Yesterday it looked like Covid hospital numbers peaked on the 5th at around 4,100.
Latest update only covers to the 4th, but on that day the number in acute trusts actually being treated for Covid was 2,026.
So on the inflated numbers the hospital peak is half last year. And of that roughly half is either not really covid or not acute.
Don't get me started on the 'incidental' admissions nonsense – I will end up boring PBers to death! Incidental covid admissions is an oxymoron – given that by their very definition such people are not admitted for covid.
(And yes, I know, I know – they still need to be sequestered in a covid ward. But still...)
But then, as @Foxy points out, medical outcomes for people with various conditions and a side order of COVID are massively different....
Are you referring to the Nature paper he has cited, which uses ancient data from the pre-vaccine, alpha age?
Even if it is out of date, the changes in outcome were so radical that the medics will have to take the same precautions until proven otherwise.....
Not clear to me why a pre-vaccination report has much relevance TBH, but happy to be corrected.
If you have a report that a disease + condition X = *orders* of magnitude more bad outcomes.... well, it is not surprising that the medics are going "hey, throw that out the window, things are different now" without further evidence.
We must have plenty of real world evidence now, either to the affirmative or to the contrary, given how many 'incidental' admissions we have sustained since omicron arrived. Has anyone run the numbers?
You'd be wanting a clinical trial grade of evidence, no? Too many cross-correlations to rely on raw data, however. And no sane medic would put half the patients in the 'wrong' side with such a whacking disparity in anaesthesia outcomes.
Hmmmm
"Hi, I would like to run a clinical study. Half the patients will have their COVID ignored and we will go ahead with the operations, to see what happens. Yes, that increased their risk of death by 10x earlier in the epidemic. I hope it will be all fine now."
Yesterday it looked like Covid hospital numbers peaked on the 5th at around 4,100.
Latest update only covers to the 4th, but on that day the number in acute trusts actually being treated for Covid was 2,026.
So on the inflated numbers the hospital peak is half last year. And of that roughly half is either not really covid or not acute.
Don't get me started on the 'incidental' admissions nonsense – I will end up boring PBers to death! Incidental covid admissions is an oxymoron – given that by their very definition such people are not admitted for covid.
(And yes, I know, I know – they still need to be sequestered in a covid ward. But still...)
But then, as @Foxy points out, medical outcomes for people with various conditions and a side order of COVID are massively different....
Are you referring to the Nature paper he has cited, which uses ancient data from the pre-vaccine, alpha age?
Even if it is out of date, the changes in outcome were so radical that the medics will have to take the same precautions until proven otherwise.....
Not clear to me why a pre-vaccination report has much relevance TBH, but happy to be corrected.
Because vaccination turns out to be virtually useless at preventing asymptomatic infection, and asymptomatic infection is what we are talking about here. Sure, it might not prevent the actual infection, but magically by some unintended side effect circumvent all the complications which kill people under anaesthetic at, what, 30x the usual rate, but would you bet the farm on that if it was you being operated on? You seem to be having it both ways: affecting boredom at the quite striking news that 92 out of 92 vaccinated, negative tested cruise ships are covidified to the eyeballs, but attributing magical efficacy to vaccines in surgical cases here. Why the difference?
Yes, why is 'incidental covid' not important all of a sudden? People trying to airbrush it away? I don't know.
It's not "not important", but it is important to make clear how much of the recent rise in daily admissions and numbers in hospital is specifically due to Covid (which places strain on the NHS directly, as they have to find them a bed) and how much is just because Omicron is everywhere (which only induces secondary strains; because they already would've had to find them a bed anyway).
Basically, the proportion of incidental admissions is (probably) much reduced from what it was under Delta, so 2k admission daily now is not the same as 2k admissions daily was then.
Oh, that's fair enough, but it is not independent of the hospitalisation needs. Covid plus a stroke is not the same risk as adding the two independently. So it's dishonest for anyone to claim that 'incidental' covid can somehoe be regarded as being as unsafe as the ordinary stuff in your average person outside the hospitasl.
Hunterston B nuclear power plant generates electricity no more. Shutdown was reportedly due at noon.
Luckily it's sunny here so I don't need to check whether the lights still come on. Yet.
Incidentally, a WhatApp environmentalist group I have sneaked into, is trying to raise a thing about the Rolls Royce mini-nukes.
They are claiming, that since they will be built one-piece in a factory and placed on the grounds of existing or semi-decommissioned nuclear power stations, that they are an "end-run" around the proper decades of planning enquiries etc.
Hold on, wasn't that in the RR documentation, that they can use pre-existing nuclear power infrastructure with their mini-nukes? It's hardly some big conspiracy that they would use existing sites which have got grid and security infrastructure already in place.
Oh indeed - in fact that was the first thing I thought of. While mini-nukes are less efficient etc, they are more buildable.
Because they can be built in a factory (with knowledge/skills borrowed directly from building submarine reactors), and placed on existing nuclear power station sites.
The "end-run" around the planning issues is part of the pitch for them.
Bit like why I think that much of the power storage in the UK may well end up being containers of batteries.
The government has put in a ruling that small (few MWH) storage systems don't need full power station style planning approval. At which point it is rather had to stop someone parking a handful of containers somewhere and hooking them up to the grid. Bet that happens at the petrol stations turned into charging sites.....
Meanwhile tidal ponds will be stuck in the external rounds of planning/environmental enquiries. Probably until the UNIX clock wraps around.
Nice catch on the petrol station into battery storage units alongside charging sites - never thought of the dual purpose bit.
When I tried to jump-start my MGB on the forecourt of a petrol station I was told off by the proprietor who seemed to think that electric sparks and petrol vapour were an unwonted combination. I doubt if people will go to 'filling stations' for kilowatts in future. Much easier to do it in the supermarket car park while stocking up with life's other essentials.
As noted in the article, the only question the Court of Appeal can consider is whether the judge's directions to the jury were correct. I'm not aware that anyone has suggested they aren't. So I am unclear on what a referral would achieve.
I see Nigel Farage is panning the Aussies for taking back control of their borders.
Strange old world.
Yes, he has accused Australia of being a 'banana republic' for banning Djokovic and says it is increasingly impossible to live a normal life in the western world if unvaccinated. He also says he is ready to come back and help RefUK challenge the Tories in the redwall as the redwall voted to take back control of our borders not to 'surrender the English channel to criminal trafficking gangs' in his words
I fear Farage may do for lockdown scepticism what he did for Brexit: i.e. make it popular but unfashionable and also tied in with other issues. I was pro-Brexit but had no strong feelings on immigration. Similarly (and in common with many others on here) I am anti-lockdown but not anti-vax. And I don't want opposition to lockdowns to be conflated with opposition to vaccination.
From posts this morning, it's clear that the axiomatic obsession with 'cases' continues largely unabated in some circles.
Ha.
While the boosters have further disconnected COVID cases from hospitalisation and deaths (and Omicron itself seems to have had some effect), it is clear that a numbers of people are getting sick and dying.
It is beginning to look as if we *may* be able to get through this wave without Italy style medical collapse, but it won't be jolly in the hospitals for a while.
3.5m infections in England (mostly Omicron) has resulted in somewhere around 8-9k in hospital for COVID in England and a further 6-8k with COVID. The infection hospitalisation rate must be miniscule. We're talking maybe 0.2% of infected people requiring an overnight stay in hospital for Omicron.
The biggest threat to hospitals is isolation rules. Making people who are perfectly fine stay home for at least 7 days is why the NHS is under pressure right now.
That's interesting, because when I did my back-of-a-fag-packet, Not A Mathematician, exercise the the other day, I ended up with ~0.2% IHR too. I thought it too low to be true, but maybe you are right. I would certainly trust your numbers over my own amateurish efforts.
Presumably not allowing for any time-lag between positive test and hospitalisation?
Allowing for a 10-day time-lag it's more like 1.9%, as a percentage of positive tests. Almost exactly what it was in bad old days of Delta
Yesterday it looked like Covid hospital numbers peaked on the 5th at around 4,100.
Latest update only covers to the 4th, but on that day the number in acute trusts actually being treated for Covid was 2,026.
So on the inflated numbers the hospital peak is half last year. And of that roughly half is either not really covid or not acute.
Don't get me started on the 'incidental' admissions nonsense – I will end up boring PBers to death! Incidental covid admissions is an oxymoron – given that by their very definition such people are not admitted for covid.
(And yes, I know, I know – they still need to be sequestered in a covid ward. But still...)
But then, as @Foxy points out, medical outcomes for people with various conditions and a side order of COVID are massively different....
Are you referring to the Nature paper he has cited, which uses ancient data from the pre-vaccine, alpha age?
Even if it is out of date, the changes in outcome were so radical that the medics will have to take the same precautions until proven otherwise.....
Not clear to me why a pre-vaccination report has much relevance TBH, but happy to be corrected.
If you have a report that a disease + condition X = *orders* of magnitude more bad outcomes.... well, it is not surprising that the medics are going "hey, throw that out the window, things are different now" without further evidence.
We must have plenty of real world evidence now, either to the affirmative or to the contrary, given how many 'incidental' admissions we have sustained since omicron arrived. Has anyone run the numbers?
You'd be wanting a clinical trial grade of evidence, no? Too many cross-correlations to rely on raw data, however. And no sane medic would put half the patients in the 'wrong' side with such a whacking disparity in anaesthesia outcomes.
Hmmmm
"Hi, I would like to run a clinical study. Half the patients will have their COVID ignored and we will go ahead with the operations, to see what happens. Yes, that increased their risk of death by 10x earlier in the epidemic. I hope it will be all fine now."
Surely we can see what the outcomes are for covid incidentals (in separate wards) versus non-covid patients? It strikes me that we must have that data already, we can actually analyse it, without changing any policy now.
I believe he has been vaccinated, but doesn't like booster jabs.
Which shows 2 things. Firstly, his total lack of interest in the facts of the matter. Secondly, his unrivalled ability to jump on a bandwagon before any other political figure has realised one exists.
As noted in the article, the only question the Court of Appeal can consider is whether the judge's directions to the jury were correct. I'm not aware that anyone has suggested they aren't. So I am unclear on what a referral would achieve.
It's just a sop to the statue shaggers. It would achieve putting the waste of space Braverman in the news and enamouring her to the Tory base who love slaver statues so job done.
From posts this morning, it's clear that the axiomatic obsession with 'cases' continues largely unabated in some circles.
Ha.
While the boosters have further disconnected COVID cases from hospitalisation and deaths (and Omicron itself seems to have had some effect), it is clear that a numbers of people are getting sick and dying.
It is beginning to look as if we *may* be able to get through this wave without Italy style medical collapse, but it won't be jolly in the hospitals for a while.
3.5m infections in England (mostly Omicron) has resulted in somewhere around 8-9k in hospital for COVID in England and a further 6-8k with COVID. The infection hospitalisation rate must be miniscule. We're talking maybe 0.2% of infected people requiring an overnight stay in hospital for Omicron.
The biggest threat to hospitals is isolation rules. Making people who are perfectly fine stay home for at least 7 days is why the NHS is under pressure right now.
That's interesting, because when I did my back-of-a-fag-packet, Not A Mathematician, exercise the the other day, I ended up with ~0.2% IHR too. I thought it too low to be true, but maybe you are right. I would certainly trust your numbers over my own amateurish efforts.
Case Admission Rate for England
The calculation is 7 day average for admissions vs the 7 day average for cases, 7 days earlier....
I, for one, would be delighted if Mr Farage made it a priority to fight the Tories in the Red Wall seats on the issue of cross-channel traffic. If he could push the RefUK vote up to about 10%, that would be absolutely perfect (for Labour).
Yesterday it looked like Covid hospital numbers peaked on the 5th at around 4,100.
Latest update only covers to the 4th, but on that day the number in acute trusts actually being treated for Covid was 2,026.
So on the inflated numbers the hospital peak is half last year. And of that roughly half is either not really covid or not acute.
Don't get me started on the 'incidental' admissions nonsense – I will end up boring PBers to death! Incidental covid admissions is an oxymoron – given that by their very definition such people are not admitted for covid.
(And yes, I know, I know – they still need to be sequestered in a covid ward. But still...)
But then, as @Foxy points out, medical outcomes for people with various conditions and a side order of COVID are massively different....
Are you referring to the Nature paper he has cited, which uses ancient data from the pre-vaccine, alpha age?
Even if it is out of date, the changes in outcome were so radical that the medics will have to take the same precautions until proven otherwise.....
Not clear to me why a pre-vaccination report has much relevance TBH, but happy to be corrected.
Because vaccination turns out to be virtually useless at preventing asymptomatic infection, and asymptomatic infection is what we are talking about here. Sure, it might not prevent the actual infection, but magically by some unintended side effect circumvent all the complications which kill people under anaesthetic at, what, 30x the usual rate, but would you bet the farm on that if it was you being operated on? You seem to be having it both ways: affecting boredom at the quite striking news that 92 out of 92 vaccinated, negative tested cruise ships are covidified to the eyeballs, but attributing magical efficacy to vaccines in surgical cases here. Why the difference?
Yes, why is 'incidental covid' not important all of a sudden? People trying to airbrush it away? I don't know.
It's not "not important", but it is important to make clear how much of the recent rise in daily admissions and numbers in hospital is specifically due to Covid (which places strain on the NHS directly, as they have to find them a bed) and how much is just because Omicron is everywhere (which only induces secondary strains; because they already would've had to find them a bed anyway).
Basically, the proportion of incidental admissions is (probably) much reduced from what it was under Delta, so 2k admission daily now is not the same as 2k admissions daily was then.
Oh, that's fair enough, but it is not independent of the hospitalisation needs. Covid plus a stroke is not the same risk as adding the two independently. So it's dishonest for anyone to claim that 'incidental' covid can somehoe be regarded as being as unsafe as the ordinary stuff in your average person outside the hospitasl.
Sure, I agree. The issue is that thus far we've all mostly agreed that it is worth having restrictions to prevent people dying in hospital corridors because there aren't enough beds or ventilators or whatever. It is much less clear that we should agree to restrictions because ~5% of hospital patients now have slightly more complex needs or increased risk from medical procedures.
On the latter point: if you agree that everyone in the world is getting Omicron eventually, what difference does it make whose risk factors are arbitrarily increased at which points?
Question for the knowledgeable on here. We were looking at going to the States (Boston + NY) at Easter but have noticed that both places seem to have strict restrictions on not allowing children indoors if they haven't been vaccinated. Given our kids are all between 5 and 11 they haven't been vaccinated so does this mean that we can't do any eating in restaurants or going to museum's (which kinda makes the trip pointless) or are there exemptions for those from abroad with different rules?
