Two N Year pieces this morning saying Starmer has made progress and finally is starting to have won the right to at least be listened to, but a long way to go:
Perhaps Scott hasn't done much corporate entertaining - or had to justify the expense.
I worked for a company where drinking on the job was strictly forbidden
That's sad.
Many companies do it - particularly where machinery is involved. As a teenager I worked at a site where no alcohol was allowed anywhere on site, and bringing it meant an instant dismissal. That extended to outside the site as well, with the pub right outside the gate being patrolled regularly by staff.
The reason was simply that an incident could easily kill people, and they'd had incidents in past decades caused by people being drunk. So there was a strict no-alcohol policy, enacted from the very top of the organisation.
If you had a drink when entertaining, you did not go back on site. They actually had a manor house in a nearby village for the corporate stuff - not that I ever saw it.
It's worse for people who have to be on call - e.g. doctors, or any other weird occupations. When you're on call, you cannot have any alcohol: because you may need to drive into work, and need a clear head.
Yes, but the point is that none of those people are being asked to take a trade delegation from a major ally out for entertainment.
That's the context of it.
Actually, I'd argue that failing to see beyond your own world. A family member performs the sort of role I describe above (well, he did before he started contracting). Whilst he did not take a trade delegation out, he was often required to wine and dine with customers on large contracts - except he could not 'wine' if he was working. I don't think they ever had any problem with it, once he gave his excuse. He also says how expensive non-alcoholic drinks can be...
I have zero problem with trade delegations being wined and dined - although I do wonder if the deals are better or worse for the lubrication. I was just pointing out that your response of 'that's sad' about not being able to drink on the job is more widespread than you think, and for good reasons.
Interesting header, thanks. Is it a good or a bad thing we're procreating less? Dunno but certainly big families seem like a thing of the past to me. Eg I come from one yet could never imagine doing same. The main thing imo is that people who want to have children are able to have one (or two or at a push three) and be good loving parents. It's sad if someone wants this but for whatever reason it doesn't happen. The opposite - people who have children despite not wanting them - is even sadder but I'd guess a rarer occurrence. Or is it? Not sure. This is what the figures don't tell us and for me it's maybe the most important stat to know. What is the aggregate surplus or deficit between the number of children that people want to have and the number actually had? A big number either way would indicate a problem.
They took a US Trade Delegation out for dinner. And you think they should have Ubered out for Greggs.
Yes, but that was the question I asked earlier, and it applied equally when I was in reasonably senior management in private sector pharma. Would the Trade Delegation (or the private clients) make different decisions if they were served a Greggs meal? If so, then shouldn't their employers be asking questions about the self-interested decisions that their delegates are making?
Of course nearly everyone likes a slap-up meal, and it's convenient to think that you're doing your employers a favour by taking them to one (and thereby incidentally having one yourself). But does it actually change the outcome? People in the business say "Yes, otherwise we wouldn't do it", but there isn't a control group to see if that's actually the case. When I was in the business of deciding on very large software contracts for the company, I expect I'd have accepted an invitation to a luxury dinner by the vendors, but I'd still have made the decision on the merits of the software even if they'd just invited me to a cup of tea - I'd have seen anything else as an essentially corrupt breach of my employment contract.
I must say that pharma entertainment of doctors is much less generous than once it was. Occasionally we get treated to dinner after a meeting, but the rules are that we have to buy our own drinks.
The only exception is as a guest speaker. I had a very nice weekend in Padua at a drug companies expense, but did have to give a lecture for it.
It makes one wonder whether big supporters of "working from home" are disproportionately people who live with other people, and aren't considering whether those who live by themselves might have a less positive view of it.
I suspect that's more about the space you occupy. Both Mrs Stodge and I work from home - she works upstairs from the "office" (converted spare room) while I work on the lounge table. We see each other at lunch time (briefly) and at the end of the day.
It works for us but only because we have the space to make it work.
That's not the whole aspect. Whether it's cultural conditioning or something else I don't know but there seems almost a primal desire among some to separate physically their working and non working lives. You live and relax in one place, you work in another - the journey or commute is part of that.
Some people find it difficult to resolve their working and non-working lives if they are occurring in the same physical space so you hear tales of home workers working longer hours. Even working in one separate room can help but again that's not always possible.
Some of it is about the type of work you do and the amount of interaction with others you need to have.
Part of it is each person's mental state - some genuinely miss the office, the socialising and the team bonding, others don't. It's not a question of whether you're living with other people or not, it's more about your own mental makeup. I'm one of life's introverts - my own company suits me fine but I know that's not true of many other people.
Somebody once told me "Hell is other people" - maybe but for many others Hell is isolation and I fully understand much of the past two years has been hell for some people. I get that - I really do but I also know there are those for whom the past two years has been very different.
There’s an economics driver behind that of course, but I’d go further and say society has encouraged the extension of adolescence deep into adulthood. I know plenty of 30-somethings and a few 40-somethings who still live like adolescents.
How do you distinguish "live like adolescents" from "live in a different way from what I think is normal from my generation"?
There was a R4 programme on spinsterhood yesterday, specifically about prejudice towards women who live alone. Most of the contributions varied between "Yes it's awful and attitudes are terrible" to "Yes it's awful but atittudes aren't that bad". Anecdotally, I know quite a lot of people living alone (as I do at present), and we all see upsides and downsides. But it's not self-evident that the only way to be happy is to permanently live together with one other person - you can be single and still have a lively sex life, lots of friends, etc., which I guess is what you're referring to. That will as a trend affect the birth rate, but very few of us decide whether to have children on the basis of our potential contribution to GDP.
I’m not talking about living alone. I’m talking about the self indulgent pursuit of pleasure without any thought for the long term. The people I’m talking about don’t live alone, they can’t afford to because they spend all their money partying and travelling but they’re in flag shares rather than with a SO.
There's an interesting article in today's Sunday Times about what might have happened if the UK hadn't taken any measures whatsoever to counter Covid-19.
Another thing I'd add: if an organisation has a no-drinking-at-work-or-onsite policy, then it should extend through all the company, from top to bottom - not just particular roles. If the plebs cannot turn up half drunk onto site, then neither should the management.
(That does not stop you wining and dining; it just restricts what you can do afterwards.)
My dad worked in sales for IBM for some years. American visitors were shocked that alcohol was served at company dinners in Britain and Europe.
I am not convinced that getting 3 sheets to the wind is helpful at business meetings, as a fifth of a bottle of gin and half bottle of wine per person would imply.
I worked for one of IBMs US competitors in the 80s in the UK. No alcohol was allowed on the premises, ever, except in your stomach. So you could go to the pub for lunch, but not have a can on your desk with your lunch.
The company built an education centre. In the original plans there was going to be no bar and attendees would also share bedrooms (2 to a room). It took quite a bit to convince the Americans that we don't share rooms in the UK and that if they didn't have a bar everyone would be down the pub in the evening. Commonsense prevailed.
There's an interesting article in today's Sunday Times about what might have happened if the UK hadn't taken any measures whatsoever to counter Covid-19.
Do you have a linkie, or would you give a synopsis?
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 11h But why? Why restrict the kids after we've already infected so many old folk at Christmas? The hospitalisations peak is already baked in now. Blighting kids' schooling isn't going to help with that any more. So what's the point other than a cosmetic "See! We're doing something!"?
‘Blighting’.
At least it’s never hard to see from which hysteria-steeped position Lilico is coming.
the essence of power is to be enabled to force stupid things on the public
And masks (at least the bog standard paper or cloth ones) might very well be a stupid, useless measure against the Omicron variant.
We only need to look at a comparison between the British, French and Italian case rates over the last fortnight or so. France and especially Italy have had substantially more restrictions than the UK, including vaxports for a wide range of venues and masks absolutely all over the place, and were certainly doing very much better than us on the case metric through most of the Autumn.
France and Italy are now experiencing almost exactly the same stratospheric increases in case rates as the UK, because Omicron. Italy is about where we were on Christmas Eve; France is effectively in the same place as us. And that's despite the fact that the UK does about 50% more tests per capita than either of those other countries.
Given that France, Italy and the UK are not hugely dissimilar states in terms of population size, demography and socio-economic conditions, I would venture to suggest that this is good evidence that mild to moderate restrictions are useless against Omicron. That includes pieces of blue paper worn across the face.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 11h But why? Why restrict the kids after we've already infected so many old folk at Christmas? The hospitalisations peak is already baked in now. Blighting kids' schooling isn't going to help with that any more. So what's the point other than a cosmetic "See! We're doing something!"?
‘Blighting’.
At least it’s never hard to see from which hysteria-steeped position Lilico is coming.
the essence of power is to be enabled to force stupid things on the public
And masks (at least the bog standard paper or cloth ones) might very well be a stupid, useless measure against the Omicron variant.
We only need to look at a comparison between the British, French and Italian case rates over the last fortnight or so. France and especially Italy have had substantially more restrictions than the UK, including vaxports for a wide range of venues and masks absolutely all over the place, and were certainly doing very much better than us on the case metric through most of the Autumn.
France and Italy are now experiencing almost exactly the same stratospheric increases in case rates as the UK, because Omicron. Italy is about where we were on Christmas Eve; France is effectively in the same place as us. And that's despite the fact that the UK does about 50% more tests per capita than either of those other countries.
Given that France, Italy and the UK are not hugely dissimilar states in terms of population size, demography and socio-economic conditions, I would venture to suggest that this is good evidence that mild to moderate restrictions are useless against Omicron. That includes pieces of blue paper worn across the face.
There's an interesting article in today's Sunday Times about what might have happened if the UK hadn't taken any measures whatsoever to counter Covid-19.
Saint Bart - we would now be in far better place - facts speak for themselves CHB - we will all have had it, long covid, apocalyptic hospital scenes, mass graves RCS - it’s an interesting one, I have just written a sixty page thesis
Two N Year pieces this morning saying Starmer has made progress and finally is starting to have won the right to at least be listened to, but a long way to go:
I think that's the crucial progress Starmer has made though one might argue as much a result of Johnson and the Conservatives' own errors.
The key is what will he offer to the British people in 2024? It's interesting to hear Rachel Reeves offer a very different economic policy to John McConnell and it doesn't sound as though there will be anything to scare "middle Britain" on that side.
Starmer comes across to this observer as dull but competent. I'd feel perfectly happy with him as PM which certainly wasn't the case with his predecessor.
