I've seen some pretty bad ideas on PB, but regenerating our beautiful towns and cities by building loads of multi-storey car parks in the middle of them, with new roads to get there, just about takes the biscuit. Cultural vandalism on a huge scale.
Question - Are there any "establishment" Tory MPs currently backing one of the right slate rags in order to thwart Truss so Sunak has an easier ride ? A game of Snakes and ... more snakes.
I imagine that when the endorsements bar is set, a couple of the right wingers will get eliminated, and their votes will go to the next best right wing offer...?
His support for Badenoch might well be genuine but I always assume Gove is playing a game with these things.
Yes indeed. Maybe in this case its all about an image reset for Gove. The Telegraph slated him for being big government regulation loving recently.
One area for cost saving - councils. Everyone needs a council, but noone needs more than that. Some upfront cost, but future savings as duplication is eliminated. Unitary system for all.
As if this hasn't been done to death for the last 10 years. If you want to save costs, you need to reduce the number of statutory functions that Council's are responsible for. Instead government has a habit of adding to them, without funding them. There are a lot of myths about duplication and efficiency savings from mergers, but they aren't always born out by reality; what typically happens is that they are incredibly disruptive and expensive.
What the government could do to save money and reinvigorate democracy is to give Council's more power to set whatever level of council tax they so desire. This will ultimately drive actual efficiency, because no one wants to pay £5000 per year in Council tax.
There is also an insane situation where the property industry has been unaminously lobbying government to increase planning fees for several years, and for this money to be 'ring fenced' for the planning service. Instead fees remain low, service is poor, delays are never ending, and the service is cross subsidised by Council tax.
Delays are never ending because anyone sane would leave a planning authority and go to the private sector - wages really haven't gone up for decades.
Except that is inconsistent with your claim before that the local Council had dodgily "put on the backburner" planning consent for a highly-demanded retail park, because they were worried it would be popular. Which is the worst possible reason to refuse consent.
"Don't build this, people might actually want it" - if that's why its getting "put on the backburner" then its a good thing that the people abusing their authority to stifle development are losing their ability to do so. And it doesn't mean that wages are the issue, it means that people having the ability to stand in the way of others doing some development is the problem.
The local council hadn't the developers had because they knew it was unlikely to be approved - no point wasting money.
But a change in how development was approved meant that it could be approved. That is a good thing then, thank goodness the change happened. 👍
We need to find out what other roadblocks are in the way of development being able to occur, and remove them too.
Clearly you haven't been to the wasteland that is Bishop Auckland's town centre nowadays.
The thing is retail is very much a zero sum game, money spent in St Helen's is money that was once spent in Bishop Auckland town centre.
In the same way that the forthcoming Scotch Corner Designer village (Richmondshire council) will be the death nail to Darlington town centre and Northallerton (Hambleton district council).
Oh boo frigging hoo.
Make the town centre more appealling then.
What's been done to make Bishop Auckland more appealling to drive into and park at? Or have the Council been spending years trying to pedestrianise the town centre, make it difficult to drive into or park at?
For too many years braindead anti-car zealots have been trying to make town centres a nightmare to drive into, then they whinge about why are town centres dying and people are choosing to drive into out of town shopping centres they can easily park at and load any shopping into the boot of their car at.
One thing I've noticed from twitter about broad left US politics is the absolute hatred of cars. I think that's a big dividing line globally between right and left globally.
In April I visited an upscale, purpose built "European style town center" in the richer northern burbs of Jackson Mississippi
It was designed to "get people out of their cars" and walking from cafe to shop to office to art gallery. It was mainly Italianate, with hints of France and Britain
It kinda worked, there were people walking around and - unusually for the deep south - plenty of places for people to sit outside and eat, drink under parasols
Except, the entire thing was surrounded by vast parking lots so people could DRIVE to the European style town center, and THEN walk
There's no reason that can't be done in this country.
Liverpool One is a good example. Its helped revitalise the waterfront of Liverpool and there's many bustling shops and restaurants and entertainment all accessible and within walking distance. But there's also massive multistory, affordable, car parks. And the roads are [reasonably] accessible to them.
I can go shopping in Liverpool, in shops within walking distance of somewhere to park my car, and its busy and popular.
If a city can do that, there's no reason a town can't. Build multistory affordable car parks in your town centre and make traffic to those car parks flow, and people will choose to shop there. Make it all designed to be cyclist-friendly and treat drivers as contemptible devilspawn, then don't complain that you've got no customers.
Liverpool 1 was possible because it was land available within the city that could be cheaply bought and renovated (equally moving the town centre say 200metres in a different direction). Leeds and Manchester was the same, cheap and available land allowed retail to be built within the confines of the town centre with the consequence of the town centre moving x00 yards in a different direction.
That simply isn't possible in other places which is why Sheffield ended up with Meadowhall (out of town) rather than Sheffield One (within the City).
Meadowhall is easy to reach via public transport too which makes the problem worse with Sheffield city centre.
One example of cities and big shopping centres co-existing is Newcastle. Newcastle city centre seems to thrive despite the MetroCentre existing just a few miles away. The MetroCentre is easy to get to by car with it being directly off the A1 but Tyne and Wear's metro system means that for public transport users it's way easier to get to Newcastle city centre.
With my own city of Leeds, I live 35-40 mins walk from the centre of the city, 2 mins from the local station into Leeds (6 minute train journey) and often find myself driving in in poorer weather due to cheap parking on the outskirts of the centre at £1.40 for 2 hours. The train isn't appealing as it's only every 30 minutes and I can park 5 minutes further walk past the station for half the price of a return ticket.
Manchester seems to thrive with the Trafford Centre, too.
My expectation though is that without the Trafford Centre Manchester would do better. An Arndale Centre a bit more like Liverpool 1, for example. Hard to be sure though. And the Trafford Centre has been very bad news for the health of the likes of Stockport and Bolton.
The Trafford Centre does, however, force some of the other centres to up their games. It's not just about car parking. The Trafford Centre is also very good at giving its customers an environment which is not unpleasant to walk around - clean, well kept, no graffiti, no spiceheads, no litter, no trip hazards. It's not 'pleasant' - I'd rather walk around Grassington or Ambleside - but it's very good at being not-unpleasant. Towns and cities could learn a bit from this aspect.
I struggle to understand why those in favour of grammar schools aren't happy with streaming in a comprehensive school. Surely this gives you what you desire plus with the benefit of catering for late starters and those who peaked early. It also has the benefit of selection by subject so catering for kids who are for instance good at maths but rubbish at English (like me).
Because that still does not give much extra opportunity to bright kids in poor seaside towns or northern ex industrial areas who are still going to do worse in the local comp without the chance or a grammar schools than kids going to a comprehensive or academy in league Surrey or expensive Kensington and Chelsea
I'd say grammar schools work less well in areas like that, actually. Where they work well is in places like Trafford where population density is such that a choice of schools is realistically possible. I always wonder how realistic it is for poor but smart kid in generic coastal town to go to grammar school, the nearest of which might be 8 miles away. That said, the one-town-one-school approach can lead to complacency and underachievement.
As I said earlier, complex set of issues without easy answers.
Much, much further in some cases. My kids went to the local school. Second nearest is 12 miles away. That's either close to one hour round trip twice a day in a car. Or half hour walk to the bus stop, 40 minutes bus journey and 10.minute walk. Twice. Parental choice doesn't really exist.
I struggle to understand why those in favour of grammar schools aren't happy with streaming in a comprehensive school. Surely this gives you what you desire plus with the benefit of catering for late starters and those who peaked early. It also has the benefit of selection by subject so catering for kids who are for instance good at maths but rubbish at English (like me).
Because that still does not give much extra opportunity to bright kids in poor seaside towns or northern ex industrial areas who are still going to do worse in the local comp without the chance or a grammar schools than kids going to a comprehensive or academy in league Surrey or expensive Kensington and Chelsea
I'd say grammar schools work less well in areas like that, actually. Where they work well is in places like Trafford where population density is such that a choice of schools is realistically possible. I always wonder how realistic it is for poor but smart kid in generic coastal town to go to grammar school, the nearest of which might be 8 miles away. That said, the one-town-one-school approach can lead to complacency and underachievement.
As I said earlier, complex set of issues without easy answers.
I went to a grammar school 10 miles from my home; there weren't that many places allowed from my district. Result was I didn't see any of the people with whom I was at school during the holidays and weekends and I didn't see any of the people who I did see at weekends during the week. Basically I've ended up with no friends from my youth!
At the moment in terms of MP endorsements it looks like Sunak and Mordaunt as the final 2 sent to the membership unless things change dramatically in the next few days.
Though Tugendhat and Truss are not far behind in joint 3rd
I am surprised that Sunak is not further ahead on declarations. He is certainly still in range of a redistribution stitch up, that keeps him out the top two.
I agree Mark, Sunaks effort has the feel of classic front runner who gets tripped up.
My dad reckons Truss wins the first ballot, and he fears a Truss coronation before the recess. I know HY will be about to jump in members won’t stand for being by passed again, but, and it’s a big but, who do membership wave their fists at? Hardly Truss fault if there’s no opposition left, hardly 1922 fault if MPs decide on coronation. Besides the argument will come back, it’s not just having lost an election and selecting LOTO, it’s needing a PM to tackle land war in Europe and economic crisis. And a lot of the 100K membership might not be upset by Truss coronation anyway.
Don’t dislike the messenger if you don’t like sound of this scenario!
Truss isn't even in the top 2 amongst MPs now let alone getting a coronation
I can't see her getting a coronation. I don't think enough Tory MPs trust or respect her. But she may be transfer friendly and come top.
If anyone has a better opinion on likely transfers, do let me know.
I don't have a better view. But it is really hard to predict. Some people choose one candidate from, say, the left of the party *because* they don't like another candidate from the same wing.
I admire the effort, but the error bars are enormous.
I agree the error bars are enormous. It's changed already. But I love spreadsheets!
And I have a big sum riding on Mordaunt and Truss.
Despite the heat, it doesn't seem to have deterred folk from sitting in their cars eating their lunch. Looking at the beach below. Something I don't get at all.
For the purposes of clarity, here again is the tweet-thread that got me thinking about Long Covid last night
"Even if Long Covid risk is only 10% per infection (grey line), and 2 infections a year, your odds of getting Long Covid reach more than 50% in just over 3 years.
If infection damages your immune system, as several studies suggest, it'll likely happen faster - or be worse."
Also for clarity: I do believe Long Covid exists, amazingly. But I would also LOVE to believe Covid is over, I am enjoying travelling around a freed up world, lockdown 3 nearly killed me, etc. So it would be great if this guy is laughably wrong
Trouble is, it is not immediately obvious that he is wrong. He gets a few critical remarks on that thread but he easily bats them away. If the PB brainiacs can show his stupid error. that would be fantastic
And while I'm here, on private schools and charitable status. I live adjacent to a large, famous independent school, and know people who work there. They have just spent millions on new buildings and a sports centre. The school contributes absolutely nothing charitable to the local community. Zilch. The school and its students live in a complete bubble. No outsider can use any of their facilities, and to the best of my knowledge they don't help any other local schools. Its students spend money in local shops, which helps, and they generously allow locals to watch their cricket matches in summer. That's it.
Any country other than China would've gotten a lot more flak for this (while retaliation against the US would be just as minimal, criticism would be way louder).