As noted in the article, the only question the Court of Appeal can consider is whether the judge's directions to the jury were correct. I'm not aware that anyone has suggested they aren't. So I am unclear on what a referral would achieve.
I heard one of them being interviewed last night and it made me happy that they had been found not guilty.
Had they been convicted, we would not have been able to hear so openly from them and it would therefore have remained far less clear just how silly, self-centred, shallow, stupid, and ignorant of history, precedent and the basic rules of justice in a democratic society these little twats are.
On the question of Politically Correct language, the distinction between “of colour” (still fine and dandy) and “coloured” (no! Go to jail!) is of course insane. But it exists
Another confusing term is “Indians” - as in “American Indians”. I thought the word was cancelled years ago but no, people of all kinds, in the USA, still use it without blushing. You even hear it on TV
As noted in the article, the only question the Court of Appeal can consider is whether the judge's directions to the jury were correct. I'm not aware that anyone has suggested they aren't. So I am unclear on what a referral would achieve.
A few newspaper inches, a few newspaper leaders / columns, the ability to make those who want to a culture war and return us back to the 1950's feel good and annoying anyone who hopes we have a Government who think of potential consequences before opening their mouths.
In an ideal world the court of appeal would wait until this Attorney General has referred a couple more similarly hopeless classes and then classed them as a Vexatious litigant
As noted in the article, the only question the Court of Appeal can consider is whether the judge's directions to the jury were correct. I'm not aware that anyone has suggested they aren't. So I am unclear on what a referral would achieve.
The Tories feel Something Must Be Done. This is something. It is performative.
On the South Pole story, the thing that grated for me was 'Woman of Colour'. She was of south asian ethnicity (I didn't read the article, but I'm sure being more specific was possible too). 'of colour' strikes me as the new BAME, a useless catch-all that should not be used when there is a more specific group that can be used, if a group is needed at all.
Is there any more to it other than castign around for an acceptable term that means "non-white"?
They want to mention colour rather than not-mention white.
Perhaps it should be called positive racism.
Weirdly, while 'of colour' seems to be acceptable*, 'coloured' is highly offensive.
*Is it acceptable? Presumably it is if it's on the BBC. I thought it was falling out of favour. I remember a horribly right-on geography lecturer proudly using it in 1993, which was the first time I'd heard it. You'd think if it was around back then it must be offensive by now.
It's strange how what's acceptable changes over time. I remember being told at junior school in the late 70s never to call anyone 'black' because it was rude, and that we should use the term 'coloured' instead. No idea if this was just a nice middle-class assumption that coloured=non-white and you might not know if someone was 'black' or 'mixed race'.
I subsequently married a South African, who was mixed race, therefore self-identified as Coloured (although she didn't really care what she was - she quite liked being 'Other' because that was the box she always ticked irrespective of how many categories there might be on a form). And woe betide anyone who thought 'Black' included my mother-in-law...
So this all aligned nicely with my 1970s schooling and it was only a few years ago that I discovered that 'coloured' was a pejorative term. I must admit I can't see why 'of colour' is acceptable if 'coloured' isn't as to my mind they mean exactly the same. Not for me to decide I suppose.
Similar memories here. It's not a matter governed by linguistic logic as far as I can see so I don't find the question "how can 'coloured' be offensive when 'of colour' isn't?" to be particularly thorny or in fact that interesting. The answer is it has evolved to be so, based on various things. What things? I'm no expert but I can think of a couple of possibles. The apartheid link. Also the sense that, back in the old days, people would say "coloured" to avoid saying "black" as if that would be an insult (modern subtext, wtf should it be?) and they would often say it in a kind of whispered voice as if there was still something a little bit off there even with the 'politer' term. There'd be a certain embarrassment and a slight furtiveness in its use, is what I'm saying. I remember this quite well as a teenager at the time. Things are much better now, imo, despite the occasional pitfalls and bemusements that can befall a person.
But just now thinking about it, perhaps there is a proper meaningful linguistic difference between "coloured" and "of colour" in that the first speaks purely to shallow outward appearance whereas the second is freighted with a bit more. It (maybe) conjurs up something about the whole person. It (maybe) has more gravitas. Eg coloured can relate easily to objects. You can have coloured pencils, coloured contact lenses, but you'd never say pencils of colour or contact lenses of colour. So the point is, for objects "coloured" works but "of colour" doesn't, and for people it's the opposite. Just a thought. Could be bollox but it does illustrate how there can be more to this, quite literally, than meets the eye and how it might not be devoid of all logic.
Finally, I've noticed that "of colour" is used more for women than for men. This, I truly don't know what to make of. Racked my brain for something to explain it but with no success. All I can think of is that with women being perceived (rightly imo) as generally disadvantaged compared to men they are also perceived as being more in need of the term ("of colour") which carries overt respect. But I'm miles from being wedded to this so won't be defending it against reasonable dissent.
Wrote rather more than I intended when I set out on that. Apols. To myself too - my soup has now gone cold.
I, for one, would be delighted if Mr Farage made it a priority to fight the Tories in the Red Wall seats on the issue of cross-channel traffic. If he could push the RefUK vote up to about 10%, that would be absolutely perfect (for Labour).
I am not sure Farage has the ability to "shift the needle" anymore and I think even he knows it. Much like the realisation that Boris Johnson is a hopeless incompetent, the British public have eventually come to the conclusion that Farage is (as many of us have always known) a complete fruitcake.
Yesterday it looked like Covid hospital numbers peaked on the 5th at around 4,100.
Latest update only covers to the 4th, but on that day the number in acute trusts actually being treated for Covid was 2,026.
So on the inflated numbers the hospital peak is half last year. And of that roughly half is either not really covid or not acute.
Don't get me started on the 'incidental' admissions nonsense – I will end up boring PBers to death! Incidental covid admissions is an oxymoron – given that by their very definition such people are not admitted for covid.
(And yes, I know, I know – they still need to be sequestered in a covid ward. But still...)
But then, as @Foxy points out, medical outcomes for people with various conditions and a side order of COVID are massively different....
Are you referring to the Nature paper he has cited, which uses ancient data from the pre-vaccine, alpha age?
Even if it is out of date, the changes in outcome were so radical that the medics will have to take the same precautions until proven otherwise.....
Not clear to me why a pre-vaccination report has much relevance TBH, but happy to be corrected.
If you have a report that a disease + condition X = *orders* of magnitude more bad outcomes.... well, it is not surprising that the medics are going "hey, throw that out the window, things are different now" without further evidence.
We must have plenty of real world evidence now, either to the affirmative or to the contrary, given how many 'incidental' admissions we have sustained since omicron arrived. Has anyone run the numbers?
You'd be wanting a clinical trial grade of evidence, no? Too many cross-correlations to rely on raw data, however. And no sane medic would put half the patients in the 'wrong' side with such a whacking disparity in anaesthesia outcomes.
Hmmmm
"Hi, I would like to run a clinical study. Half the patients will have their COVID ignored and we will go ahead with the operations, to see what happens. Yes, that increased their risk of death by 10x earlier in the epidemic. I hope it will be all fine now."
Surely we can see what the outcomes are for covid incidentals (in separate wards) versus non-covid patients? It strikes me that we must have that data already, we can actually analyse it, without changing any policy now.
Doesn't work, because there are so many potential biases. You MUST have proper balanced random sampling. And allocate the patients BEFORE you do the study. Justr saying we'll compare that lot with that lot because they are in different wards won't do. For one thing, I would expect that the age distribution of people with seriously harmful covid is going to differ from those with asymptomatic covid, so that's a confounding factor right there.
As noted in the article, the only question the Court of Appeal can consider is whether the judge's directions to the jury were correct. I'm not aware that anyone has suggested they aren't. So I am unclear on what a referral would achieve.
It's just a sop to the statue shaggers. It would achieve putting the waste of space Braverman in the news and enamouring her to the Tory base who love slaver statues so job done.
The Tory base are no fonder of slaver statues than anyone else. What they dislike is angry lefties getting their own way.
On the question of Politically Correct language, the distinction between “of colour” (still fine and dandy) and “coloured” (no! Go to jail!) is of course insane. But it exists
Another confusing term is “Indians” - as in “American Indians”. I thought the word was cancelled years ago but no, people of all kinds, in the USA, still use it without blushing. You even hear it on TV
Hunterston B nuclear power plant generates electricity no more. Shutdown was reportedly due at noon.
Luckily it's sunny here so I don't need to check whether the lights still come on. Yet.
Incidentally, a WhatApp environmentalist group I have sneaked into, is trying to raise a thing about the Rolls Royce mini-nukes.
They are claiming, that since they will be built one-piece in a factory and placed on the grounds of existing or semi-decommissioned nuclear power stations, that they are an "end-run" around the proper decades of planning enquiries etc.
Hold on, wasn't that in the RR documentation, that they can use pre-existing nuclear power infrastructure with their mini-nukes? It's hardly some big conspiracy that they would use existing sites which have got grid and security infrastructure already in place.
Oh indeed - in fact that was the first thing I thought of. While mini-nukes are less efficient etc, they are more buildable.
Because they can be built in a factory (with knowledge/skills borrowed directly from building submarine reactors), and placed on existing nuclear power station sites.
The "end-run" around the planning issues is part of the pitch for them.
Bit like why I think that much of the power storage in the UK may well end up being containers of batteries.
The government has put in a ruling that small (few MWH) storage systems don't need full power station style planning approval. At which point it is rather had to stop someone parking a handful of containers somewhere and hooking them up to the grid. Bet that happens at the petrol stations turned into charging sites.....
Meanwhile tidal ponds will be stuck in the external rounds of planning/environmental enquiries. Probably until the UNIX clock wraps around.
Nice catch on the petrol station into battery storage units alongside charging sites - never thought of the dual purpose bit.
When I tried to jump-start my MGB on the forecourt of a petrol station I was told off by the proprietor who seemed to think that electric sparks and petrol vapour were an unwonted combination. I doubt if people will go to 'filling stations' for kilowatts in future. Much easier to do it in the supermarket car park while stocking up with life's other essentials.
Regardless of where you stop to recharge your car - the point is that it makes sense to also store power there in static batteries - to either minimise the cost of electricity used to charge the cars and / or sell back to the grid.
On the question of Politically Correct language, the distinction between “of colour” (still fine and dandy) and “coloured” (no! Go to jail!) is of course insane. But it exists
Another confusing term is “Indians” - as in “American Indians”. I thought the word was cancelled years ago but no, people of all kinds, in the USA, still use it without blushing. You even hear it on TV
It does perhaps (to white people in particular) sound like dancing on pinheads, but I believe the offensiveness of "coloureds" may be connected to the use of the term in Apartheid South Africa
As noted in the article, the only question the Court of Appeal can consider is whether the judge's directions to the jury were correct. I'm not aware that anyone has suggested they aren't. So I am unclear on what a referral would achieve.
It's just a sop to the statue shaggers. It would achieve putting the waste of space Braverman in the news and enamouring her to the Tory base who love slaver statues so job done.
The Tory base are no fonder of slaver statues than anyone else. What they dislike is angry lefties getting their own way.
According to Yougov in June 2020, 52% of Tory voters and 49% of Leave voters disapproved of the Colston statue being removed, as opposed to 33% of voters overall who disapproved of it being removed.
From posts this morning, it's clear that the axiomatic obsession with 'cases' continues largely unabated in some circles.
Ha.
While the boosters have further disconnected COVID cases from hospitalisation and deaths (and Omicron itself seems to have had some effect), it is clear that a numbers of people are getting sick and dying.
It is beginning to look as if we *may* be able to get through this wave without Italy style medical collapse, but it won't be jolly in the hospitals for a while.
3.5m infections in England (mostly Omicron) has resulted in somewhere around 8-9k in hospital for COVID in England and a further 6-8k with COVID. The infection hospitalisation rate must be miniscule. We're talking maybe 0.2% of infected people requiring an overnight stay in hospital for Omicron.
The biggest threat to hospitals is isolation rules. Making people who are perfectly fine stay home for at least 7 days is why the NHS is under pressure right now.
That's interesting, because when I did my back-of-a-fag-packet, Not A Mathematician, exercise the the other day, I ended up with ~0.2% IHR too. I thought it too low to be true, but maybe you are right. I would certainly trust your numbers over my own amateurish efforts.
Presumably not allowing for any time-lag between positive test and hospitalisation?
Allowing for a 10-day time-lag it's more like 1.9%, as a percentage of positive tests. Almost exactly what it was in bad old days of Delta
As I say, I am no mathematician. Yet your claim that the Omicron IHR is broadly the same as Delta doesn't appear to withstand even the most trivial googling scrutiny.
On the South Pole story, the thing that grated for me was 'Woman of Colour'. She was of south asian ethnicity (I didn't read the article, but I'm sure being more specific was possible too). 'of colour' strikes me as the new BAME, a useless catch-all that should not be used when there is a more specific group that can be used, if a group is needed at all.
Is there any more to it other than castign around for an acceptable term that means "non-white"?
They want to mention colour rather than not-mention white.
Perhaps it should be called positive racism.
Weirdly, while 'of colour' seems to be acceptable*, 'coloured' is highly offensive.
*Is it acceptable? Presumably it is if it's on the BBC. I thought it was falling out of favour. I remember a horribly right-on geography lecturer proudly using it in 1993, which was the first time I'd heard it. You'd think if it was around back then it must be offensive by now.
It's strange how what's acceptable changes over time. I remember being told at junior school in the late 70s never to call anyone 'black' because it was rude, and that we should use the term 'coloured' instead. No idea if this was just a nice middle-class assumption that coloured=non-white and you might not know if someone was 'black' or 'mixed race'.
I subsequently married a South African, who was mixed race, therefore self-identified as Coloured (although she didn't really care what she was - she quite liked being 'Other' because that was the box she always ticked irrespective of how many categories there might be on a form). And woe betide anyone who thought 'Black' included my mother-in-law...
So this all aligned nicely with my 1970s schooling and it was only a few years ago that I discovered that 'coloured' was a pejorative term. I must admit I can't see why 'of colour' is acceptable if 'coloured' isn't as to my mind they mean exactly the same. Not for me to decide I suppose.
Similar memories here. It's not a matter governed by linguistic logic as far as I can see so I don't find the question "how can 'coloured' be offensive when 'of colour' isn't?" to be particularly thorny or in fact that interesting. The answer is it has evolved to be so, based on various things. What things? I'm no expert but I can think of a couple of possibles. The apartheid link. Also the sense that, back in the old days, people would say "coloured" to avoid saying "black" as if that would be an insult (modern subtext, wtf should it be?) and they would often say it in a kind of whispered voice as if there was still something a little bit off there even with the 'politer' term. There'd be a certain embarrassment and a slight furtiveness in its use, is what I'm saying. I remember this quite well as a teenager at the time. Things are much better now, imo, despite the occasional pitfalls and bemusements that can befall a person.
