare for the specific questions that will come up as they are logic and reasoning based, not subject knowledge based which are more tests of memory
As someone who has got 3 of 4 children into local grammars and sent the other private, I can confirm HYUFD doesn't know what he's talking about here, as well as constantly missing the point.
Tutoring makes a massive difference to ability to tackle the 11+. You see it all the time with kids that got tutored and then struggle to keep up once they're in.
It may make a marginal difference to borderline candidates but if you have an iq of 130+ you will get into a grammar school with no tutoring at all even if you live on a council estate
@HYUFD as usual you are pontificating with certainty about something on which I am guessing you have no knowledge whatsoever. It has been pointed by many on here how you can tutor for IQ tests / 11+ not least by just practicing papers, but there are many other techniques as well. I have some experience in this (as I am sure do many others on here) as it was a requirement of a development centre of one of the largest computer companies at the time at which I was a manager to take an IQ test and score at least 130. All undergraduates on the milk round had to do so before an interview. I would interview between 20 and 30 undergraduates on the milk round each year so I was very familiar with these test.
I couldn't do anything for someone who is stupid and could probably only add a point or two to a genius, but for a reasonably bright person I could probably get 10 to 20 IQ points added. Here are some ways how:
a) Just get familiar with the tests by practicing loads and getting your timing right (basic exam technique, but not something an 11 year old without tutoring has a clue about).
b) If you get a sequence of numbers and can't see the next number start subtracting each number from the next number. If the sequence doesn't become apparent then do again until it does. This takes just seconds to do and usually results in the answer. I've not seen one on an IQ test that doesn't.
c) Another common question is an arithmetic question which is too hard to do in the time but with an multiple choice answers so estimation is required. Someone with maths knowledge can do this easily, but someone who hasn't can be given about 5 easy tricks to solve these quickly.
d) Similarly a series of shapes at IQ test level is normally fairly straightforward, but again someone without the ability can be given half a dozen things to look out for in advance.
e) If you are given a True or False tests from a short paragraph and can't get it immediately you can convert it into a logical formulae (if you know how) and these tend to be so simple you can do it very quickly. I have to say that is something I find very useful to this day as I struggle to hold a lot of words in my head but can do logical formulae easily.
I could go on.
In response to the other items on your reply to me. You said 'at least one got to the grammar school'. You obviously missed the point that 'he crashed and burned'.
You also say 6th form is ok for late developers. Where did you get that from? It certainly wasn't for me. I missed out on so much. It was worse for others who were good enough but didn't get the chance. Also what about all those who pass the 11+ and then crash and burn because it isn't appropriate?
You cannot tutor for raw IQ tests of logic and reasoning to the same level as you can tutor for subject knowledge tests. In any case a pupil with a high IQ from a council estate would easily pass an IQ test tutored or not, the fact a few average IQ middle class pupils might scrape a pass at 11 pass after being heavily tutored does not make much difference to the former.
As opposed to all pupils crashing and burning at a sink comprehensive, at least grammar schools offered those with high IQs from deprived areas a chance to get on.
Sixth form entry offers a chance for those who are late developers and do well at GCSEs the fact you hated sixth form would probably have applied whichever school you went to
Where on earth did you get the idea that I hated the 6th form grammar school? I didn't I loved it. I also had a very good secondary school prior to that. You seem to read stuff into posts that aren't there. The problem is that by selecting at 11 I missed stuff that was only available at the grammar school and the grammar school boys missed stuff that was only available at the secondary school. Pointless separation and also doesn't allow for streaming by subject properly across all the pupils.
If you don't think you can tutor for the 11+ how do you explain my example from a poor area with only 1 getting into the Grammar school whereas all things being equal it should have been 20 - 25. It is not a few, it is a lot. The idea that you think Grammar schools are not in anyway heavily biased towards well off parents is just bizarre. They are very heavily weighted against poor areas.
I think from this "You also say 6th form is ok for late developers. Where did you get that from? It certainly wasn't for me.".
Appalling Con splits in the new Redfield & Wilton poll:
NE Lab 61% Con 22% NW Lab 51% Con 28% W Midlands Lab 47% Con 37% E Midlands Lab 41% Con 35%
Not necessarily, the Tories can win without the North provided they win the South and Midlands.
Those Midlands numbers are not so far behind midterm they cannot be caught up
I would go and look at the Lib Dem figures in the breakdowns.
E Midlands have 14% compared to 8% in the W Midlands.
I would say both W Midlands and E Midlands are nearer 47% Lab, 36% Tory.
And if you look at the South East - those figures should be given Tory MPs a nightmare as I suspect the Labour / Lib Dem votes will be a lot more efficient than those figures make out.
The same poll also clearly has Sunak ahead of Starmer as preferred PM, so Boris has until the local elections to turn it round and get a lead nationally and in the Midlands again. If not he will likely be replaced by Sunak as Tory leader by next Christmas and the Tories will likely be back in front again
Thinking back to the West Wing, Abbey Bartlet was quite often present during business meetings. Not all the time, but often enough to not be unheard of.
People who hate Boris or Carrie may want to grind an axe about Carrie being at a meeting, but maybe its not noteworthy to others because it isn't noteworthy.
The First Lady is the holder of an official office, the First Lady's office. We don't have anything like that.
Not officially, and officially we don't have a President but the PM has been unofficially Presidential for decades and unofficially I expect their significant others have had an unofficial role for decades too.
People used to moan about Cherie Blair getting involved too.
Does every person in that picture working there have to be an official office holder?
No maybe not but official titles count, quite simply Carrie shouldn't have been there if it was a business meeting or if she was there and it wasn't one then say so. Her presence is inappropriate at a government meeting, she's not elected or employed by the state.
But she had to be there. Young Wilfred was at the time Minister of State for Overseas Development.
Thinking back to the West Wing, Abbey Bartlet was quite often present during business meetings. Not all the time, but often enough to not be unheard of.
People who hate Boris or Carrie may want to grind an axe about Carrie being at a meeting, but maybe its not noteworthy to others because it isn't noteworthy.
The First Lady is the holder of an official office, the First Lady's office. We don't have anything like that.
Not officially, and officially we don't have a President but the PM has been unofficially Presidential for decades and unofficially I expect their significant others have had an unofficial role for decades too.
People used to moan about Cherie Blair getting involved too.
Does every person in that picture working there have to be an official office holder?
No maybe not but official titles count, quite simply Carrie shouldn't have been there if it was a business meeting or if she was there and it wasn't one then say so. Her presence is inappropriate at a government meeting, she's not elected or employed by the state.
Is everyone else in that photo elected or employed by the state? Honest question.
Cummings, Hancock, the PPS, and I guess various SPADs.
Thinking back to the West Wing, Abbey Bartlet was quite often present during business meetings. Not all the time, but often enough to not be unheard of.
People who hate Boris or Carrie may want to grind an axe about Carrie being at a meeting, but maybe its not noteworthy to others because it isn't noteworthy.
The First Lady is the holder of an official office, the First Lady's office. We don't have anything like that.
Not officially, and officially we don't have a President but the PM has been unofficially Presidential for decades and unofficially I expect their significant others have had an unofficial role for decades too.
People used to moan about Cherie Blair getting involved too.
Does every person in that picture working there have to be an official office holder?
No maybe not but official titles count, quite simply Carrie shouldn't have been there if it was a business meeting or if she was there and it wasn't one then say so. Her presence is inappropriate at a government meeting, she's not elected or employed by the state.
Is everyone else in that photo elected or employed by the state? Honest question.
Appalling Con splits in the new Redfield & Wilton poll:
NE Lab 61% Con 22% NW Lab 51% Con 28% W Midlands Lab 47% Con 37% E Midlands Lab 41% Con 35%
Not necessarily, the Tories can win without the North provided they win the South and Midlands.
Those Midlands numbers are not so far behind midterm they cannot be caught up
Well they are getting absolutely tonked in the West Midlands according the R and W., so where exactly in the Midlands did you have in mind?
5% behind in the East Midlands, 10% behind in the West Midlands is about the amount the Tories trail nationally, so if the Tories regain the lead nationally they will also regain the lead in the Midlands
I see the E. Midlands as easy pickings, but in the W.Midlands the Cons. look quite comprehensively behind at 10%.