The fools meddled with something entirely unnecessarily and didn't even safeguard it, infecting the whole world.
Weaning ourselves away from Chinese economic integration is not only a useful logistical safeguard, it's also a justified response given their stupidity over this.
That isn't the substantive part of my comment
Long Covid is the issue. I really want that Twitter guy to be wrong, but I am struggling to see how he IS wrong. With every infection by Covid, you run a risk of Long Covid, perhaps a 20% risk. This means a steady accumulation of Long Covid in society until almost everyone is shuffling from bed to chair and wheezing all the time, incapable of work
And this could happen over a few short years, not in a century
As the Twitter dude says, new vaccines will come along and possibly save us from the worst of this. But what if they don't? Or what if they can only ameliorate? We are staring at an imminent global health disaster which will make everything else on our plates - Ukraine, inflation - seem trivial
And then there is a real risk that with each Covid infection the body is weakened, in and of itself a bad thing, but might also mean the risks of Long Covid go UP
This rather assumes that Long Covid is a real thing, rather than being a catch-all term blamed for everything which affects people who happen to have had covid.
I know this is quite a terrifying prospect. but denying it doesn't help
There has been a long-running problem with the entire covid subject: those who dislike the effects of covid, especially any restrictions, often default to full-on denial. It doesn't matter how often the denialism is discredited, whatever the denialists come up with gets trumpeted.
(There's an analogous issue on the alarmist side as well, unfortunately. Possibly down to the natural human tendency of binary thinking).
It's quite possibly due to the very understandable dislike of the effects of restrictions. Unfortunately, in some minds the logic chain goes: 1 - I hate these 2 - They are therefore wrong 3 - They are supposed to be helping. But if they are wrong, they cannot be helping 4 - They are therefore either unnecessary (and covid doesn't exist, or it is a minor issue, or it has already gone away forever) or do not help (and the reductions in spread just happen to occur at the same time), or are more harmful than letting it rip.
And some seem to seek some form of confirmation of that, no matter how logically implausible or strained the reasoning gets. Ivor Cummins has made a fortune from servicing this need. Toby Young has set up pretty much an industry around it. Sadly, both tend to join with the antivaxxers as well (possibly due to the fact that the logic of restrictions - to defer the spread until vaccines were available - relied on vaccines. Which adds an extra line to the "logic" 5 - As vaccines were needed to make restrictions work out long-term, they must either be useless or harmful, and justified solely by a worldwide conspiracy.
Denial is comforting.
As it happens, I'm not fully convinced that the fate of Long Covid lies in front of all of us, but I may be descending into denialism myself. We already know that self-reported long covid rates dropped enormously against infection rates following vaccination (not, unfortunately, to zero, but a long way down - from one in twelve to one in forty). It is plausible that surviving infection would help just as much. And we also know that immunity from breakthrough infection (vax plus infection immunity) is considerably stronger than either alone.
It is therefore plausible to me (a layperson, I must highlight) that subsequent infections would each by progressively less and less likely to cause Long Covid. Meaning that we wouldn't all inevitably get it, but it would rise to a certain (low) level and no higher.
MoonRabbit: "a lot of the 100K membership might not be upset by Truss coronation anyway."
This one would!
I know. But you are one of the more thoughtful and decent posters on here. Those who will be upset by a Truss coronation will more than make up for the ones not upset.
Like my dad fearing that scenario shared with me, many other life long Tory’s fear it too I suspect. What is the most positive spin I can offer - after a bad defeat in the election she would be very vulnerable, so if a Tom or Penny do a Starmer and sit in Truss cabinet for two years toughing it out, their time can come in two years?
If Truss wins first ballot and gets on roll towards coronation, Tom and Penny should cut a deal in my opinion.
And while I'm here, on private schools and charitable status. I live adjacent to a large, famous independent school, and know people who work there. They have just spent millions on new buildings and a sports centre. The school contributes absolutely nothing charitable to the local community. Zilch. The school and its students live in a complete bubble. No outsider can use any of their facilities, and to the best of my knowledge they don't help any other local schools. Its students spend money in local shops, which helps, and they generously allow locals to watch their cricket matches in summer. That's it.
Charitable my arse.
Agreed, now my ex-wife, who was a teacher in private school is my ex, I can say I don;t think they do anywhere near enough!
I've seen some pretty bad ideas on PB, but regenerating our beautiful towns and cities by building loads of multi-storey car parks in the middle of them, with new roads to get there, just about takes the biscuit. Cultural vandalism on a huge scale.
Bascially what they did in the 60s and 70s...
Yes, though in some of the large cities much of that has been largely undone and they have become increasingly pedestrian friendly.
I've seen some pretty bad ideas on PB, but regenerating our beautiful towns and cities by building loads of multi-storey car parks in the middle of them, with new roads to get there, just about takes the biscuit. Cultural vandalism on a huge scale.
Hey it's @BartholomewRoberts - his world is an idolised version of suburban america where the car is king an people without cars don't exist.
And while I'm here, on private schools and charitable status. I live adjacent to a large, famous independent school, and know people who work there. They have just spent millions on new buildings and a sports centre. The school contributes absolutely nothing charitable to the local community. Zilch. The school and its students live in a complete bubble. No outsider can use any of their facilities, and to the best of my knowledge they don't help any other local schools. Its students spend money in local shops, which helps, and they generously allow locals to watch their cricket matches in summer. That's it.
Charitable my arse.
Tries to work out which of 3 private schools like that that I think it is (as I can't remember where you live)..
But all 3 schools really do far less than they should do...
I will add all 3 private schools are up North, Eton actually does a lot locally and in the surrounding areas...
Surprised this isn’t being talked about more in the press and conservatives party. With all the talk of Dominic Cummings backing Rishi Sunak, it calls into question one of the few claims of success of this government, it’s support of Ukraine.
I highly doubt it, if Sunak abandoned Ukraine he would himself lose a VONC
Then, the Tories are nailed on to lose GE 2024.
Because the Cost of Living Crisis needs fixing for the Tories to stand a chance.
And an Endless War with Eurasia almost guarantees it cannot be fixed.
I am sure an incoming SKS Government will be much more pragmatic.
SKS is not going to abandon Ukraine either, if he does forget cost of living, Putin will have reconquered half of Europe and rebuilt the Iron Curtain by 2025
Any country other than China would've gotten a lot more flak for this (while retaliation against the US would be just as minimal, criticism would be way louder).
The fools meddled with something entirely unnecessarily and didn't even safeguard it, infecting the whole world.
Weaning ourselves away from Chinese economic integration is not only a useful logistical safeguard, it's also a justified response given their stupidity over this.
That isn't the substantive part of my comment
Long Covid is the issue. I really want that Twitter guy to be wrong, but I am struggling to see how he IS wrong. With every infection by Covid, you run a risk of Long Covid, perhaps a 20% risk. This means a steady accumulation of Long Covid in society until almost everyone is shuffling from bed to chair and wheezing all the time, incapable of work
And this could happen over a few short years, not in a century
As the Twitter dude says, new vaccines will come along and possibly save us from the worst of this. But what if they don't? Or what if they can only ameliorate? We are staring at an imminent global health disaster which will make everything else on our plates - Ukraine, inflation - seem trivial
And then there is a real risk that with each Covid infection the body is weakened, in and of itself a bad thing, but might also mean the risks of Long Covid go UP
This rather assumes that Long Covid is a real thing, rather than being a catch-all term blamed for everything which affects people who happen to have had covid.
I know this is quite a terrifying prospect. but denying it doesn't help
There has been a long-running problem with the entire covid subject: those who dislike the effects of covid, especially any restrictions, often default to full-on denial. It doesn't matter how often the denialism is discredited, whatever the denialists come up with gets trumpeted.
(There's an analogous issue on the alarmist side as well, unfortunately. Possibly down to the natural human tendency of binary thinking).
It's quite possibly due to the very understandable dislike of the effects of restrictions. Unfortunately, in some minds the logic chain goes: 1 - I hate these 2 - They are therefore wrong 3 - They are supposed to be helping. But if they are wrong, they cannot be helping 4 - They are therefore either unnecessary (and covid doesn't exist, or it is a minor issue, or it has already gone away forever) or do not help (and the reductions in spread just happen to occur at the same time), or are more harmful than letting it rip.
And some seem to seek some form of confirmation of that, no matter how logically implausible or strained the reasoning gets. Ivor Cummins has made a fortune from servicing this need. Toby Young has set up pretty much an industry around it. Sadly, both tend to join with the antivaxxers as well (possibly due to the fact that the logic of restrictions - to defer the spread until vaccines were available - relied on vaccines. Which adds an extra line to the "logic" 5 - As vaccines were needed to make restrictions work out long-term, they must either be useless or harmful, and justified solely by a worldwide conspiracy.
Denial is comforting.
As it happens, I'm not fully convinced that the fate of Long Covid lies in front of all of us, but I may be descending into denialism myself. We already know that self-reported long covid rates dropped enormously against infection rates following vaccination (not, unfortunately, to zero, but a long way down - from one in twelve to one in forty). It is plausible that surviving infection would help just as much. And we also know that immunity from breakthrough infection (vax plus infection immunity) is considerably stronger than either alone.
It is therefore plausible to me (a layperson, I must highlight) that subsequent infections would each by progressively less and less likely to cause Long Covid. Meaning that we wouldn't all inevitably get it, but it would rise to a certain (low) level and no higher.
Thankyou. That is illuminating, and I really hope you are right, as do we all. And yes denial is a problem on all sides
The stats guy deals with your hopeful slant (to an extent) and he says there is *some* modest evidence that new infections are less and less likely to cause Long Covid, but he says there is equal but also modest evidence to say new infections are MORE likely to cause Long Covid, as the body weakens with each infection
To add to the above - and, in any case, we can hope to get treatments against Long Covid as we learn more and more about it (which does involve, as you say, not going into denial over it, but pinning down what it is).
We can accept that there is a problem. Somewhere between 700,000 and 1.4 million of us have ongoing symptoms very likely due to having had covid that are limiting their daily activities (extended periods of fatigue, shortness of breath, and difficulty concentrating).
We can plausibly hope that this figure doesn't rise too much further (if my hopeful and arguably motivated reasoning in my previous post is correct). And we can plausibly hope that we learn to treat it (I've seen hopeful studies pointing to a reservoir of virus in the gut that escapes being cleared being behind some of these, for example - understanding is the first step to treating).
For the purposes of clarity, here again is the tweet-thread that got me thinking about Long Covid last night
"Even if Long Covid risk is only 10% per infection (grey line), and 2 infections a year, your odds of getting Long Covid reach more than 50% in just over 3 years.
If infection damages your immune system, as several studies suggest, it'll likely happen faster - or be worse."
Also for clarity: I do believe Long Covid exists, amazingly. But I would also LOVE to believe Covid is over, I am enjoying travelling around a freed up world, lockdown 3 nearly killed me, etc. So it would be great if this guy is laughably wrong
Trouble is, it is not immediately obvious that he is wrong. He gets a few critical remarks on that thread but he easily bats them away. If the PB brainiacs can show his stupid error. that would be fantastic
We cannot discount the psychological influences at work with long covid, surely. If you spending billions shrieking to people that a disease is serious, they will believe you. Think how intense the propaganda was.
A particular cause of annoyance is cyclists who ride on the road when there's an adjacent cycle path. Usually because it's on the opposite side and they can't be bothered to cross over.