But just now thinking about it, perhaps there is a proper meaningful linguistic difference between "coloured" and "of colour" in that the first speaks purely to shallow outward appearance whereas the second is freighted with a bit more. It (maybe) conjurs up something about the whole person. It (maybe) has more gravitas. Eg coloured can relate easily to objects. You can have coloured pencils, coloured contact lenses, but you'd never say pencils of colour or contact lenses of colour. So the point is, for objects "coloured" works but "of colour" doesn't, and for people it's the opposite. Just a thought. Could be bollox but it does illustrate how there can be more to this, quite literally, than meets the eye and how it might not be devoid of all logic.
Finally, I've noticed that "of colour" is used more for women than for men. This, I truly don't know what to make of. Racked my brain for something to explain it but with no success. All I can think of is that with women being perceived (rightly imo) as generally disadvantaged compared to men they are also perceived as being more in need of the term ("of colour") which carries overt respect. But I'm miles from being wedded to this so won't be defending it against reasonable dissent.
Wrote rather more than I intended when I set out on that. Apols. To myself too - my soup has now gone cold.
An important clarification is required, what colour was the soup? Tomato perhaps - or to use the modern phrasing soup of Trumpian colour?
Has anyone got any insight on Humza Yousaf's claim that we are currently matching the worse case scenario for Scotland?
Looking at the Scotland data, it roughly tracks that across RUK (in hospital & cases). So are we also on a worse case scenario for UK?
I begs the question of why we didn't lock down harder yesterday (not that I agree with that).
Edit: and what the point was of our extra restrictions up here. I'm coming to the conclusion (based on Dutch experience) that you either go big or go home when it comes to NPIs.
Well we are at 1-20 whereas England is 1-15 and London 1-10 so that must be some help to the Scottish Health Service for sure.
I, for one, would be delighted if Mr Farage made it a priority to fight the Tories in the Red Wall seats on the issue of cross-channel traffic. If he could push the RefUK vote up to about 10%, that would be absolutely perfect (for Labour).
I am not sure Farage has the ability to "shift the needle" anymore and I think even he knows it. Much like the realisation that Boris Johnson is a hopeless incompetent, the British public have eventually come to the conclusion that Farage is (as many of us have always known) a complete fruitcake.
Farage is to Boris' right though in being more anti restrictions on the unvaccinated and being even harder line on immigration and anti the NI rise.
As noted in the article, the only question the Court of Appeal can consider is whether the judge's directions to the jury were correct. I'm not aware that anyone has suggested they aren't. So I am unclear on what a referral would achieve.
It's just a sop to the statue shaggers. It would achieve putting the waste of space Braverman in the news and enamouring her to the Tory base who love slaver statues so job done.
The Tory base are no fonder of slaver statues than anyone else. What they dislike is angry lefties getting their own way.
There has been quite a significant swing to “join” the EU over “stay out” in recent months. I wonder, again, if at some point Labour will seek to take advantage of this. They are now led by an arch-Remainer
Has anyone got any insight on Humza Yousaf's claim that we are currently matching the worse case scenario for Scotland?
Looking at the Scotland data, it roughly tracks that across RUK (in hospital & cases). So are we also on a worse case scenario for UK?
I begs the question of why we didn't lock down harder yesterday (not that I agree with that).
Edit: and what the point was of our extra restrictions up here. I'm coming to the conclusion (based on Dutch experience) that you either go big or go home when it comes to NPIs.
Well we are at 1-20 whereas England is 1-15 and London 1-10 so that must be some help to the Scottish Health Service for sure.
Indeed.
If you listens to some of the more blatant BritNats on here you’d think poor old Scotland had disappeared down the plug hole.
I, for one, would be delighted if Mr Farage made it a priority to fight the Tories in the Red Wall seats on the issue of cross-channel traffic. If he could push the RefUK vote up to about 10%, that would be absolutely perfect (for Labour).
I am not sure Farage has the ability to "shift the needle" anymore and I think even he knows it. Much like the realisation that Boris Johnson is a hopeless incompetent, the British public have eventually come to the conclusion that Farage is (as many of us have always known) a complete fruitcake.
Take a large dose of a powerful anti-emetic and have a look at the comments his FB page.
The slines fucking love him and are begging him to get back into politics to "sort out" the channel situation.
On the South Pole story, the thing that grated for me was 'Woman of Colour'. She was of south asian ethnicity (I didn't read the article, but I'm sure being more specific was possible too). 'of colour' strikes me as the new BAME, a useless catch-all that should not be used when there is a more specific group that can be used, if a group is needed at all.
Is there any more to it other than castign around for an acceptable term that means "non-white"?
They want to mention colour rather than not-mention white.
Perhaps it should be called positive racism.
Weirdly, while 'of colour' seems to be acceptable*, 'coloured' is highly offensive.
*Is it acceptable? Presumably it is if it's on the BBC. I thought it was falling out of favour. I remember a horribly right-on geography lecturer proudly using it in 1993, which was the first time I'd heard it. You'd think if it was around back then it must be offensive by now.
It's strange how what's acceptable changes over time. I remember being told at junior school in the late 70s never to call anyone 'black' because it was rude, and that we should use the term 'coloured' instead. No idea if this was just a nice middle-class assumption that coloured=non-white and you might not know if someone was 'black' or 'mixed race'.
I subsequently married a South African, who was mixed race, therefore self-identified as Coloured (although she didn't really care what she was - she quite liked being 'Other' because that was the box she always ticked irrespective of how many categories there might be on a form). And woe betide anyone who thought 'Black' included my mother-in-law...
So this all aligned nicely with my 1970s schooling and it was only a few years ago that I discovered that 'coloured' was a pejorative term. I must admit I can't see why 'of colour' is acceptable if 'coloured' isn't as to my mind they mean exactly the same. Not for me to decide I suppose.
Similar memories here. It's not a matter governed by linguistic logic as far as I can see so I don't find the question "how can 'coloured' be offensive when 'of colour' isn't?" to be particularly thorny or in fact that interesting. The answer is it has evolved to be so, based on various things. What things? I'm no expert but I can think of a couple of possibles. The apartheid link. Also the sense that, back in the old days, people would say "coloured" to avoid saying "black" as if that would be an insult (modern subtext, wtf should it be?) and they would often say it in a kind of whispered voice as if there was still something a little bit off there even with the 'politer' term. There'd be a certain embarrassment and a slight furtiveness in its use, is what I'm saying. I remember this quite well as a teenager at the time. Things are much better now, imo, despite the occasional pitfalls and bemusements that can befall a person.
But just now thinking about it, perhaps there is a proper meaningful linguistic difference between "coloured" and "of colour" in that the first speaks purely to shallow outward appearance whereas the second is freighted with a bit more. It (maybe) conjurs up something about the whole person. It (maybe) has more gravitas. Eg coloured can relate easily to objects. You can have coloured pencils, coloured contact lenses, but you'd never say pencils of colour or contact lenses of colour. So the point is, for objects "coloured" works but "of colour" doesn't, and for people it's the opposite. Just a thought. Could be bollox but it does illustrate how there can be more to this, quite literally, than meets the eye and how it might not be devoid of all logic.
Finally, I've noticed that "of colour" is used more for women than for men. This, I truly don't know what to make of. Racked my brain for something to explain it but with no success. All I can think of is that with women being perceived (rightly imo) as generally disadvantaged compared to men they are also perceived as being more in need of the term ("of colour") which carries overt respect. But I'm miles from being wedded to this so won't be defending it against reasonable dissent.
Wrote rather more than I intended when I set out on that. Apols. To myself too - my soup has now gone cold.
I always imagine a word or words being spoken by a person with a strong Afrikaans accent, eg ‘a black’ v. ‘a black person’, or ‘coloureds’ v. ‘persons of colour’. It clarifies things a bit for me.
On the South Pole story, the thing that grated for me was 'Woman of Colour'. She was of south asian ethnicity (I didn't read the article, but I'm sure being more specific was possible too). 'of colour' strikes me as the new BAME, a useless catch-all that should not be used when there is a more specific group that can be used, if a group is needed at all.
Is there any more to it other than castign around for an acceptable term that means "non-white"?
They want to mention colour rather than not-mention white.
Perhaps it should be called positive racism.
Weirdly, while 'of colour' seems to be acceptable*, 'coloured' is highly offensive.
*Is it acceptable? Presumably it is if it's on the BBC. I thought it was falling out of favour. I remember a horribly right-on geography lecturer proudly using it in 1993, which was the first time I'd heard it. You'd think if it was around back then it must be offensive by now.
It's strange how what's acceptable changes over time. I remember being told at junior school in the late 70s never to call anyone 'black' because it was rude, and that we should use the term 'coloured' instead. No idea if this was just a nice middle-class assumption that coloured=non-white and you might not know if someone was 'black' or 'mixed race'.
I subsequently married a South African, who was mixed race, therefore self-identified as Coloured (although she didn't really care what she was - she quite liked being 'Other' because that was the box she always ticked irrespective of how many categories there might be on a form). And woe betide anyone who thought 'Black' included my mother-in-law...
So this all aligned nicely with my 1970s schooling and it was only a few years ago that I discovered that 'coloured' was a pejorative term. I must admit I can't see why 'of colour' is acceptable if 'coloured' isn't as to my mind they mean exactly the same. Not for me to decide I suppose.
Similar memories here. It's not a matter governed by linguistic logic as far as I can see so I don't find the question "how can 'coloured' be offensive when 'of colour' isn't?" to be particularly thorny or in fact that interesting. The answer is it has evolved to be so, based on various things. What things? I'm no expert but I can think of a couple of possibles. The apartheid link. Also the sense that, back in the old days, people would say "coloured" to avoid saying "black" as if that would be an insult (modern subtext, wtf should it be?) and they would often say it in a kind of whispered voice as if there was still something a little bit off there even with the 'politer' term. There'd be a certain embarrassment and a slight furtiveness in its use, is what I'm saying. I remember this quite well as a teenager at the time. Things are much better now, imo, despite the occasional pitfalls and bemusements that can befall a person.
But just now thinking about it, perhaps there is a proper meaningful linguistic difference between "coloured" and "of colour" in that the first speaks purely to shallow outward appearance whereas the second is freighted with a bit more. It (maybe) conjurs up something about the whole person. It (maybe) has more gravitas. Eg coloured can relate easily to objects. You can have coloured pencils, coloured contact lenses, but you'd never say pencils of colour or contact lenses of colour. So the point is, for objects "coloured" works but "of colour" doesn't, and for people it's the opposite. Just a thought. Could be bollox but it does illustrate how there can be more to this, quite literally, than meets the eye and how it might not be devoid of all logic.
Finally, I've noticed that "of colour" is used more for women than for men. This, I truly don't know what to make of. Racked my brain for something to explain it but with no success. All I can think of is that with women being perceived (rightly imo) as generally disadvantaged compared to men they are also perceived as being more in need of the term ("of colour") which carries overt respect. But I'm miles from being wedded to this so won't be defending it against reasonable dissent.
Wrote rather more than I intended when I set out on that. Apols. To myself too - my soup has now gone cold.
It is a load of bollox for woke pc idiots. White is a colour as well so we are all coloured or "of colour", WTF are all these losers on making up stupid names or types of people to try and pigeon whole certain groups and then whinging and whining if it does not suit them. Pathetic.
As noted in the article, the only question the Court of Appeal can consider is whether the judge's directions to the jury were correct. I'm not aware that anyone has suggested they aren't. So I am unclear on what a referral would achieve.
It's just a sop to the statue shaggers. It would achieve putting the waste of space Braverman in the news and enamouring her to the Tory base who love slaver statues so job done.
The Tory base are no fonder of slaver statues than anyone else. What they dislike is angry lefties getting their own way.
42% of Tory voters want to keep statues of those involved in the slave trade on display, 42% to put them in a museum on those figures. An equal split. Just 9% want to destroy them.
57% of Labour voters want to put them in a museum, 19% to destroy them and 19% to keep them up
There has been quite a significant swing to “join” the EU over “stay out” in recent months. I wonder, again, if at some point Labour will seek to take advantage of this. They are now led by an arch-Remainer
As noted in the article, the only question the Court of Appeal can consider is whether the judge's directions to the jury were correct. I'm not aware that anyone has suggested they aren't. So I am unclear on what a referral would achieve.
It's just a sop to the statue shaggers. It would achieve putting the waste of space Braverman in the news and enamouring her to the Tory base who love slaver statues so job done.
The Tory base are no fonder of slaver statues than anyone else. What they dislike is angry lefties getting their own way.
42% of Tory voters want to keep statues of those involved in the slave trade on display, 42% to put them in a museum on those figures. An equal split. Just 9% want to destroy them.
57% of Labour voters want to put them in a museum, 19% to destroy them and 19% to keep them up
Yes. I know. Those figures are on the website I linked to. Do you think I just typed a random web address and by sheer billion-to-one luck it happened to have the figures that proved the point I was making?
As noted in the article, the only question the Court of Appeal can consider is whether the judge's directions to the jury were correct. I'm not aware that anyone has suggested they aren't. So I am unclear on what a referral would achieve.
It's just a sop to the statue shaggers. It would achieve putting the waste of space Braverman in the news and enamouring her to the Tory base who love slaver statues so job done.
The Tory base are no fonder of slaver statues than anyone else. What they dislike is angry lefties getting their own way.
I don't understand why nobody has had a pop at James II outside the National Gallery. The Royal African Company wasn't called Royal for nothing, and James was a complete c--t anyway. And he was Duke of York which plays nicely with other current affairs.
From posts this morning, it's clear that the axiomatic obsession with 'cases' continues largely unabated in some circles.
Ha.
While the boosters have further disconnected COVID cases from hospitalisation and deaths (and Omicron itself seems to have had some effect), it is clear that a numbers of people are getting sick and dying.
It is beginning to look as if we *may* be able to get through this wave without Italy style medical collapse, but it won't be jolly in the hospitals for a while.
3.5m infections in England (mostly Omicron) has resulted in somewhere around 8-9k in hospital for COVID in England and a further 6-8k with COVID. The infection hospitalisation rate must be miniscule. We're talking maybe 0.2% of infected people requiring an overnight stay in hospital for Omicron.
The biggest threat to hospitals is isolation rules. Making people who are perfectly fine stay home for at least 7 days is why the NHS is under pressure right now.
That's interesting, because when I did my back-of-a-fag-packet, Not A Mathematician, exercise the the other day, I ended up with ~0.2% IHR too. I thought it too low to be true, but maybe you are right. I would certainly trust your numbers over my own amateurish efforts.
Presumably not allowing for any time-lag between positive test and hospitalisation?