You don't have to produce a radical manifesto to win - Thatcher's 1979 offering was much less radical than Heath's in 1970 and Blair's 1997 offering was dull compared to the 1945 Attlee proposals. Indeed, I'd argue short of a clear existential crisis, "more of the same but done better" goes a long way.
Labour’s bigger issue is the cultural stuff. The U.K. has moved in the direction of the US where your cultural views are a bigger driver of the vote than your economic views. There are still a lot of people who view Labour as a bunch of Trans-loving, BLM-backing activists who would quite happily throw White Working Class people under the bus, especially given their (alleged) backwards view. Whilst things have been quiet on that front recently because of the pandemic and BJ’s mistakes, the Tories (and the Mail etc) will be ramping this up the closer we get to an election.
I agree that can be a driver of votes and I agree that the Tories with their Red Top backers will try to stir the pot accordingly, but I'm growing increasingly confident it won't work on the sort of scale required to decide the election. Why? Because the gap between this view of Labour and the reality of the party under Starmer is just too large. You'd have to be incredibly blinkered and irrational to buy into it and whilst being no fanboi of the electorate I don't believe enough of them are of that ilk.
They took a US Trade Delegation out for dinner. And you think they should have Ubered out for Greggs.
Yes, but that was the question I asked earlier, and it applied equally when I was in reasonably senior management in private sector pharma. Would the Trade Delegation (or the private clients) make different decisions if they were served a Greggs meal? If so, then shouldn't their employers be asking questions about the self-interested decisions that their delegates are making?
Of course nearly everyone likes a slap-up meal, and it's convenient to think that you're doing your employers a favour by taking them to one (and thereby incidentally having one yourself). But does it actually change the outcome? People in the business say "Yes, otherwise we wouldn't do it", but there isn't a control group to see if that's actually the case. When I was in the business of deciding on very large software contracts for the company, I expect I'd have accepted an invitation to a luxury dinner by the vendors, but I'd still have made the decision on the merits of the software even if they'd just invited me to a cup of tea - I'd have seen anything else as an essentially corrupt breach of my employment contract.
This is completely missing the point. People do business with other people, and they want/need to be able to trust those people; relationships like this can't just be purely transactional unless there's no need for ongoing interactions at all. The dinners and other forms of corporate entertainment are probably the most efficient way for one or both sides to get comfortable with the relationship. Spending more money just reduces the chances of everyone coming away dissatisfied with the experience.
There is obviously a limit above which you get diminishing returns from a fiduciary perspective, and this limit will differ depending on the people involved and what they're used to in their personal lives. However, it's pretty clear that the specific case under discussion with Truss did not come close to that limit.
Interesting header, thanks. Is it a good or a bad thing we're procreating less? Dunno but certainly big families seem like a thing of the past to me. Eg I come from one yet could never imagine doing same. The main thing imo is that people who want to have children are able to have one (or two or at a push three) and be good loving parents. It's sad if someone wants this but for whatever reason it doesn't happen. The opposite - people who have children despite not wanting them - is even sadder but I'd guess a rarer occurrence. Or is it? Not sure. This is what the figures don't tell us and for me it's maybe the most important stat to know. What is the aggregate surplus or deficit between the number of children that people want to have and the number actually had? A big number either way would indicate a problem.
My view - and this is largely guesswork - is that for various reasons- partly cultural, partly financial - people who in previous generations might have expected their lives to pan out in the classic buy-house-have-kids pattern simply don't see a realistic prospect of this happening. Hard to aspire to something unachievable. Hard to see children as a positive life decision when you can barely afford to support yourself. As always, the single biggest single issue is housing affordability. This is common to much of the western world.
My dad worked in sales for IBM for some years. American visitors were shocked that alcohol was served at company dinners in Britain and Europe.
I am not convinced that getting 3 sheets to the wind is helpful at business meetings, as a fifth of a bottle of gin and half bottle of wine per person would imply.
Ciba-Geigy (a predecessor to Novartis) for a while employed a flamboyant (English) senior salesman, who boasted that he would sometimes invite buyers to a vastly expensive meal, get them to sign the contract, and then leave them to pay the bill. He also claimed to organise conferences for doctors in Asia with prostitutes laid on.
How reliable all that was we were never sure, though while he was successful he was tolerated by senior management. He was eventually fired without notice after rumours (if I recall correctly) about using corporate funds to benefit a golf course in which he had a financial interest.
What salesmen think will work is often weird, anyway. I remember one salesman who wanted to sell us 10,000 browsers (at a time when one actually had to pay for browsers) ringing me excitedly to tell me that they had a new logo and business strategy statement. Had the product changed in any way? No.
Whenever we engage in an intellectual discussion, our goal ought to be to converge on the truth. But humans are primates - and often the goal is to become the alpha debater.
If we all, come this New Year, take this to heart and resolve to debate with a view to discovering truth rather than to winning each skirmish, just imagine what PB could become!
Whenever we engage in an intellectual discussion, our goal ought to be to converge on the truth. But humans are primates - and often the goal is to become the alpha debater.
If we all, come this New Year, take this to heart and resolve to debate with a view to discovering truth rather than to winning each skirmish, just imagine what PB could become!
Yes, but that was the question I asked earlier, and it applied equally when I was in reasonably senior management in private sector pharma. Would the Trade Delegation (or the private clients) make different decisions if they were served a Greggs meal? If so, then shouldn't their employers be asking questions about the self-interested decisions that their delegates are making?
Of course nearly everyone likes a slap-up meal, and it's convenient to think that you're doing your employers a favour by taking them to one (and thereby incidentally having one yourself). But does it actually change the outcome? People in the business say "Yes, otherwise we wouldn't do it", but there isn't a control group to see if that's actually the case. When I was in the business of deciding on very large software contracts for the company, I expect I'd have accepted an invitation to a luxury dinner by the vendors, but I'd still have made the decision on the merits of the software even if they'd just invited me to a cup of tea - I'd have seen anything else as an essentially corrupt breach of my employment contract.
My current employer (another US company) requires us to take an annual training course on Business Ethics and the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act which describes all sorts of things you absolutely must not do with Government officials to try and win business
It's funny how in the 80s and early 90s, a massive bogeyman for politicians was teenage single mothers.
Whatever happened to them?
Society became more liberal, the Conservatives were voted out, and people stopped pointing at them.
This whole topic is another one of those areas that doesn't necessarily conform to left/right analysis. One could argue that it is those on the left who should care more about reducing teenage pregnancies as having a baby in your teens probably rules out university etc. for the mother.
Most interesting areas of policy development don't. The political debates set up by our two party system are often fairly irrelevant to what might make good policy.
Lol, I see the new great white hope of Unionism is the latest in a line of delusional eejits.
If I was pinning hopes on him I'd be worried about the huge amounts of tweets he pumps out. Too many etc etc.
Especially as the appropriate term is Isles of Britain and Ireland: whatever one might think, it is simply not tactful calling them the British Isles if he wants the Irisn to rejoin the UK.
Well this is interesting. When I wrote about this in Nov, this is what the Department of Trade press office told me when asked WHY a £2,850-a-year club was used for public-funded dinner:
It brought home to me, again, that living alone is very bad for us. We need social interaction, company and support when things go awry.
I've often thought that it's unfortunate that modern society doesn't offer many options for living not-alone: there's "find a romantic partner and live with them", shared houses for students and recently-students, and not a lot else. When I was in university I liked living in a room in student housing, with communal meals and plenty of opportunity for interaction with other people who were doing broadly the same thing as me. In my rose-tinted view back over the decades it had some aspects of almost a secular monastery.
There have been some controversial recent housing developments in Dublin built as "co-living" spaces with shared kitchens, etc, that have been marketed along those lines, but where the perception has been that they were built that way to cram more units into the same space. So in the end they become markers of poverty and deprivation.
What I think I would make sure I did if I ended up living alone again (and owning my own home), is to rent out a spare room. You get contact with other people. You're providing useful short-term accommodation for people not looking for a 6-month lease (interns, graduate students, trainee consultants on placements, etc). If you do come across someone who doesn't work out (like the American scientist who spilt milk everywhere) then at least it's only ever for a limited period.
A lot of airbnbs now seem to be people who own multiple properties working it as a business, but we've stayed with a few people who were doing it to meet new people and have chats with them. One friendly couple with chickens in their Sheffield garden stick particularly in the memory.
You don't necessarily have to commit to living with someone long-term to avoid living alone.
However, it's pretty clear that the specific case under discussion with Truss did not come close to that limit.
No it's not clear at all.
Her officials explicitly said it was too expensive.
No. The point here is Fizz with Liz and Dish with Rish is happening now. Team Rishi has the killer instinct. It’s gone too far for dear old Boris, in a vonc within next two weeks.
Rishi is going to make a far better PM in a far better government, and the country will have this better leadership by Easter.
Interesting header, thanks. Is it a good or a bad thing we're procreating less? Dunno but certainly big families seem like a thing of the past to me. Eg I come from one yet could never imagine doing same. The main thing imo is that people who want to have children are able to have one (or two or at a push three) and be good loving parents. It's sad if someone wants this but for whatever reason it doesn't happen. The opposite - people who have children despite not wanting them - is even sadder but I'd guess a rarer occurrence. Or is it? Not sure. This is what the figures don't tell us and for me it's maybe the most important stat to know. What is the aggregate surplus or deficit between the number of children that people want to have and the number actually had? A big number either way would indicate a problem.
My view - and this is largely guesswork - is that for various reasons- partly cultural, partly financial - people who in previous generations might have expected their lives to pan out in the classic buy-house-have-kids pattern simply don't see a realistic prospect of this happening. Hard to aspire to something unachievable. Hard to see children as a positive life decision when you can barely afford to support yourself. As always, the single biggest single issue is housing affordability. This is common to much of the western world.
It does sound credible to postulate an inverse link between housing costs and family size. Even if the stats don't show it it doesn't mean the link isn't there since it could be being masked by other factors. Very difficult area to draw firm conclusions about, I'd have thought. So many influences in play.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 11h But why? Why restrict the kids after we've already infected so many old folk at Christmas? The hospitalisations peak is already baked in now. Blighting kids' schooling isn't going to help with that any more. So what's the point other than a cosmetic "See! We're doing something!"?
My dad worked in sales for IBM for some years. American visitors were shocked that alcohol was served at company dinners in Britain and Europe.