No, it's usually because the cycle path is pants and, often, significantly less safe than the road.
The Government has put out some remarkably good design guidance for cycle tracks (LTN 1/20). I would estimate that probably 3% of cycleways nationally conform to it.
Question - Are there any "establishment" Tory MPs currently backing one of the right slate rags in order to thwart Truss so Sunak has an easier ride ? A game of Snakes and ... more snakes.
I imagine that when the endorsements bar is set, a couple of the right wingers will get eliminated, and their votes will go to the next best right wing offer...?
His support for Badenoch might well be genuine but I always assume Gove is playing a game with these things.
Yes indeed. Maybe in this case its all about an image reset for Gove. The Telegraph slated him for being big government regulation loving recently.
In all these things as people choose candidates I wouldn't underestimate just helping out someone who you get on well with. I once I asked Gove for a reference for a job where the key criterion was whether I was able to consider issues fairly - he agreed immiediately, despite the obvious difference of political outlook.
I've seen some pretty bad ideas on PB, but regenerating our beautiful towns and cities by building loads of multi-storey car parks in the middle of them, with new roads to get there, just about takes the biscuit. Cultural vandalism on a huge scale.
Hey it's @BartholomewRoberts - his world is an idolised version of suburban america where the car is king an people without cars don't exist.
He’s really not saying that, just pointing out that the active measures to discourage car use that have been seen in recent years, are indeed discouraging car use. People with cars wont get the bus, they’ll go somewhere else.
Any country other than China would've gotten a lot more flak for this (while retaliation against the US would be just as minimal, criticism would be way louder).
The fools meddled with something entirely unnecessarily and didn't even safeguard it, infecting the whole world.
Weaning ourselves away from Chinese economic integration is not only a useful logistical safeguard, it's also a justified response given their stupidity over this.
That isn't the substantive part of my comment
Long Covid is the issue. I really want that Twitter guy to be wrong, but I am struggling to see how he IS wrong. With every infection by Covid, you run a risk of Long Covid, perhaps a 20% risk. This means a steady accumulation of Long Covid in society until almost everyone is shuffling from bed to chair and wheezing all the time, incapable of work
And this could happen over a few short years, not in a century
As the Twitter dude says, new vaccines will come along and possibly save us from the worst of this. But what if they don't? Or what if they can only ameliorate? We are staring at an imminent global health disaster which will make everything else on our plates - Ukraine, inflation - seem trivial
And then there is a real risk that with each Covid infection the body is weakened, in and of itself a bad thing, but might also mean the risks of Long Covid go UP
This rather assumes that Long Covid is a real thing, rather than being a catch-all term blamed for everything which affects people who happen to have had covid.
It seems overly gloomy. I mean the UK government almost pissed the bed over Omicron and acted totally irrationally and its one of the most hawkish on libertarianism/freedom from restrictions. Given that, i find it unlikely LC is such a threat given that no government in the world is sending up the 'panic!' Bat symbol over it and a great number have been extremely squirrely over Covid throughout. Theres enough data. Theres no panic. Ergo.
But there really is cause for deep concern, we are already seeing failures in the labour market, due to Long Covid
"Now, an analysis from a Bank of England monetary committee member is one of the first to draw links between long covid and the tightening of the labor market. The chronic condition has been one of the main drivers of the shrinking labor pool in the UK, according to a May 9 speech from Michael Saunders, an external member of the bank’s nine-member committee"
Point out where that stats guy, linked downthread is wrong. Please. I'd love to see where he is obvs wrong. But I can't
My honest guess is that this potential problem is so huge governments are looking away. Because there is no solution. We can't shut down again. Zero Covid is impossible. So very widespread Long Covid - significantly affecting millions in the UK alone, and damaging economies worldwide - is baked in the future-pie
My feeling is theres a problem, its more intense from pre vaccine infections but its well short of apocalyptic. Tgey reckon 50 million of us have had it now? If there were a catastrophic LC problem we would be seeing 'the street where everyone is too sick to work' style reports. A lot of LC, yes, but a lot of 'light' LC amongst it In other words, not nothing but not everything. Between the extremes. A bit of a problem. Etc
It is a fallacy to say if it were serious it would also be obvious. Look at the cigarette/lung cancer link: stacks of data over 50+ years, but the link not obvious, to the extent that Doll was derided by a minority for even having it as a variable to look at.
Shapps approved the funding scheme that didn't allow time for research and proper consultations. So he has to be held largely responsible.
But the man driving all of this is Patrick Lingwood. A council officer and thus not democratically accountable to anyone.
He is a long time anti-car campaigner with close ties to a number of well funded lobby organisations.
I think if you were to ask cycling organisations around Oxfordshire their opinion of Mr Lingwood, you might be surprised how exasperated they are by him.
Oh I am well aware of the infighting going on because the cycling lobby groups aren't getting everything they want NOW.
That's not a fair characterisation. There's no infighting, the groups are more united than I've ever known them. They are pointing out that Mr Lingwood is delivering infrastructure which isn't compliant with what the (Conservative) Government requires, and is much worse what other cities - London, Manchester, Birmingham, Cambridge - are delivering.
I meant between the groups and Lingwood.
The whole thing has been rushed and divisive. Too much imposing and too little listening.
If they had done proper survey work and modelling to show the reality of the current situation and what difference their plans might make them they could be persuasive.
But they are refusing to do business impact assessments. They aren't doing doing full equality impact assessments. There is no baseline data for any of the schemes. There has been no traffic modelling.
It is a woeful attempt at policymaking and implementation. Paternalistic and arrogant.
It comes as no surprise that the newly installed LTNs in East Oxford are being attacked and removed by frustrated residents. A more measured approach would have avoided the anger that has been created.
I‘m not actually sure that the LTN bollards are being removed by residents local to the LTNs themselves - generally they seem to be net positive overall. My feeling is that it’s the Oxford residents from elsewhere in the city who are getting very cross & bothered about them. Possibly even from outside Oxford itself - the anti LTN facebook groups pulll from all over.
(The proliferation of “One-X” astroturf groups has have also been popping their heads up here in Oxford too.)
They should have been introduced at the same time as the bus gates (coming soon IIRC), in a single big-bang transformation instead of this drip drip of changes, none of which work very well in isolation.
I appreciate there's some correction going on post-Boris (and there are endless serious issues on the table) but none of the Conservative candidates have even a hint of fun in their launch vids. It's like a contest to become a funeral director. https://twitter.com/TomTugendhat/status/1546373725532041217
How can any major party in Britain offer voters a more prosperous future tight now? how are things going to get better via any of them?
All the main parties are geared up to manage the sacrifices net zero will bring. Much more expensive food. Less foreign travel. Hugely expensive energy. Slow or no growth. A vast monitoring state. Give up your car and your boiler. Power rationing.
Sri Lanka is going to happen in other parts of the world as people get to breaking point.
You appear to be somewhat obsessed with Net Zero. I don’t see how any of these problems are to do with Net Zero. Sri Lanka didn’t introduce Net Zero: it introduced organic farming and tax cuts. Inflation right now is being driven by the cost of fossil fuels: Net Zero will free us of being dependent on Russian oil and gas. Investment in the new technologies needed to achieve Net Zero is investment that will fuel our economy.
To add to the above - and, in any case, we can hope to get treatments against Long Covid as we learn more and more about it (which does involve, as you say, not going into denial over it, but pinning down what it is).
We can accept that there is a problem. Somewhere between 700,000 and 1.4 million of us have ongoing symptoms very likely due to having had covid that are limiting their daily activities (extended periods of fatigue, shortness of breath, and difficulty concentrating).
We can plausibly hope that this figure doesn't rise too much further (if my hopeful and arguably motivated reasoning in my previous post is correct). And we can plausibly hope that we learn to treat it (I've seen hopeful studies pointing to a reservoir of virus in the gut that escapes being cleared being behind some of these, for example - understanding is the first step to treating).
All of these are classic symptoms of anxiety, also. Many people bear the psychological scars of the Michie propaganda campaign, something that dreadful person is now trying to resurrect. With your help, by the looks of it.
For the purposes of clarity, here again is the tweet-thread that got me thinking about Long Covid last night
"Even if Long Covid risk is only 10% per infection (grey line), and 2 infections a year, your odds of getting Long Covid reach more than 50% in just over 3 years.
If infection damages your immune system, as several studies suggest, it'll likely happen faster - or be worse."
Also for clarity: I do believe Long Covid exists, amazingly. But I would also LOVE to believe Covid is over, I am enjoying travelling around a freed up world, lockdown 3 nearly killed me, etc. So it would be great if this guy is laughably wrong
Trouble is, it is not immediately obvious that he is wrong. He gets a few critical remarks on that thread but he easily bats them away. If the PB brainiacs can show his stupid error. that would be fantastic
We cannot discount the psychological influences at work with long covid, surely. If you spending billions shrieking to people that a disease is serious, they will believe you. Think how intense the propaganda was.
So that's covid and global warming exploded all in the one morning.
Again: things are much better at being what they actually are than at being what you would like them to be.
I'd be greatly relieved if long COVID does get debunked as overblown, but I'm not of that view currently.
I have been diagnosed with it. Thankfully at the milder end so I can about do my job, but still not fun. Actual “can’t get up” exhaustion was a new feeling. I can imagine it will have created newly disabled people.
Question - Are there any "establishment" Tory MPs currently backing one of the right slate rags in order to thwart Truss so Sunak has an easier ride ? A game of Snakes and ... more snakes.
I imagine that when the endorsements bar is set, a couple of the right wingers will get eliminated, and their votes will go to the next best right wing offer...?
His support for Badenoch might well be genuine but I always assume Gove is playing a game with these things.
Yes indeed. Maybe in this case its all about an image reset for Gove. The Telegraph slated him for being big government regulation loving recently.
In all these things as people choose candidates I wouldn't underestimate just helping out someone who you get on well with. I once I asked Gove for a reference for a job where the key criterion was whether I was able to consider issues fairly - he agreed immiediately, despite the obvious difference of political outlook.
It’s genuinely good to know that, behind the rhetoric, most politicians can actually get along across the aisle.
Your numerous references to Gove in particular, are a great example of that.
Back on the weather front, GFS 06Z run has 41C again...
It probably won't happen, but it remains a possibility. Really hope it doesn't.
The reason these things doesn't normally occur despite being modelled is that extremes always depend on the phasing of a whole number of conditions and if just one is slightly out then the prediction falls apart. General patterns (a bit of rain and wind) are much easier to get right.
The same happens with extreme storms and snowfall. Timing is everything.
I worked out the implied probability of 40C a while ago based on the distribution of yearly maxes and it was within bounds but way over a 100 year return. Anything higher than 40C would be off the scale. I'll have to dig it out.
Yeah the extreme of the heat is pushed out by 48 hours to Tuesday, with Monday also a v high 39, but also by the Tuesday the heat is passing eastward through the continent. Seems unlikely to me it could build to the low 40s here at the tip of it. Even if the pattern verified id expect the temp max to downgrade (but still be in the ballpark of record breaking somewhere)
Yes, I'd be shocked if it actually happened, although the sun is higher than Aug 2003 and the ground is very dry in the E, so it might not be impossible.