Don't forget on top of all this we are facing an economic Armageddon for the next two years, which is never a good look for the incumbent.
Well if we face an economic Armageddon for the next decade even if Starmer did get in he would probably be out again within 5 years and the Tories back again
He can just blame the Tories like the Tories have been blaming Labour for the past 12 years.
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.
@MikeSmithson is correct. It doesn't answer the point. As usual you just raise another point and don't address the point raised. It is a moving target.
Re your point on living in a poor area and being able to go to a grammar, this is very naïve. What actually happens is the middle class and well off in surrounding areas get tutored for the test and fill the spaces. The bright kids in the poor areas don't and they still don't get in by and large.
I lived in a relatively poor large village with 2 primary schools. Only one boy got into the boys grammar school and no girls to the girls grammar school. And that boy dropped out. I have no memory of even taking a test let alone getting tutored. After O levels a whole bunch of replaced those that had dropped out. The system is crap at selection and selecting at 11 is far too soon.
There are limits on how much you can tutor for 11+ and 13+ tests which are designed to test raw iq not subject knowledge as such. Indeed very often even a few bright kids from council estates got into grammar schools even without tutors and then onto Oxbridge or other top universities and professional careers. That path is not open to them to the same extent now if they live in a deprived area and just get sent to the local very average, if that, comp.
If you were well off and had a kid who was not so bright and would not pass the 11 or 13+ you could still send them private however and still do. Most wealthy parents did not send their children to secondary moderns and do not send their children to comprehensives and certainly not comprehensives or academies which are any less than Outstanding. So the rich generally don't use comprehensives anyway while the bright but poor no longer have the opportunities grammars provided. Most grammars of course also have entries at sixth form level too
a) You can tutor for IQ tests very easily. Not sure where you got it that it was difficult. There are lots of techniques.
b) In between our posts I have been chopping wood and did a rough mental calculation of how many should have got into the grammar school from my village all other things being equal (I know how many classes there were, the size of them, the fact that our village was a 3 member ward and how many councillors there were in the borough). The answer is about 25. There was 1 and he dropped out. If that doesn't give you an idea of the disparity between poor and middle class areas nothing will.
c) If you think the well off don't send their children to Comprehensives you live in a different world. I live in a well off area now. I am wealthy by most peoples measure as are most of the people I know. Nearly all use the local comprehensive, which I grant you is good, but that is not what you were saying.
d) Moving to a Grammar at sixth form is too late. The damage has been done. Many won't go who should. Many who were at the Grammar who shouldn't have been have dropped out.
Select by subject on an ongoing basis throughout the child's education.
a) You can't. IQ test results are in part based on genetics, they are difficult to tutor for unlike subject knowledge based exams.
b) And all of them would likely have gone to a sink comprehensive otherwise, at least 1 still got to a grammar.
c) If the wealthy send their kids to a comp it will only be an Outstanding comp they have bought their kids admission to by buying a house in its catchment area, meaning there are well above average house prices for that catchment area. You buy a place at an Outstanding comp or academy much like you buy a place at private school effectively or else you go to church more regularly to get a vicar's reference for a top church school.
d) Sixth form entry for A levels and top university is fine for late developers
a) you can - just allowing children to sit a few past papers so they understand how the questions work allows children to know how to answer the questions quicker allowing them more time to concentrate on more difficult questions.
You can understand the format of the questions but it is harder to prepare for the specific questions that will come up as they are logic and reasoning based, not subject knowledge based which are more tests of memory
As someone who has got 3 of 4 children into local grammars and sent the other private, I can confirm HYUFD doesn't know what he's talking about here, as well as constantly missing the point.
Tutoring makes a massive difference to ability to tackle the 11+. You see it all the time with kids that got tutored and then struggle to keep up once they're in.
It may make a marginal difference to borderline candidates but if you have an iq of 130+ you will get into a grammar school with no tutoring at all even if you live on a council estate
@HYUFD as usual you are pontificating with certainty about something on which I am guessing you have no knowledge whatsoever. It has been pointed by many on here how you can tutor for IQ tests / 11+ not least by just practicing papers, but there are many other techniques as well. I have some experience in this (as I am sure do many others on here) as it was a requirement of a development centre of one of the largest computer companies at the time at which I was a manager to take an IQ test and score at least 130. All undergraduates on the milk round had to do so before an interview. I would interview between 20 and 30 undergraduates on the milk round each year so I was very familiar with these test.
I couldn't do anything for someone who is stupid and could probably only add a point or two to a genius, but for a reasonably bright person I could probably get 10 to 20 IQ points added. Here are some ways how:
a) Just get familiar with the tests by practicing loads and getting your timing right (basic exam technique, but not something an 11 year old without tutoring has a clue about).
b) If you get a sequence of numbers and can't see the next number start subtracting each number from the next number. If the sequence doesn't become apparent then do again until it does. This takes just seconds to do and usually results in the answer. I've not seen one on an IQ test that doesn't.
c) Another common question is an arithmetic question which is too hard to do in the time but with an multiple choice answers so estimation is required. Someone with maths knowledge can do this easily, but someone who hasn't can be given about 5 easy tricks to solve these quickly.
d) Similarly a series of shapes at IQ test level is normally fairly straightforward, but again someone without the ability can be given half a dozen things to look out for in advance.
e) If you are given a True or False tests from a short paragraph and can't get it immediately you can convert it into a logical formulae (if you know how) and these tend to be so simple you can do it very quickly. I have to say that is something I find very useful to this day as I struggle to hold a lot of words in my head but can do logical formulae easily.
I could go on.
In response to the other items on your reply to me. You said 'at least one got to the grammar school'. You obviously missed the point that 'he crashed and burned'.
You also say 6th form is ok for late developers. Where did you get that from? It certainly wasn't for me. I missed out on so much. It was worse for others who were good enough but didn't get the chance. Also what about all those who pass the 11+ and then crash and burn because it isn't appropriate?
You cannot tutor for raw IQ tests of logic and reasoning to the same level as you can tutor for subject knowledge tests. In any case a pupil with a high IQ from a council estate would easily pass an IQ test tutored or not, the fact a few average IQ middle class pupils might scrape a pass at 11 pass after being heavily tutored does not make much difference to the former.
As opposed to all pupils crashing and burning at a sink comprehensive, at least grammar schools offered those with high IQs from deprived areas a chance to get on.
Sixth form entry offers a chance for those who are late developers and do well at GCSEs the fact you hated sixth form would probably have applied whichever school you went to
Where on earth did you get the idea that I hated the 6th form grammar school? I didn't I loved it. I also had a very good secondary school prior to that. You seem to read stuff into posts that aren't there. The problem is that by selecting at 11 I missed stuff that was only available at the grammar school and the grammar school boys missed stuff that was only available at the secondary school. Pointless separation and also doesn't allow for streaming by subject properly across all the pupils.
If you don't think you can tutor for the 11+ how do you explain my example from a poor area with only 1 getting into the Grammar school whereas all things being equal it should have been 20 - 25. It is not a few, it is a lot. The idea that you think Grammar schools are not in anyway heavily biased towards well off parents is just bizarre. They are very heavily weighted against poor areas.
Why should it have been 20-25? Unless they all had high IQs. How many of those 20-25 would be high earning professionals if they did not even have a chance of a grammar school but their only choice was a sink school? Likely 0.
Thinking back to the West Wing, Abbey Bartlet was quite often present during business meetings. Not all the time, but often enough to not be unheard of.
People who hate Boris or Carrie may want to grind an axe about Carrie being at a meeting, but maybe its not noteworthy to others because it isn't noteworthy.
The First Lady is the holder of an official office, the First Lady's office. We don't have anything like that.
Not officially, and officially we don't have a President but the PM has been unofficially Presidential for decades and unofficially I expect their significant others have had an unofficial role for decades too.
People used to moan about Cherie Blair getting involved too.
Does every person in that picture working there have to be an official office holder?