I am not convinced that getting 3 sheets to the wind is helpful at business meetings, as a fifth of a bottle of gin and half bottle of wine per person would imply.
Ciba-Geigy (a predecessor to Novartis) for a while employed a flamboyant (English) senior salesman, who boasted that he would sometimes invite buyers to a vastly expensive meal, get them to sign the contract, and then leave them to pay the bill. He also claimed to organise conferences for doctors in Asia with prostitutes laid on.
How reliable all that was we were never sure, though while he was successful he was tolerated by senior management. He was eventually fired without notice after rumours (if I recall correctly) about using corporate funds to benefit a golf course in which he had a financial interest.
What salesmen think will work is often weird, anyway. I remember one salesman who wanted to sell us 10,000 browsers (at a time when one actually had to pay for browsers) ringing me excitedly to tell me that they had a new logo and business strategy statement. Had the product changed in any way? No.
My dad was a very good salesman, and always exceeded his targets at IBM. Indeed he was so well thought of that he was moves to sales education and training (which is how I spent my early teens in Atlanta).
He was a tough negotiator but taught me quite a bit about sales.
1) Know the product and the customer. 2) Believe in the product. You cannot sell something that you don't believe in. 3) a good deal is a good deal for both parties, so they will return to you, or recommend you. 4) a returning customer is the best customer, because the sale had already been made before they knock on the door.
A lot of his sales training has rubbed off on me, and I use in my practice, particularly on the management side. Techniques are surprisingly transferable, indeed the above aphorisms would do very well when dating!
Sorry, you're right. I should have said "clear to a reasonable person who wasn't politically motivated".
You think her officials are "politically motivated" ?
Why?
Everyone and his dog can smell the upcoming Tory leadership election, she's a leading candidate, they (or someone close to them) don't want her to get it.
You think senior civil servants aren't politically motivated in at least some way? Really?
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 11h But why? Why restrict the kids after we've already infected so many old folk at Christmas? The hospitalisations peak is already baked in now. Blighting kids' schooling isn't going to help with that any more. So what's the point other than a cosmetic "See! We're doing something!"?
It's a baffling decision.
It makes a lot of sense to me if the motivation is to:
1. Appear to be doing something to impede the spread of the virus. 2. Don't want to do anything that causes any economic damage.
Seems surprising that this sort of thing would be thought of as a good idea as part of a public relations strategy - but then I should have listened to Edmund In Tokyo a bit more when he's repeatedly pointed out that the British hate freedom.
Sorry, you're right. I should have said "clear to a reasonable person who wasn't politically motivated".
You think her officials are "politically motivated" ?
Why?
Everyone and his dog can smell the upcoming Tory leadership election, she's a leading candidate, they (or someone close to them) don't want her to get it.
You think senior civil servants aren't politically motivated in at least some way? Really?
Nope. It’s Team Rishi engineering this leadership contest, as time passes it may not be great for him, so now they going for kill, on Bojo and Truss.
They took a US Trade Delegation out for dinner. And you think they should have Ubered out for Greggs.
Yes, but that was the question I asked earlier, and it applied equally when I was in reasonably senior management in private sector pharma. Would the Trade Delegation (or the private clients) make different decisions if they were served a Greggs meal? If so, then shouldn't their employers be asking questions about the self-interested decisions that their delegates are making?
Of course nearly everyone likes a slap-up meal, and it's convenient to think that you're doing your employers a favour by taking them to one (and thereby incidentally having one yourself). But does it actually change the outcome? People in the business say "Yes, otherwise we wouldn't do it", but there isn't a control group to see if that's actually the case. When I was in the business of deciding on very large software contracts for the company, I expect I'd have accepted an invitation to a luxury dinner by the vendors, but I'd still have made the decision on the merits of the software even if they'd just invited me to a cup of tea - I'd have seen anything else as an essentially corrupt breach of my employment contract.
Relationships are built around a dinner (you wouldn’t get the time at Greggs).
Procurement decisions (which it sounds like you are referring to) are different to a negotiated compromise
And yet, how many scientists will still be calling for a lockdown within the next 48 hours?
This is the great peril for politicians "following the science". When they fuck up, scientists don't lose their seat....
I read about Woolhouse's remarks. It is even possible that he might have a fair point. However, under the prevailing circumstances in March 2020 I think lockdown was unavoidable. Neither the Johnson Government nor any likely theoretical alternative was going to permit the NHS to disappear under a tidal wave of granny corpses, which is what I'm sure they believed was coming if they failed to act decisively enough. And once that Rubicon had been crossed, the only real barrier to the second lockdown (to buy time for the vaccination program) was Johnson's dithering desperation to wish it away - hence the fact that we ended up with a second followed by a third instead.
The key thing, of course, is to resist calls for a fourth. The use of national house arrest as a routine instrument of public health policy must be stopped, as I think it will be.
Sorry, you're right. I should have said "clear to a reasonable person who wasn't politically motivated".
You think her officials are "politically motivated" ?
Why?
Everyone and his dog can smell the upcoming Tory leadership election, she's a leading candidate, they (or someone close to them) don't want her to get it.
You think senior civil servants aren't politically motivated in at least some way? Really?
Senior civil servants aren't that bothered, indeed I suspect that senior diplomats at the FCO who don't like Truss would happily support her being kicked upstairs.
The ones that are leaking are the courtiers of rivals scheming for advantage in the court politics of our executive branch.
Whenever we engage in an intellectual discussion, our goal ought to be to converge on the truth. But humans are primates - and often the goal is to become the alpha debater.
If we all, come this New Year, take this to heart and resolve to debate with a view to discovering truth rather than to winning each skirmish, just imagine what PB could become!
Really really boring.
If we were genuinely interested in the truth, everybody would just agree with me.
Sorry, you're right. I should have said "clear to a reasonable person who wasn't politically motivated".
You think her officials are "politically motivated" ?
Why?
Everyone and his dog can smell the upcoming Tory leadership election, she's a leading candidate, they (or someone close to them) don't want her to get it.
You think senior civil servants aren't politically motivated in at least some way? Really?
But this isn't her being retrrospectivley knifed this is something she was told in advance was too expensive, and she turned down Quo Vadis and went ahead anyway. This is terrible for Truss, makes her look as greedy and entitled as flsoj n nut nut.
Yes, but that was the question I asked earlier, and it applied equally when I was in reasonably senior management in private sector pharma. Would the Trade Delegation (or the private clients) make different decisions if they were served a Greggs meal? If so, then shouldn't their employers be asking questions about the self-interested decisions that their delegates are making?
Of course nearly everyone likes a slap-up meal, and it's convenient to think that you're doing your employers a favour by taking them to one (and thereby incidentally having one yourself). But does it actually change the outcome? People in the business say "Yes, otherwise we wouldn't do it", but there isn't a control group to see if that's actually the case. When I was in the business of deciding on very large software contracts for the company, I expect I'd have accepted an invitation to a luxury dinner by the vendors, but I'd still have made the decision on the merits of the software even if they'd just invited me to a cup of tea - I'd have seen anything else as an essentially corrupt breach of my employment contract.
My current employer (another US company) requires us to take an annual training course on Business Ethics and the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act which describes all sorts of things you absolutely must not do with Government officials to try and win business
I remember taking those courses.
There used to be office-wide competitions for the lowest verified "time to completion" score, same as the annual AML/IT security courses. Typically, the suggested study time was an hour; most people went straight to the quiz and completed it within two minutes. If you got lucky, you could guess randomly (by clicking before the answers had fully loaded; it wasn't actually difficult) and still get enough right to "pass".
Interesting header, thanks. Is it a good or a bad thing we're procreating less? Dunno but certainly big families seem like a thing of the past to me. Eg I come from one yet could never imagine doing same. The main thing imo is that people who want to have children are able to have one (or two or at a push three) and be good loving parents. It's sad if someone wants this but for whatever reason it doesn't happen. The opposite - people who have children despite not wanting them - is even sadder but I'd guess a rarer occurrence. Or is it? Not sure. This is what the figures don't tell us and for me it's maybe the most important stat to know. What is the aggregate surplus or deficit between the number of children that people want to have and the number actually had? A big number either way would indicate a problem.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 11h But why? Why restrict the kids after we've already infected so many old folk at Christmas? The hospitalisations peak is already baked in now. Blighting kids' schooling isn't going to help with that any more. So what's the point other than a cosmetic "See! We're doing something!"?
It's a baffling decision.
Doesn’t baffle me. If the teachers are off Ill, no going to school for the kids.
Everyone and his dog can smell the upcoming Tory leadership election, she's a leading candidate, they (or someone close to them) don't want her to get it.
But this happened in June last year.
Why was a senior official "politically motivated" to tell Truss her choice was too expensive back then?
There’s an economics driver behind that of course, but I’d go further and say society has encouraged the extension of adolescence deep into adulthood. I know plenty of 30-somethings and a few 40-somethings who still live like adolescents.
How do you distinguish "live like adolescents" from "live in a different way from what I think is normal from my generation"?
There was a R4 programme on spinsterhood yesterday, specifically about prejudice towards women who live alone. Most of the contributions varied between "Yes it's awful and attitudes are terrible" to "Yes it's awful but atittudes aren't that bad". Anecdotally, I know quite a lot of people living alone (as I do at present), and we all see upsides and downsides. But it's not self-evident that the only way to be happy is to permanently live together with one other person - you can be single and still have a lively sex life, lots of friends, etc., which I guess is what you're referring to. That will as a trend affect the birth rate, but very few of us decide whether to have children on the basis of our potential contribution to GDP.
Over Christmas I learned of my cousin who lived alone (divorced). He fell downstairs and knocked himself unconscious. His breathing was restricted and because he was alone he died. He was ages with me, about 60.The PM was pretty inconclusive, he may have had a blood clot or something that caused him to fall but it is not clear. It brought home to me, again, that living alone is very bad for us. We need social interaction, company and support when things go awry.
I'm sorry to hear that David. Agree that living alone is awful. When my wife goes back to Switzerland to visit her mum and friends I always get bored after about 4 days. Sure I see my friends and family, hang out with the lads etc... but there's definitely something different about living with someone else that I could no longer live without.
It makes one wonder whether big supporters of "working from home" are disproportionately people who live with other people, and aren't considering whether those who live by themselves might have a less positive view of it.
That's exactly what I thought. Isolation is so much easier in the modern world where pretty much anything can be ordered to your door, even if it is not desirable.