Allowing for a 10-day time-lag it's more like 1.9%, as a percentage of positive tests. Almost exactly what it was in bad old days of Delta
As I say, I am no mathematician. Yet your claim that the Omicron IHR is broadly the same as Delta doesn't appear to withstand even the most trivial googling scrutiny.
Well, my figures are simply calculated from the most recent weekly hospitalisation figures at https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/ as a percentage of the weekly figures for positive tests - lagged by 10 days.
That gives 1.9%.
If you're claiming the real figure should be a factor of 10 smaller, it's up to you to explain why you think so. Or why my calculation is wrong. Or something.
Or maybe I'm simply naive to think simple arithmetic is still valid, and that we can't all just believe what we want to believe.
Hunterston B nuclear power plant generates electricity no more. Shutdown was reportedly due at noon.
Luckily it's sunny here so I don't need to check whether the lights still come on. Yet.
Incidentally, a WhatApp environmentalist group I have sneaked into, is trying to raise a thing about the Rolls Royce mini-nukes.
They are claiming, that since they will be built one-piece in a factory and placed on the grounds of existing or semi-decommissioned nuclear power stations, that they are an "end-run" around the proper decades of planning enquiries etc.
Hold on, wasn't that in the RR documentation, that they can use pre-existing nuclear power infrastructure with their mini-nukes? It's hardly some big conspiracy that they would use existing sites which have got grid and security infrastructure already in place.
Oh indeed - in fact that was the first thing I thought of. While mini-nukes are less efficient etc, they are more buildable.
Because they can be built in a factory (with knowledge/skills borrowed directly from building submarine reactors), and placed on existing nuclear power station sites.
The "end-run" around the planning issues is part of the pitch for them.
Bit like why I think that much of the power storage in the UK may well end up being containers of batteries.
The government has put in a ruling that small (few MWH) storage systems don't need full power station style planning approval. At which point it is rather had to stop someone parking a handful of containers somewhere and hooking them up to the grid. Bet that happens at the petrol stations turned into charging sites.....
Meanwhile tidal ponds will be stuck in the external rounds of planning/environmental enquiries. Probably until the UNIX clock wraps around.
Nice catch on the petrol station into battery storage units alongside charging sites - never thought of the dual purpose bit.
When I tried to jump-start my MGB on the forecourt of a petrol station I was told off by the proprietor who seemed to think that electric sparks and petrol vapour were an unwonted combination. I doubt if people will go to 'filling stations' for kilowatts in future. Much easier to do it in the supermarket car park while stocking up with life's other essentials.
Regardless of where you stop to recharge your car - the point is that it makes sense to also store power there in static batteries - to either minimise the cost of electricity used to charge the cars and / or sell back to the grid.
Filling stations will be re-purposed as fast charging sites - it is already being done
As noted in the article, the only question the Court of Appeal can consider is whether the judge's directions to the jury were correct. I'm not aware that anyone has suggested they aren't. So I am unclear on what a referral would achieve.
It's just a sop to the statue shaggers. It would achieve putting the waste of space Braverman in the news and enamouring her to the Tory base who love slaver statues so job done.
The Tory base are no fonder of slaver statues than anyone else. What they dislike is angry lefties getting their own way.
I don't understand why nobody has had a pop at James II outside the National Gallery. The Royal African Company wasn't called Royal for nothing, and James was a complete c--t anyway. And he was Duke of York which plays nicely with other current affairs.
Well the Orange Order would happily oblige I am sure!
As noted in the article, the only question the Court of Appeal can consider is whether the judge's directions to the jury were correct. I'm not aware that anyone has suggested they aren't. So I am unclear on what a referral would achieve.
It's just a sop to the statue shaggers. It would achieve putting the waste of space Braverman in the news and enamouring her to the Tory base who love slaver statues so job done.
The Tory base are no fonder of slaver statues than anyone else. What they dislike is angry lefties getting their own way.
Indeed. HYUFD's data show 52% of Tory voters disapprove of the Colston statue being removed *at all* (with 40% approving of its removal but not the manner in which it happened). And that's just Tory voters. Among the base, I would imagine the share who wanted Colston's statue to stay up regardless of whether it was removed by "angry Lefties" or not was even higher.
On the South Pole story, the thing that grated for me was 'Woman of Colour'. She was of south asian ethnicity (I didn't read the article, but I'm sure being more specific was possible too). 'of colour' strikes me as the new BAME, a useless catch-all that should not be used when there is a more specific group that can be used, if a group is needed at all.
Is there any more to it other than castign around for an acceptable term that means "non-white"?
They want to mention colour rather than not-mention white.
Perhaps it should be called positive racism.
Weirdly, while 'of colour' seems to be acceptable*, 'coloured' is highly offensive.
*Is it acceptable? Presumably it is if it's on the BBC. I thought it was falling out of favour. I remember a horribly right-on geography lecturer proudly using it in 1993, which was the first time I'd heard it. You'd think if it was around back then it must be offensive by now.
It's strange how what's acceptable changes over time. I remember being told at junior school in the late 70s never to call anyone 'black' because it was rude, and that we should use the term 'coloured' instead. No idea if this was just a nice middle-class assumption that coloured=non-white and you might not know if someone was 'black' or 'mixed race'.
I subsequently married a South African, who was mixed race, therefore self-identified as Coloured (although she didn't really care what she was - she quite liked being 'Other' because that was the box she always ticked irrespective of how many categories there might be on a form). And woe betide anyone who thought 'Black' included my mother-in-law...
So this all aligned nicely with my 1970s schooling and it was only a few years ago that I discovered that 'coloured' was a pejorative term. I must admit I can't see why 'of colour' is acceptable if 'coloured' isn't as to my mind they mean exactly the same. Not for me to decide I suppose.
Similar memories here. It's not a matter governed by linguistic logic as far as I can see so I don't find the question "how can 'coloured' be offensive when 'of colour' isn't?" to be particularly thorny or in fact that interesting. The answer is it has evolved to be so, based on various things. What things? I'm no expert but I can think of a couple of possibles. The apartheid link. Also the sense that, back in the old days, people would say "coloured" to avoid saying "black" as if that would be an insult (modern subtext, wtf should it be?) and they would often say it in a kind of whispered voice as if there was still something a little bit off there even with the 'politer' term. There'd be a certain embarrassment and a slight furtiveness in its use, is what I'm saying. I remember this quite well as a teenager at the time. Things are much better now, imo, despite the occasional pitfalls and bemusements that can befall a person.
But just now thinking about it, perhaps there is a proper meaningful linguistic difference between "coloured" and "of colour" in that the first speaks purely to shallow outward appearance whereas the second is freighted with a bit more. It (maybe) conjurs up something about the whole person. It (maybe) has more gravitas. Eg coloured can relate easily to objects. You can have coloured pencils, coloured contact lenses, but you'd never say pencils of colour or contact lenses of colour. So the point is, for objects "coloured" works but "of colour" doesn't, and for people it's the opposite. Just a thought. Could be bollox but it does illustrate how there can be more to this, quite literally, than meets the eye and how it might not be devoid of all logic.
Finally, I've noticed that "of colour" is used more for women than for men. This, I truly don't know what to make of. Racked my brain for something to explain it but with no success. All I can think of is that with women being perceived (rightly imo) as generally disadvantaged compared to men they are also perceived as being more in need of the term ("of colour") which carries overt respect. But I'm miles from being wedded to this so won't be defending it against reasonable dissent.
Wrote rather more than I intended when I set out on that. Apols. To myself too - my soup has now gone cold.
I always imagine a word or words being spoken by a person with a strong Afrikaans accent, eg ‘a black’ v. ‘a black person’, or ‘coloureds’ v. ‘persons of colour’. It clarifies things a bit for me.
Does it? Everything sounds equally awful in that accent I would have thought. Try it with "All things bright and beautiful" or "Mary had a little lamb."
There has been quite a significant swing to “join” the EU over “stay out” in recent months. I wonder, again, if at some point Labour will seek to take advantage of this. They are now led by an arch-Remainer
There has been quite a significant swing to “join” the EU over “stay out” in recent months. I wonder, again, if at some point Labour will seek to take advantage of this. They are now led by an arch-Remainer
From posts this morning, it's clear that the axiomatic obsession with 'cases' continues largely unabated in some circles.
Ha.
While the boosters have further disconnected COVID cases from hospitalisation and deaths (and Omicron itself seems to have had some effect), it is clear that a numbers of people are getting sick and dying.
It is beginning to look as if we *may* be able to get through this wave without Italy style medical collapse, but it won't be jolly in the hospitals for a while.
3.5m infections in England (mostly Omicron) has resulted in somewhere around 8-9k in hospital for COVID in England and a further 6-8k with COVID. The infection hospitalisation rate must be miniscule. We're talking maybe 0.2% of infected people requiring an overnight stay in hospital for Omicron.
The biggest threat to hospitals is isolation rules. Making people who are perfectly fine stay home for at least 7 days is why the NHS is under pressure right now.
That's interesting, because when I did my back-of-a-fag-packet, Not A Mathematician, exercise the the other day, I ended up with ~0.2% IHR too. I thought it too low to be true, but maybe you are right. I would certainly trust your numbers over my own amateurish efforts.
Presumably not allowing for any time-lag between positive test and hospitalisation?
Allowing for a 10-day time-lag it's more like 1.9%, as a percentage of positive tests. Almost exactly what it was in bad old days of Delta
As I say, I am no mathematician. Yet your claim that the Omicron IHR is broadly the same as Delta doesn't appear to withstand even the most trivial googling scrutiny.
Well, my figures are simply calculated from the most recent weekly hospitalisation figures at https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/ as a percentage of the weekly figures for positive tests - lagged by 10 days.
That gives 1.9%.
If you're claiming the real figure should be a factor of 10 smaller, it's up to you to explain why you think so. Or why my calculation is wrong. Or something.
Or maybe I'm simply naive to think simple arithmetic is still valid, and that we can't all just believe what we want to believe.
Surely we should be using the ONS infection figures as the denominator - i.e. the positive tests figure is a massive underestimate?
On the South Pole story, the thing that grated for me was 'Woman of Colour'. She was of south asian ethnicity (I didn't read the article, but I'm sure being more specific was possible too). 'of colour' strikes me as the new BAME, a useless catch-all that should not be used when there is a more specific group that can be used, if a group is needed at all.
Is there any more to it other than castign around for an acceptable term that means "non-white"?
They want to mention colour rather than not-mention white.
Perhaps it should be called positive racism.
Weirdly, while 'of colour' seems to be acceptable*, 'coloured' is highly offensive.
*Is it acceptable? Presumably it is if it's on the BBC. I thought it was falling out of favour. I remember a horribly right-on geography lecturer proudly using it in 1993, which was the first time I'd heard it. You'd think if it was around back then it must be offensive by now.
It's strange how what's acceptable changes over time. I remember being told at junior school in the late 70s never to call anyone 'black' because it was rude, and that we should use the term 'coloured' instead. No idea if this was just a nice middle-class assumption that coloured=non-white and you might not know if someone was 'black' or 'mixed race'.
I subsequently married a South African, who was mixed race, therefore self-identified as Coloured (although she didn't really care what she was - she quite liked being 'Other' because that was the box she always ticked irrespective of how many categories there might be on a form). And woe betide anyone who thought 'Black' included my mother-in-law...
So this all aligned nicely with my 1970s schooling and it was only a few years ago that I discovered that 'coloured' was a pejorative term. I must admit I can't see why 'of colour' is acceptable if 'coloured' isn't as to my mind they mean exactly the same. Not for me to decide I suppose.
Similar memories here. It's not a matter governed by linguistic logic as far as I can see so I don't find the question "how can 'coloured' be offensive when 'of colour' isn't?" to be particularly thorny or in fact that interesting. The answer is it has evolved to be so, based on various things. What things? I'm no expert but I can think of a couple of possibles. The apartheid link. Also the sense that, back in the old days, people would say "coloured" to avoid saying "black" as if that would be an insult (modern subtext, wtf should it be?) and they would often say it in a kind of whispered voice as if there was still something a little bit off there even with the 'politer' term. There'd be a certain embarrassment and a slight furtiveness in its use, is what I'm saying. I remember this quite well as a teenager at the time. Things are much better now, imo, despite the occasional pitfalls and bemusements that can befall a person.
But just now thinking about it, perhaps there is a proper meaningful linguistic difference between "coloured" and "of colour" in that the first speaks purely to shallow outward appearance whereas the second is freighted with a bit more. It (maybe) conjurs up something about the whole person. It (maybe) has more gravitas. Eg coloured can relate easily to objects. You can have coloured pencils, coloured contact lenses, but you'd never say pencils of colour or contact lenses of colour. So the point is, for objects "coloured" works but "of colour" doesn't, and for people it's the opposite. Just a thought. Could be bollox but it does illustrate how there can be more to this, quite literally, than meets the eye and how it might not be devoid of all logic.
Finally, I've noticed that "of colour" is used more for women than for men. This, I truly don't know what to make of. Racked my brain for something to explain it but with no success. All I can think of is that with women being perceived (rightly imo) as generally disadvantaged compared to men they are also perceived as being more in need of the term ("of colour") which carries overt respect. But I'm miles from being wedded to this so won't be defending it against reasonable dissent.
Wrote rather more than I intended when I set out on that. Apols. To myself too - my soup has now gone cold.
It is a load of bollox for woke pc idiots. White is a colour as well so we are all coloured or "of colour", WTF are all these losers on making up stupid names or types of people to try and pigeon whole certain groups and then whinging and whining if it does not suit them. Pathetic.
There is some vague sense to what @kinabalu is struggling to say. “Coloured person” or “coloureds” can be deemed offensive as they seem to define the whole person by their skin tone. Whereas “of colour” says this is a person who just happens to have a “colour”. I suspect that is the feeble logic underlying this
However it is so attenuated and decadently trivial, and also so inconsistent - eg how come “blacks” and “blacks people” are still ok? - it comes over as pointless Woke nonsense
When the History of Western Decline is written, there will be a short but punchy chapter on word games like this
As noted in the article, the only question the Court of Appeal can consider is whether the judge's directions to the jury were correct. I'm not aware that anyone has suggested they aren't. So I am unclear on what a referral would achieve.
It's just a sop to the statue shaggers. It would achieve putting the waste of space Braverman in the news and enamouring her to the Tory base who love slaver statues so job done.
The Tory base are no fonder of slaver statues than anyone else. What they dislike is angry lefties getting their own way.
I don't understand why nobody has had a pop at James II outside the National Gallery. The Royal African Company wasn't called Royal for nothing, and James was a complete c--t anyway. And he was Duke of York which plays nicely with other current affairs.