We’ll agree to disagree on that one. There’s been plenty of reports, suggesting that Mrs Johnson is at best getting in the way of work in Downing St, and by nature of her previous job working in PR for the party.
That she is seen as interfering, but without a formal role, is a large part of the disfunction that has been coming from No.10.
Cummings still hasn’t been replaced, because no-one who’s any good wants to work as top advisor to the PM, when someone else is clearly the top advisor to the PM.
But that's my point though.
It may be bad politics for her to be an advisor, but if she is an advisor then her presence doesn't preclude it being a work meeting, does it?
"Hopson said: “I was talking to a [trust] chief executive who said that 40 of the midwives on their midwifery service … were saying they were not prepared to be vaccinated. Those staff, given their skills and their expertise, are not easily redeployed but they’re also extremely difficult to replace.
The trust’s chief executive “is seriously concerned about the safety of the service” because of the potential exodus of midwives.
Maternity staff quitting over compulsory jabs posed a particular challenge because of the NHS-wide shortage of midwives, Hopson said. NHS England estimates that maternity services need 2,000 more whole-time equivalent midwives, while the Royal College of Midwives (RCM) puts the figure at 2,500."
See ya.
So you'd rather have avoidable deaths in childbirth; than tolerate unvaccinated NHS staff?
If they are so selfish that they won't get vaccinated to protect not only themselves but the people they are treating, they can collect their P45s.
And we then lose a load of women and babies in childbirth. I'm happy to issue a fatwa against most people who are unvaccinated by choice. But we do need certain people to keep working.
What should have happened was what other countries have done. A campaign of public shame. Call them out for the selfish cretins they are - many would probably have Trumped and got it reluctantly.
They said this about care workers, it turns out that people need to work for a living so they quietly get vaccinated.
There is a significant difference between a midwife and a care worker...
Sure, but what else are they going to do? It's not as if they can just waltz into a job somewhere else and aiui most of the private sector healthcare companies already have no jab no job mandates.
I agree. My point was in response to Rob wanting to fire them. If it came to it that wouldn't be a good idea.
You cannot tutor for raw IQ tests of logic and reasoning to the same level as you can tutor for subject knowledge tests. In any case a pupil with a high IQ from a council estate would easily pass an IQ test tutored or not, the fact a few average IQ middle class pupils might scrape a pass at 11 pass after being heavily tutored does not make much difference to the former.
As opposed to all pupils crashing and burning at a sink comprehensive, at least grammar schools offered those with high IQs from deprived areas a chance to get on.
Sixth form entry offers a chance for those who are late developers and do well at GCSEs the fact you hated sixth form would probably have applied whichever school you went to
That's completely and demonstrably false. IQ tests are a learnable skill like any other academic skill.
Nope, over half of IQ is determined by genetics and cannot be learnt
I'm not sure that's true. There's lots of evidence that one can get better and better at IQ tests by learning the patterns inherent in them.
That doesn't mean you're more intelligent - it means you're better at getting good scores on IQ tests.
Read Carol Dweck. HUYFD has a fixed mindset. You have a growth mindset. I know which I'd prefer to have.
Quite apart from Dweck's work, Daniel Siegal's work on trauma patients and neuroplasticity shows indisputably that we can through mental practice change our physical brains for the better.
Thinking back to the West Wing, Abbey Bartlet was quite often present during business meetings. Not all the time, but often enough to not be unheard of.
People who hate Boris or Carrie may want to grind an axe about Carrie being at a meeting, but maybe its not noteworthy to others because it isn't noteworthy.
The First Lady is the holder of an official office, the First Lady's office. We don't have anything like that.
Not officially, and officially we don't have a President but the PM has been unofficially Presidential for decades and unofficially I expect their significant others have had an unofficial role for decades too.
People used to moan about Cherie Blair getting involved too.
Does every person in that picture working there have to be an official office holder?
This is just the point William Hague was making yesterday, that government is meant to be conducted in a grown up and orderly fashion. so yes is the answer to your question.
"Hopson said: “I was talking to a [trust] chief executive who said that 40 of the midwives on their midwifery service … were saying they were not prepared to be vaccinated. Those staff, given their skills and their expertise, are not easily redeployed but they’re also extremely difficult to replace.
The trust’s chief executive “is seriously concerned about the safety of the service” because of the potential exodus of midwives.
Maternity staff quitting over compulsory jabs posed a particular challenge because of the NHS-wide shortage of midwives, Hopson said. NHS England estimates that maternity services need 2,000 more whole-time equivalent midwives, while the Royal College of Midwives (RCM) puts the figure at 2,500."
See ya.
So you'd rather have avoidable deaths in childbirth; than tolerate unvaccinated NHS staff?
If they are so selfish that they won't get vaccinated to protect not only themselves but the people they are treating, they can collect their P45s.
And we then lose a load of women and babies in childbirth. I'm happy to issue a fatwa against most people who are unvaccinated by choice. But we do need certain people to keep working.
What should have happened was what other countries have done. A campaign of public shame. Call them out for the selfish cretins they are - many would probably have Trumped and got it reluctantly.
They said this about care workers, it turns out that people need to work for a living so they quietly get vaccinated.
There is a significant difference between a midwife and a care worker...
Sure, but what else are they going to do? It's not as if they can just waltz into a job somewhere else and aiui most of the private sector healthcare companies already have no jab no job mandates.
I agree. My point was in response to Rob wanting to fire them. If it came to it that wouldn't be a good idea.
It would barely be noticeable given the changes in staff levels over the past years. You make it sound like it'd be some sort of armageddon scenario.
Thinking back to the West Wing, Abbey Bartlet was quite often present during business meetings. Not all the time, but often enough to not be unheard of.
People who hate Boris or Carrie may want to grind an axe about Carrie being at a meeting, but maybe its not noteworthy to others because it isn't noteworthy.
The First Lady is the holder of an official office, the First Lady's office. We don't have anything like that.
Not officially, and officially we don't have a President but the PM has been unofficially Presidential for decades and unofficially I expect their significant others have had an unofficial role for decades too.
People used to moan about Cherie Blair getting involved too.
Does every person in that picture working there have to be an official office holder?
No maybe not but official titles count, quite simply Carrie shouldn't have been there if it was a business meeting or if she was there and it wasn't one then say so. Her presence is inappropriate at a government meeting, she's not elected or employed by the state.
Is everyone else in that photo elected or employed by the state? Honest question.
If be shocked if they weren't.
Perhaps.
I would have guessed that people employed by the Conservative Party, as opposed to the State, might sometimes be in work meetings in Downing Street.
"Hopson said: “I was talking to a [trust] chief executive who said that 40 of the midwives on their midwifery service … were saying they were not prepared to be vaccinated. Those staff, given their skills and their expertise, are not easily redeployed but they’re also extremely difficult to replace.
The trust’s chief executive “is seriously concerned about the safety of the service” because of the potential exodus of midwives.
Maternity staff quitting over compulsory jabs posed a particular challenge because of the NHS-wide shortage of midwives, Hopson said. NHS England estimates that maternity services need 2,000 more whole-time equivalent midwives, while the Royal College of Midwives (RCM) puts the figure at 2,500."
See ya.
So you'd rather have avoidable deaths in childbirth; than tolerate unvaccinated NHS staff?
If they are so selfish that they won't get vaccinated to protect not only themselves but the people they are treating, they can collect their P45s.
And we then lose a load of women and babies in childbirth. I'm happy to issue a fatwa against most people who are unvaccinated by choice. But we do need certain people to keep working.
What should have happened was what other countries have done. A campaign of public shame. Call them out for the selfish cretins they are - many would probably have Trumped and got it reluctantly.
They said this about care workers, it turns out that people need to work for a living so they quietly get vaccinated.
There is a significant difference between a midwife and a care worker...
Sure, but what else are they going to do? It's not as if they can just waltz into a job somewhere else and aiui most of the private sector healthcare companies already have no jab no job mandates.
I agree. My point was in response to Rob wanting to fire them. If it came to it that wouldn't be a good idea.
I think it wouldn't be necessary. They'll get the vaccine and bitch about it.