Here is the cumulative probability based on the measured yearly max temperatures from 1900 to 2018. It implies 35C is about 1 year in 10, but anything above 40C is 1 year in 8000 or so. I had to extend it to 5 sigma to get 42C in...
If we get there, then that is a massive red flag, although perhaps the sample size is too small to estimate the extremes properly.
This is interesting: reminiscent of Rishi Sunak, Oliver Dowden and Robert Jenrick backing Boris Johnson in 2019, three notable rising star MPs have used The Times to roll in behind Ready for Rishi.
To the extent (clearly not very much) I was aware of Laura Trott, I thought she was a Labour MP, on the Corbyn wing. Who was I thinking of? Don't think it was Laura Pidcock... Or am I just very confused?
There was a Laura Trott cyclist, of course, before she married and changed to Kenny. (Hell of a start according to Wiki: "Kenny was born a month prematurely in Harlow in Essex with a collapsed lung and was later diagnosed with asthma" - and before anyone says it, I'm referring to being premature with a collapsed lung, rather than being born in Harlow )
Any country other than China would've gotten a lot more flak for this (while retaliation against the US would be just as minimal, criticism would be way louder).
The fools meddled with something entirely unnecessarily and didn't even safeguard it, infecting the whole world.
Weaning ourselves away from Chinese economic integration is not only a useful logistical safeguard, it's also a justified response given their stupidity over this.
That isn't the substantive part of my comment
Long Covid is the issue. I really want that Twitter guy to be wrong, but I am struggling to see how he IS wrong. With every infection by Covid, you run a risk of Long Covid, perhaps a 20% risk. This means a steady accumulation of Long Covid in society until almost everyone is shuffling from bed to chair and wheezing all the time, incapable of work
And this could happen over a few short years, not in a century
As the Twitter dude says, new vaccines will come along and possibly save us from the worst of this. But what if they don't? Or what if they can only ameliorate? We are staring at an imminent global health disaster which will make everything else on our plates - Ukraine, inflation - seem trivial
And then there is a real risk that with each Covid infection the body is weakened, in and of itself a bad thing, but might also mean the risks of Long Covid go UP
This rather assumes that Long Covid is a real thing, rather than being a catch-all term blamed for everything which affects people who happen to have had covid.
I know this is quite a terrifying prospect. but denying it doesn't help
There has been a long-running problem with the entire covid subject: those who dislike the effects of covid, especially any restrictions, often default to full-on denial. It doesn't matter how often the denialism is discredited, whatever the denialists come up with gets trumpeted.
(There's an analogous issue on the alarmist side as well, unfortunately. Possibly down to the natural human tendency of binary thinking).
It's quite possibly due to the very understandable dislike of the effects of restrictions. Unfortunately, in some minds the logic chain goes: 1 - I hate these 2 - They are therefore wrong 3 - They are supposed to be helping. But if they are wrong, they cannot be helping 4 - They are therefore either unnecessary (and covid doesn't exist, or it is a minor issue, or it has already gone away forever) or do not help (and the reductions in spread just happen to occur at the same time), or are more harmful than letting it rip.
And some seem to seek some form of confirmation of that, no matter how logically implausible or strained the reasoning gets. Ivor Cummins has made a fortune from servicing this need. Toby Young has set up pretty much an industry around it. Sadly, both tend to join with the antivaxxers as well (possibly due to the fact that the logic of restrictions - to defer the spread until vaccines were available - relied on vaccines. Which adds an extra line to the "logic" 5 - As vaccines were needed to make restrictions work out long-term, they must either be useless or harmful, and justified solely by a worldwide conspiracy.
Denial is comforting.
As it happens, I'm not fully convinced that the fate of Long Covid lies in front of all of us, but I may be descending into denialism myself. We already know that self-reported long covid rates dropped enormously against infection rates following vaccination (not, unfortunately, to zero, but a long way down - from one in twelve to one in forty). It is plausible that surviving infection would help just as much. And we also know that immunity from breakthrough infection (vax plus infection immunity) is considerably stronger than either alone.
It is therefore plausible to me (a layperson, I must highlight) that subsequent infections would each by progressively less and less likely to cause Long Covid. Meaning that we wouldn't all inevitably get it, but it would rise to a certain (low) level and no higher.
I dont accept its denialism (although that is a factor), its the fact we were continually asked to accept varying and intrusive restrictions on the basis of 'the science' and 'the science has changed' without being presented with that science (just some pretty graphs made by modellers ans mathmeticians) Masks were ineffective, then they were 'our best line of defence' and needed 'because of asymptomatic blah blah blah' (now shown to be massively overstated) yet there was no bombshell 'the Billy Bluebottle report on masking' that entered the public domain to 'change the science'. Lockdown itself was an entirely new approach and the world were the guinea pigs. It was back of fag packet bollocks that ruined lives. Thats why it will never be allowed again, or flat out ignored.
Hong Kong now saying they will be electronically tagging quaratiners to ensure they dont leave home. Covid hysteria will prevent governments from being able to deal with any pandemic in the future without full on authoritarianisn due to mass non compliance.
Surprised this isn’t being talked about more in the press and conservatives party. With all the talk of Dominic Cummings backing Rishi Sunak, it calls into question one of the few claims of success of this government, it’s support of Ukraine.
I highly doubt it, if Sunak abandoned Ukraine he would himself lose a VONC
Then, the Tories are nailed on to lose GE 2024.
Because the Cost of Living Crisis needs fixing for the Tories to stand a chance.
And an Endless War with Eurasia almost guarantees it cannot be fixed.
I am sure an incoming SKS Government will be much more pragmatic.
Nah, Starmer's Labour is firmly pro-NATO and has taken the view there should be more sanctions on Putin than currently imposed by the government. Starmer also threatened to boot out eleven Corbynista MPs who signed that Stop the War Letter which basically blamed the NATO for the conflict. A Labour government would probably be more supportive of the Ukraine, if anything.
A particular cause of annoyance is cyclists who ride on the road when there's an adjacent cycle path. Usually because it's on the opposite side and they can't be bothered to cross over.
No, it's usually because the cycle path is pants and, often, significantly less safe than the road.
The Government has put out some remarkably good design guidance for cycle tracks (LTN 1/20). I would estimate that probably 3% of cycleways nationally conform to it.
A lot of cyclists eschew the southbound cycle lane on Westminster Bridge because it is always full of clueless tourists walking down it. I use it because I enjoy shouting at them.
Question - Are there any "establishment" Tory MPs currently backing one of the right slate rags in order to thwart Truss so Sunak has an easier ride ? A game of Snakes and ... more snakes.
I imagine that when the endorsements bar is set, a couple of the right wingers will get eliminated, and their votes will go to the next best right wing offer...?
His support for Badenoch might well be genuine but I always assume Gove is playing a game with these things.
Yes indeed. Maybe in this case its all about an image reset for Gove. The Telegraph slated him for being big government regulation loving recently.
In all these things as people choose candidates I wouldn't underestimate just helping out someone who you get on well with. I once I asked Gove for a reference for a job where the key criterion was whether I was able to consider issues fairly - he agreed immiediately, despite the obvious difference of political outlook.
It’s genuinely good to know that, behind the rhetoric, most politicians can actually get along across the aisle.
Your numerous references to Gove in particular, are a great example of that.
Fwiw my not very right wing son worked with him for a bit and was impressed by his intelligence and good sense.
On reflection, that suggests he will never lead his Party.
It needs a total efficiency overhaul, but the problem is it has become a religion that must not be criticised
I have no idea when it will happen but ultimately a new funding model will become unavoidable
Ah yes, the “efficiency” unicorn
It's the 'build on brownfield' of NHS solutions - it might be true that's an option, but it wont solve the whole problem on its own.
Indeed. I can well imagine a complete efficiency overhaul of the NHS. It might even make £1Bn a year if done really well. Trouble is that won’t touch the sides of the clinical challenge.
Any country other than China would've gotten a lot more flak for this (while retaliation against the US would be just as minimal, criticism would be way louder).
The fools meddled with something entirely unnecessarily and didn't even safeguard it, infecting the whole world.
Weaning ourselves away from Chinese economic integration is not only a useful logistical safeguard, it's also a justified response given their stupidity over this.
That isn't the substantive part of my comment
Long Covid is the issue. I really want that Twitter guy to be wrong, but I am struggling to see how he IS wrong. With every infection by Covid, you run a risk of Long Covid, perhaps a 20% risk. This means a steady accumulation of Long Covid in society until almost everyone is shuffling from bed to chair and wheezing all the time, incapable of work
And this could happen over a few short years, not in a century
As the Twitter dude says, new vaccines will come along and possibly save us from the worst of this. But what if they don't? Or what if they can only ameliorate? We are staring at an imminent global health disaster which will make everything else on our plates - Ukraine, inflation - seem trivial
And then there is a real risk that with each Covid infection the body is weakened, in and of itself a bad thing, but might also mean the risks of Long Covid go UP
This rather assumes that Long Covid is a real thing, rather than being a catch-all term blamed for everything which affects people who happen to have had covid.
It seems overly gloomy. I mean the UK government almost pissed the bed over Omicron and acted totally irrationally and its one of the most hawkish on libertarianism/freedom from restrictions. Given that, i find it unlikely LC is such a threat given that no government in the world is sending up the 'panic!' Bat symbol over it and a great number have been extremely squirrely over Covid throughout. Theres enough data. Theres no panic. Ergo.
But there really is cause for deep concern, we are already seeing failures in the labour market, due to Long Covid
"Now, an analysis from a Bank of England monetary committee member is one of the first to draw links between long covid and the tightening of the labor market. The chronic condition has been one of the main drivers of the shrinking labor pool in the UK, according to a May 9 speech from Michael Saunders, an external member of the bank’s nine-member committee"
Point out where that stats guy, linked downthread is wrong. Please. I'd love to see where he is obvs wrong. But I can't
My honest guess is that this potential problem is so huge governments are looking away. Because there is no solution. We can't shut down again. Zero Covid is impossible. So very widespread Long Covid - significantly affecting millions in the UK alone, and damaging economies worldwide - is baked in the future-pie
My feeling is theres a problem, its more intense from pre vaccine infections but its well short of apocalyptic. Tgey reckon 50 million of us have had it now? If there were a catastrophic LC problem we would be seeing 'the street where everyone is too sick to work' style reports. A lot of LC, yes, but a lot of 'light' LC amongst it In other words, not nothing but not everything. Between the extremes. A bit of a problem. Etc
It is a fallacy to say if it were serious it would also be obvious. Look at the cigarette/lung cancer link: stacks of data over 50+ years, but the link not obvious, to the extent that Doll was derided by a minority for even having it as a variable to look at.
Interestingly, even the virology experts have arguments like ours:
An irish epidemiologist has replied to that statgeek's thread, and told him he is talking drivel
"One consequence of under-investing in rigorous public health surveillance systems and programs of scientific research is that you wind up with people filling the vacuum with nonsense like this."
Which is reassuring. It's nonsense! Trouble is, I followed that thread and I can't see where it so obviously nonsense, and the Irish expert refuses to explain his thinking, and simply says "it's up to the statgeek to explain his working"
How are the temperatures? Alexa says we are at 26C here, but I've managed to keep my kitchen & office to 22C through purge overnight / seal during the day.
I've been out for a surreal stroll looking at all the south facing windows open to keep the houses well-ventilated, so letting the all the heated air in.
I'll struggle to keep mine cool if we get overnights at 24C plus.