Tangential follow up to yesterday's discussion about the "Scottish" prefix: I was confused by this post because I know there's not a statue of James II (or even James VII) outside the National Gallery. Ah, but I forget: it's the Scottish National Gallery. The National Gallery is in London.
By the way, why IS is James II? There were half a dozen Jameses before him in the UK.
There has been quite a significant swing to “join” the EU over “stay out” in recent months. I wonder, again, if at some point Labour will seek to take advantage of this. They are now led by an arch-Remainer
It would be an incredibly difficult political manoeuvre to pull off, however
It isn't a position they'd go anywhere near if they want to form the next government. Of course, the problem with Labour is no one is ever sure whether they want to form the government or not.
There has been quite a significant swing to “join” the EU over “stay out” in recent months. I wonder, again, if at some point Labour will seek to take advantage of this. They are now led by an arch-Remainer
From posts this morning, it's clear that the axiomatic obsession with 'cases' continues largely unabated in some circles.
Ha.
While the boosters have further disconnected COVID cases from hospitalisation and deaths (and Omicron itself seems to have had some effect), it is clear that a numbers of people are getting sick and dying.
It is beginning to look as if we *may* be able to get through this wave without Italy style medical collapse, but it won't be jolly in the hospitals for a while.
3.5m infections in England (mostly Omicron) has resulted in somewhere around 8-9k in hospital for COVID in England and a further 6-8k with COVID. The infection hospitalisation rate must be miniscule. We're talking maybe 0.2% of infected people requiring an overnight stay in hospital for Omicron.
The biggest threat to hospitals is isolation rules. Making people who are perfectly fine stay home for at least 7 days is why the NHS is under pressure right now.
That's interesting, because when I did my back-of-a-fag-packet, Not A Mathematician, exercise the the other day, I ended up with ~0.2% IHR too. I thought it too low to be true, but maybe you are right. I would certainly trust your numbers over my own amateurish efforts.
Presumably not allowing for any time-lag between positive test and hospitalisation?
Allowing for a 10-day time-lag it's more like 1.9%, as a percentage of positive tests. Almost exactly what it was in bad old days of Delta
Cases have been broadly flat over the last ten days, and in any case certainly have not increased by a factor of 9.5, so there is no way that ~0.2% can possibly be adjusted up to ~1.9% just because of a ten day time lag.
As noted in the article, the only question the Court of Appeal can consider is whether the judge's directions to the jury were correct. I'm not aware that anyone has suggested they aren't. So I am unclear on what a referral would achieve.
It's just a sop to the statue shaggers. It would achieve putting the waste of space Braverman in the news and enamouring her to the Tory base who love slaver statues so job done.
The Tory base are no fonder of slaver statues than anyone else. What they dislike is angry lefties getting their own way.
I don't understand why nobody has had a pop at James II outside the National Gallery. The Royal African Company wasn't called Royal for nothing, and James was a complete c--t anyway. And he was Duke of York which plays nicely with other current affairs.
Well the Orange Order would happily oblige I am sure!
On the question of Politically Correct language, the distinction between “of colour” (still fine and dandy) and “coloured” (no! Go to jail!) is of course insane. But it exists
Another confusing term is “Indians” - as in “American Indians”. I thought the word was cancelled years ago but no, people of all kinds, in the USA, still use it without blushing. You even hear it on TV
V funny liine in Don't Look Up about just that if you remember by Ron Perlman's character at launch:
"I'd like to say hello to the Indians; both the elephant ones and the bow and arrow ones".
As noted in the article, the only question the Court of Appeal can consider is whether the judge's directions to the jury were correct. I'm not aware that anyone has suggested they aren't. So I am unclear on what a referral would achieve.
It's just a sop to the statue shaggers. It would achieve putting the waste of space Braverman in the news and enamouring her to the Tory base who love slaver statues so job done.
The Tory base are no fonder of slaver statues than anyone else. What they dislike is angry lefties getting their own way.
I don't understand why nobody has had a pop at James II outside the National Gallery. The Royal African Company wasn't called Royal for nothing, and James was a complete c--t anyway. And he was Duke of York which plays nicely with other current affairs.
Tangential follow up to yesterday's discussion about the "Scottish" prefix: I was confused by this post because I know there's not a statue of James II (or even James VII) outside the National Gallery. Ah, but I forget: it's the Scottish National Gallery. The National Gallery is in London.
By the way, why IS is James II? There were half a dozen Jameses before him in the UK.
As noted in the article, the only question the Court of Appeal can consider is whether the judge's directions to the jury were correct. I'm not aware that anyone has suggested they aren't. So I am unclear on what a referral would achieve.
It's just a sop to the statue shaggers. It would achieve putting the waste of space Braverman in the news and enamouring her to the Tory base who love slaver statues so job done.
The Tory base are no fonder of slaver statues than anyone else. What they dislike is angry lefties getting their own way.
42% of Tory voters want to keep statues of those involved in the slave trade on display, 42% to put them in a museum on those figures. An equal split. Just 9% want to destroy them.
57% of Labour voters want to put them in a museum, 19% to destroy them and 19% to keep them up
In almost all cases I think statues should stay where they are with an explanatory plaque if needed.
I do have one set of exceptions. I believe in the early 1900s a lot of confederate civil war statues were erected and although many might have been for genuine reasons in many cases it was for the purpose of intimidating the black population. If the latter I can see how these will still offend explanatory plaque or not and there if they do they should go.
There has been quite a significant swing to “join” the EU over “stay out” in recent months. I wonder, again, if at some point Labour will seek to take advantage of this. They are now led by an arch-Remainer
As noted in the article, the only question the Court of Appeal can consider is whether the judge's directions to the jury were correct. I'm not aware that anyone has suggested they aren't. So I am unclear on what a referral would achieve.
It's just a sop to the statue shaggers. It would achieve putting the waste of space Braverman in the news and enamouring her to the Tory base who love slaver statues so job done.
The Tory base are no fonder of slaver statues than anyone else. What they dislike is angry lefties getting their own way.
I don't understand why nobody has had a pop at James II outside the National Gallery. The Royal African Company wasn't called Royal for nothing, and James was a complete c--t anyway. And he was Duke of York which plays nicely with other current affairs.
Tangential follow up to yesterday's discussion about the "Scottish" prefix: I was confused by this post because I know there's not a statue of James II (or even James VII) outside the National Gallery. Ah, but I forget: it's the Scottish National Gallery. The National Gallery is in London.
By the way, why IS is James II? There were half a dozen Jameses before him in the UK.
VII and II, sorry
But it's not Elizabeth II and I. It's a bit confusing. Or maybe it's just me that's confused.
As noted in the article, the only question the Court of Appeal can consider is whether the judge's directions to the jury were correct. I'm not aware that anyone has suggested they aren't. So I am unclear on what a referral would achieve.
They need the appeal to fail so that they have "no choice" other than to abolish trial by jury for "political" trials.
On the South Pole story, the thing that grated for me was 'Woman of Colour'. She was of south asian ethnicity (I didn't read the article, but I'm sure being more specific was possible too). 'of colour' strikes me as the new BAME, a useless catch-all that should not be used when there is a more specific group that can be used, if a group is needed at all.
Is there any more to it other than castign around for an acceptable term that means "non-white"?
They want to mention colour rather than not-mention white.
Perhaps it should be called positive racism.
Weirdly, while 'of colour' seems to be acceptable*, 'coloured' is highly offensive.
*Is it acceptable? Presumably it is if it's on the BBC. I thought it was falling out of favour. I remember a horribly right-on geography lecturer proudly using it in 1993, which was the first time I'd heard it. You'd think if it was around back then it must be offensive by now.
It's strange how what's acceptable changes over time. I remember being told at junior school in the late 70s never to call anyone 'black' because it was rude, and that we should use the term 'coloured' instead. No idea if this was just a nice middle-class assumption that coloured=non-white and you might not know if someone was 'black' or 'mixed race'.
I subsequently married a South African, who was mixed race, therefore self-identified as Coloured (although she didn't really care what she was - she quite liked being 'Other' because that was the box she always ticked irrespective of how many categories there might be on a form). And woe betide anyone who thought 'Black' included my mother-in-law...
So this all aligned nicely with my 1970s schooling and it was only a few years ago that I discovered that 'coloured' was a pejorative term. I must admit I can't see why 'of colour' is acceptable if 'coloured' isn't as to my mind they mean exactly the same. Not for me to decide I suppose.
Similar memories here. It's not a matter governed by linguistic logic as far as I can see so I don't find the question "how can 'coloured' be offensive when 'of colour' isn't?" to be particularly thorny or in fact that interesting. The answer is it has evolved to be so, based on various things. What things? I'm no expert but I can think of a couple of possibles. The apartheid link. Also the sense that, back in the old days, people would say "coloured" to avoid saying "black" as if that would be an insult (modern subtext, wtf should it be?) and they would often say it in a kind of whispered voice as if there was still something a little bit off there even with the 'politer' term. There'd be a certain embarrassment and a slight furtiveness in its use, is what I'm saying. I remember this quite well as a teenager at the time. Things are much better now, imo, despite the occasional pitfalls and bemusements that can befall a person.
But just now thinking about it, perhaps there is a proper meaningful linguistic difference between "coloured" and "of colour" in that the first speaks purely to shallow outward appearance whereas the second is freighted with a bit more. It (maybe) conjurs up something about the whole person. It (maybe) has more gravitas. Eg coloured can relate easily to objects. You can have coloured pencils, coloured contact lenses, but you'd never say pencils of colour or contact lenses of colour. So the point is, for objects "coloured" works but "of colour" doesn't, and for people it's the opposite. Just a thought. Could be bollox but it does illustrate how there can be more to this, quite literally, than meets the eye and how it might not be devoid of all logic.
Finally, I've noticed that "of colour" is used more for women than for men. This, I truly don't know what to make of. Racked my brain for something to explain it but with no success. All I can think of is that with women being perceived (rightly imo) as generally disadvantaged compared to men they are also perceived as being more in need of the term ("of colour") which carries overt respect. But I'm miles from being wedded to this so won't be defending it against reasonable dissent.
Wrote rather more than I intended when I set out on that. Apols. To myself too - my soup has now gone cold.
It is a load of bollox for woke pc idiots. White is a colour as well so we are all coloured or "of colour", WTF are all these losers on making up stupid names or types of people to try and pigeon whole certain groups and then whinging and whining if it does not suit them. Pathetic.
There is some vague sense to what @kinabalu is struggling to say. “Coloured person” or “coloureds” can be deemed offensive as they seem to define the whole person by their skin tone. Whereas “of colour” says this is a person who just happens to have a “colour”. I suspect that is the feeble logic underlying this
However it is so attenuated and decadently trivial, and also so inconsistent - eg how come “blacks” and “blacks people” are still ok? - it comes over as pointless Woke nonsense
When the History of Western Decline is written, there will be a short but punchy chapter on word games like this
I see poor @kinabalu with his very limited IQ is struggling to express himself again. I don't know how you can tolerate debating with us poor idiots on here day after day.
From posts this morning, it's clear that the axiomatic obsession with 'cases' continues largely unabated in some circles.
Ha.
While the boosters have further disconnected COVID cases from hospitalisation and deaths (and Omicron itself seems to have had some effect), it is clear that a numbers of people are getting sick and dying.
It is beginning to look as if we *may* be able to get through this wave without Italy style medical collapse, but it won't be jolly in the hospitals for a while.
3.5m infections in England (mostly Omicron) has resulted in somewhere around 8-9k in hospital for COVID in England and a further 6-8k with COVID. The infection hospitalisation rate must be miniscule. We're talking maybe 0.2% of infected people requiring an overnight stay in hospital for Omicron.
The biggest threat to hospitals is isolation rules. Making people who are perfectly fine stay home for at least 7 days is why the NHS is under pressure right now.
That's interesting, because when I did my back-of-a-fag-packet, Not A Mathematician, exercise the the other day, I ended up with ~0.2% IHR too. I thought it too low to be true, but maybe you are right. I would certainly trust your numbers over my own amateurish efforts.
Presumably not allowing for any time-lag between positive test and hospitalisation?
Allowing for a 10-day time-lag it's more like 1.9%, as a percentage of positive tests. Almost exactly what it was in bad old days of Delta
As I say, I am no mathematician. Yet your claim that the Omicron IHR is broadly the same as Delta doesn't appear to withstand even the most trivial googling scrutiny.
Well, my figures are simply calculated from the most recent weekly hospitalisation figures at https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/ as a percentage of the weekly figures for positive tests - lagged by 10 days.
That gives 1.9%.
If you're claiming the real figure should be a factor of 10 smaller, it's up to you to explain why you think so. Or why my calculation is wrong. Or something.
Or maybe I'm simply naive to think simple arithmetic is still valid, and that we can't all just believe what we want to believe.
You are assuming: - Zero incidental admissions - Zero new Covid cases missed by the official data - Zero reinfections
None of these are true. If you assume 50% incidental admissions and 50% cases missed by the other two factors, that gets you to a reduction of 4x. If you assume 80% incidental admissions (which is the number estimated here, for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OM2VgBm9pTI&t=904s) and 50% cases missed, that gets you to 10x quite easily.
As noted in the article, the only question the Court of Appeal can consider is whether the judge's directions to the jury were correct. I'm not aware that anyone has suggested they aren't. So I am unclear on what a referral would achieve.
It's just a sop to the statue shaggers. It would achieve putting the waste of space Braverman in the news and enamouring her to the Tory base who love slaver statues so job done.
The Tory base are no fonder of slaver statues than anyone else. What they dislike is angry lefties getting their own way.
Indeed. HYUFD's data show 52% of Tory voters disapprove of the Colston statue being removed *at all* (with 40% approving of its removal but not the manner in which it happened). And that's just Tory voters. Among the base, I would imagine the share who wanted Colston's statue to stay up regardless of whether it was removed by "angry Lefties" or not was even higher.
According to my data, 51% of Conservative voters are "angry lefties". Which, worryingly, supports a lot of the HYUFD "no true Tory" spiel.
I might start a political compass website that categorises everyone into hard left / left / HYUFD.
From posts this morning, it's clear that the axiomatic obsession with 'cases' continues largely unabated in some circles.
Ha.
While the boosters have further disconnected COVID cases from hospitalisation and deaths (and Omicron itself seems to have had some effect), it is clear that a numbers of people are getting sick and dying.
It is beginning to look as if we *may* be able to get through this wave without Italy style medical collapse, but it won't be jolly in the hospitals for a while.
3.5m infections in England (mostly Omicron) has resulted in somewhere around 8-9k in hospital for COVID in England and a further 6-8k with COVID. The infection hospitalisation rate must be miniscule. We're talking maybe 0.2% of infected people requiring an overnight stay in hospital for Omicron.