Appalling Con splits in the new Redfield & Wilton poll:
NE Lab 61% Con 22% NW Lab 51% Con 28% W Midlands Lab 47% Con 37% E Midlands Lab 41% Con 35%
Not necessarily, the Tories can win without the North provided they win the South and Midlands.
Those Midlands numbers are not so far behind midterm they cannot be caught up
Well they are getting absolutely tonked in the West Midlands according the R and W., so where exactly in the Midlands did you have in mind?
5% behind in the East Midlands, 10% behind in the West Midlands is about the amount the Tories trail nationally, so if the Tories regain the lead nationally they will also regain the lead in the Midlands
I see the E. Midlands as easy pickings, but in the W.Midlands the Cons. look quite comprehensively behind at 10%.
Don't forget on top of all this we are facing an economic Armageddon for the next two years, which is never a good look for the incumbent.
Well if we face an economic Armageddon for the next decade even if Starmer did get in he would probably be out again within 5 years and the Tories back again
He can just blame the Tories like the Tories have been blaming Labour for the past 12 years.
Or we end up like the mid 1960s to late 1970s when the economy was in the doldrums, 1964 Labour, 1966 Labour, 1970 Tories, 1974 hung parliament, late 1974 Labour, 1979 Tories
Thinking back to the West Wing, Abbey Bartlet was quite often present during business meetings. Not all the time, but often enough to not be unheard of.
People who hate Boris or Carrie may want to grind an axe about Carrie being at a meeting, but maybe its not noteworthy to others because it isn't noteworthy.
The First Lady is the holder of an official office, the First Lady's office. We don't have anything like that.
Not officially, and officially we don't have a President but the PM has been unofficially Presidential for decades and unofficially I expect their significant others have had an unofficial role for decades too.
People used to moan about Cherie Blair getting involved too.
Does every person in that picture working there have to be an official office holder?
We’ll agree to disagree on that one. There’s been plenty of reports, suggesting that Mrs Johnson is at best getting in the way of work in Downing St, and by nature of her previous job working in PR for the party.
That she is seen as interfering, but without a formal role, is a large part of the disfunction that has been coming from No.10.
Cummings still hasn’t been replaced, because no-one who’s any good wants to work as top advisor to the PM, when someone else is clearly the top advisor to the PM.
But that's my point though.
It may be bad politics for her to be an advisor, but if she is an advisor then her presence doesn't preclude it being a work meeting, does it?
The point is, that she is definitely not a formal advisor. Which is what’s causing the problems, and why no-one else wants the top advisor’s job.
Indeed and if the data continues to hold up with actual COVID admissions not going anywhere in London despite all these cases when we get to Boxing day the case for lockdown will be weaker still.
My primary concern now is if we do get a genuinely scary variant (or Omi kicks off again after New Year), no one will believe Sage.
Appalling Con splits in the new Redfield & Wilton poll:
NE Lab 61% Con 22% NW Lab 51% Con 28% W Midlands Lab 47% Con 37% E Midlands Lab 41% Con 35%
Not necessarily, the Tories can win without the North provided they win the South and Midlands.
Those Midlands numbers are not so far behind midterm they cannot be caught up
Well they are getting absolutely tonked in the West Midlands according the R and W., so where exactly in the Midlands did you have in mind?
5% behind in the East Midlands, 10% behind in the West Midlands is about the amount the Tories trail nationally, so if the Tories regain the lead nationally they will also regain the lead in the Midlands
I see the E. Midlands as easy pickings, but in the W.Midlands the Cons. look quite comprehensively behind at 10%.
Don't forget on top of all this we are facing an economic Armageddon for the next two years, which is never a good look for the incumbent.
Well if we face an economic Armageddon for the next decade even if Starmer did get in he would probably be out again within 5 years and the Tories back again
Not if we bring in PR. And Scotland stays in the UK.
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
Thinking back to the West Wing, Abbey Bartlet was quite often present during business meetings. Not all the time, but often enough to not be unheard of.
People who hate Boris or Carrie may want to grind an axe about Carrie being at a meeting, but maybe its not noteworthy to others because it isn't noteworthy.
The First Lady is the holder of an official office, the First Lady's office. We don't have anything like that.
Not officially, and officially we don't have a President but the PM has been unofficially Presidential for decades and unofficially I expect their significant others have had an unofficial role for decades too.
People used to moan about Cherie Blair getting involved too.
Does every person in that picture working there have to be an official office holder?
We’ll agree to disagree on that one. There’s been plenty of reports, suggesting that Mrs Johnson is at best getting in the way of work in Downing St, and by nature of her previous job working in PR for the party.
That she is seen as interfering, but without a formal role, is a large part of the disfunction that has been coming from No.10.
Cummings still hasn’t been replaced, because no-one who’s any good wants to work as top advisor to the PM, when someone else is clearly the top advisor to the PM.
But that's my point though.
It may be bad politics for her to be an advisor, but if she is an advisor then her presence doesn't preclude it being a work meeting, does it?
The point is, that she is definitely not a formal advisor. Which is what’s causing the problems, and why no-one else wants the top advisor’s job.
That's a point, but its a different one as to whether it was or wasn't a work meeting.
Maybe it'd be better if she wasn't at work meetings, but that's not the same as saying her presence means its not a work meeting.
Thinking back to the West Wing, Abbey Bartlet was quite often present during business meetings. Not all the time, but often enough to not be unheard of.
People who hate Boris or Carrie may want to grind an axe about Carrie being at a meeting, but maybe its not noteworthy to others because it isn't noteworthy.
The First Lady is the holder of an official office, the First Lady's office. We don't have anything like that.
Not officially, and officially we don't have a President but the PM has been unofficially Presidential for decades and unofficially I expect their significant others have had an unofficial role for decades too.
People used to moan about Cherie Blair getting involved too.
Does every person in that picture working there have to be an official office holder?
We’ll agree to disagree on that one. There’s been plenty of reports, suggesting that Mrs Johnson is at best getting in the way of work in Downing St, and by nature of her previous job working in PR for the party.
That she is seen as interfering, but without a formal role, is a large part of the disfunction that has been coming from No.10.
Cummings still hasn’t been replaced, because no-one who’s any good wants to work as top advisor to the PM, when someone else is clearly the top advisor to the PM.
But that's my point though.
It may be bad politics for her to be an advisor, but if she is an advisor then her presence doesn't preclude it being a work meeting, does it?
If I brought wine to a work meeting, I'd be sacked.
Thinking back to the West Wing, Abbey Bartlet was quite often present during business meetings. Not all the time, but often enough to not be unheard of.
People who hate Boris or Carrie may want to grind an axe about Carrie being at a meeting, but maybe its not noteworthy to others because it isn't noteworthy.
The First Lady is the holder of an official office, the First Lady's office. We don't have anything like that.
Not officially, and officially we don't have a President but the PM has been unofficially Presidential for decades and unofficially I expect their significant others have had an unofficial role for decades too.
People used to moan about Cherie Blair getting involved too.
Does every person in that picture working there have to be an official office holder?
TBH for me the wine and the cheese are more of an issue than Mrs Johnson, assuming (I am getting older and can't remember that far back) I wasn't allowed a cheese and wine party on my patio with friends in May 2020.
Indeed and if the data continues to hold up with actual COVID admissions not going anywhere in London despite all these cases when we get to Boxing day the case for lockdown will be weaker still.
My primary concern now is if we do get a genuinely scary variant (or Omi kicks off again after New Year), no one will believe Sage.
Owls aren’t as wise as you might think.
I guess more angry than wise. Labour giving them away must have rankled.
"Hopson said: “I was talking to a [trust] chief executive who said that 40 of the midwives on their midwifery service … were saying they were not prepared to be vaccinated. Those staff, given their skills and their expertise, are not easily redeployed but they’re also extremely difficult to replace.
The trust’s chief executive “is seriously concerned about the safety of the service” because of the potential exodus of midwives.
Maternity staff quitting over compulsory jabs posed a particular challenge because of the NHS-wide shortage of midwives, Hopson said. NHS England estimates that maternity services need 2,000 more whole-time equivalent midwives, while the Royal College of Midwives (RCM) puts the figure at 2,500."