The Sunday Times article is interesting but the central argument that we would have suffered a bigger economic loss by letting people die falls down because it takes no account of who would die of it. An age adjusted QALY wouldn't rate 1 year of life for someone over 75 at £100k as QALYs follow a fairly standard decay curve with age, they start very high and by the time someone gets to 75 it's pretty low.
Again, I'm not advocating that we should have simply let everyone over 75 fend for themselves, I was in favour of the first and third lockdowns though I don't believe the third lockdown needed to last as long as it did. I'd just like to point out that their central calculation on which they've based their main argument is incorrect. On an age adjusted QALY basis with the average age of death being somewhere around 75 and life being cut by 10 years compared to expectancy there's simply no way that it's £1m per death in lost productivity so allowing 500k deaths isn't a £500bn economic hit. Not even close to it. In a perverse sort of way the death of each person over 75 is 10 or so years in saved pensions and healthcare costs with the majority of their wealth passed down to younger generations who are more likely to spend it. I'd hazard a guess that if we'd gone down the no lockdown route we'd have seen 2-3x more dead but suffered little economic hit and solved the housing, social care and healthcare crisis we're facing without borrowing anywhere near £400bn to pay for COVID measures.
Interesting header, thanks. Is it a good or a bad thing we're procreating less? Dunno but certainly big families seem like a thing of the past to me. Eg I come from one yet could never imagine doing same. The main thing imo is that people who want to have children are able to have one (or two or at a push three) and be good loving parents. It's sad if someone wants this but for whatever reason it doesn't happen. The opposite - people who have children despite not wanting them - is even sadder but I'd guess a rarer occurrence. Or is it? Not sure. This is what the figures don't tell us and for me it's maybe the most important stat to know. What is the aggregate surplus or deficit between the number of children that people want to have and the number actually had? A big number either way would indicate a problem.
Another thing I'd add: if an organisation has a no-drinking-at-work-or-onsite policy, then it should extend through all the company, from top to bottom - not just particular roles. If the plebs cannot turn up half drunk onto site, then neither should the management.
(That does not stop you wining and dining; it just restricts what you can do afterwards.)
Precisely the policy of Network Rail and, I believe, HS2, though not the ORR.
Just catching up. I note that the Old Boys' Clubs (literally and metaphorically) that oil the wheels of commerce, finance and politics are still alive and kicking. 'Let's make a deal over lunch, chaps'. Pretty depressing really.
Sorry, you're right. I should have said "clear to a reasonable person who wasn't politically motivated".
You think her officials are "politically motivated" ?
Why?
Everyone and his dog can smell the upcoming Tory leadership election, she's a leading candidate, they (or someone close to them) don't want her to get it.
You think senior civil servants aren't politically motivated in at least some way? Really?
Senior civil servants aren't that bothered, indeed I suspect that senior diplomats at the FCO who don't like Truss would happily support her being kicked upstairs.
The ones that are leaking are the courtiers of rivals scheming for advantage in the court politics of our executive branch.
Looks to me like it's the Trade Department briefing against her, which is (I think?) separate to the FCO, so not officials who'd stand to gain from her being promoted away from them. I assume they're doing a favour for either one of the other candidates (as you say), or possibly someone in Number 10 who doesn't want to work with her.
Just catching up. I note that the Old Boys' Clubs (literally and metaphorically) that oil the wheels of commerce, finance and politics are still alive and kicking. 'Let's make a deal over lunch, chaps'. Pretty depressing really.
On the brightside, a cosy dinner at a club is what led directly to the Paterson vote.
There's an interesting article in today's Sunday Times about what might have happened if the UK hadn't taken any measures whatsoever to counter Covid-19.
Saint Bart - we would now be in far better place - facts speak for themselves CHB - we will all have had it, long covid, apocalyptic hospital scenes, mass graves RCS - it’s an interesting one, I have just written a sixty page thesis
Moonrabbit: I thought about reading it but went shopping instead?
Everyone and his dog can smell the upcoming Tory leadership election, she's a leading candidate, they (or someone close to them) don't want her to get it.
But this happened in June last year.
Why was a senior official "politically motivated" to tell Truss her choice was too expensive back then?
Arse covering. Literally doing their job in challenging expenditure of public finances. Use your imagination.
Civil servant challenging their boss is them doing their job; leaking it months later is politically motivated.
Sorry, you're right. I should have said "clear to a reasonable person who wasn't politically motivated".
You think her officials are "politically motivated" ?
Why?
Everyone and his dog can smell the upcoming Tory leadership election, she's a leading candidate, they (or someone close to them) don't want her to get it.
You think senior civil servants aren't politically motivated in at least some way? Really?
I don't smell an upcoming Tory leadership contest and the betting markets are starting to agree. 'Johnson still PM at next party Conf' was a quite ridiculous (imo) even money shot a couple of weeks ago but is now into a more realistic 1.33.
Whenever we engage in an intellectual discussion, our goal ought to be to converge on the truth. But humans are primates - and often the goal is to become the alpha debater.
If we all, come this New Year, take this to heart and resolve to debate with a view to discovering truth rather than to winning each skirmish, just imagine what PB could become!
Really really boring.
If we were genuinely interested in the truth, everybody would just agree with me.
We never agree Farooq! I certainly can’t agree with that silly post.
Why have tw@tter suspended the politics for all et al. network of accounts?
They are clickbaity and recently been going into their own rubbish "exclusives", but unless i missed something it wasn't like they were massive fake news or antivaxxer etc.
On the scale of dodgy social media accounts they are miles away from what I would consider fake news spreaders. 99% of it was literally just aggregator of all the main stream press articles.
Did they buy a load of fake followers or something to boost their presence?
Just catching up. I note that the Old Boys' Clubs (literally and metaphorically) that oil the wheels of commerce, finance and politics are still alive and kicking. 'Let's make a deal over lunch, chaps'. Pretty depressing really.
After the amount of booze purchased 'Lezz make a dealeroonie now we've finished lunch. Ah luv you..'
Sorry, you're right. I should have said "clear to a reasonable person who wasn't politically motivated".
You think her officials are "politically motivated" ?
Why?
Everyone and his dog can smell the upcoming Tory leadership election, she's a leading candidate, they (or someone close to them) don't want her to get it.
You think senior civil servants aren't politically motivated in at least some way? Really?
I don't smell an upcoming Tory leadership contest and the betting markets are starting to agree. 'Johnson still PM at next party Conf' was a quite ridiculous (imo) even money shot a couple of weeks ago but is now into a more realistic 1.33.
Just laid truss next pm at 5.4, after backing at 101.
Just catching up. I note that the Old Boys' Clubs (literally and metaphorically) that oil the wheels of commerce, finance and politics are still alive and kicking. 'Let's make a deal over lunch, chaps'. Pretty depressing really.
Yes, I agree. It is one of the ways that the class ceiling works, which is at least as pernicious as other forms of Establishment discrimination. Those not brought up with the social graces of boozy dinners at home, or college struggle to be comfortable at such events professionally.
Quite happy to join most pile ons highlighting this governments repeated and offensive sleaze but £140 a head meals with a cabinet minister and senior foreign officials is completely fine. At double that I might think it poor judgment but still not worthy of news. It would probably have to be 4-5x more expensive to be newsworthy imo.
It's the fact that the Nation's Permanently Angry FIrst Wife wouldn't countenance any other venue than that owned by a tory donor that's significant. It's not even that significant in the context of this government's broad spectrum and pervasive corruption. I mean, I absolutely fucking despise LT but this isn't going to do her any damage because Johnson has lowered the standards so far.
Yep. What was once a resigning matter can easily be brushed off to carry on regardless.
The bar has been set so low that even the Darren Grimes Government of 2034 when it breaches etiquette will be able to reference the outrageous corruption of the Johnson Government from 2019 to 2034 and no one need resign.
Sorry, you're right. I should have said "clear to a reasonable person who wasn't politically motivated".
You think her officials are "politically motivated" ?
Why?
Everyone and his dog can smell the upcoming Tory leadership election, she's a leading candidate, they (or someone close to them) don't want her to get it.
You think senior civil servants aren't politically motivated in at least some way? Really?
But this isn't her being retrrospectivley knifed this is something she was told in advance was too expensive, and she turned down Quo Vadis and went ahead anyway. This is terrible for Truss, makes her look as greedy and entitled as flsoj n nut nut.
Sorry, you're right. I should have said "clear to a reasonable person who wasn't politically motivated".
You think her officials are "politically motivated" ?
Why?
Everyone and his dog can smell the upcoming Tory leadership election, she's a leading candidate, they (or someone close to them) don't want her to get it.
You think senior civil servants aren't politically motivated in at least some way? Really?
I don't smell an upcoming Tory leadership contest and the betting markets are starting to agree. 'Johnson still PM at next party Conf' was a quite ridiculous (imo) even money shot a couple of weeks ago but is now into a more realistic 1.33.
Your wrong Kinabalu. Firstly, the money markets is poor guide. Better guide is two clear facts in front of us. Firstly, the Pandora Tin of spin has been opened and covert opps are happening are they not? Secondly, motivation for opening the tin which can’t be unopened: if it’s a late as you claim it’s likely too late for Rishi, now or never for the career politicians.
Just catching up. I note that the Old Boys' Clubs (literally and metaphorically) that oil the wheels of commerce, finance and politics are still alive and kicking. 'Let's make a deal over lunch, chaps'. Pretty depressing really.
Yes, I agree. It is one of the ways that the class ceiling works, which is at least as pernicious as other forms of Establishment discrimination. Those not brought up with the social graces of boozy dinners at home, or college struggle to be comfortable at such events professionally.
Yes, it's about class. But it's also still about gender - women don't really fit in with the culture of the boozy lunches, do they, as a generalisation?
(And any moment now, I expect to be inundated with reports on here along the lines of "lots of powerful women attend boozy lunches"; reports that will entirely miss the point about laddish culture, which is that women aren't always excluded from it, especially if they adopt the lads' culture).
And yet, how many scientists will still be calling for a lockdown within the next 48 hours?
This is the great peril for politicians "following the science". When they fuck up, scientists don't lose their seat....