The biggest threat to hospitals is isolation rules. Making people who are perfectly fine stay home for at least 7 days is why the NHS is under pressure right now.
That's interesting, because when I did my back-of-a-fag-packet, Not A Mathematician, exercise the the other day, I ended up with ~0.2% IHR too. I thought it too low to be true, but maybe you are right. I would certainly trust your numbers over my own amateurish efforts.
Presumably not allowing for any time-lag between positive test and hospitalisation?
Allowing for a 10-day time-lag it's more like 1.9%, as a percentage of positive tests. Almost exactly what it was in bad old days of Delta
Cases have been broadly flat over the last ten days, and in any case certainly have not increased by a factor of 9.5, so there is no way that ~0.2% can possibly be adjusted up to ~1.9% just because of a ten day time lag.
It's not a question of 0.2% "being adjusted up to" 1.9%, for heaven's sake!
The daily average hospitalisation rate to 2 January was 2180.
The daily average positive test rate to 23 December - 10 days before - was 111,000 based on date reported or 121,000 based on date of sample. Take your pick.
That gives a hospitalisation rate of 1.9%. If you don't believe me, I'm sure your device has a calculator facility.
In my previous home town of Horsham there used to be a vile piece of public 'art', a hideous fountain known as 'the malteser'. It was like a large crusty eyeball that tottered upwards as it gushed water out of its lower portions. It was far more offensive than 10 Edward Colstons dancing a nude jig. I would have liked someone to criminally damage it (in fact I believe someone did attach chains to it and drag it away once, only for it to be repaired at the taxpayers' expense). It only went eventually because the costs of repair and maintenance became untenable. I would have a lot of sympathy with someone taking it upon themselves to get rid of it. However, it would still have been criminal damage.
From posts this morning, it's clear that the axiomatic obsession with 'cases' continues largely unabated in some circles.
Ha.
While the boosters have further disconnected COVID cases from hospitalisation and deaths (and Omicron itself seems to have had some effect), it is clear that a numbers of people are getting sick and dying.
It is beginning to look as if we *may* be able to get through this wave without Italy style medical collapse, but it won't be jolly in the hospitals for a while.
3.5m infections in England (mostly Omicron) has resulted in somewhere around 8-9k in hospital for COVID in England and a further 6-8k with COVID. The infection hospitalisation rate must be miniscule. We're talking maybe 0.2% of infected people requiring an overnight stay in hospital for Omicron.
The biggest threat to hospitals is isolation rules. Making people who are perfectly fine stay home for at least 7 days is why the NHS is under pressure right now.
That's interesting, because when I did my back-of-a-fag-packet, Not A Mathematician, exercise the the other day, I ended up with ~0.2% IHR too. I thought it too low to be true, but maybe you are right. I would certainly trust your numbers over my own amateurish efforts.
Presumably not allowing for any time-lag between positive test and hospitalisation?
Allowing for a 10-day time-lag it's more like 1.9%, as a percentage of positive tests. Almost exactly what it was in bad old days of Delta
Cases have been broadly flat over the last ten days, and in any case certainly have not increased by a factor of 9.5, so there is no way that ~0.2% can possibly be adjusted up to ~1.9% just because of a ten day time lag.
My measure was infections from the ONS report against people staying overnight for COVID from today's primary diagnosis report. Chris is taking positive cases against the reported hospitalisations per day in the dash. We're measuring different things, he's putting an undercounted infections number against a known over count of hospitalisations.
On the South Pole story, the thing that grated for me was 'Woman of Colour'. She was of south asian ethnicity (I didn't read the article, but I'm sure being more specific was possible too). 'of colour' strikes me as the new BAME, a useless catch-all that should not be used when there is a more specific group that can be used, if a group is needed at all.
Is there any more to it other than castign around for an acceptable term that means "non-white"?
They want to mention colour rather than not-mention white.
Perhaps it should be called positive racism.
Weirdly, while 'of colour' seems to be acceptable*, 'coloured' is highly offensive.
*Is it acceptable? Presumably it is if it's on the BBC. I thought it was falling out of favour. I remember a horribly right-on geography lecturer proudly using it in 1993, which was the first time I'd heard it. You'd think if it was around back then it must be offensive by now.
It's strange how what's acceptable changes over time. I remember being told at junior school in the late 70s never to call anyone 'black' because it was rude, and that we should use the term 'coloured' instead. No idea if this was just a nice middle-class assumption that coloured=non-white and you might not know if someone was 'black' or 'mixed race'.
I subsequently married a South African, who was mixed race, therefore self-identified as Coloured (although she didn't really care what she was - she quite liked being 'Other' because that was the box she always ticked irrespective of how many categories there might be on a form). And woe betide anyone who thought 'Black' included my mother-in-law...
So this all aligned nicely with my 1970s schooling and it was only a few years ago that I discovered that 'coloured' was a pejorative term. I must admit I can't see why 'of colour' is acceptable if 'coloured' isn't as to my mind they mean exactly the same. Not for me to decide I suppose.
Similar memories here. It's not a matter governed by linguistic logic as far as I can see so I don't find the question "how can 'coloured' be offensive when 'of colour' isn't?" to be particularly thorny or in fact that interesting. The answer is it has evolved to be so, based on various things. What things? I'm no expert but I can think of a couple of possibles. The apartheid link. Also the sense that, back in the old days, people would say "coloured" to avoid saying "black" as if that would be an insult (modern subtext, wtf should it be?) and they would often say it in a kind of whispered voice as if there was still something a little bit off there even with the 'politer' term. There'd be a certain embarrassment and a slight furtiveness in its use, is what I'm saying. I remember this quite well as a teenager at the time. Things are much better now, imo, despite the occasional pitfalls and bemusements that can befall a person.
But just now thinking about it, perhaps there is a proper meaningful linguistic difference between "coloured" and "of colour" in that the first speaks purely to shallow outward appearance whereas the second is freighted with a bit more. It (maybe) conjurs up something about the whole person. It (maybe) has more gravitas. Eg coloured can relate easily to objects. You can have coloured pencils, coloured contact lenses, but you'd never say pencils of colour or contact lenses of colour. So the point is, for objects "coloured" works but "of colour" doesn't, and for people it's the opposite. Just a thought. Could be bollox but it does illustrate how there can be more to this, quite literally, than meets the eye and how it might not be devoid of all logic.
Finally, I've noticed that "of colour" is used more for women than for men. This, I truly don't know what to make of. Racked my brain for something to explain it but with no success. All I can think of is that with women being perceived (rightly imo) as generally disadvantaged compared to men they are also perceived as being more in need of the term ("of colour") which carries overt respect. But I'm miles from being wedded to this so won't be defending it against reasonable dissent.
Wrote rather more than I intended when I set out on that. Apols. To myself too - my soup has now gone cold.
An important clarification is required, what colour was the soup? Tomato perhaps - or to use the modern phrasing soup of Trumpian colour?
Mushroom. With crackers crumbled in like Columbo does with his bowl of chilli.
Trump, oh god, just read that terrific article that @DavidL and @Nigelb posted about the GOP 'slow coup' for 24. Let's just say I'd right now rather have your long position than my short.
Although I still know you (and him) won't be winning at the end of the day.
There has been quite a significant swing to “join” the EU over “stay out” in recent months. I wonder, again, if at some point Labour will seek to take advantage of this. They are now led by an arch-Remainer
It would be an incredibly difficult political manoeuvre to pull off, however
Still only 45% want to rejoin though, even less than the 48% who voted Remain.
Starmer backing Rejoin would also be political suicide as it would hand the redwall back to Boris on a plate
45% wanting to rejoin is insanely high considering the absolute palaver it would be.
I wonder how many of that 45% are Leavers racked with disillusion and guilt. Quite a lot I suspect - most Remainers, whilst understanding the folly of Brexit, knew that once done it would always be irreparable.
From posts this morning, it's clear that the axiomatic obsession with 'cases' continues largely unabated in some circles.
Ha.
While the boosters have further disconnected COVID cases from hospitalisation and deaths (and Omicron itself seems to have had some effect), it is clear that a numbers of people are getting sick and dying.
It is beginning to look as if we *may* be able to get through this wave without Italy style medical collapse, but it won't be jolly in the hospitals for a while.
3.5m infections in England (mostly Omicron) has resulted in somewhere around 8-9k in hospital for COVID in England and a further 6-8k with COVID. The infection hospitalisation rate must be miniscule. We're talking maybe 0.2% of infected people requiring an overnight stay in hospital for Omicron.
The biggest threat to hospitals is isolation rules. Making people who are perfectly fine stay home for at least 7 days is why the NHS is under pressure right now.
That's interesting, because when I did my back-of-a-fag-packet, Not A Mathematician, exercise the the other day, I ended up with ~0.2% IHR too. I thought it too low to be true, but maybe you are right. I would certainly trust your numbers over my own amateurish efforts.
Presumably not allowing for any time-lag between positive test and hospitalisation?
Allowing for a 10-day time-lag it's more like 1.9%, as a percentage of positive tests. Almost exactly what it was in bad old days of Delta
As I say, I am no mathematician. Yet your claim that the Omicron IHR is broadly the same as Delta doesn't appear to withstand even the most trivial googling scrutiny.
Well, my figures are simply calculated from the most recent weekly hospitalisation figures at https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/ as a percentage of the weekly figures for positive tests - lagged by 10 days.
That gives 1.9%.
If you're claiming the real figure should be a factor of 10 smaller, it's up to you to explain why you think so. Or why my calculation is wrong. Or something.
Or maybe I'm simply naive to think simple arithmetic is still valid, and that we can't all just believe what we want to believe.
The hospitalisation figures are "with" Covid and not "because of". Given that everyone and his dog seems to have Omicron at the moment it is not surprising that the hospitalisations figure has jumped. For comparison though, look at the figures for patients on mechanical ventilation:
On the South Pole story, the thing that grated for me was 'Woman of Colour'. She was of south asian ethnicity (I didn't read the article, but I'm sure being more specific was possible too). 'of colour' strikes me as the new BAME, a useless catch-all that should not be used when there is a more specific group that can be used, if a group is needed at all.
Is there any more to it other than castign around for an acceptable term that means "non-white"?
They want to mention colour rather than not-mention white.
Perhaps it should be called positive racism.
Weirdly, while 'of colour' seems to be acceptable*, 'coloured' is highly offensive.
*Is it acceptable? Presumably it is if it's on the BBC. I thought it was falling out of favour. I remember a horribly right-on geography lecturer proudly using it in 1993, which was the first time I'd heard it. You'd think if it was around back then it must be offensive by now.
It's strange how what's acceptable changes over time. I remember being told at junior school in the late 70s never to call anyone 'black' because it was rude, and that we should use the term 'coloured' instead. No idea if this was just a nice middle-class assumption that coloured=non-white and you might not know if someone was 'black' or 'mixed race'.
I subsequently married a South African, who was mixed race, therefore self-identified as Coloured (although she didn't really care what she was - she quite liked being 'Other' because that was the box she always ticked irrespective of how many categories there might be on a form). And woe betide anyone who thought 'Black' included my mother-in-law...
So this all aligned nicely with my 1970s schooling and it was only a few years ago that I discovered that 'coloured' was a pejorative term. I must admit I can't see why 'of colour' is acceptable if 'coloured' isn't as to my mind they mean exactly the same. Not for me to decide I suppose.
Similar memories here. It's not a matter governed by linguistic logic as far as I can see so I don't find the question "how can 'coloured' be offensive when 'of colour' isn't?" to be particularly thorny or in fact that interesting. The answer is it has evolved to be so, based on various things. What things? I'm no expert but I can think of a couple of possibles. The apartheid link. Also the sense that, back in the old days, people would say "coloured" to avoid saying "black" as if that would be an insult (modern subtext, wtf should it be?) and they would often say it in a kind of whispered voice as if there was still something a little bit off there even with the 'politer' term. There'd be a certain embarrassment and a slight furtiveness in its use, is what I'm saying. I remember this quite well as a teenager at the time. Things are much better now, imo, despite the occasional pitfalls and bemusements that can befall a person.
But just now thinking about it, perhaps there is a proper meaningful linguistic difference between "coloured" and "of colour" in that the first speaks purely to shallow outward appearance whereas the second is freighted with a bit more. It (maybe) conjurs up something about the whole person. It (maybe) has more gravitas. Eg coloured can relate easily to objects. You can have coloured pencils, coloured contact lenses, but you'd never say pencils of colour or contact lenses of colour. So the point is, for objects "coloured" works but "of colour" doesn't, and for people it's the opposite. Just a thought. Could be bollox but it does illustrate how there can be more to this, quite literally, than meets the eye and how it might not be devoid of all logic.
Finally, I've noticed that "of colour" is used more for women than for men. This, I truly don't know what to make of. Racked my brain for something to explain it but with no success. All I can think of is that with women being perceived (rightly imo) as generally disadvantaged compared to men they are also perceived as being more in need of the term ("of colour") which carries overt respect. But I'm miles from being wedded to this so won't be defending it against reasonable dissent.
Wrote rather more than I intended when I set out on that. Apols. To myself too - my soup has now gone cold.
I always imagine a word or words being spoken by a person with a strong Afrikaans accent, eg ‘a black’ v. ‘a black person’, or ‘coloureds’ v. ‘persons of colour’. It clarifies things a bit for me.
In my previous home town of Horsham there used to be a vile piece of public 'art', a hideous fountain known as 'the malteser'. It was like a large crusty eyeball that tottered upwards as it gushed water out of its lower portions. It was far more offensive than 10 Edward Colstons dancing a nude jig. I would have liked someone to criminally damage it (in fact I believe someone did attach chains to it and drag it away once, only for it to be repaired at the taxpayers' expense). It only went eventually because the costs of repair and maintenance became untenable. I would have a lot of sympathy with someone taking it upon themselves to get rid of it. However, it would still have been criminal damage.
How do you know? Are you an expert in the criminal damage offence per chance?
From posts this morning, it's clear that the axiomatic obsession with 'cases' continues largely unabated in some circles.
Ha.
While the boosters have further disconnected COVID cases from hospitalisation and deaths (and Omicron itself seems to have had some effect), it is clear that a numbers of people are getting sick and dying.
It is beginning to look as if we *may* be able to get through this wave without Italy style medical collapse, but it won't be jolly in the hospitals for a while.
3.5m infections in England (mostly Omicron) has resulted in somewhere around 8-9k in hospital for COVID in England and a further 6-8k with COVID. The infection hospitalisation rate must be miniscule. We're talking maybe 0.2% of infected people requiring an overnight stay in hospital for Omicron.
The biggest threat to hospitals is isolation rules. Making people who are perfectly fine stay home for at least 7 days is why the NHS is under pressure right now.