See ya.
So you'd rather have avoidable deaths in childbirth; than tolerate unvaccinated NHS staff?
If they are so selfish that they won't get vaccinated to protect not only themselves but the people they are treating, they can collect their P45s.
And we then lose a load of women and babies in childbirth. I'm happy to issue a fatwa against most people who are unvaccinated by choice. But we do need certain people to keep working.
What should have happened was what other countries have done. A campaign of public shame. Call them out for the selfish cretins they are - many would probably have Trumped and got it reluctantly.
They said this about care workers, it turns out that people need to work for a living so they quietly get vaccinated.
There is a significant difference between a midwife and a care worker...
Sure, but what else are they going to do? It's not as if they can just waltz into a job somewhere else and aiui most of the private sector healthcare companies already have no jab no job mandates.
I agree. My point was in response to Rob wanting to fire them. If it came to it that wouldn't be a good idea.
It would barely be noticeable given the changes in staff levels over the past years. You make it sound like it'd be some sort of armageddon scenario.
As we already have acute shortages of staff in some critical roles in some hospitals, it *could* be armageddon in any given hospital if "just fire them" removes a chunk of the midwifery staff as a glut of women come in. They aren't just standing around doing nothing - they are the literal difference between life and death in some births. You can't have a blanket "fire them" approach.
Thinking back to the West Wing, Abbey Bartlet was quite often present during business meetings. Not all the time, but often enough to not be unheard of.
People who hate Boris or Carrie may want to grind an axe about Carrie being at a meeting, but maybe its not noteworthy to others because it isn't noteworthy.
The First Lady is the holder of an official office, the First Lady's office. We don't have anything like that.
Not officially, and officially we don't have a President but the PM has been unofficially Presidential for decades and unofficially I expect their significant others have had an unofficial role for decades too.
People used to moan about Cherie Blair getting involved too.
Does every person in that picture working there have to be an official office holder?
We’ll agree to disagree on that one. There’s been plenty of reports, suggesting that Mrs Johnson is at best getting in the way of work in Downing St, and by nature of her previous job working in PR for the party.
That she is seen as interfering, but without a formal role, is a large part of the disfunction that has been coming from No.10.
Cummings still hasn’t been replaced, because no-one who’s any good wants to work as top advisor to the PM, when someone else is clearly the top advisor to the PM.
I'm very surprised Carrie isn't on the payroll - there are a number of stories that demonstrate that Boris needs the extra family income.
"Hopson said: “I was talking to a [trust] chief executive who said that 40 of the midwives on their midwifery service … were saying they were not prepared to be vaccinated. Those staff, given their skills and their expertise, are not easily redeployed but they’re also extremely difficult to replace.
The trust’s chief executive “is seriously concerned about the safety of the service” because of the potential exodus of midwives.
Maternity staff quitting over compulsory jabs posed a particular challenge because of the NHS-wide shortage of midwives, Hopson said. NHS England estimates that maternity services need 2,000 more whole-time equivalent midwives, while the Royal College of Midwives (RCM) puts the figure at 2,500."
See ya.
So you'd rather have avoidable deaths in childbirth; than tolerate unvaccinated NHS staff?
If they are so selfish that they won't get vaccinated to protect not only themselves but the people they are treating, they can collect their P45s.
And we then lose a load of women and babies in childbirth. I'm happy to issue a fatwa against most people who are unvaccinated by choice. But we do need certain people to keep working.
What should have happened was what other countries have done. A campaign of public shame. Call them out for the selfish cretins they are - many would probably have Trumped and got it reluctantly.
They said this about care workers, it turns out that people need to work for a living so they quietly get vaccinated.
There is a significant difference between a midwife and a care worker...
Sure, but what else are they going to do? It's not as if they can just waltz into a job somewhere else and aiui most of the private sector healthcare companies already have no jab no job mandates.
I agree. My point was in response to Rob wanting to fire them. If it came to it that wouldn't be a good idea.
It would barely be noticeable given the changes in staff levels over the past years. You make it sound like it'd be some sort of armageddon scenario.
As we already have acute shortages of staff in some critical roles in some hospitals, it *could* be armageddon in any given hospital if "just fire them" removes a chunk of the midwifery staff as a glut of women come in. They aren't just standing around doing nothing - they are the literal difference between life and death in some births. You can't have a blanket "fire them" approach.
Yes, you can. The policy is not coming into force tomorrow, so there is time to prepare.
"Hopson said: “I was talking to a [trust] chief executive who said that 40 of the midwives on their midwifery service … were saying they were not prepared to be vaccinated. Those staff, given their skills and their expertise, are not easily redeployed but they’re also extremely difficult to replace.
The trust’s chief executive “is seriously concerned about the safety of the service” because of the potential exodus of midwives.
Maternity staff quitting over compulsory jabs posed a particular challenge because of the NHS-wide shortage of midwives, Hopson said. NHS England estimates that maternity services need 2,000 more whole-time equivalent midwives, while the Royal College of Midwives (RCM) puts the figure at 2,500."
See ya.
So you'd rather have avoidable deaths in childbirth; than tolerate unvaccinated NHS staff?
If they are so selfish that they won't get vaccinated to protect not only themselves but the people they are treating, they can collect their P45s.
And we then lose a load of women and babies in childbirth. I'm happy to issue a fatwa against most people who are unvaccinated by choice. But we do need certain people to keep working.
What should have happened was what other countries have done. A campaign of public shame. Call them out for the selfish cretins they are - many would probably have Trumped and got it reluctantly.
They said this about care workers, it turns out that people need to work for a living so they quietly get vaccinated.
There is a significant difference between a midwife and a care worker...
Sure, but what else are they going to do? It's not as if they can just waltz into a job somewhere else and aiui most of the private sector healthcare companies already have no jab no job mandates.
I agree. My point was in response to Rob wanting to fire them. If it came to it that wouldn't be a good idea.
It would barely be noticeable given the changes in staff levels over the past years. You make it sound like it'd be some sort of armageddon scenario.
As we already have acute shortages of staff in some critical roles in some hospitals, it *could* be armageddon in any given hospital if "just fire them" removes a chunk of the midwifery staff as a glut of women come in. They aren't just standing around doing nothing - they are the literal difference between life and death in some births. You can't have a blanket "fire them" approach.
There's months for them to get vaccinated and I'm sure most of them will as we get closer to the date and it looks like they're out of work. Remember, it's not as if they can simply go and do something else for a living that will pay them as much.
I All genuine F1 fans will condemn this abuse, Latifi doesn't deserve it, Michael Masi on the other hand....
I did have a moment of wondering the other day what the reaction would have been like had it been an Alpha Tauri in the wall rather than a Mercedes-engined car.
I'd have called Whinger Spice a pound shop Flavio Briatore.
Thinking back to the West Wing, Abbey Bartlet was quite often present during business meetings. Not all the time, but often enough to not be unheard of.
People who hate Boris or Carrie may want to grind an axe about Carrie being at a meeting, but maybe its not noteworthy to others because it isn't noteworthy.
The First Lady is the holder of an official office, the First Lady's office. We don't have anything like that.
Not officially, and officially we don't have a President but the PM has been unofficially Presidential for decades and unofficially I expect their significant others have had an unofficial role for decades too.
People used to moan about Cherie Blair getting involved too.
Does every person in that picture working there have to be an official office holder?
TBH for me the wine and the cheese are more of an issue than Mrs Johnson, assuming (I am getting older and can't remember that far back) I wasn't allowed a cheese and wine party on my patio with friends in May 2020.
The justification is that it was a work meeting with cheese and wine because it's late on.
But that doesn't work because Carrie is there so it can't be a work meeting.
But it has to be work meeting for the meeting to occur (repeat infinitum)
We all know (as clearly as Rishi does) that this is another example of Boris playing "the one rule for oiks like you, but not for me" game but you can still have fun asking the questions until everyone has contradicted themselves X times
So we are OK for full-on Christmas dinner on the 25th.
But we might have to make do with cheese and wine for Boxing Day.
Our family do is on Boxing Day. They aren't going to announce on Christmas Day that "tomorrow we begin lockdown" and even if they did so many will disobey the hypocrites and liars in government.