I appreciate there's some correction going on post-Boris (and there are endless serious issues on the table) but none of the Conservative candidates have even a hint of fun in their launch vids. It's like a contest to become a funeral director. https://twitter.com/TomTugendhat/status/1546373725532041217
How can any major party in Britain offer voters a more prosperous future tight now? how are things going to get better via any of them?
All the main parties are geared up to manage the sacrifices net zero will bring. Much more expensive food. Less foreign travel. Hugely expensive energy. Slow or no growth. A vast monitoring state. Give up your car and your boiler. Power rationing.
Sri Lanka is going to happen in other parts of the world as people get to breaking point.
You appear to be somewhat obsessed with Net Zero. I don’t see how any of these problems are to do with Net Zero. Sri Lanka didn’t introduce Net Zero: it introduced organic farming and tax cuts. Inflation right now is being driven by the cost of fossil fuels: Net Zero will free us of being dependent on Russian oil and gas. Investment in the new technologies needed to achieve Net Zero is investment that will fuel our economy.
Green policies slashed food production in a country where the shelves aren't exactly groaning anyway. Rice yields dropped 20% The same policies destroyed the Sri Lankan tourist industry, a key earner of hard currency.
Green policy also decimated the important tea industry. The organic programme was ten times as expensive as the conventional, to produce half the yield of tea.
Green policy is solely and completely responsible for this, and this is the tip of an enormous iceberg. Sri Lanka is a template for what will happen elsewhere, on a much bigger scale, if these hard targets persist.
Any country other than China would've gotten a lot more flak for this (while retaliation against the US would be just as minimal, criticism would be way louder).
The fools meddled with something entirely unnecessarily and didn't even safeguard it, infecting the whole world.
Weaning ourselves away from Chinese economic integration is not only a useful logistical safeguard, it's also a justified response given their stupidity over this.
That isn't the substantive part of my comment
Long Covid is the issue. I really want that Twitter guy to be wrong, but I am struggling to see how he IS wrong. With every infection by Covid, you run a risk of Long Covid, perhaps a 20% risk. This means a steady accumulation of Long Covid in society until almost everyone is shuffling from bed to chair and wheezing all the time, incapable of work
And this could happen over a few short years, not in a century
As the Twitter dude says, new vaccines will come along and possibly save us from the worst of this. But what if they don't? Or what if they can only ameliorate? We are staring at an imminent global health disaster which will make everything else on our plates - Ukraine, inflation - seem trivial
And then there is a real risk that with each Covid infection the body is weakened, in and of itself a bad thing, but might also mean the risks of Long Covid go UP
This rather assumes that Long Covid is a real thing, rather than being a catch-all term blamed for everything which affects people who happen to have had covid.
It seems overly gloomy. I mean the UK government almost pissed the bed over Omicron and acted totally irrationally and its one of the most hawkish on libertarianism/freedom from restrictions. Given that, i find it unlikely LC is such a threat given that no government in the world is sending up the 'panic!' Bat symbol over it and a great number have been extremely squirrely over Covid throughout. Theres enough data. Theres no panic. Ergo.
But there really is cause for deep concern, we are already seeing failures in the labour market, due to Long Covid
"Now, an analysis from a Bank of England monetary committee member is one of the first to draw links between long covid and the tightening of the labor market. The chronic condition has been one of the main drivers of the shrinking labor pool in the UK, according to a May 9 speech from Michael Saunders, an external member of the bank’s nine-member committee"
Point out where that stats guy, linked downthread is wrong. Please. I'd love to see where he is obvs wrong. But I can't
My honest guess is that this potential problem is so huge governments are looking away. Because there is no solution. We can't shut down again. Zero Covid is impossible. So very widespread Long Covid - significantly affecting millions in the UK alone, and damaging economies worldwide - is baked in the future-pie
My feeling is theres a problem, its more intense from pre vaccine infections but its well short of apocalyptic. Tgey reckon 50 million of us have had it now? If there were a catastrophic LC problem we would be seeing 'the street where everyone is too sick to work' style reports. A lot of LC, yes, but a lot of 'light' LC amongst it In other words, not nothing but not everything. Between the extremes. A bit of a problem. Etc
It is a fallacy to say if it were serious it would also be obvious. Look at the cigarette/lung cancer link: stacks of data over 50+ years, but the link not obvious, to the extent that Doll was derided by a minority for even having it as a variable to look at.
Fair point, however 'smoking' wasn't the sole focus of health departments and governments for 2 years solid like Covid.
A particular cause of annoyance is cyclists who ride on the road when there's an adjacent cycle path. Usually because it's on the opposite side and they can't be bothered to cross over.
No, it's usually because the cycle path is pants and, often, significantly less safe than the road.
The Government has put out some remarkably good design guidance for cycle tracks (LTN 1/20). I would estimate that probably 3% of cycleways nationally conform to it.
A lot of cyclists eschew the southbound cycle lane on Westminster Bridge because it is always full of clueless tourists walking down it. I use it because I enjoy shouting at them.
Ha, yes, that's a great example.
One wonders what would happen if there was a permanently parked ice-cream van on the hard shoulder of the M6, and a queue of customers extending all the way across the main carriageway. I suspect Highways England would move it on rather more quickly than the one on Westminster Bridge.
I've seen some pretty bad ideas on PB, but regenerating our beautiful towns and cities by building loads of multi-storey car parks in the middle of them, with new roads to get there, just about takes the biscuit. Cultural vandalism on a huge scale.
Hey it's @BartholomewRoberts - his world is an idolised version of suburban america where the car is king an people without cars don't exist.
He’s really not saying that, just pointing out that the active measures to discourage car use that have been seen in recent years, are indeed discouraging car use. People with cars wont get the bus, they’ll go somewhere else.
Yes - they used to be able to walk to the town centre and now there is little point because the shops aren't there.
This was why I reference 2010 because surely the important fact isn't that it's easier to get into town than it was but that it shouldn't be more difficult.
And it's not more difficult to get into Bishop Auckland (it's always been roundabout city with a strange half built bypass on one side) it's just the out of town centre is way easier to get to because it's on the bypass.
And the combination of slightly easier + x percentage of total expenditure results in the easier to get to place winning as feedback loops kick in and generates a winner and a loser when previously there was only a single player (the town centre).
Faith Angwet, 37, a single mother of two from Southwark, south London, who used to work in fashion and retail, said her weekly shopping bill has risen from £200 during the pandemic to £400. She has cut back on spending on toothpaste, soap and washing powder and uses minimum lighting at night.
“If you open my fridge it’s like a single person is living there rather than a family,” she said. “It’s worse now than the pandemic. When I think about it, it’s enough to make my head explode. It is definitely grimmer than before.”
It needs a total efficiency overhaul, but the problem is it has become a religion that must not be criticised
I have no idea when it will happen but ultimately a new funding model will become unavoidable
One thing that would help would be linked data between services, rather than the endless shuffling around of letters and emails between primary and secondary care (plus phone calls from patients to chase the letters and emails that have not arrived).
Problem with that is that you need a massive IT project with Care.Data levels of risk. Likely career ending for the minister who proposes it. So it won't happen.
The main problem though is lots of old people living longer* and lots of effective (and cost effective**) but expensive drugs/treatments to achieve that
*good thing, for avoidance of doubt, imho **only solved by drugs getting cheaper or lowering the value assigned to a QALY which would either lead to lower drug prices or to fewer being prescribed as fewer judged cost effective, with consequent reductions in lifespan
Surprised this isn’t being talked about more in the press and conservatives party. With all the talk of Dominic Cummings backing Rishi Sunak, it calls into question one of the few claims of success of this government, it’s support of Ukraine.
I highly doubt it, if Sunak abandoned Ukraine he would himself lose a VONC
Then, the Tories are nailed on to lose GE 2024.
Because the Cost of Living Crisis needs fixing for the Tories to stand a chance.
And an Endless War with Eurasia almost guarantees it cannot be fixed.
I am sure an incoming SKS Government will be much more pragmatic.
Nah, Starmer's Labour is firmly pro-NATO and has taken the view there should be more sanctions on Putin than currently imposed by the government. Starmer also threatened to boot out eleven Corbynista MPs who signed that Stop the War Letter which basically blamed the NATO for the conflict. A Labour government would probably be more supportive of the Ukraine, if anything.
It needs a total efficiency overhaul, but the problem is it has become a religion that must not be criticised
I have no idea when it will happen but ultimately a new funding model will become unavoidable
One thing that would help would be linked data between services, rather than the endless shuffling around of letters and emails between primary and secondary care (plus phone calls from patients to chase the letters and emails that have not arrived).
Problem with that is that you need a massive IT project with Care.Data levels of risk. Likely career ending for the minister who proposes it. So it won't happen.
The main problem though is lots of old people living longer* and lots of effective (and cost effective**) but expensive drugs/treatments to achieve that
*good thing, for avoidance of doubt, imho **only solved by drugs getting cheaper or lowering the value assigned to a QALY which would either lead to lower drug prices or to fewer being prescribed as fewer judged cost effective, with consequent reductions in lifespan
That's the whole point of the proposed enhancements to the NHS mobile apps. But this is a big project because there is no easy way to formalise the data collected and needed....
The right wing vote being split four or five ways is not a problem for them - it is a feature of the system. Ultimately it all goes to the last one standing, which I reckon should be enough to get one of their ilk into the final two.
I think it is safe to say that they don't have the numbers to get two in the final, and I would be surprised if we ended up with two out of Rishi-Rich, Tug-End, *unt and Penny-for-your-Thoughts going to the membership.
The membership are predominantly swivel-eyed loons (present company mostly excepted), so the candidate who howls at the moon should win it.
Any country other than China would've gotten a lot more flak for this (while retaliation against the US would be just as minimal, criticism would be way louder).
The fools meddled with something entirely unnecessarily and didn't even safeguard it, infecting the whole world.
Weaning ourselves away from Chinese economic integration is not only a useful logistical safeguard, it's also a justified response given their stupidity over this.
That isn't the substantive part of my comment
Long Covid is the issue. I really want that Twitter guy to be wrong, but I am struggling to see how he IS wrong. With every infection by Covid, you run a risk of Long Covid, perhaps a 20% risk. This means a steady accumulation of Long Covid in society until almost everyone is shuffling from bed to chair and wheezing all the time, incapable of work
And this could happen over a few short years, not in a century
As the Twitter dude says, new vaccines will come along and possibly save us from the worst of this. But what if they don't? Or what if they can only ameliorate? We are staring at an imminent global health disaster which will make everything else on our plates - Ukraine, inflation - seem trivial
And then there is a real risk that with each Covid infection the body is weakened, in and of itself a bad thing, but might also mean the risks of Long Covid go UP
This rather assumes that Long Covid is a real thing, rather than being a catch-all term blamed for everything which affects people who happen to have had covid.
It seems overly gloomy. I mean the UK government almost pissed the bed over Omicron and acted totally irrationally and its one of the most hawkish on libertarianism/freedom from restrictions. Given that, i find it unlikely LC is such a threat given that no government in the world is sending up the 'panic!' Bat symbol over it and a great number have been extremely squirrely over Covid throughout. Theres enough data. Theres no panic. Ergo.