I read about Woolhouse's remarks. It is even possible that he might have a fair point. However, under the prevailing circumstances in March 2020 I think lockdown was unavoidable. Neither the Johnson Government nor any likely theoretical alternative was going to permit the NHS to disappear under a tidal wave of granny corpses, which is what I'm sure they believed was coming if they failed to act decisively enough. And once that Rubicon had been crossed, the only real barrier to the second lockdown (to buy time for the vaccination program) was Johnson's dithering desperation to wish it away - hence the fact that we ended up with a second followed by a third instead.
The key thing, of course, is to resist calls for a fourth. The use of national house arrest as a routine instrument of public health policy must be stopped, as I think it will be.
The article is rather confused imho. Not sure whether that is Woolhouse's thinking or the way it has been written up. He appears to argue that Great Barrington people were completely wrong and then go on to argue that what we should have done is focussed protection of the vulnerable. Which is, erm, Great Barrington argument.
Tom Newton Dunn @tnewtondunn But does that mean more restrictions are needed this week? No, says Ed Argar as hospitals can still cope: "I'm seeing nothing at the moment in the data in front of me that suggests a need for further restrictions".
Sorry, you're right. I should have said "clear to a reasonable person who wasn't politically motivated".
You think her officials are "politically motivated" ?
Why?
Everyone and his dog can smell the upcoming Tory leadership election, she's a leading candidate, they (or someone close to them) don't want her to get it.
You think senior civil servants aren't politically motivated in at least some way? Really?
I don't smell an upcoming Tory leadership contest and the betting markets are starting to agree. 'Johnson still PM at next party Conf' was a quite ridiculous (imo) even money shot a couple of weeks ago but is now into a more realistic 1.33.
Just laid truss next pm at 5.4, after backing at 101.
Okay that's decision made. One thing I am going to do this year is walk more, and I've now got a copy of the "Walk to Mordor" spreadsheet so that I can record my progress against Frodo's journey to destroy the One Ring.
However, it's pretty clear that the specific case under discussion with Truss did not come close to that limit.
No it's not clear at all.
Her officials explicitly said it was too expensive.
No, they said the private room - £500 room hire plus £2,500 minimum spend was too expensive.
It looks like she took a table in the main restaurant
What a trivial incident this is to be focused on when there’s so many other fuckups from this government.
By the way has anyone heard anything from MI6 on how it was the pandemic started in early Q4 2019, with lockdown lites and hospital surges, with the West being totally oblivious to it?
Have they improved their human and digital sources to have a better idea of what’s really happening in Xian? What about the CIA?
More on the new face mask advice for English secondary schools:
When someone who has Covid coughs, sneezes or exhales they release droplets of infected fluid.
Evidence certainly shows wearing a face-covering reduces the release of these into the environment.
But what's not clear is what impact this has on transmission in the real world of schools.
People wear different types of masks. Some work better than others. Ill-fitting masks or fidgeting with them will also naturally reduce their effectiveness.
Studies that have been done have been pretty inconclusive at least in terms of proving they have a significant impact.
One of the problems is it is difficult to disentangle the impact of one measure with others steps that are being taken to reduce spread of the virus.
What's more, any benefit has to be weighed against the costs in terms of harm to education.
It's the nature of a pandemic that decisions have to be taken without perfect evidence.
But this far in, plenty of experts are wondering why better research has not been done to work out what measures like this achieve.
This seems to be a policy which is being introduced more in the hope it will help significantly, rather than based on strong evidence it actually will.
My emphasis in bold. The policy looks suspiciously like something-must-be-done-ism - and, once again, when looking at other jurisdictions that have relied on mild-to-moderate restrictions like these to control the virus, there's nothing to suggest that they work against Omicron.
The Sunday Times article is interesting but the central argument that we would have suffered a bigger economic loss by letting people die falls down because it takes no account of who would die of it. An age adjusted QALY wouldn't rate 1 year of life for someone over 75 at £100k as QALYs follow a fairly standard decay curve with age, they start very high and by the time someone gets to 75 it's pretty low.
Again, I'm not advocating that we should have simply let everyone over 75 fend for themselves, I was in favour of the first and third lockdowns though I don't believe the third lockdown needed to last as long as it did. I'd just like to point out that their central calculation on which they've based their main argument is incorrect. On an age adjusted QALY basis with the average age of death being somewhere around 75 and life being cut by 10 years compared to expectancy there's simply no way that it's £1m per death in lost productivity so allowing 500k deaths isn't a £500bn economic hit. Not even close to it. In a perverse sort of way the death of each person over 75 is 10 or so years in saved pensions and healthcare costs with the majority of their wealth passed down to younger generations who are more likely to spend it. I'd hazard a guess that if we'd gone down the no lockdown route we'd have seen 2-3x more dead but suffered little economic hit and solved the housing, social care and healthcare crisis we're facing without borrowing anywhere near £400bn to pay for COVID measures.
The under 40s will be paying extra taxes and living in smaller houses for the rest of their lives so that there were fewer deaths among the over 60s during the last two years from something which was of minimal risk to the under 40s.
1) Why do the under 40s pay any attention to the restrictions ? 2) Why aren't the over 60s more grateful for the sacrifices made by the under 40s ? 3) The GenXs are again the middling group.
Okay that's decision made. One thing I am going to do this year is walk more, and I've now got a copy of the "Walk to Mordor" spreadsheet so that I can record my progress against Frodo's journey to destroy the One Ring.
Off out for a walk now!
That is a fantastic idea. I might do the same!
Could you please share a link to the spreadsheet if it's publicly available? The generic one, not your progress.
Sorry, you're right. I should have said "clear to a reasonable person who wasn't politically motivated".
You think her officials are "politically motivated" ?
Why?
Everyone and his dog can smell the upcoming Tory leadership election, she's a leading candidate, they (or someone close to them) don't want her to get it.
You think senior civil servants aren't politically motivated in at least some way? Really?
But this isn't her being retrrospectivley knifed this is something she was told in advance was too expensive, and she turned down Quo Vadis and went ahead anyway. This is terrible for Truss, makes her look as greedy and entitled as flsoj n nut nut.
Tom Newton Dunn @tnewtondunn But does that mean more restrictions are needed this week? No, says Ed Argar as hospitals can still cope: "I'm seeing nothing at the moment in the data in front of me that suggests a need for further restrictions".
This is what Chris Hopson has been saying for a few days, nothing in the data warrants new restrictions. The biggest worry is isolation rules making NHS staff stay home unnecessarily and the number of admissions in general (the annual NHS winter crisis, I guess).
The data in the dashboard on hospitalisations is a bit useless at the moment. With such high background prevalence of COVID a measure of that which is based on anyone who has it will inevitably rise. By the 28th around half of all incoming patients on the dash were incidental, by now it will be higher still has Delta works it's way out of the system and Omicron goes up to around 1/15 being infected.
The key publicly facing real time statistic is patients requiring mechanical ventilation. That number is still basically going nowhere, even in London. Last time we saw that rise in proportion to the overall hospitalisation number.
More on the new face mask advice for English secondary schools:
When someone who has Covid coughs, sneezes or exhales they release droplets of infected fluid.
Evidence certainly shows wearing a face-covering reduces the release of these into the environment.
But what's not clear is what impact this has on transmission in the real world of schools.
People wear different types of masks. Some work better than others. Ill-fitting masks or fidgeting with them will also naturally reduce their effectiveness.
Studies that have been done have been pretty inconclusive at least in terms of proving they have a significant impact.
One of the problems is it is difficult to disentangle the impact of one measure with others steps that are being taken to reduce spread of the virus.
What's more, any benefit has to be weighed against the costs in terms of harm to education.
It's the nature of a pandemic that decisions have to be taken without perfect evidence.
But this far in, plenty of experts are wondering why better research has not been done to work out what measures like this achieve.
This seems to be a policy which is being introduced more in the hope it will help significantly, rather than based on strong evidence it actually will.
My emphasis in bold. The policy looks suspiciously like something-must-be-done-ism - and, once again, when looking at other jurisdictions that have relied on mild-to-moderate restrictions like these to control the virus, there's nothing to suggest that they work against Omicron.
Given the level of infection which has already happened among teenagers plus the increasing numbers of vaccinations it is even more pointless.
Tom Newton Dunn @tnewtondunn But does that mean more restrictions are needed this week? No, says Ed Argar as hospitals can still cope: "I'm seeing nothing at the moment in the data in front of me that suggests a need for further restrictions".
I suppose the only issue with that is, the next two weeks are to some degree baked in. You don’t pull the lever needed this week but on basis of three weeks time?
So it’s all about trusting the statisticians and extrapolations, with a bit of not so the amount in hospital but the amount available to treat them in Omicron style being different than previous, because media keep saying whereas this time last year, but it’s different covid now, workers being out across economy this January should be more interest to government than ICU bed watch?
Tom Newton Dunn @tnewtondunn But does that mean more restrictions are needed this week? No, says Ed Argar as hospitals can still cope: "I'm seeing nothing at the moment in the data in front of me that suggests a need for further restrictions".
According to the Warwick model the peak of infections will be this week.
Okay that's decision made. One thing I am going to do this year is walk more, and I've now got a copy of the "Walk to Mordor" spreadsheet so that I can record my progress against Frodo's journey to destroy the One Ring.
Off out for a walk now!
That is a fantastic idea. I might do the same!
Could you please share a link to the spreadsheet if it's publicly available? The generic one, not your progress.
Sorry, you're right. I should have said "clear to a reasonable person who wasn't politically motivated".
You think her officials are "politically motivated" ?
Why?
Everyone and his dog can smell the upcoming Tory leadership election, she's a leading candidate, they (or someone close to them) don't want her to get it.
You think senior civil servants aren't politically motivated in at least some way? Really?
I don't smell an upcoming Tory leadership contest and the betting markets are starting to agree. 'Johnson still PM at next party Conf' was a quite ridiculous (imo) even money shot a couple of weeks ago but is now into a more realistic 1.33.
Your wrong Kinabalu. Firstly, the money markets is poor guide. Better guide is two clear facts in front of us. Firstly, the Pandora Tin of spin has been opened and covert opps are happening are they not? Secondly, motivation for opening the tin which can’t be unopened: if it’s a late as you claim it’s likely too late for Rishi, now or never for the career politicians.
That’s why you are wrong.
Will be interesting to read your response.
I am quite definitively smug-city and right because I backed at 1.9 and laid at 1.33 two weeks later! But 1.33 does mean a decent chance he *will* be ousted this summer so I'm not totally disagreeing with you. It was just the nearly evens price I thought ridiculous and thus lumped on. If the polls show no Tory recovery AND that they'd do much better with an alternative who's available and up for it then a contest is likely.