Its the entertainment venues that lose another new year that I feel sorry for.
Exactly - tons of people travel by road and rail to family, as anyone who regularly travels on Xmas Eve knows, and then they dribble back over the period through to New Year. Announcing drastic restrictions on social mixing with no notice would be both absurd and self defeating, even if people took any notice, which to a large extent they wouldn’t.
Williams driver Nicholas Latifi says he received "extreme" death threats after his crash at the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix led to Max Verstappen controversially winning the Formula 1 world title.
Latifi, 26, crashed with five laps remaining, resulting in the safety car being deployed.
The race was then resumed with one lap to go, in which Verstappen passed Lewis Hamilton to win the race and the title.
In a statement, Canadian Latifi said he had received "a lot of hate and abuse".
He revealed: "Going back to the race weekend, as soon as the chequered flag dropped, I knew how things were likely to play out on social media.
"The fact that I felt it would be best if I deleted Instagram and Twitter on my phone for a few days says all we need to know about how cruel the online world can be.
"The ensuing hate, abuse, and threats on social media were not really a surprise to me as it's just the stark reality of the world we live in right now. I'm no stranger to being talked about negatively online, I think every sports person who competes on the world stage knows they're under extreme scrutiny and this comes with the territory sometimes.
"But as we've seen time and time again, across all different sports, it only takes one incident at the wrong time to have things completely blown out of proportion - and bring out the worst in people who are so-called 'fans' of the sport. What shocked me was the extreme tone of the hate, abuse, and even the death threats I received."
All genuine F1 fans will condemn this abuse, Latifi doesn't deserve it, Michael Masi on the other hand....
Feel very sorry for Latifi. Abuse of sportsmen, it should go without saying, is not acceptable.
He did nothing wrong, except for binning his car with half a dozen laps left. Even Max did nothing wrong at the last race, the problem was entirely with the officials.
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.
@MikeSmithson is correct. It doesn't answer the point. As usual you just raise another point and don't address the point raised. It is a moving target.
Re your point on living in a poor area and being able to go to a grammar, this is very naïve. What actually happens is the middle class and well off in surrounding areas get tutored for the test and fill the spaces. The bright kids in the poor areas don't and they still don't get in by and large.
I lived in a relatively poor large village with 2 primary schools. Only one boy got into the boys grammar school and no girls to the girls grammar school. And that boy dropped out. I have no memory of even taking a test let alone getting tutored. After O levels a whole bunch of replaced those that had dropped out. The system is crap at selection and selecting at 11 is far too soon.
There are limits on how much you can tutor for 11+ and 13+ tests which are designed to test raw iq not subject knowledge as such. Indeed very often even a few bright kids from council estates got into grammar schools even without tutors and then onto Oxbridge or other top universities and professional careers. That path is not open to them to the same extent now if they live in a deprived area and just get sent to the local very average, if that, comp.
If you were well off and had a kid who was not so bright and would not pass the 11 or 13+ you could still send them private however and still do. Most wealthy parents did not send their children to secondary moderns and do not send their children to comprehensives and certainly not comprehensives or academies which are any less than Outstanding. So the rich generally don't use comprehensives anyway while the bright but poor no longer have the opportunities grammars provided. Most grammars of course also have entries at sixth form level too
a) You can tutor for IQ tests very easily. Not sure where you got it that it was difficult. There are lots of techniques.
b) In between our posts I have been chopping wood and did a rough mental calculation of how many should have got into the grammar school from my village all other things being equal (I know how many classes there were, the size of them, the fact that our village was a 3 member ward and how many councillors there were in the borough). The answer is about 25. There was 1 and he dropped out. If that doesn't give you an idea of the disparity between poor and middle class areas nothing will.
c) If you think the well off don't send their children to Comprehensives you live in a different world. I live in a well off area now. I am wealthy by most peoples measure as are most of the people I know. Nearly all use the local comprehensive, which I grant you is good, but that is not what you were saying.
d) Moving to a Grammar at sixth form is too late. The damage has been done. Many won't go who should. Many who were at the Grammar who shouldn't have been have dropped out.
Select by subject on an ongoing basis throughout the child's education.
a) You can't. IQ test results are in part based on genetics, they are difficult to tutor for unlike subject knowledge based exams.
b) And all of them would likely have gone to a sink comprehensive otherwise, at least 1 still got to a grammar.
c) If the wealthy send their kids to a comp it will only be an Outstanding comp they have bought their kids admission to by buying a house in its catchment area, meaning there are well above average house prices for that catchment area. You buy a place at an Outstanding comp or academy much like you buy a place at private school effectively or else you go to church more regularly to get a vicar's reference for a top church school.
d) Sixth form entry for A levels and top university is fine for late developers
a) you can - just allowing children to sit a few past papers so they understand how the questions work allows children to know how to answer the questions quicker allowing them more time to concentrate on more difficult questions.
You can understand the format of the questions but it is harder to prepare for the specific questions that will come up as they are logic and reasoning based, not subject knowledge based which are more tests of memory
As someone who has got 3 of 4 children into local grammars and sent the other private, I can confirm HYUFD doesn't know what he's talking about here, as well as constantly missing the point.
Tutoring makes a massive difference to ability to tackle the 11+. You see it all the time with kids that got tutored and then struggle to keep up once they're in.
It may make a marginal difference to borderline candidates but if you have an iq of 130+ you will get into a grammar school with no tutoring at all even if you live on a council estate
@HYUFD as usual you are pontificating with certainty about something on which I am guessing you have no knowledge whatsoever. It has been pointed by many on here how you can tutor for IQ tests / 11+ not least by just practicing papers, but there are many other techniques as well. I have some experience in this (as I am sure do many others on here) as it was a requirement of a development centre of one of the largest computer companies at the time at which I was a manager to take an IQ test and score at least 130. All undergraduates on the milk round had to do so before an interview. I would interview between 20 and 30 undergraduates on the milk round each year so I was very familiar with these test.
I couldn't do anything for someone who is stupid and could probably only add a point or two to a genius, but for a reasonably bright person I could probably get 10 to 20 IQ points added. Here are some ways how:
a) Just get familiar with the tests by practicing loads and getting your timing right (basic exam technique, but not something an 11 year old without tutoring has a clue about).
b) If you get a sequence of numbers and can't see the next number start subtracting each number from the next number. If the sequence doesn't become apparent then do again until it does. This takes just seconds to do and usually results in the answer. I've not seen one on an IQ test that doesn't.
c) Another common question is an arithmetic question which is too hard to do in the time but with an multiple choice answers so estimation is required. Someone with maths knowledge can do this easily, but someone who hasn't can be given about 5 easy tricks to solve these quickly.
d) Similarly a series of shapes at IQ test level is normally fairly straightforward, but again someone without the ability can be given half a dozen things to look out for in advance.
e) If you are given a True or False tests from a short paragraph and can't get it immediately you can convert it into a logical formulae (if you know how) and these tend to be so simple you can do it very quickly. I have to say that is something I find very useful to this day as I struggle to hold a lot of words in my head but can do logical formulae easily.
I could go on.
In response to the other items on your reply to me. You said 'at least one got to the grammar school'. You obviously missed the point that 'he crashed and burned'.
You also say 6th form is ok for late developers. Where did you get that from? It certainly wasn't for me. I missed out on so much. It was worse for others who were good enough but didn't get the chance. Also what about all those who pass the 11+ and then crash and burn because it isn't appropriate?
You cannot tutor for raw IQ tests of logic and reasoning to the same level as you can tutor for subject knowledge tests. In any case a pupil with a high IQ from a council estate would easily pass an IQ test tutored or not, the fact a few average IQ middle class pupils might scrape a pass at 11 pass after being heavily tutored does not make much difference to the former.
As opposed to all pupils crashing and burning at a sink comprehensive, at least grammar schools offered those with high IQs from deprived areas a chance to get on.