But there really is cause for deep concern, we are already seeing failures in the labour market, due to Long Covid
"Now, an analysis from a Bank of England monetary committee member is one of the first to draw links between long covid and the tightening of the labor market. The chronic condition has been one of the main drivers of the shrinking labor pool in the UK, according to a May 9 speech from Michael Saunders, an external member of the bank’s nine-member committee"
Point out where that stats guy, linked downthread is wrong. Please. I'd love to see where he is obvs wrong. But I can't
My honest guess is that this potential problem is so huge governments are looking away. Because there is no solution. We can't shut down again. Zero Covid is impossible. So very widespread Long Covid - significantly affecting millions in the UK alone, and damaging economies worldwide - is baked in the future-pie
My feeling is theres a problem, its more intense from pre vaccine infections but its well short of apocalyptic. Tgey reckon 50 million of us have had it now? If there were a catastrophic LC problem we would be seeing 'the street where everyone is too sick to work' style reports. A lot of LC, yes, but a lot of 'light' LC amongst it In other words, not nothing but not everything. Between the extremes. A bit of a problem. Etc
It is a fallacy to say if it were serious it would also be obvious. Look at the cigarette/lung cancer link: stacks of data over 50+ years, but the link not obvious, to the extent that Doll was derided by a minority for even having it as a variable to look at.
Fair point, however 'smoking' wasn't the sole focus of health departments and governments for 2 years solid like Covid.
THough acute covid was the focus - long covid was something else, in a sense, tbf.
To add to the above - and, in any case, we can hope to get treatments against Long Covid as we learn more and more about it (which does involve, as you say, not going into denial over it, but pinning down what it is).
We can accept that there is a problem. Somewhere between 700,000 and 1.4 million of us have ongoing symptoms very likely due to having had covid that are limiting their daily activities (extended periods of fatigue, shortness of breath, and difficulty concentrating).
We can plausibly hope that this figure doesn't rise too much further (if my hopeful and arguably motivated reasoning in my previous post is correct). And we can plausibly hope that we learn to treat it (I've seen hopeful studies pointing to a reservoir of virus in the gut that escapes being cleared being behind some of these, for example - understanding is the first step to treating).
All of these are classic symptoms of anxiety, also. Many people bear the psychological scars of the Michie propaganda campaign, something that dreadful person is now trying to resurrect. With your help, by the looks of it.
I'm not disputing Long Covid, but ... I know a lot of people. And almost all of them have had covid. But I don't know of any cases of long covid. Perhaps it's concentrated in certain sub groups?
Faith Angwet, 37, a single mother of two from Southwark, south London, who used to work in fashion and retail, said her weekly shopping bill has risen from £200 during the pandemic to £400. She has cut back on spending on toothpaste, soap and washing powder and uses minimum lighting at night.
“If you open my fridge it’s like a single person is living there rather than a family,” she said. “It’s worse now than the pandemic. When I think about it, it’s enough to make my head explode. It is definitely grimmer than before.”
Firstly where have shop prices doubled during the last two years ?
Secondly £400pw for three people is nearly £20 per day for each person.
What on earth is she getting for all that money ? Especially as she claims to have little in her fridge.
She’s spending £1700 a month, something like £24,000 of gross income per year, on food. I suspect she’s spending her Saturdays in Selfridges Food Shop, rather than buying big bags of rice and pasta from Tesco.
A particular cause of annoyance is cyclists who ride on the road when there's an adjacent cycle path. Usually because it's on the opposite side and they can't be bothered to cross over.
No, it's usually because the cycle path is pants and, often, significantly less safe than the road.
The Government has put out some remarkably good design guidance for cycle tracks (LTN 1/20). I would estimate that probably 3% of cycleways nationally conform to it.
A lot of cyclists eschew the southbound cycle lane on Westminster Bridge because it is always full of clueless tourists walking down it. I use it because I enjoy shouting at them.
Ha, yes, that's a great example.
One wonders what would happen if there was a permanently parked ice-cream van on the hard shoulder of the M6, and a queue of customers extending all the way across the main carriageway. I suspect Highways England would move it on rather more quickly than the one on Westminster Bridge.
Our council had a consultation on a cycle route funded by central government.
Because it had to meet the new design guidance and there isn't room for the full width of a shared path (3m), they have split it into cycle route (2m) - on an existing route used by everybody - and a new pedestrian route.
Unfortunately, the new pedestrian route is right next to the roadway in full sun unlike the existing one which is tree lined.
No prizes for guessing what will happen.
That wouldn't matter except that the new pedestrian route will knacker the roots of the trees which provide the shade...
Whatever happens, I will continue to cycle on the road as there's nothing worse than having to check over your shoulder every time you cross a side road, whether you have legal "priority" or not.
Faith Angwet, 37, a single mother of two from Southwark, south London, who used to work in fashion and retail, said her weekly shopping bill has risen from £200 during the pandemic to £400. She has cut back on spending on toothpaste, soap and washing powder and uses minimum lighting at night.
“If you open my fridge it’s like a single person is living there rather than a family,” she said. “It’s worse now than the pandemic. When I think about it, it’s enough to make my head explode. It is definitely grimmer than before.”
Any country other than China would've gotten a lot more flak for this (while retaliation against the US would be just as minimal, criticism would be way louder).
The fools meddled with something entirely unnecessarily and didn't even safeguard it, infecting the whole world.
Weaning ourselves away from Chinese economic integration is not only a useful logistical safeguard, it's also a justified response given their stupidity over this.
That isn't the substantive part of my comment
Long Covid is the issue. I really want that Twitter guy to be wrong, but I am struggling to see how he IS wrong. With every infection by Covid, you run a risk of Long Covid, perhaps a 20% risk. This means a steady accumulation of Long Covid in society until almost everyone is shuffling from bed to chair and wheezing all the time, incapable of work
And this could happen over a few short years, not in a century
As the Twitter dude says, new vaccines will come along and possibly save us from the worst of this. But what if they don't? Or what if they can only ameliorate? We are staring at an imminent global health disaster which will make everything else on our plates - Ukraine, inflation - seem trivial
And then there is a real risk that with each Covid infection the body is weakened, in and of itself a bad thing, but might also mean the risks of Long Covid go UP
This rather assumes that Long Covid is a real thing, rather than being a catch-all term blamed for everything which affects people who happen to have had covid.
It seems overly gloomy. I mean the UK government almost pissed the bed over Omicron and acted totally irrationally and its one of the most hawkish on libertarianism/freedom from restrictions. Given that, i find it unlikely LC is such a threat given that no government in the world is sending up the 'panic!' Bat symbol over it and a great number have been extremely squirrely over Covid throughout. Theres enough data. Theres no panic. Ergo.
But there really is cause for deep concern, we are already seeing failures in the labour market, due to Long Covid
"Now, an analysis from a Bank of England monetary committee member is one of the first to draw links between long covid and the tightening of the labor market. The chronic condition has been one of the main drivers of the shrinking labor pool in the UK, according to a May 9 speech from Michael Saunders, an external member of the bank’s nine-member committee"
Point out where that stats guy, linked downthread is wrong. Please. I'd love to see where he is obvs wrong. But I can't
My honest guess is that this potential problem is so huge governments are looking away. Because there is no solution. We can't shut down again. Zero Covid is impossible. So very widespread Long Covid - significantly affecting millions in the UK alone, and damaging economies worldwide - is baked in the future-pie
My feeling is theres a problem, its more intense from pre vaccine infections but its well short of apocalyptic. Tgey reckon 50 million of us have had it now? If there were a catastrophic LC problem we would be seeing 'the street where everyone is too sick to work' style reports. A lot of LC, yes, but a lot of 'light' LC amongst it In other words, not nothing but not everything. Between the extremes. A bit of a problem. Etc
It is a fallacy to say if it were serious it would also be obvious. Look at the cigarette/lung cancer link: stacks of data over 50+ years, but the link not obvious, to the extent that Doll was derided by a minority for even having it as a variable to look at.
Interestingly, even the virology experts have arguments like ours:
An irish epidemiologist has replied to that statgeek's thread, and told him he is talking drivel
"One consequence of under-investing in rigorous public health surveillance systems and programs of scientific research is that you wind up with people filling the vacuum with nonsense like this."
Which is reassuring. It's nonsense! Trouble is, I followed that thread and I can't see where it so obviously nonsense, and the Irish expert refuses to explain his thinking, and simply says "it's up to the statgeek to explain his working"
Hmm
Yeah, he gets driven back to a position of All I am saying is we need more data. Duh, we always need more data, esp when looking at multi decade effects of a thing which happened less than 3 years ago.
It needs a total efficiency overhaul, but the problem is it has become a religion that must not be criticised
I have no idea when it will happen but ultimately a new funding model will become unavoidable
One thing that would help would be linked data between services, rather than the endless shuffling around of letters and emails between primary and secondary care (plus phone calls from patients to chase the letters and emails that have not arrived).
Problem with that is that you need a massive IT project with Care.Data levels of risk. Likely career ending for the minister who proposes it. So it won't happen.
The main problem though is lots of old people living longer* and lots of effective (and cost effective**) but expensive drugs/treatments to achieve that
*good thing, for avoidance of doubt, imho **only solved by drugs getting cheaper or lowering the value assigned to a QALY which would either lead to lower drug prices or to fewer being prescribed as fewer judged cost effective, with consequent reductions in lifespan
That's the whole point of the proposed enhancements to the NHS mobile apps. But this is a big project because there is no easy way to formalise the data collected and needed....
Yep. As an example (and you may well know this) even combining data from the 3 or 4 major primary care database providers is non-trivial to the extent that it's not really done. If doing research, you have to pick your provider.
Any country other than China would've gotten a lot more flak for this (while retaliation against the US would be just as minimal, criticism would be way louder).
The fools meddled with something entirely unnecessarily and didn't even safeguard it, infecting the whole world.
Weaning ourselves away from Chinese economic integration is not only a useful logistical safeguard, it's also a justified response given their stupidity over this.
That isn't the substantive part of my comment
Long Covid is the issue. I really want that Twitter guy to be wrong, but I am struggling to see how he IS wrong. With every infection by Covid, you run a risk of Long Covid, perhaps a 20% risk. This means a steady accumulation of Long Covid in society until almost everyone is shuffling from bed to chair and wheezing all the time, incapable of work
And this could happen over a few short years, not in a century
As the Twitter dude says, new vaccines will come along and possibly save us from the worst of this. But what if they don't? Or what if they can only ameliorate? We are staring at an imminent global health disaster which will make everything else on our plates - Ukraine, inflation - seem trivial
And then there is a real risk that with each Covid infection the body is weakened, in and of itself a bad thing, but might also mean the risks of Long Covid go UP
This rather assumes that Long Covid is a real thing, rather than being a catch-all term blamed for everything which affects people who happen to have had covid.
It seems overly gloomy. I mean the UK government almost pissed the bed over Omicron and acted totally irrationally and its one of the most hawkish on libertarianism/freedom from restrictions. Given that, i find it unlikely LC is such a threat given that no government in the world is sending up the 'panic!' Bat symbol over it and a great number have been extremely squirrely over Covid throughout. Theres enough data. Theres no panic. Ergo.