Why have tw@tter suspended the politics for all et al. network of accounts?
They are clickbaity and recently been going into their own rubbish "exclusives", but unless i missed something it wasn't like they were massive fake news or antivaxxer etc.
On the scale of dodgy social media accounts they are miles away from what I would consider fake news spreaders. 99% of it was literally just aggregator of all the main stream press articles.
Did they buy a load of fake followers or something to boost their presence?
They were often annoying in the way they reported things, but I didn't see anything that justified a ban or suspension.
Off topic, an issue we have often discussed, within a betting context: Paddy Power have offered 14-1 on a road/rail/tidal barrage being built across Morecambe Bay before 2036, and 5-1 on it being built before 2037.
Personally I'm a massive nimby on tidal power. In principle I'm massively in favour of it. But I love Morecambe Bay, and the view of it from Arnside Knott or Clougha Pike at sunset are amongst my favourites in the UK. I don't really want to see that jeopardised. So if we could do the Severn or Gower plans instead, that'd be great.
In truth, I don't really have a handle on what the downside would be, nor what the visual/environmental impact would be. And I suppose it would make the Furness peninsular rather less remote.
Tom Newton Dunn @tnewtondunn But does that mean more restrictions are needed this week? No, says Ed Argar as hospitals can still cope: "I'm seeing nothing at the moment in the data in front of me that suggests a need for further restrictions".
This is what Chris Hopson has been saying for a few days, nothing in the data warrants new restrictions. The biggest worry is isolation rules making NHS staff stay home unnecessarily and the number of admissions in general (the annual NHS winter crisis, I guess).
The data in the dashboard on hospitalisations is a bit useless at the moment. With such high background prevalence of COVID a measure of that which is based on anyone who has it will inevitably rise. By the 28th around half of all incoming patients on the dash were incidental, by now it will be higher still has Delta works it's way out of the system and Omicron goes up to around 1/15 being infected.
The key publicly facing real time statistic is patients requiring mechanical ventilation. That number is still basically going nowhere, even in London. Last time we saw that rise in proportion to the overall hospitalisation number.
I'd like to know how many people are off work with covid who are:
1) asymptomatic 2) have a 'bit of a cold' 3) actually ill
It makes one wonder whether big supporters of "working from home" are disproportionately people who live with other people, and aren't considering whether those who live by themselves might have a less positive view of it.
I suspect that's more about the space you occupy. Both Mrs Stodge and I work from home - she works upstairs from the "office" (converted spare room) while I work on the lounge table. We see each other at lunch time (briefly) and at the end of the day.
It works for us but only because we have the space to make it work.
That's not the whole aspect. Whether it's cultural conditioning or something else I don't know but there seems almost a primal desire among some to separate physically their working and non working lives. You live and relax in one place, you work in another - the journey or commute is part of that.
Some people find it difficult to resolve their working and non-working lives if they are occurring in the same physical space so you hear tales of home workers working longer hours. Even working in one separate room can help but again that's not always possible.
Some of it is about the type of work you do and the amount of interaction with others you need to have.
Part of it is each person's mental state - some genuinely miss the office, the socialising and the team bonding, others don't. It's not a question of whether you're living with other people or not, it's more about your own mental makeup. I'm one of life's introverts - my own company suits me fine but I know that's not true of many other people.
Somebody once told me "Hell is other people" - maybe but for many others Hell is isolation and I fully understand much of the past two years has been hell for some people. I get that - I really do but I also know there are those for whom the past two years has been very different.
It has. For some people, in some ways, it is fine, as you say it is about individual makeup. Part of my concern, as someone who really does need to seperate home life from working life, even in the physical space, is some people are so excited by the rapid switch to the new way of working that they are jumping too fast to make it the norm for as many as people as possible, without taking the time to consider if that works for everyone, unlike you. I've lost count of the number of meetings I've been in where, despite lip service to such issues at other times, no consideration is given to mental impacts for some, or even the possibility people not like new ways, except as a criticism of people not moving with the times.
There's an interesting article in today's Sunday Times about what might have happened if the UK hadn't taken any measures whatsoever to counter Covid-19.
Saint Bart - we would now be in far better place - facts speak for themselves CHB - we will all have had it, long covid, apocalyptic hospital scenes, mass graves RCS - it’s an interesting one, I have just written a sixty page thesis
Moonrabbit: I thought about reading it but went shopping instead?
Charles - "I've just had lunch with the Foreign Secretary and the US trade delegation."
More on the new face mask advice for English secondary schools:
When someone who has Covid coughs, sneezes or exhales they release droplets of infected fluid.
Evidence certainly shows wearing a face-covering reduces the release of these into the environment.
But what's not clear is what impact this has on transmission in the real world of schools.
People wear different types of masks. Some work better than others. Ill-fitting masks or fidgeting with them will also naturally reduce their effectiveness.
Studies that have been done have been pretty inconclusive at least in terms of proving they have a significant impact.
One of the problems is it is difficult to disentangle the impact of one measure with others steps that are being taken to reduce spread of the virus.
What's more, any benefit has to be weighed against the costs in terms of harm to education.
It's the nature of a pandemic that decisions have to be taken without perfect evidence.
But this far in, plenty of experts are wondering why better research has not been done to work out what measures like this achieve.
This seems to be a policy which is being introduced more in the hope it will help significantly, rather than based on strong evidence it actually will.
My emphasis in bold. The policy looks suspiciously like something-must-be-done-ism - and, once again, when looking at other jurisdictions that have relied on mild-to-moderate restrictions like these to control the virus, there's nothing to suggest that they work against Omicron.
The smart well fitting black cotton mask that our son was wearing during his 3 second encounter with his mum last week did not prevent him passing on his (then undiagnosed) Covid to her.
I have since lived mask free alongside my infected wife, and continue to test negative.
Tom Newton Dunn @tnewtondunn But does that mean more restrictions are needed this week? No, says Ed Argar as hospitals can still cope: "I'm seeing nothing at the moment in the data in front of me that suggests a need for further restrictions".
This is what Chris Hopson has been saying for a few days, nothing in the data warrants new restrictions. The biggest worry is isolation rules making NHS staff stay home unnecessarily and the number of admissions in general (the annual NHS winter crisis, I guess).
The data in the dashboard on hospitalisations is a bit useless at the moment. With such high background prevalence of COVID a measure of that which is based on anyone who has it will inevitably rise. By the 28th around half of all incoming patients on the dash were incidental, by now it will be higher still has Delta works it's way out of the system and Omicron goes up to around 1/15 being infected.
The key publicly facing real time statistic is patients requiring mechanical ventilation. That number is still basically going nowhere, even in London. Last time we saw that rise in proportion to the overall hospitalisation number.
Tom Newton Dunn @tnewtondunn But does that mean more restrictions are needed this week? No, says Ed Argar as hospitals can still cope: "I'm seeing nothing at the moment in the data in front of me that suggests a need for further restrictions".
This is what Chris Hopson has been saying for a few days, nothing in the data warrants new restrictions. The biggest worry is isolation rules making NHS staff stay home unnecessarily and the number of admissions in general (the annual NHS winter crisis, I guess).
The data in the dashboard on hospitalisations is a bit useless at the moment. With such high background prevalence of COVID a measure of that which is based on anyone who has it will inevitably rise. By the 28th around half of all incoming patients on the dash were incidental, by now it will be higher still has Delta works it's way out of the system and Omicron goes up to around 1/15 being infected.
The key publicly facing real time statistic is patients requiring mechanical ventilation. That number is still basically going nowhere, even in London. Last time we saw that rise in proportion to the overall hospitalisation number.
i dont think they use mechanical ventilation as much as they did in the early days do they
Sorry, you're right. I should have said "clear to a reasonable person who wasn't politically motivated".
You think her officials are "politically motivated" ?
Why?
Everyone and his dog can smell the upcoming Tory leadership election, she's a leading candidate, they (or someone close to them) don't want her to get it.
You think senior civil servants aren't politically motivated in at least some way? Really?
But this isn't her being retrrospectivley knifed this is something she was told in advance was too expensive, and she turned down Quo Vadis and went ahead anyway. This is terrible for Truss, makes her look as greedy and entitled as flsoj n nut nut.
BIG G is right yet again, HYUFD is getting all in a mess in the threads just caught up on
HYUFD seems to have forgotten what leave campaign openly and honestly promised all the leave voters at the time in 2016 - end to local EU immigration, so there can be much more immigration from further afield.
Patel led on delivering Indian voters for Brexit with promise of immigration from India.
If you think white working class Leave voters voted to replace free movement from Eastern Europe with free movement from India you are being astonishingly naive.
In any case the points system we now have can bring in any curry specialists we need from India
You are wrong HY. Well you are sort of right because you are clearly trying to twist it a bit into another question.
Look at the links. What was great about Priti Patel in the leave campaign she was so open and honest about saying to the Indian subcontinent community precisely that - being in EU blocks immigration from India sub continent. Patel promised them more immigration, got them on side, got Brexit over the line.
These are facts HY.
Some may say “there’s too much of you lot” but Patel was promising complete opposite openly and honestly in the campaign. Look at it, it’s fact.
I’ll add, do all curry specialists have to come only from India from now? I’m pretty sure it’s not currently the case.
We are talking curry here PB. Stop your usual game playing, this is important to the nation.
The Home Office is one the the important offices of State, if Pritti Patel feels curry is under threat this is no time for political point scoring. 🤨
Tom Newton Dunn @tnewtondunn But does that mean more restrictions are needed this week? No, says Ed Argar as hospitals can still cope: "I'm seeing nothing at the moment in the data in front of me that suggests a need for further restrictions".
This is what Chris Hopson has been saying for a few days, nothing in the data warrants new restrictions. The biggest worry is isolation rules making NHS staff stay home unnecessarily and the number of admissions in general (the annual NHS winter crisis, I guess).
The data in the dashboard on hospitalisations is a bit useless at the moment. With such high background prevalence of COVID a measure of that which is based on anyone who has it will inevitably rise. By the 28th around half of all incoming patients on the dash were incidental, by now it will be higher still has Delta works it's way out of the system and Omicron goes up to around 1/15 being infected.