Sixth form entry offers a chance for those who are late developers and do well at GCSEs the fact you hated sixth form would probably have applied whichever school you went to
Where on earth did you get the idea that I hated the 6th form grammar school? I didn't I loved it. I also had a very good secondary school prior to that. You seem to read stuff into posts that aren't there. The problem is that by selecting at 11 I missed stuff that was only available at the grammar school and the grammar school boys missed stuff that was only available at the secondary school. Pointless separation and also doesn't allow for streaming by subject properly across all the pupils.
If you don't think you can tutor for the 11+ how do you explain my example from a poor area with only 1 getting into the Grammar school whereas all things being equal it should have been 20 - 25. It is not a few, it is a lot. The idea that you think Grammar schools are not in anyway heavily biased towards well off parents is just bizarre. They are very heavily weighted against poor areas.
Why should it have been 20-25? Unless they all had high IQs. How many of those 20-25 would be high earning professionals if they did not even have a chance of a grammar school but their only choice was a sink school? Likely 0.
Why should it have been 20 - 25? See earlier post. I'm not repeating it. I did the maths.
Only one went to the Grammar school and he crashed and burned (I have said that so many times). We did not have sink schools. My Secondary school was excellent. My Grammar schools was good. I enjoyed it, but I didn't think the teachers were as good bizarrely, but I did well.
But here is the point you keep on missing: Pupils from both schools were failed by the system. I was lucky, but even I missed out on stuff, but the culture was so ingrained that many very bright pupils from the Secondary school just went on to do apprenticeships. Nothing wrong with that but many were capable of so much more. And many at the Grammar school dropped out after O Levels with just one or two who could have benefited from the Secondary school education. All because we decide the fate of a child at 11. Ridiculous.
I've just been sent the Raab on GMTV interview as he doggedly lies through his teeth insisting that the Downing Street garden party was a work meeting and allowed by the law.
Great news for people who want the Tories gone if the '22 are to leave Peppa in place until after they get demolished in the locals. We're down to only the most cultist devotees of Peppa believing the excuses. The longer this goes on, the worse it will get. For the Tories. Or they could remove Peppa and No Brain Raab and the rest of them and have a fighting chance of re-election.
The first point is debatable, I'm sure work was being discussed, but on the second point isn't he right? There was a twitter thread a few days ago demonstrating why it wasn't contrary to the regs.
If it is Work then you have a secondary question - why is Carrie in a business meeting with 2 senior Downing Street workers.
Perhaps because she's the PM's wife and he values her input?
Unless this was a security clearance required meeting, then what's the issue? And if it was, should it be held outdoors?
I All genuine F1 fans will condemn this abuse, Latifi doesn't deserve it, Michael Masi on the other hand....
I did have a moment of wondering the other day what the reaction would have been like had it been an Alpha Tauri in the wall rather than a Mercedes-engined car.
I'd have called Whinger Spice a pound shop Flavio Briatore.
Thinking back to the West Wing, Abbey Bartlet was quite often present during business meetings. Not all the time, but often enough to not be unheard of.
People who hate Boris or Carrie may want to grind an axe about Carrie being at a meeting, but maybe its not noteworthy to others because it isn't noteworthy.
The First Lady is the holder of an official office, the First Lady's office. We don't have anything like that.
Not officially, and officially we don't have a President but the PM has been unofficially Presidential for decades and unofficially I expect their significant others have had an unofficial role for decades too.
People used to moan about Cherie Blair getting involved too.
Does every person in that picture working there have to be an official office holder?
No maybe not but official titles count, quite simply Carrie shouldn't have been there if it was a business meeting or if she was there and it wasn't one then say so. Her presence is inappropriate at a government meeting, she's not elected or employed by the state.
Is everyone else in that photo elected or employed by the state? Honest question.
If be shocked if they weren't.
Perhaps.
I would have guessed that people employed by the Conservative Party, as opposed to the State, might sometimes be in work meetings in Downing Street.
Or invited round for drinks and nibbles in the garden.
Having read the discussion above; I must conclude that there is a deeply religious fervour about vaccination evident on this website. People believe that vaccination is the solution to the pandemic because they believe in science, and will willingly sacrifice all sorts of freedoms in support of it. Yet they overlook its obvious limitations; namely that the vaccination programme did not deliver what it promised as it did not end the pandemic; it did not prevent new variants from arising; and it does not stop people from catching and spreading the virus. The old political maxim that the masses are easy to herd is turned on its head; it turns out that actually the intellectuals are easy to herd, when it comes to certain policies. This reinforces a belief that I hold strongly, that self appointed experts and university educated people are not necessarily smarter in the end than people with no education who go through life living by their wits.
Thinking back to the West Wing, Abbey Bartlet was quite often present during business meetings. Not all the time, but often enough to not be unheard of.
People who hate Boris or Carrie may want to grind an axe about Carrie being at a meeting, but maybe its not noteworthy to others because it isn't noteworthy.
The First Lady is the holder of an official office, the First Lady's office. We don't have anything like that.
Not officially, and officially we don't have a President but the PM has been unofficially Presidential for decades and unofficially I expect their significant others have had an unofficial role for decades too.
People used to moan about Cherie Blair getting involved too.
Does every person in that picture working there have to be an official office holder?
We’ll agree to disagree on that one. There’s been plenty of reports, suggesting that Mrs Johnson is at best getting in the way of work in Downing St, and by nature of her previous job working in PR for the party.
That she is seen as interfering, but without a formal role, is a large part of the disfunction that has been coming from No.10.
Cummings still hasn’t been replaced, because no-one who’s any good wants to work as top advisor to the PM, when someone else is clearly the top advisor to the PM.
But that's my point though.
It may be bad politics for her to be an advisor, but if she is an advisor then her presence doesn't preclude it being a work meeting, does it?
The point is, that she is definitely not a formal advisor. Which is what’s causing the problems, and why no-one else wants the top advisor’s job.
That's a point, but its a different one as to whether it was or wasn't a work meeting.
Maybe it'd be better if she wasn't at work meetings, but that's not the same as saying her presence means its not a work meeting.
Does that difference make sense?
Not really. As the country has largely judged in the opposite to your pleas it doesn't matter either way.
Having read the discussion above; I must conclude that there is a deeply religious fervour about vaccination evident on this website. People believe that vaccination is the solution to the pandemic because they believe in science, and will willingly sacrifice all sorts of freedoms in support of it. Yet they overlook its obvious limitations; namely that the vaccination programme did not deliver what it promised as it did not end the pandemic; it did not prevent new variants from arising; and it does not stop people from catching and spreading the virus. The old political maxim that the masses are easy to herd is turned on its head; it turns out that actually the intellectuals are easy to herd, when it comes to certain policies. This reinforces a belief that I hold strongly, that self appointed experts and university educated people are not necessarily smarter in the end than people with no education who go through life living by their wits.
It stops people from dying from it, or clogging up the hospitals. Much like vaccination for other diseases.
Appalling Con splits in the new Redfield & Wilton poll:
NE Lab 61% Con 22% NW Lab 51% Con 28% W Midlands Lab 47% Con 37% E Midlands Lab 41% Con 35%
Not necessarily, the Tories can win without the North provided they win the South and Midlands.
Those Midlands numbers are not so far behind midterm they cannot be caught up
Well they are getting absolutely tonked in the West Midlands according the R and W., so where exactly in the Midlands did you have in mind?
5% behind in the East Midlands, 10% behind in the West Midlands is about the amount the Tories trail nationally, so if the Tories regain the lead nationally they will also regain the lead in the Midlands
I see the E. Midlands as easy pickings, but in the W.Midlands the Cons. look quite comprehensively behind at 10%.
Don't forget on top of all this we are facing an economic Armageddon for the next two years, which is never a good look for the incumbent.
Well if we face an economic Armageddon for the next decade even if Starmer did get in he would probably be out again within 5 years and the Tories back again
Not if we bring in PR. And Scotland stays in the UK.
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
Having read the discussion above; I must conclude that there is a deeply religious fervour about vaccination evident on this website. People believe that vaccination is the solution to the pandemic because they believe in science, and will willingly sacrifice all sorts of freedoms in support of it. Yet they overlook its obvious limitations; namely that the vaccination programme did not deliver what it promised as it did not end the pandemic; it did not prevent new variants from arising; and it does not stop people from catching and spreading the virus. The old political maxim that the masses are easy to herd is turned on its head; it turns out that actually the intellectuals are easy to herd, when it comes to certain policies. This reinforces a belief that I hold strongly, that self appointed experts and university educated people are not necessarily smarter in the end than people with no education who go through life living by their wits.