That's interesting, because when I did my back-of-a-fag-packet, Not A Mathematician, exercise the the other day, I ended up with ~0.2% IHR too. I thought it too low to be true, but maybe you are right. I would certainly trust your numbers over my own amateurish efforts.
Presumably not allowing for any time-lag between positive test and hospitalisation?
Allowing for a 10-day time-lag it's more like 1.9%, as a percentage of positive tests. Almost exactly what it was in bad old days of Delta
Cases have been broadly flat over the last ten days, and in any case certainly have not increased by a factor of 9.5, so there is no way that ~0.2% can possibly be adjusted up to ~1.9% just because of a ten day time lag.
My measure was infections from the ONS report against people staying overnight for COVID from today's primary diagnosis report. Chris is taking positive cases against the reported hospitalisations per day in the dash. We're measuring different things, he's putting an undercounted infections number against a known over count of hospitalisations.
Did he ever predict what he thought the consequences of doing nothing would be? As far as I can see, England still seems to KBO.....
There has been quite a significant swing to “join” the EU over “stay out” in recent months. I wonder, again, if at some point Labour will seek to take advantage of this. They are now led by an arch-Remainer
In my previous home town of Horsham there used to be a vile piece of public 'art', a hideous fountain known as 'the malteser'. It was like a large crusty eyeball that tottered upwards as it gushed water out of its lower portions. It was far more offensive than 10 Edward Colstons dancing a nude jig. I would have liked someone to criminally damage it (in fact I believe someone did attach chains to it and drag it away once, only for it to be repaired at the taxpayers' expense). It only went eventually because the costs of repair and maintenance became untenable. I would have a lot of sympathy with someone taking it upon themselves to get rid of it. However, it would still have been criminal damage.
I have a radical idea. If you don't want art to be altered by the public, don't put it in a public space. I'm pretty relaxed about guerrilla art criticism. If The People think Crusty Eye or Slave Bastard will look better in the harbour, let them put it in the harbour.
I think there is danger for Labour in pushing a Milliband like cost of living narrative. Not that I think they shouldn't, but care is needed in assessing how it will hit home and the degree of emphasis to put on it.
My doubt is this - how broad and deep will any economic hardship be and who will notice? In the world of electronic transfers, virtual payslips, chip and pin, paperless statements, how much do people still notice the invisible tidal wash of money compared to the days when the pound in your pocket was a literal pound in your pocket?
Yes, those people who are trying to eke out each month will notice, those for whom essentials are the bigger part of their monthly spend, extended first time buyers (and BTLers). But how many swing voters will notice and when they do - the bank balance is a bit thinner, it doesn't seem to go as far - will they know why?
Full on economic shocks and crises, I think, may play worse than this attritional kind of stuff, so the traction you get depends a lot on how exactly the privations of the next 2 years play out.
To compare, people sort of know Brexit has gone badly, but it has been attritional, and a lot will be thinking it sort of doesn't matter that much that it has gone badly. It's certainly not what is sinking Boris, anyway.
There has been quite a significant swing to “join” the EU over “stay out” in recent months. I wonder, again, if at some point Labour will seek to take advantage of this. They are now led by an arch-Remainer
From posts this morning, it's clear that the axiomatic obsession with 'cases' continues largely unabated in some circles.
Ha.
While the boosters have further disconnected COVID cases from hospitalisation and deaths (and Omicron itself seems to have had some effect), it is clear that a numbers of people are getting sick and dying.
It is beginning to look as if we *may* be able to get through this wave without Italy style medical collapse, but it won't be jolly in the hospitals for a while.
3.5m infections in England (mostly Omicron) has resulted in somewhere around 8-9k in hospital for COVID in England and a further 6-8k with COVID. The infection hospitalisation rate must be miniscule. We're talking maybe 0.2% of infected people requiring an overnight stay in hospital for Omicron.
The biggest threat to hospitals is isolation rules. Making people who are perfectly fine stay home for at least 7 days is why the NHS is under pressure right now.
That's interesting, because when I did my back-of-a-fag-packet, Not A Mathematician, exercise the the other day, I ended up with ~0.2% IHR too. I thought it too low to be true, but maybe you are right. I would certainly trust your numbers over my own amateurish efforts.
Presumably not allowing for any time-lag between positive test and hospitalisation?
Allowing for a 10-day time-lag it's more like 1.9%, as a percentage of positive tests. Almost exactly what it was in bad old days of Delta
Cases have been broadly flat over the last ten days, and in any case certainly have not increased by a factor of 9.5, so there is no way that ~0.2% can possibly be adjusted up to ~1.9% just because of a ten day time lag.
It's not a question of 0.2% "being adjusted up to" 1.9%, for heaven's sake!
The daily average hospitalisation rate to 2 January was 2180.
The daily average positive test rate to 23 December - 10 days before - was 111,000 based on date reported or 121,000 based on date of sample. Take your pick.
That gives a hospitalisation rate of 1.9%. If you don't believe me, I'm sure your device has a calculator facility.
Yes, I just meant that the discrepancy between the two figures can't be explained solely by lag. See my post @1:27 for an explanation as to why what you're doing isn't accurate. Or just see Max's more succinct version @1:30.
On the South Pole story, the thing that grated for me was 'Woman of Colour'. She was of south asian ethnicity (I didn't read the article, but I'm sure being more specific was possible too). 'of colour' strikes me as the new BAME, a useless catch-all that should not be used when there is a more specific group that can be used, if a group is needed at all.
Is there any more to it other than castign around for an acceptable term that means "non-white"?
They want to mention colour rather than not-mention white.
Perhaps it should be called positive racism.
Weirdly, while 'of colour' seems to be acceptable*, 'coloured' is highly offensive.
*Is it acceptable? Presumably it is if it's on the BBC. I thought it was falling out of favour. I remember a horribly right-on geography lecturer proudly using it in 1993, which was the first time I'd heard it. You'd think if it was around back then it must be offensive by now.
It's strange how what's acceptable changes over time. I remember being told at junior school in the late 70s never to call anyone 'black' because it was rude, and that we should use the term 'coloured' instead. No idea if this was just a nice middle-class assumption that coloured=non-white and you might not know if someone was 'black' or 'mixed race'.
I subsequently married a South African, who was mixed race, therefore self-identified as Coloured (although she didn't really care what she was - she quite liked being 'Other' because that was the box she always ticked irrespective of how many categories there might be on a form). And woe betide anyone who thought 'Black' included my mother-in-law...
So this all aligned nicely with my 1970s schooling and it was only a few years ago that I discovered that 'coloured' was a pejorative term. I must admit I can't see why 'of colour' is acceptable if 'coloured' isn't as to my mind they mean exactly the same. Not for me to decide I suppose.
Similar memories here. It's not a matter governed by linguistic logic as far as I can see so I don't find the question "how can 'coloured' be offensive when 'of colour' isn't?" to be particularly thorny or in fact that interesting. The answer is it has evolved to be so, based on various things. What things? I'm no expert but I can think of a couple of possibles. The apartheid link. Also the sense that, back in the old days, people would say "coloured" to avoid saying "black" as if that would be an insult (modern subtext, wtf should it be?) and they would often say it in a kind of whispered voice as if there was still something a little bit off there even with the 'politer' term. There'd be a certain embarrassment and a slight furtiveness in its use, is what I'm saying. I remember this quite well as a teenager at the time. Things are much better now, imo, despite the occasional pitfalls and bemusements that can befall a person.
But just now thinking about it, perhaps there is a proper meaningful linguistic difference between "coloured" and "of colour" in that the first speaks purely to shallow outward appearance whereas the second is freighted with a bit more. It (maybe) conjurs up something about the whole person. It (maybe) has more gravitas. Eg coloured can relate easily to objects. You can have coloured pencils, coloured contact lenses, but you'd never say pencils of colour or contact lenses of colour. So the point is, for objects "coloured" works but "of colour" doesn't, and for people it's the opposite. Just a thought. Could be bollox but it does illustrate how there can be more to this, quite literally, than meets the eye and how it might not be devoid of all logic.
Finally, I've noticed that "of colour" is used more for women than for men. This, I truly don't know what to make of. Racked my brain for something to explain it but with no success. All I can think of is that with women being perceived (rightly imo) as generally disadvantaged compared to men they are also perceived as being more in need of the term ("of colour") which carries overt respect. But I'm miles from being wedded to this so won't be defending it against reasonable dissent.
Wrote rather more than I intended when I set out on that. Apols. To myself too - my soup has now gone cold.
I always imagine a word or words being spoken by a person with a strong Afrikaans accent, eg ‘a black’ v. ‘a black person’, or ‘coloureds’ v. ‘persons of colour’. It clarifies things a bit for me.
I hope you don't practise out loud. People will think you've got racist tourettes.
On the South Pole story, the thing that grated for me was 'Woman of Colour'. She was of south asian ethnicity (I didn't read the article, but I'm sure being more specific was possible too). 'of colour' strikes me as the new BAME, a useless catch-all that should not be used when there is a more specific group that can be used, if a group is needed at all.
Is there any more to it other than castign around for an acceptable term that means "non-white"?
They want to mention colour rather than not-mention white.
Perhaps it should be called positive racism.
Weirdly, while 'of colour' seems to be acceptable*, 'coloured' is highly offensive.
*Is it acceptable? Presumably it is if it's on the BBC. I thought it was falling out of favour. I remember a horribly right-on geography lecturer proudly using it in 1993, which was the first time I'd heard it. You'd think if it was around back then it must be offensive by now.
This is I think to do with transatlantic differences.
Perhaps also to do with what leverage various lobby groups think they can get by claiming that something different is now offensive.
I see Nigel Farage is panning the Aussies for taking back control of their borders.
Strange old world.
Yes, he has accused Australia of being a 'banana republic' for banning Djokovic and says it is increasingly impossible to live a normal life in the western world if unvaccinated. He also says he is ready to come back and help RefUK challenge the Tories in the redwall as the redwall voted to take back control of our borders not to 'surrender the English channel to criminal trafficking gangs' in his words
I fear Farage may do for lockdown scepticism what he did for Brexit: i.e. make it popular but unfashionable and also tied in with other issues. I was pro-Brexit but had no strong feelings on immigration. Similarly (and in common with many others on here) I am anti-lockdown but not anti-vax. And I don't want opposition to lockdowns to be conflated with opposition to vaccination.
On the South Pole story, the thing that grated for me was 'Woman of Colour'. She was of south asian ethnicity (I didn't read the article, but I'm sure being more specific was possible too). 'of colour' strikes me as the new BAME, a useless catch-all that should not be used when there is a more specific group that can be used, if a group is needed at all.
Is there any more to it other than castign around for an acceptable term that means "non-white"?
They want to mention colour rather than not-mention white.
Perhaps it should be called positive racism.
Weirdly, while 'of colour' seems to be acceptable*, 'coloured' is highly offensive.
*Is it acceptable? Presumably it is if it's on the BBC. I thought it was falling out of favour. I remember a horribly right-on geography lecturer proudly using it in 1993, which was the first time I'd heard it. You'd think if it was around back then it must be offensive by now.
It's strange how what's acceptable changes over time. I remember being told at junior school in the late 70s never to call anyone 'black' because it was rude, and that we should use the term 'coloured' instead. No idea if this was just a nice middle-class assumption that coloured=non-white and you might not know if someone was 'black' or 'mixed race'.
I subsequently married a South African, who was mixed race, therefore self-identified as Coloured (although she didn't really care what she was - she quite liked being 'Other' because that was the box she always ticked irrespective of how many categories there might be on a form). And woe betide anyone who thought 'Black' included my mother-in-law...
So this all aligned nicely with my 1970s schooling and it was only a few years ago that I discovered that 'coloured' was a pejorative term. I must admit I can't see why 'of colour' is acceptable if 'coloured' isn't as to my mind they mean exactly the same. Not for me to decide I suppose.
Similar memories here. It's not a matter governed by linguistic logic as far as I can see so I don't find the question "how can 'coloured' be offensive when 'of colour' isn't?" to be particularly thorny or in fact that interesting. The answer is it has evolved to be so, based on various things. What things? I'm no expert but I can think of a couple of possibles. The apartheid link. Also the sense that, back in the old days, people would say "coloured" to avoid saying "black" as if that would be an insult (modern subtext, wtf should it be?) and they would often say it in a kind of whispered voice as if there was still something a little bit off there even with the 'politer' term. There'd be a certain embarrassment and a slight furtiveness in its use, is what I'm saying. I remember this quite well as a teenager at the time. Things are much better now, imo, despite the occasional pitfalls and bemusements that can befall a person.
But just now thinking about it, perhaps there is a proper meaningful linguistic difference between "coloured" and "of colour" in that the first speaks purely to shallow outward appearance whereas the second is freighted with a bit more. It (maybe) conjurs up something about the whole person. It (maybe) has more gravitas. Eg coloured can relate easily to objects. You can have coloured pencils, coloured contact lenses, but you'd never say pencils of colour or contact lenses of colour. So the point is, for objects "coloured" works but "of colour" doesn't, and for people it's the opposite. Just a thought. Could be bollox but it does illustrate how there can be more to this, quite literally, than meets the eye and how it might not be devoid of all logic.
Finally, I've noticed that "of colour" is used more for women than for men. This, I truly don't know what to make of. Racked my brain for something to explain it but with no success. All I can think of is that with women being perceived (rightly imo) as generally disadvantaged compared to men they are also perceived as being more in need of the term ("of colour") which carries overt respect. But I'm miles from being wedded to this so won't be defending it against reasonable dissent.
Wrote rather more than I intended when I set out on that. Apols. To myself too - my soup has now gone cold.
It is a load of bollox for woke pc idiots. White is a colour as well so we are all coloured or "of colour", WTF are all these losers on making up stupid names or types of people to try and pigeon whole certain groups and then whinging and whining if it does not suit them. Pathetic.
There is some vague sense to what @kinabalu is struggling to say. “Coloured person” or “coloureds” can be deemed offensive as they seem to define the whole person by their skin tone. Whereas “of colour” says this is a person who just happens to have a “colour”. I suspect that is the feeble logic underlying this
However it is so attenuated and decadently trivial, and also so inconsistent - eg how come “blacks” and “blacks people” are still ok? - it comes over as pointless Woke nonsense
When the History of Western Decline is written, there will be a short but punchy chapter on word games like this
Of course some people might prefer to stick with "Oh god what are we calling them this week?" and leave it at that.
This is a useful calling card by which clueless reactionaries can recognize each other and raise a little chuckle amongst themselves.
I totally understand the need. Life's tough without that sort of thing.
From posts this morning, it's clear that the axiomatic obsession with 'cases' continues largely unabated in some circles.
Ha.