The key publicly facing real time statistic is patients requiring mechanical ventilation. That number is still basically going nowhere, even in London. Last time we saw that rise in proportion to the overall hospitalisation number.
I'd like to know how many people are off work with covid who are:
1) asymptomatic 2) have a 'bit of a cold' 3) actually ill
4) faked a positive test result because everyone's doing it and they fancied a week off/don't want to have to cover for all the people who are also off.
Tom Newton Dunn @tnewtondunn But does that mean more restrictions are needed this week? No, says Ed Argar as hospitals can still cope: "I'm seeing nothing at the moment in the data in front of me that suggests a need for further restrictions".
This is what Chris Hopson has been saying for a few days, nothing in the data warrants new restrictions. The biggest worry is isolation rules making NHS staff stay home unnecessarily and the number of admissions in general (the annual NHS winter crisis, I guess).
The data in the dashboard on hospitalisations is a bit useless at the moment. With such high background prevalence of COVID a measure of that which is based on anyone who has it will inevitably rise. By the 28th around half of all incoming patients on the dash were incidental, by now it will be higher still has Delta works it's way out of the system and Omicron goes up to around 1/15 being infected.
The key publicly facing real time statistic is patients requiring mechanical ventilation. That number is still basically going nowhere, even in London. Last time we saw that rise in proportion to the overall hospitalisation number.
I'd like to know how many people are off work with covid who are:
1) asymptomatic 2) have a 'bit of a cold' 3) actually ill
Yes, the reports are that category 3 is actually pretty small which is why Hopson and other NHS bods are agitating for the government to cut isolation times and get rid of isolation rules for triple jabbed people altogether. We're probably getting to the point of doing away with isolation for asymptomatic people and cutting it to 3 or 4 days to people with mild symptoms.
Why have tw@tter suspended the politics for all et al. network of accounts?
They are clickbaity and recently been going into their own rubbish "exclusives", but unless i missed something it wasn't like they were massive fake news or antivaxxer etc.
On the scale of dodgy social media accounts they are miles away from what I would consider fake news spreaders. 99% of it was literally just aggregator of all the main stream press articles.
Did they buy a load of fake followers or something to boost their presence?
They were often annoying in the way they reported things, but I didn't see anything that justified a ban or suspension.
If you got banned from twitter for being annoying, 99% of accounts would be gone tomorrow....
I can only presume,
1) the AI made a mistake and confused their account with saying something verboten / confused it with another account, 2) there was a bit of suspicion over how they had played the system so well to grow from nothing to a really big "news" aggregator account in a very short space of time. Perhaps they did some dodgy social media "hacks" like buying followers or engagement.
I have to think it might #2, to ban the whole network of accounts and the personal account of the guy behind it in one go.
The sort of people who walk the edge of the rules on social media, its normally they get their "business" suspended a number of times as the warning shot.
Okay that's decision made. One thing I am going to do this year is walk more, and I've now got a copy of the "Walk to Mordor" spreadsheet so that I can record my progress against Frodo's journey to destroy the One Ring.
Off out for a walk now!
That is a fantastic idea. I might do the same!
Could you please share a link to the spreadsheet if it's publicly available? The generic one, not your progress.
Enjoy your walk.
Have I managed to post this before Sunil?
St Bart to Mordor. Someone show him the way.
😂
Well, before the lockdown in March 2020 I rode on trains and buses in London a LOT! Then during the rest of 2020 I hardly went anywhere except walking in the local park. But over the last ten months I have done a lot of walks around Ilford North and bordering areas of the neighbouring constituencies, normally doing 5 or 6 mile round trips. For example Gants Hill to Wanstead, or Gants Hill to Chigwell (waves to HYUFD!).
Tom Newton Dunn @tnewtondunn But does that mean more restrictions are needed this week? No, says Ed Argar as hospitals can still cope: "I'm seeing nothing at the moment in the data in front of me that suggests a need for further restrictions".
This is what Chris Hopson has been saying for a few days, nothing in the data warrants new restrictions. The biggest worry is isolation rules making NHS staff stay home unnecessarily and the number of admissions in general (the annual NHS winter crisis, I guess).
IIRC we've not had a widespread serious cold snap so far this Winter, and there's no immediate sign of much in the way of sub-zero temperatures (chilly nights in highland Scotland excepted,) either. This should help to limit the numbers of old people coming to grief on slippery pavements. AIUI there's also little evidence thus far of the feared spike in flu and other respiratory illnesses. This from the most recently issued weekly national Influenza and COVID-19 surveillance report, dated 23 December:
Through Respiratory Datamart, influenza positivity is low at 1.1% in week 50. Other indicators for influenza such as hospital admissions and GP influenza-like illness consultation rates remain very low. Respiratory syncytial virus positivity remained low but increased slightly to 3.5% in week 50, while rhinovirus positivity remained stable at 12.0% in week 50. Human metapneumovirus (hMPV) positivity decreased to 7.3% in week 50, while parainfluenza and adenovirus positivity remained low at 1.2% and 3.1% respectively.
If a Flu, RSV and Covid triple whammy is going to whack the health service then the first two are going to have to ramp up very quickly indeed. There seems to be a widespread expectation that the peak of Covid hospital admissions will occur around the end of this month or the beginning of the next.
There's an interesting article in today's Sunday Times about what might have happened if the UK hadn't taken any measures whatsoever to counter Covid-19.
Saint Bart - we would now be in far better place - facts speak for themselves CHB - we will all have had it, long covid, apocalyptic hospital scenes, mass graves RCS - it’s an interesting one, I have just written a sixty page thesis
Moonrabbit: I thought about reading it but went shopping instead?
Charles - "I've just had lunch with the Foreign Secretary and the US trade delegation."
Tom Newton Dunn @tnewtondunn But does that mean more restrictions are needed this week? No, says Ed Argar as hospitals can still cope: "I'm seeing nothing at the moment in the data in front of me that suggests a need for further restrictions".
This is what Chris Hopson has been saying for a few days, nothing in the data warrants new restrictions. The biggest worry is isolation rules making NHS staff stay home unnecessarily and the number of admissions in general (the annual NHS winter crisis, I guess).
The data in the dashboard on hospitalisations is a bit useless at the moment. With such high background prevalence of COVID a measure of that which is based on anyone who has it will inevitably rise. By the 28th around half of all incoming patients on the dash were incidental, by now it will be higher still has Delta works it's way out of the system and Omicron goes up to around 1/15 being infected.
The key publicly facing real time statistic is patients requiring mechanical ventilation. That number is still basically going nowhere, even in London. Last time we saw that rise in proportion to the overall hospitalisation number.
I'd like to know how many people are off work with covid who are:
1) asymptomatic 2) have a 'bit of a cold' 3) actually ill
My son and his partner are asymptomatic. My wife has a chesty cold, but that began before our son infected her.
Comments
I have zero problem with trade delegations being wined and dined - although I do wonder if the deals are better or worse for the lubrication. I was just pointing out that your response of 'that's sad' about not being able to drink on the job is more widespread than you think, and for good reasons.
The only exception is as a guest speaker. I had a very nice weekend in Padua at a drug companies expense, but did have to give a lecture for it.
It works for us but only because we have the space to make it work.
That's not the whole aspect. Whether it's cultural conditioning or something else I don't know but there seems almost a primal desire among some to separate physically their working and non working lives. You live and relax in one place, you work in another - the journey or commute is part of that.
Some people find it difficult to resolve their working and non-working lives if they are occurring in the same physical space so you hear tales of home workers working longer hours. Even working in one separate room can help but again that's not always possible.
Some of it is about the type of work you do and the amount of interaction with others you need to have.
Part of it is each person's mental state - some genuinely miss the office, the socialising and the team bonding, others don't. It's not a question of whether you're living with other people or not, it's more about your own mental makeup. I'm one of life's introverts - my own company suits me fine but I know that's not true of many other people.
Somebody once told me "Hell is other people" - maybe but for many others Hell is isolation and I fully understand much of the past two years has been hell for some people. I get that - I really do but I also know there are those for whom the past two years has been very different.
(That does not stop you wining and dining; it just restricts what you can do afterwards.)
The company built an education centre. In the original plans there was going to be no bar and attendees would also share bedrooms (2 to a room). It took quite a bit to convince the Americans that we don't share rooms in the UK and that if they didn't have a bar everyone would be down the pub in the evening. Commonsense prevailed.
We only need to look at a comparison between the British, French and Italian case rates over the last fortnight or so. France and especially Italy have had substantially more restrictions than the UK, including vaxports for a wide range of venues and masks absolutely all over the place, and were certainly doing very much better than us on the case metric through most of the Autumn.
France and Italy are now experiencing almost exactly the same stratospheric increases in case rates as the UK, because Omicron. Italy is about where we were on Christmas Eve; France is effectively in the same place as us. And that's despite the fact that the UK does about 50% more tests per capita than either of those other countries.
Given that France, Italy and the UK are not hugely dissimilar states in terms of population size, demography and socio-economic conditions, I would venture to suggest that this is good evidence that mild to moderate restrictions are useless against Omicron. That includes pieces of blue paper worn across the face.
Covid restrictions in the face of Omicron.
CHB - we will all have had it, long covid, apocalyptic hospital scenes, mass graves
RCS - it’s an interesting one, I have just written a sixty page thesis
If I was pinning hopes on him I'd be worried about the huge amounts of tweets he pumps out. Too many etc etc.
There is obviously a limit above which you get diminishing returns from a fiduciary perspective, and this limit will differ depending on the people involved and what they're used to in their personal lives. However, it's pretty clear that the specific case under discussion with Truss did not come close to that limit.
How reliable all that was we were never sure, though while he was successful he was tolerated by senior management. He was eventually fired without notice after rumours (if I recall correctly) about using corporate funds to benefit a golf course in which he had a financial interest.
What salesmen think will work is often weird, anyway. I remember one salesman who wanted to sell us 10,000 browsers (at a time when one actually had to pay for browsers) ringing me excitedly to tell me that they had a new logo and business strategy statement. Had the product changed in any way? No.
Whenever we engage in an intellectual discussion, our goal ought to be to converge on the truth. But humans are primates - and often the goal is to become the alpha debater.
If we all, come this New Year, take this to heart and resolve to debate with a view to discovering truth rather than to winning each skirmish, just imagine what PB could become!
Really really boring.