Nope vaccination solved the immediate crisis.
And we knew that both the efficiency of vaccination wains over time, that new variants were unavoidable and that boosters would be required (both to target new variants and to boost the efficiency of the original vaccines).
The one thing I think everyone agrees on here is that lockdowns were essential before the vaccinations arrive. Now it's a far harder decision because there is some level of protection across most of the population.
Comments
People who hate Boris or Carrie may want to grind an axe about Carrie being at a meeting, but maybe its not noteworthy to others because it isn't noteworthy.
FWIW, I was positive for 9 days on LFTs when I had it, but others have cleared it much more quickly.
In fact it would be the closest result in a French presidential runoff since 1974 when d'Estaing narrowly beat Mitterand. Plus if Macron loses a point or 2 more Pecresse will beat him! Note too if Pecresse does get to the runoff Le Pen and Zemmour voters strongly prefer her to Macron and Melenchon voters only narrowly prefer Macron.
https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1473329878174945289?s=20
Fire midwives and more women and babies die. Its that simple.
For a long time, the UK has been 30th in recorded covid deaths per million popn. Ukraine and Russia have been catching up; and the other day Ukraine overtook us. But the UK is still 30th. Someone in the top 29 has either taken a load of deaths away or taken out of the list entirely, and I can't work out who. Any guesses?
However, I have no idea and frankly do not care
About 10 minutes of talking to my wife and I... well, the lady we were talking too was aggressively anti-science and into all kinds of kooky "natural" ideas. Utterly weird in an NHS hospital.
If you are that easily persuaded, Johnson has a £63m invisible Garden Bridge he would like to sell you.
I would say on balance an unvaxxed midwife. But it is not entirely clear cut. It may be that the calculus is such that the number of deaths due to the spread of the virus due to that midwife being unvaxxed is greater than the number of deaths from not having a midwife.
Instinctively I would say better to have the midwife though.
https://twitter.com/andrewlilley_au/status/1473098204036091912?s=20
And it's encouraging, like the South African data.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5802/cmselect/cmwomeq/977/summary.html
Williams driver Nicholas Latifi says he received "extreme" death threats after his crash at the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix led to Max Verstappen controversially winning the Formula 1 world title.
Latifi, 26, crashed with five laps remaining, resulting in the safety car being deployed.
The race was then resumed with one lap to go, in which Verstappen passed Lewis Hamilton to win the race and the title.
In a statement, Canadian Latifi said he had received "a lot of hate and abuse".
He revealed: "Going back to the race weekend, as soon as the chequered flag dropped, I knew how things were likely to play out on social media.
"The fact that I felt it would be best if I deleted Instagram and Twitter on my phone for a few days says all we need to know about how cruel the online world can be.
"The ensuing hate, abuse, and threats on social media were not really a surprise to me as it's just the stark reality of the world we live in right now. I'm no stranger to being talked about negatively online, I think every sports person who competes on the world stage knows they're under extreme scrutiny and this comes with the territory sometimes.
"But as we've seen time and time again, across all different sports, it only takes one incident at the wrong time to have things completely blown out of proportion - and bring out the worst in people who are so-called 'fans' of the sport. What shocked me was the extreme tone of the hate, abuse, and even the death threats I received."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/59747656
All genuine F1 fans will condemn this abuse, Latifi doesn't deserve it, Michael Masi on the other hand....
People used to moan about Cherie Blair getting involved too.
Does every person in that picture working there have to be an official office holder?
Therefore poor pupils of high IQ from deprived areas would almost certainly get into a grammar school, absent a grammar their only choice is often a sink school
Researchers have already observed that Covid-19 can linger for many months in patients who are HIV positive but who have, for varying reasons, not been taking the medicines that would enable them to lead healthy lives.
. . . .
Two cases of particular interest have now been detected in South African hospitals. One woman continued to test positive for Covid-19 for almost eight months, earlier this year, while the virus underwent more than 30 genetic shifts.
Professor Tulio de Oliveira, who leads the team that confirmed the discovery of Omicron, noted that "10 to 15" similar cases had been found in other parts of the world, including the UK.
"It's a very rare event. But it is a plausible explanation that individuals that are immuno-suppressed… can basically be a source of virus evolution," he said.
. . .
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-59697807
'Early twin studies of adult individuals have found a heritability of IQ between 57% and 73%, with the some recent studies showing heritability for IQ as high as 80%.'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ#:~:text=Early twin studies of adult,for late teens and adults.
You say "People who hate Boris or Carrie" as if this were a foible like not liking marmite. It's more like dislliking the Ceausescu, or Benito n Clara.
See also redistricting:
http://www.redistrictinggame.org/
Bahrain - Not Free
Azerbaijan - Not Free
Russia - Not Free
Turkey - Not Free
Qatar - Not Free
Saudi - Not Free
Abu Dhabi - Not Free
That doesn't mean you're more intelligent - it means you're better at getting good scores on IQ tests.
If you don't think you can tutor for the 11+ how do you explain my example from a poor area with only 1 getting into the Grammar school whereas all things being equal it should have been 20 - 25. It is not a few, it is a lot. The idea that you think Grammar schools are not in anyway heavily biased towards well off parents is just bizarre. They are very heavily weighted against poor areas.
That's a pretty massive increase in IQ scores based a on a few months training in their spare time.
Did they really all become dramatically more intelligent? Or did they simply get better at doing IQ tests?
That she is seen as interfering, but without a formal role, is a large part of the disfunction that has been coming from No.10.
Cummings still hasn’t been replaced, because no-one who’s any good wants to work as top advisor to the PM, when someone else is clearly the top advisor to the PM.
However ... Sometimes (at least in the US), something happens to hit you over the head.
It may be bad politics for her to be an advisor, but if she is an advisor then her presence doesn't preclude it being a work meeting, does it?
Quite apart from Dweck's work, Daniel Siegal's work on trauma patients and neuroplasticity shows indisputably that we can through mental practice change our physical brains for the better.
I would have guessed that people employed by the Conservative Party, as opposed to the State, might sometimes be in work meetings in Downing Street.
"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%
Maybe it'd be better if she wasn't at work meetings, but that's not the same as saying her presence means its not a work meeting.
Does that difference make sense?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renault_Formula_One_crash_controversy
Fun fact kids. Nelson Piquet Jr's sister is dating Max Verstappen.
It would have been a vile symmetry.
But that doesn't work because Carrie is there so it can't be a work meeting.
But it has to be work meeting for the meeting to occur (repeat infinitum)
We all know (as clearly as Rishi does) that this is another example of Boris playing "the one rule for oiks like you, but not for me" game but you can still have fun asking the questions until everyone has contradicted themselves X times
Right-wing Reactionaries 37%
He did nothing wrong, except for binning his car with half a dozen laps left. Even Max did nothing wrong at the last race, the problem was entirely with the officials.
Only one went to the Grammar school and he crashed and burned (I have said that so many times). We did not have sink schools. My Secondary school was excellent. My Grammar schools was good. I enjoyed it, but I didn't think the teachers were as good bizarrely, but I did well.
But here is the point you keep on missing: Pupils from both schools were failed by the system. I was lucky, but even I missed out on stuff, but the culture was so ingrained that many very bright pupils from the Secondary school just went on to do apprenticeships. Nothing wrong with that but many were capable of so much more. And many at the Grammar school dropped out after O Levels with just one or two who could have benefited from the Secondary school education. All because we decide the fate of a child at 11. Ridiculous.
Jofra Archer ruled out until the summer of 2022.
And we knew that both the efficiency of vaccination wains over time, that new variants were unavoidable and that boosters would be required (both to target new variants and to boost the efficiency of the original vaccines).
The one thing I think everyone agrees on here is that lockdowns were essential before the vaccinations arrive. Now it's a far harder decision because there is some level of protection across most of the population.