But there really is cause for deep concern, we are already seeing failures in the labour market, due to Long Covid
"Now, an analysis from a Bank of England monetary committee member is one of the first to draw links between long covid and the tightening of the labor market. The chronic condition has been one of the main drivers of the shrinking labor pool in the UK, according to a May 9 speech from Michael Saunders, an external member of the bank’s nine-member committee"
Point out where that stats guy, linked downthread is wrong. Please. I'd love to see where he is obvs wrong. But I can't
My honest guess is that this potential problem is so huge governments are looking away. Because there is no solution. We can't shut down again. Zero Covid is impossible. So very widespread Long Covid - significantly affecting millions in the UK alone, and damaging economies worldwide - is baked in the future-pie
My feeling is theres a problem, its more intense from pre vaccine infections but its well short of apocalyptic. Tgey reckon 50 million of us have had it now? If there were a catastrophic LC problem we would be seeing 'the street where everyone is too sick to work' style reports. A lot of LC, yes, but a lot of 'light' LC amongst it In other words, not nothing but not everything. Between the extremes. A bit of a problem. Etc
It is a fallacy to say if it were serious it would also be obvious. Look at the cigarette/lung cancer link: stacks of data over 50+ years, but the link not obvious, to the extent that Doll was derided by a minority for even having it as a variable to look at.
Fair point, however 'smoking' wasn't the sole focus of health departments and governments for 2 years solid like Covid.
You say no governments are taking this threat seriously, ergo it is not a threat
But China is still pursuing Zero Covid
"Shanghai fears second lockdown as China battles BA.5 covid variant - The Washington Post"
Hitherto, we have all presumed this Zero Covid policy is just a terrible error, or a byproduct of Xi's need to save face in 2022 etc etc
But what it, at least in part, they have looked at Long Covid and decided any societal pain is better than losing 20% (and growing) of the workforce to chronic illness? It sounds far-fetched but the phrase "far-fetched" has lost its impact in recent years
And let me underline I am NOT proposing Zero Covid or even new lockdowns. Fuck all that. If Long Covid becomes a major problem (arguably it is already) we will have to find different ways of dealing with it, not masks and lockdowns. Never again
Faith Angwet, 37, a single mother of two from Southwark, south London, who used to work in fashion and retail, said her weekly shopping bill has risen from £200 during the pandemic to £400. She has cut back on spending on toothpaste, soap and washing powder and uses minimum lighting at night.
“If you open my fridge it’s like a single person is living there rather than a family,” she said. “It’s worse now than the pandemic. When I think about it, it’s enough to make my head explode. It is definitely grimmer than before.”
Faith Angwet, 37, a single mother of two from Southwark, south London, who used to work in fashion and retail, said her weekly shopping bill has risen from £200 during the pandemic to £400. She has cut back on spending on toothpaste, soap and washing powder and uses minimum lighting at night.
“If you open my fridge it’s like a single person is living there rather than a family,” she said. “It’s worse now than the pandemic. When I think about it, it’s enough to make my head explode. It is definitely grimmer than before.”
Shapps approved the funding scheme that didn't allow time for research and proper consultations. So he has to be held largely responsible.
But the man driving all of this is Patrick Lingwood. A council officer and thus not democratically accountable to anyone.
He is a long time anti-car campaigner with close ties to a number of well funded lobby organisations.
I think if you were to ask cycling organisations around Oxfordshire their opinion of Mr Lingwood, you might be surprised how exasperated they are by him.
Oh I am well aware of the infighting going on because the cycling lobby groups aren't getting everything they want NOW.
That's not a fair characterisation. There's no infighting, the groups are more united than I've ever known them. They are pointing out that Mr Lingwood is delivering infrastructure which isn't compliant with what the (Conservative) Government requires, and is much worse what other cities - London, Manchester, Birmingham, Cambridge - are delivering.
I meant between the groups and Lingwood.
The whole thing has been rushed and divisive. Too much imposing and too little listening.
If they had done proper survey work and modelling to show the reality of the current situation and what difference their plans might make them they could be persuasive.
But they are refusing to do business impact assessments. They aren't doing doing full equality impact assessments. There is no baseline data for any of the schemes. There has been no traffic modelling.
It is a woeful attempt at policymaking and implementation. Paternalistic and arrogant.
It comes as no surprise that the newly installed LTNs in East Oxford are being attacked and removed by frustrated residents. A more measured approach would have avoided the anger that has been created.
I‘m not actually sure that the LTN bollards are being removed by residents local to the LTNs themselves - generally they seem to be net positive overall. My feeling is that it’s the Oxford residents from elsewhere in the city who are getting very cross & bothered about them. Possibly even from outside Oxford itself - the anti LTN facebook groups pulll from all over.
(The proliferation of “One-X” astroturf groups has have also been popping their heads up here in Oxford too.)
They should have been introduced at the same time as the bus gates (coming soon IIRC), in a single big-bang transformation instead of this drip drip of changes, none of which work very well in isolation.
It is not just anti LTN groups who have non local members. They are just as prevalent in among LTN supporters. Indeed the pro LTN brigade are far more organised and funded.
The bus gates will do huge damage to the city and local communities. Forcing people to use the ring road (which is not fit for purpose as it is) to get from Jericho to the train station is ridiculous. Cutting off people from easy access to their GP is unacceptable. Doing this without any business impact assessment is just wrong.
You cannot connect up the city by splitting it up into enclaves. And having lived through the closure of Walton Street, I know how this will play out.
And if you look back in history, you can see how shutting off parts of the city never ends well. Look at the previous attempt to cut traffic in Divinity Road. Or the infamous Cutteslowe experiment.
The councils have got this wrong. They need to pause any further roll out of the Connecting Oxford agenda and start again from scratch. Listen to communities, listen to business. Do the research. Do the modelling. Build the case for radical change.
Faith Angwet, 37, a single mother of two from Southwark, south London, who used to work in fashion and retail, said her weekly shopping bill has risen from £200 during the pandemic to £400. She has cut back on spending on toothpaste, soap and washing powder and uses minimum lighting at night.
“If you open my fridge it’s like a single person is living there rather than a family,” she said. “It’s worse now than the pandemic. When I think about it, it’s enough to make my head explode. It is definitely grimmer than before.”
Faith Angwet, 37, a single mother of two from Southwark, south London, who used to work in fashion and retail, said her weekly shopping bill has risen from £200 during the pandemic to £400.
At the moment in terms of MP endorsements it looks like Sunak and Mordaunt as the final 2 sent to the membership unless things change dramatically in the next few days.
Though Tugendhat and Truss are not far behind in joint 3rd
I am surprised that Sunak is not further ahead on declarations. He is certainly still in range of a redistribution stitch up, that keeps him out the top two.
I agree Mark, Sunaks effort has the feel of classic front runner who gets tripped up.
My dad reckons Truss wins the first ballot, and he fears a Truss coronation before the recess. I know HY will be about to jump in members won’t stand for being by passed again, but, and it’s a big but, who do membership wave their fists at? Hardly Truss fault if there’s no opposition left, hardly 1922 fault if MPs decide on coronation. Besides the argument will come back, it’s not just having lost an election and selecting LOTO, it’s needing a PM to tackle land war in Europe and economic crisis. And a lot of the 100K membership might not be upset by Truss coronation anyway.
Don’t dislike the messenger if you don’t like sound of this scenario!
Truss isn't even in the top 2 amongst MPs now let alone getting a coronation
I can't see her getting a coronation. I don't think enough Tory MPs trust or respect her. But she may be transfer friendly and come top.
If anyone has a better opinion on likely transfers, do let me know.
I don't have a better view. But it is really hard to predict. Some people choose one candidate from, say, the left of the party *because* they don't like another candidate from the same wing.
I admire the effort, but the error bars are enormous.
I agree the error bars are enormous. It's changed already. But I love spreadsheets!
And I have a big sum riding on Mordaunt and Truss.
Faith Angwet, 37, a single mother of two from Southwark, south London, who used to work in fashion and retail, said her weekly shopping bill has risen from £200 during the pandemic to £400. She has cut back on spending on toothpaste, soap and washing powder and uses minimum lighting at night.
“If you open my fridge it’s like a single person is living there rather than a family,” she said. “It’s worse now than the pandemic. When I think about it, it’s enough to make my head explode. It is definitely grimmer than before.”
Any country other than China would've gotten a lot more flak for this (while retaliation against the US would be just as minimal, criticism would be way louder).
The fools meddled with something entirely unnecessarily and didn't even safeguard it, infecting the whole world.
Weaning ourselves away from Chinese economic integration is not only a useful logistical safeguard, it's also a justified response given their stupidity over this.
That isn't the substantive part of my comment
Long Covid is the issue. I really want that Twitter guy to be wrong, but I am struggling to see how he IS wrong. With every infection by Covid, you run a risk of Long Covid, perhaps a 20% risk. This means a steady accumulation of Long Covid in society until almost everyone is shuffling from bed to chair and wheezing all the time, incapable of work
And this could happen over a few short years, not in a century
As the Twitter dude says, new vaccines will come along and possibly save us from the worst of this. But what if they don't? Or what if they can only ameliorate? We are staring at an imminent global health disaster which will make everything else on our plates - Ukraine, inflation - seem trivial
And then there is a real risk that with each Covid infection the body is weakened, in and of itself a bad thing, but might also mean the risks of Long Covid go UP
This rather assumes that Long Covid is a real thing, rather than being a catch-all term blamed for everything which affects people who happen to have had covid.
I know this is quite a terrifying prospect. but denying it doesn't help
There has been a long-running problem with the entire covid subject: those who dislike the effects of covid, especially any restrictions, often default to full-on denial. It doesn't matter how often the denialism is discredited, whatever the denialists come up with gets trumpeted.
(There's an analogous issue on the alarmist side as well, unfortunately. Possibly down to the natural human tendency of binary thinking).
It's quite possibly due to the very understandable dislike of the effects of restrictions. Unfortunately, in some minds the logic chain goes: 1 - I hate these 2 - They are therefore wrong 3 - They are supposed to be helping. But if they are wrong, they cannot be helping 4 - They are therefore either unnecessary (and covid doesn't exist, or it is a minor issue, or it has already gone away forever) or do not help (and the reductions in spread just happen to occur at the same time), or are more harmful than letting it rip.
And some seem to seek some form of confirmation of that, no matter how logically implausible or strained the reasoning gets. Ivor Cummins has made a fortune from servicing this need. Toby Young has set up pretty much an industry around it. Sadly, both tend to join with the antivaxxers as well (possibly due to the fact that the logic of restrictions - to defer the spread until vaccines were available - relied on vaccines. Which adds an extra line to the "logic" 5 - As vaccines were needed to make restrictions work out long-term, they must either be useless or harmful, and justified solely by a worldwide conspiracy.
Denial is comforting.
As it happens, I'm not fully convinced that the fate of Long Covid lies in front of all of us, but I may be descending into denialism myself. We already know that self-reported long covid rates dropped enormously against infection rates following vaccination (not, unfortunately, to zero, but a long way down - from one in twelve to one in forty). It is plausible that surviving infection would help just as much. And we also know that immunity from breakthrough infection (vax plus infection immunity) is considerably stronger than either alone.
It is therefore plausible to me (a layperson, I must highlight) that subsequent infections would each by progressively less and less likely to cause Long Covid. Meaning that we wouldn't all inevitably get it, but it would rise to a certain (low) level and no higher.