Though TBF, it's not just party politics that falls down in this way. The debate over good Covid policy, for example, missed what might have been better responses. This nuanced critique of UK policy notes some of them:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/02/britain-got-it-wrong-on-covid-long-lockdown-did-more-harm-than-good-says-scientist
Her officials explicitly said it was too expensive.
'It was organised at quite short notice, so the venue itself was chosen due to availability' https://twitter.com/Gabriel_Pogrund/status/1477560271694614538
Compare and contrast press office statement of 'It was organised at quite short notice, so the venue itself was chosen due to availability' to what now emerges from FOI... https://twitter.com/AVMikhailova/status/1477609744261173253/photo/1
Question - why is a publicly-funded press office actively misleading journalists over taxpayer-funded spending?
https://twitter.com/AVMikhailova/status/1477609955943501828
"Largely voluntary behaviour change worked in Sweden and it should have been allowed to progress in the UK, argues Woolhouse"
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/02/britain-got-it-wrong-on-covid-long-lockdown-did-more-harm-than-good-says-scientist
What I think I would make sure I did if I ended up living alone again (and owning my own home), is to rent out a spare room. You get contact with other people. You're providing useful short-term accommodation for people not looking for a 6-month lease (interns, graduate students, trainee consultants on placements, etc). If you do come across someone who doesn't work out (like the American scientist who spilt milk everywhere) then at least it's only ever for a limited period.
A lot of airbnbs now seem to be people who own multiple properties working it as a business, but we've stayed with a few people who were doing it to meet new people and have chats with them. One friendly couple with chickens in their Sheffield garden stick particularly in the memory.
You don't necessarily have to commit to living with someone long-term to avoid living alone.
Why?
Rishi is going to make a far better PM in a far better government, and the country will have this better leadership by Easter.
This is the great peril for politicians "following the science". When they fuck up, scientists don't lose their seat....
He was a tough negotiator but taught me quite a bit about sales.
1) Know the product and the customer.
2) Believe in the product. You cannot sell something that you don't believe in.
3) a good deal is a good deal for both parties, so they will return to you, or recommend you.
4) a returning customer is the best customer, because the sale had already been made before they knock on the door.
A lot of his sales training has rubbed off on me, and I use in my practice, particularly on the management side. Techniques are surprisingly transferable, indeed the above aphorisms would do very well when dating!
You think senior civil servants aren't politically motivated in at least some way? Really?
1. Appear to be doing something to impede the spread of the virus.
2. Don't want to do anything that causes any economic damage.
Seems surprising that this sort of thing would be thought of as a good idea as part of a public relations strategy - but then I should have listened to Edmund In Tokyo a bit more when he's repeatedly pointed out that the British hate freedom.
Popcorn time!
Procurement decisions (which it sounds like you are referring to) are different to a negotiated compromise
The key thing, of course, is to resist calls for a fourth. The use of national house arrest as a routine instrument of public health policy must be stopped, as I think it will be.
The ones that are leaking are the courtiers of rivals scheming for advantage in the court politics of our executive branch.
There used to be office-wide competitions for the lowest verified "time to completion" score, same as the annual AML/IT security courses. Typically, the suggested study time was an hour; most people went straight to the quiz and completed it within two minutes. If you got lucky, you could guess randomly (by clicking before the answers had fully loaded; it wasn't actually difficult) and still get enough right to "pass".
Why was a senior official "politically motivated" to tell Truss her choice was too expensive back then?
Again, I'm not advocating that we should have simply let everyone over 75 fend for themselves, I was in favour of the first and third lockdowns though I don't believe the third lockdown needed to last as long as it did. I'd just like to point out that their central calculation on which they've based their main argument is incorrect. On an age adjusted QALY basis with the average age of death being somewhere around 75 and life being cut by 10 years compared to expectancy there's simply no way that it's £1m per death in lost productivity so allowing 500k deaths isn't a £500bn economic hit. Not even close to it. In a perverse sort of way the death of each person over 75 is 10 or so years in saved pensions and healthcare costs with the majority of their wealth passed down to younger generations who are more likely to spend it. I'd hazard a guess that if we'd gone down the no lockdown route we'd have seen 2-3x more dead but suffered little economic hit and solved the housing, social care and healthcare crisis we're facing without borrowing anywhere near £400bn to pay for COVID measures.
Pretty depressing really.
And the fall of BoZo...
Civil servant challenging their boss is them doing their job; leaking it months later is politically motivated.
They are clickbaity and recently been going into their own rubbish "exclusives", but unless i missed something it wasn't like they were massive fake news or antivaxxer etc.
On the scale of dodgy social media accounts they are miles away from what I would consider fake news spreaders. 99% of it was literally just aggregator of all the main stream press articles.
Did they buy a load of fake followers or something to boost their presence?
The bar has been set so low that even the Darren Grimes Government of 2034 when it breaches etiquette will be able to reference the outrageous corruption of the Johnson Government from 2019 to 2034 and no one need resign.
It looks like she took a table in the main restaurant
It looks like she took a table in the main restaurant
- she wanted to take a private room at 5HS at cost of £3,000
- Officials said too expensive you can do QV for £1,000
- she went to 5HS for a total cost of £1,400 (presumably not a private room)
That’s why you are wrong.
Will be interesting to read your response.
(And any moment now, I expect to be inundated with reports on here along the lines of "lots of powerful women attend boozy lunches"; reports that will entirely miss the point about laddish culture, which is that women aren't always excluded from it, especially if they adopt the lads' culture).
@tnewtondunn
But does that mean more restrictions are needed this week? No, says Ed Argar as hospitals can still cope: "I'm seeing nothing at the moment in the data in front of me that suggests a need for further restrictions".
Off out for a walk now!
By the way has anyone heard anything from MI6 on how it was the pandemic started in early Q4 2019, with lockdown lites and hospital surges, with the West being totally oblivious to it?
Have they improved their human and digital sources to have a better idea of what’s really happening in Xian? What about the CIA?
When someone who has Covid coughs, sneezes or exhales they release droplets of infected fluid.
Evidence certainly shows wearing a face-covering reduces the release of these into the environment.
But what's not clear is what impact this has on transmission in the real world of schools.
People wear different types of masks. Some work better than others. Ill-fitting masks or fidgeting with them will also naturally reduce their effectiveness.
Studies that have been done have been pretty inconclusive at least in terms of proving they have a significant impact.
One of the problems is it is difficult to disentangle the impact of one measure with others steps that are being taken to reduce spread of the virus.
What's more, any benefit has to be weighed against the costs in terms of harm to education.
It's the nature of a pandemic that decisions have to be taken without perfect evidence.
But this far in, plenty of experts are wondering why better research has not been done to work out what measures like this achieve.
This seems to be a policy which is being introduced more in the hope it will help significantly, rather than based on strong evidence it actually will.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-59840634
My emphasis in bold. The policy looks suspiciously like something-must-be-done-ism - and, once again, when looking at other jurisdictions that have relied on mild-to-moderate restrictions like these to control the virus, there's nothing to suggest that they work against Omicron.
1) Why do the under 40s pay any attention to the restrictions ?
2) Why aren't the over 60s more grateful for the sacrifices made by the under 40s ?
3) The GenXs are again the middling group.
Could you please share a link to the spreadsheet if it's publicly available? The generic one, not your progress.
Enjoy your walk.
Also the original story has the bill as 1308
https://twitter.com/AVMikhailova/status/1477622035224408088
QV £1,000 I doubt is fixed price, more likely ballpark and would have come in above
So there is no story here, but there is because the story is someone is mounting such a fierce attack on the basis of so little substance
The data in the dashboard on hospitalisations is a bit useless at the moment. With such high background prevalence of COVID a measure of that which is based on anyone who has it will inevitably rise. By the 28th around half of all incoming patients on the dash were incidental, by now it will be higher still has Delta works it's way out of the system and Omicron goes up to around 1/15 being infected.
The key publicly facing real time statistic is patients requiring mechanical ventilation. That number is still basically going nowhere, even in London. Last time we saw that rise in proportion to the overall hospitalisation number.
So it’s all about trusting the statisticians and extrapolations, with a bit of not so the amount in hospital but the amount available to treat them in Omicron style being different than previous, because media keep saying whereas this time last year, but it’s different covid now, workers being out across economy this January should be more interest to government than ICU bed watch?
So any further restrictions are thus pointless.
St Bart to Mordor. Someone show him the way.
😂
Personally I'm a massive nimby on tidal power. In principle I'm massively in favour of it. But I love Morecambe Bay, and the view of it from Arnside Knott or Clougha Pike at sunset are amongst my favourites in the UK. I don't really want to see that jeopardised. So if we could do the Severn or Gower plans instead, that'd be great.
In truth, I don't really have a handle on what the downside would be, nor what the visual/environmental impact would be. And I suppose it would make the Furness peninsular rather less remote.
1) asymptomatic
2) have a 'bit of a cold'
3) actually ill
I have since lived mask free alongside my infected wife, and continue to test negative.
Either her future rivals. Or the incumbent.
(Or the Lizard People. Must never rule out the minions doing the Lizard People's work.....)
The Home Office is one the the important offices of State, if Pritti Patel feels curry is under threat this is no time for political point scoring. 🤨
I can only presume,
1) the AI made a mistake and confused their account with saying something verboten / confused it with another account,
2) there was a bit of suspicion over how they had played the system so well to grow from nothing to a really big "news" aggregator account in a very short space of time. Perhaps they did some dodgy social media "hacks" like buying followers or engagement.
I have to think it might #2, to ban the whole network of accounts and the personal account of the guy behind it in one go.
The sort of people who walk the edge of the rules on social media, its normally they get their "business" suspended a number of times as the warning shot.
Through Respiratory Datamart, influenza positivity is low at 1.1% in week 50. Other indicators for influenza such as hospital admissions and GP influenza-like illness consultation rates remain very low. Respiratory syncytial virus positivity remained low but increased slightly to 3.5% in week 50, while rhinovirus positivity remained stable at 12.0% in week 50. Human metapneumovirus (hMPV) positivity decreased to 7.3% in week 50, while parainfluenza and adenovirus positivity remained low at 1.2% and 3.1% respectively.
If a Flu, RSV and Covid triple whammy is going to whack the health service then the first two are going to have to ramp up very quickly indeed. There seems to be a widespread expectation that the peak of Covid hospital admissions will occur around the end of this month or the beginning of the next.
Interestingly the leaked email does say they're continuing to negotiate on the price.