While the boosters have further disconnected COVID cases from hospitalisation and deaths (and Omicron itself seems to have had some effect), it is clear that a numbers of people are getting sick and dying.
It is beginning to look as if we *may* be able to get through this wave without Italy style medical collapse, but it won't be jolly in the hospitals for a while.
3.5m infections in England (mostly Omicron) has resulted in somewhere around 8-9k in hospital for COVID in England and a further 6-8k with COVID. The infection hospitalisation rate must be miniscule. We're talking maybe 0.2% of infected people requiring an overnight stay in hospital for Omicron.
The biggest threat to hospitals is isolation rules. Making people who are perfectly fine stay home for at least 7 days is why the NHS is under pressure right now.
That's interesting, because when I did my back-of-a-fag-packet, Not A Mathematician, exercise the the other day, I ended up with ~0.2% IHR too. I thought it too low to be true, but maybe you are right. I would certainly trust your numbers over my own amateurish efforts.
Presumably not allowing for any time-lag between positive test and hospitalisation?
Allowing for a 10-day time-lag it's more like 1.9%, as a percentage of positive tests. Almost exactly what it was in bad old days of Delta
As I say, I am no mathematician. Yet your claim that the Omicron IHR is broadly the same as Delta doesn't appear to withstand even the most trivial googling scrutiny.
Well, my figures are simply calculated from the most recent weekly hospitalisation figures at https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/ as a percentage of the weekly figures for positive tests - lagged by 10 days.
That gives 1.9%.
If you're claiming the real figure should be a factor of 10 smaller, it's up to you to explain why you think so. Or why my calculation is wrong. Or something.
Or maybe I'm simply naive to think simple arithmetic is still valid, and that we can't all just believe what we want to believe.
Surely we should be using the ONS infection figures as the denominator - i.e. the positive tests figure is a massive underestimate?
Quite possibly, but if we're comparing Omicron with Delta we'd better compare like with like. That's what I did, and the hospitalisation rate on that basis is virtually the same.
It may indeed be that the rate of positive tests has moved even further from the true infection rate than it was before. But it's now a factor of four bigger than before Omicron, and if the hospitalisation rate as a fraction of positive tests is the same as it was, then that should tell us something about the rate of hospitalisation that we can expect from the current infection rate, shouldn't it?
There has been quite a significant swing to “join” the EU over “stay out” in recent months. I wonder, again, if at some point Labour will seek to take advantage of this. They are now led by an arch-Remainer
It would be an incredibly difficult political manoeuvre to pull off, however
Still only 45% want to rejoin though, even less than the 48% who voted Remain.
Starmer backing Rejoin would also be political suicide as it would hand the redwall back to Boris on a plate
45% wanting to rejoin is insanely high considering the absolute palaver it would be.
It isn't, it is 3% less than voted Remain even in 2016 and given 2/3 of constituencies voted Leave full rejoin is political suicide under FPTP
Of course it is. 45% to rejoin is far higher than I would expect considering. Its a brilliant omen for remoaners like me.
I hope we can go into the Euro, we have 12 million € of new orders on the books currently and eliminating currency risk would be welcome ( I mean obviously we're (mostly) purchasing in Euro but all Uk supply for contracts being in € would help..)
From posts this morning, it's clear that the axiomatic obsession with 'cases' continues largely unabated in some circles.
Ha.
While the boosters have further disconnected COVID cases from hospitalisation and deaths (and Omicron itself seems to have had some effect), it is clear that a numbers of people are getting sick and dying.
It is beginning to look as if we *may* be able to get through this wave without Italy style medical collapse, but it won't be jolly in the hospitals for a while.
3.5m infections in England (mostly Omicron) has resulted in somewhere around 8-9k in hospital for COVID in England and a further 6-8k with COVID. The infection hospitalisation rate must be miniscule. We're talking maybe 0.2% of infected people requiring an overnight stay in hospital for Omicron.
The biggest threat to hospitals is isolation rules. Making people who are perfectly fine stay home for at least 7 days is why the NHS is under pressure right now.
That's interesting, because when I did my back-of-a-fag-packet, Not A Mathematician, exercise the the other day, I ended up with ~0.2% IHR too. I thought it too low to be true, but maybe you are right. I would certainly trust your numbers over my own amateurish efforts.
Presumably not allowing for any time-lag between positive test and hospitalisation?
Allowing for a 10-day time-lag it's more like 1.9%, as a percentage of positive tests. Almost exactly what it was in bad old days of Delta
As I say, I am no mathematician. Yet your claim that the Omicron IHR is broadly the same as Delta doesn't appear to withstand even the most trivial googling scrutiny.
Well, my figures are simply calculated from the most recent weekly hospitalisation figures at https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/ as a percentage of the weekly figures for positive tests - lagged by 10 days.
That gives 1.9%.
If you're claiming the real figure should be a factor of 10 smaller, it's up to you to explain why you think so. Or why my calculation is wrong. Or something.
Or maybe I'm simply naive to think simple arithmetic is still valid, and that we can't all just believe what we want to believe.
Surely we should be using the ONS infection figures as the denominator - i.e. the positive tests figure is a massive underestimate?
Quite possibly, but if we're comparing Omicron with Delta we'd better compare like with like. That's what I did, and the hospitalisation rate on that basis is virtually the same.
It may indeed be that the rate of positive tests has moved even further from the true infection rate than it was before. But it's now a factor of four bigger than before Omicron, and if the hospitalisation rate as a fraction of positive tests is the same as it was, then that should tell us something about the rate of hospitalisation that we can expect from the current infection rate, shouldn't it?
We have ONS data for delta as well. Why use the dashboard stats at all for the denominator?
In my previous home town of Horsham there used to be a vile piece of public 'art', a hideous fountain known as 'the malteser'. It was like a large crusty eyeball that tottered upwards as it gushed water out of its lower portions. It was far more offensive than 10 Edward Colstons dancing a nude jig. I would have liked someone to criminally damage it (in fact I believe someone did attach chains to it and drag it away once, only for it to be repaired at the taxpayers' expense). It only went eventually because the costs of repair and maintenance became untenable. I would have a lot of sympathy with someone taking it upon themselves to get rid of it. However, it would still have been criminal damage.
As noted in the article, the only question the Court of Appeal can consider is whether the judge's directions to the jury were correct. I'm not aware that anyone has suggested they aren't. So I am unclear on what a referral would achieve.
It's just a sop to the statue shaggers. It would achieve putting the waste of space Braverman in the news and enamouring her to the Tory base who love slaver statues so job done.
The Tory base are no fonder of slaver statues than anyone else. What they dislike is angry lefties getting their own way.
42% of Tory voters want to keep statues of those involved in the slave trade on display, 42% to put them in a museum on those figures. An equal split. Just 9% want to destroy them.
57% of Labour voters want to put them in a museum, 19% to destroy them and 19% to keep them up
In almost all cases I think statues should stay where they are with an explanatory plaque if needed.
I do have one set of exceptions. I believe in the early 1900s a lot of confederate civil war statues were erected and although many might have been for genuine reasons in many cases it was for the purpose of intimidating the black population. If the latter I can see how these will still offend explanatory plaque or not and there if they do they should go.
Just like one parliament can't bind its successors, nor should one generation be able to bind its successors with their buildings or statues. A general presumption of let statues remain in place is fine, but not an all statues should stay forever regardless of merit or relevance. For a start we will run out of places to put them in prime locations if each future generation gets the same number as those from the past have taken.
Comments
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jan/07/attorney-general-considering-referring-colston-statue-case-to-appeal-court
"Hi, I would like to run a clinical study. Half the patients will have their COVID ignored and we will go ahead with the operations, to see what happens. Yes, that increased their risk of death by 10x earlier in the epidemic. I hope it will be all fine now."
https://unherd.com/2021/04/could-you-spot-a-conspiracy-theorist/
I was pro-Brexit but had no strong feelings on immigration.
Similarly (and in common with many others on here) I am anti-lockdown but not anti-vax. And I don't want opposition to lockdowns to be conflated with opposition to vaccination.
Allowing for a 10-day time-lag it's more like 1.9%, as a percentage of positive tests. Almost exactly what it was in bad old days of Delta
Firstly, his total lack of interest in the facts of the matter.
Secondly, his unrivalled ability to jump on a bandwagon before any other political figure has realised one exists.
The calculation is 7 day average for admissions vs the 7 day average for cases, 7 days earlier....
On the latter point: if you agree that everyone in the world is getting Omicron eventually, what difference does it make whose risk factors are arbitrarily increased at which points?
Had they been convicted, we would not have been able to hear so openly from them and it would therefore have remained far less clear just how silly, self-centred, shallow, stupid, and ignorant of history, precedent and the basic rules of justice in a democratic society these little twats are.
Now we all know and are surely better off for it.
Another confusing term is “Indians” - as in “American Indians”. I thought the word was cancelled years ago but no, people of all kinds, in the USA, still use it without blushing. You even hear it on TV
In an ideal world the court of appeal would wait until this Attorney General has referred a couple more similarly hopeless classes and then classed them as a Vexatious litigant
But just now thinking about it, perhaps there is a proper meaningful linguistic difference between "coloured" and "of colour" in that the first speaks purely to shallow outward appearance whereas the second is freighted with a bit more. It (maybe) conjurs up something about the whole person. It (maybe) has more gravitas. Eg coloured can relate easily to objects. You can have coloured pencils, coloured contact lenses, but you'd never say pencils of colour or contact lenses of colour. So the point is, for objects "coloured" works but "of colour" doesn't, and for people it's the opposite. Just a thought. Could be bollox but it does illustrate how there can be more to this, quite literally, than meets the eye and how it might not be devoid of all logic.
Finally, I've noticed that "of colour" is used more for women than for men. This, I truly don't know what to make of. Racked my brain for something to explain it but with no success. All I can think of is that with women being perceived (rightly imo) as generally disadvantaged compared to men they are also perceived as being more in need of the term ("of colour") which carries overt respect. But I'm miles from being wedded to this so won't be defending it against reasonable dissent.
Wrote rather more than I intended when I set out on that. Apols. To myself too - my soup has now gone cold.
A further 40% of Tory voters and 39% of Leave voters approved of the statue being removed but not the way it was done, a position also held by 40% of voters overall.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/philosophy/survey-results/daily/2020/06/08/1ab21/1
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-59769969
Anyway, got to go. Work calls!
https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/majority-of-brits-support-removal-of-statues-of-slave-traders-through-legal-means/
https://twitter.com/whatukthinks/status/1479436277011386369?s=21
It would be an incredibly difficult political manoeuvre to pull off, however
If you listens to some of the more blatant BritNats on here you’d think poor old Scotland had disappeared down the plug hole.
The slines fucking love him and are begging him to get back into politics to "sort out" the channel situation.
57% of Labour voters want to put them in a museum, 19% to destroy them and 19% to keep them up
Starmer backing Rejoin would also be political suicide as it would hand the redwall back to Boris on a plate
That gives 1.9%.
If you're claiming the real figure should be a factor of 10 smaller, it's up to you to explain why you think so. Or why my calculation is wrong. Or something.
Or maybe I'm simply naive to think simple arithmetic is still valid, and that we can't all just believe what we want to believe.
https://www.shell.co.uk/motorist/ev-charging.html
However it is so attenuated and decadently trivial, and also so inconsistent - eg how come “blacks” and “blacks people” are still ok? - it comes over as pointless Woke nonsense
When the History of Western Decline is written, there will be a short but punchy chapter on word games like this
By the way, why IS is James II? There were half a dozen Jameses before him in the UK.
Of course, the problem with Labour is no one is ever sure whether they want to form the government or not.
"I'd like to say hello to the Indians; both the elephant ones and the bow and arrow ones".
I do have one set of exceptions. I believe in the early 1900s a lot of confederate civil war statues were erected and although many might have been for genuine reasons in many cases it was for the purpose of intimidating the black population. If the latter I can see how these will still offend explanatory plaque or not and there if they do they should go.
- Zero incidental admissions
- Zero new Covid cases missed by the official data
- Zero reinfections
None of these are true. If you assume 50% incidental admissions and 50% cases missed by the other two factors, that gets you to a reduction of 4x. If you assume 80% incidental admissions (which is the number estimated here, for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OM2VgBm9pTI&t=904s) and 50% cases missed, that gets you to 10x quite easily.
I might start a political compass website that categorises everyone into hard left / left / HYUFD.
The daily average hospitalisation rate to 2 January was 2180.
The daily average positive test rate to 23 December - 10 days before - was 111,000 based on date reported or 121,000 based on date of sample. Take your pick.
That gives a hospitalisation rate of 1.9%. If you don't believe me, I'm sure your device has a calculator facility.
Trump, oh god, just read that terrific article that @DavidL and @Nigelb posted about the GOP 'slow coup' for 24. Let's just say I'd right now rather have your long position than my short.
Although I still know you (and him) won't be winning at the end of the day.
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/healthcare#card-patients_in_mechanical_ventilation_beds
They could be Red Wallers. Or Scots. Or professional knitters. We need to know before we can see if Labour could benefit from cultivating them
I'm pretty relaxed about guerrilla art criticism. If The People think Crusty Eye or Slave Bastard will look better in the harbour, let them put it in the harbour.
My doubt is this - how broad and deep will any economic hardship be and who will notice? In the world of electronic transfers, virtual payslips, chip and pin, paperless statements, how much do people still notice the invisible tidal wash of money compared to the days when the pound in your pocket was a literal pound in your pocket?
Yes, those people who are trying to eke out each month will notice, those for whom essentials are the bigger part of their monthly spend, extended first time buyers (and BTLers). But how many swing voters will notice and when they do - the bank balance is a bit thinner, it doesn't seem to go as far - will they know why?
Full on economic shocks and crises, I think, may play worse than this attritional kind of stuff, so the traction you get depends a lot on how exactly the privations of the next 2 years play out.
To compare, people sort of know Brexit has gone badly, but it has been attritional, and a lot will be thinking it sort of doesn't matter that much that it has gone badly. It's certainly not what is sinking Boris, anyway.
HMQ not stumping up for andy
Twitter.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jan/07/attorney-general-considering-referring-colston-statue-case-to-appeal-court
Perhaps also to do with what leverage various lobby groups think they can get by claiming that something different is now offensive.
This is a useful calling card by which clueless reactionaries can recognize each other and raise a little chuckle amongst themselves.
I totally understand the need. Life's tough without that sort of thing.
It may indeed be that the rate of positive tests has moved even further from the true infection rate than it was before. But it's now a factor of four bigger than before Omicron, and if the hospitalisation rate as a fraction of positive tests is the same as it was, then that should tell us something about the rate of hospitalisation that we can expect from the current infection rate, shouldn't it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rising_Universe
Slightly reminiscent of this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peachoid