I dont accept its denialism (although that is a factor), its the fact we were continually asked to accept varying and intrusive restrictions on the basis of 'the science' and 'the science has changed' without being presented with that science (just some pretty graphs made by modellers ans mathmeticians) Masks were ineffective, then they were 'our best line of defence' and needed 'because of asymptomatic blah blah blah' (now shown to be massively overstated) yet there was no bombshell 'the Billy Bluebottle report on masking' that entered the public domain to 'change the science'. Lockdown itself was an entirely new approach and the world were the guinea pigs. It was back of fag packet bollocks that ruined lives. Thats why it will never be allowed again, or flat out ignored.
Hong Kong now saying they will be electronically tagging quaratiners to ensure they dont leave home. Covid hysteria will prevent governments from being able to deal with any pandemic in the future without full on authoritarianisn due to mass non compliance.
How have you not been presented with the science? There are estimated to be over 87,000 published papers on COIVD. After an initial period, SAGE minutes and supporting papers were all being published. The main COVID project I worked on alone has released 45 reports produced for SAGE and Govt, as well as a dozen published papers and another dozen preprints.
All the research was being done in a hurry. We didn’t know anything at the start, and we got a lot of things wrong at first. There wasn’t a bombshell report on masking because that isn’t how medical science generally operates. There was an accumulation of evidence that built up over time.
Mr. Leon, it would explain China's draconian policy although that could also be attributed to the natural instincts and fear of their political system.
I struggle to understand why those in favour of grammar schools aren't happy with streaming in a comprehensive school. Surely this gives you what you desire plus with the benefit of catering for late starters and those who peaked early. It also has the benefit of selection by subject so catering for kids who are for instance good at maths but rubbish at English (like me).
Because that still does not give much extra opportunity to bright kids in poor seaside towns or northern ex industrial areas who are still going to do worse in the local comp without the chance or a grammar schools than kids going to a comprehensive or academy in league Surrey or expensive Kensington and Chelsea
Utter and total nonsense!
The Comprehensive system in general is failing because it has been made to fail through wilful under investment.
Selection at age 11 is immoral! I am a product of both, albeit an awful long time ago. A properly funded and managed Comprehensive school worked better in my case than a provincial Grammar.
It needs a total efficiency overhaul, but the problem is it has become a religion that must not be criticised
I have no idea when it will happen but ultimately a new funding model will become unavoidable
One thing that would help would be linked data between services, rather than the endless shuffling around of letters and emails between primary and secondary care (plus phone calls from patients to chase the letters and emails that have not arrived).
Problem with that is that you need a massive IT project with Care.Data levels of risk. Likely career ending for the minister who proposes it. So it won't happen.
The main problem though is lots of old people living longer* and lots of effective (and cost effective**) but expensive drugs/treatments to achieve that
*good thing, for avoidance of doubt, imho **only solved by drugs getting cheaper or lowering the value assigned to a QALY which would either lead to lower drug prices or to fewer being prescribed as fewer judged cost effective, with consequent reductions in lifespan
That's the whole point of the proposed enhancements to the NHS mobile apps. But this is a big project because there is no easy way to formalise the data collected and needed....
Yep. As an example (and you may well know this) even combining data from the 3 or 4 major primary care database providers is non-trivial to the extent that it's not really done. If doing research, you have to pick your provider.
If you look at what NICE thinks their assessment of the evidential quality of every single data source available to them is a variation on
Very low Due to very serious risk of bias, Due to serious inconsistency, Due to very serious imprecision.
To add to the above - and, in any case, we can hope to get treatments against Long Covid as we learn more and more about it (which does involve, as you say, not going into denial over it, but pinning down what it is).
We can accept that there is a problem. Somewhere between 700,000 and 1.4 million of us have ongoing symptoms very likely due to having had covid that are limiting their daily activities (extended periods of fatigue, shortness of breath, and difficulty concentrating).
We can plausibly hope that this figure doesn't rise too much further (if my hopeful and arguably motivated reasoning in my previous post is correct). And we can plausibly hope that we learn to treat it (I've seen hopeful studies pointing to a reservoir of virus in the gut that escapes being cleared being behind some of these, for example - understanding is the first step to treating).
All of these are classic symptoms of anxiety, also. Many people bear the psychological scars of the Michie propaganda campaign, something that dreadful person is now trying to resurrect. With your help, by the looks of it.
I'm not disputing Long Covid, but ... I know a lot of people. And almost all of them have had covid. But I don't know of any cases of long covid. Perhaps it's concentrated in certain sub groups?
I've got one close friend and several acquaintances with Long Covid
One of the acquaintances is this woman, who wrote about it in the Mail
Re. Long Covid does anyone know if there was such a thing as Long Spanish Flu? It’s extreme symptoms didn’t seem far off Bubonic Plague, seems unlikely one would survive unscathed. What about Long Bubonic for that matter?
For the purposes of clarity, here again is the tweet-thread that got me thinking about Long Covid last night
"Even if Long Covid risk is only 10% per infection (grey line), and 2 infections a year, your odds of getting Long Covid reach more than 50% in just over 3 years.
If infection damages your immune system, as several studies suggest, it'll likely happen faster - or be worse."
Also for clarity: I do believe Long Covid exists, amazingly. But I would also LOVE to believe Covid is over, I am enjoying travelling around a freed up world, lockdown 3 nearly killed me, etc. So it would be great if this guy is laughably wrong
Trouble is, it is not immediately obvious that he is wrong. He gets a few critical remarks on that thread but he easily bats them away. If the PB brainiacs can show his stupid error. that would be fantastic
The most obvious potential error is doing the maths based on the assumption that all these events are independent.
Austerity to fund tax cuts is going to be disastrous for the Tories. Starmer is a lucky general. Whether he'll get a majority or not is another matter, but this leadership contest makes me more convinced he's going to end up in No10.
To add to the above - and, in any case, we can hope to get treatments against Long Covid as we learn more and more about it (which does involve, as you say, not going into denial over it, but pinning down what it is).
We can accept that there is a problem. Somewhere between 700,000 and 1.4 million of us have ongoing symptoms very likely due to having had covid that are limiting their daily activities (extended periods of fatigue, shortness of breath, and difficulty concentrating).
We can plausibly hope that this figure doesn't rise too much further (if my hopeful and arguably motivated reasoning in my previous post is correct). And we can plausibly hope that we learn to treat it (I've seen hopeful studies pointing to a reservoir of virus in the gut that escapes being cleared being behind some of these, for example - understanding is the first step to treating).
All of these are classic symptoms of anxiety, also. Many people bear the psychological scars of the Michie propaganda campaign, something that dreadful person is now trying to resurrect. With your help, by the looks of it.
I'm not disputing Long Covid, but ... I know a lot of people. And almost all of them have had covid. But I don't know of any cases of long covid. Perhaps it's concentrated in certain sub groups?
I've got one close friend and several acquaintances with Long Covid
One of the acquaintances is this woman, who wrote about it in the Mail
I appreciate there's some correction going on post-Boris (and there are endless serious issues on the table) but none of the Conservative candidates have even a hint of fun in their launch vids. It's like a contest to become a funeral director. https://twitter.com/TomTugendhat/status/1546373725532041217
How can any major party in Britain offer voters a more prosperous future tight now? how are things going to get better via any of them?
All the main parties are geared up to manage the sacrifices net zero will bring. Much more expensive food. Less foreign travel. Hugely expensive energy. Slow or no growth. A vast monitoring state. Give up your car and your boiler. Power rationing.
Sri Lanka is going to happen in other parts of the world as people get to breaking point.
You appear to be somewhat obsessed with Net Zero. I don’t see how any of these problems are to do with Net Zero. Sri Lanka didn’t introduce Net Zero: it introduced organic farming and tax cuts. Inflation right now is being driven by the cost of fossil fuels: Net Zero will free us of being dependent on Russian oil and gas. Investment in the new technologies needed to achieve Net Zero is investment that will fuel our economy.
Green policies slashed food production in a country where the shelves aren't exactly groaning anyway. Rice yields dropped 20% The same policies destroyed the Sri Lankan tourist industry, a key earner of hard currency.
Green policy also decimated the important tea industry. The organic programme was ten times as expensive as the conventional, to produce half the yield of tea.
Green policy is solely and completely responsible for this, and this is the tip of an enormous iceberg. Sri Lanka is a template for what will happen elsewhere, on a much bigger scale, if these hard targets persist.
More organic farming is a policy supported by many Green parties. Reducing carbon emissions is also a policy supported by Green parties. That doesn’t make them the same policy. More sensible political parties have adopted net zero policies, without adopting the entire Green Party manifesto.
Yes, Sri Lanka stands as a grave warning about the follies of organic farming. It doesn’t tell us about net zero policies.
It needs a total efficiency overhaul, but the problem is it has become a religion that must not be criticised
I have no idea when it will happen but ultimately a new funding model will become unavoidable
One thing that would help would be linked data between services, rather than the endless shuffling around of letters and emails between primary and secondary care (plus phone calls from patients to chase the letters and emails that have not arrived).
Problem with that is that you need a massive IT project with Care.Data levels of risk. Likely career ending for the minister who proposes it. So it won't happen.
The main problem though is lots of old people living longer* and lots of effective (and cost effective**) but expensive drugs/treatments to achieve that
*good thing, for avoidance of doubt, imho **only solved by drugs getting cheaper or lowering the value assigned to a QALY which would either lead to lower drug prices or to fewer being prescribed as fewer judged cost effective, with consequent reductions in lifespan
That's the whole point of the proposed enhancements to the NHS mobile apps. But this is a big project because there is no easy way to formalise the data collected and needed....
Yep. As an example (and you may well know this) even combining data from the 3 or 4 major primary care database providers is non-trivial to the extent that it's not really done. If doing research, you have to pick your provider.
There is currently a project to collect social care information for labour reporting requirements.
On one level it's a really simple piece of work until you discover that every local authority does things in different ways (with different data collected) for "reasons" so the easiest fix isn't to identify common data and collect it it was to create a centralised system and get everyone to fill in yet another set of forms.
Over time that may be simplified as software providers sending the data automatically but that may or may not be the reality.
Total cost for the project btw is £1.2m for this stage of the work so we are probably looking at £3m spent in total so far.
Just stood back for a second and I see with have another day where @BartholomewRoberts is focussed on his car fetish and @HYUFD is again talking about his Grammar school fetish...
Re. Long Covid does anyone know if there was such a thing as Long Spanish Flu? It’s extreme symptoms didn’t seem far off Bubonic Plague, seems unlikely one would survive unscathed. What about Long Bubonic for that matter?
Yes infection with Spanish Flu had some long term health consequences. Weird neurological deficits, lung problems, etc
One example:
"Exposure to the 1918 flu was linked to more than 1 million cases of encephalitis lethargica, a severe form of virally induced Parkinson’s that was memorably recorded in Oliver Sack’s book Awakenings. The H1N1 virus does not enter the brain, but it can cause so much inflammation in other organs and tissues that it triggers subsequent inflammation in the brain. "
It needs a total efficiency overhaul, but the problem is it has become a religion that must not be criticised
I have no idea when it will happen but ultimately a new funding model will become unavoidable
One thing that would help would be linked data between services, rather than the endless shuffling around of letters and emails between primary and secondary care (plus phone calls from patients to chase the letters and emails that have not arrived).
Problem with that is that you need a massive IT project with Care.Data levels of risk. Likely career ending for the minister who proposes it. So it won't happen.
The main problem though is lots of old people living longer* and lots of effective (and cost effective**) but expensive drugs/treatments to achieve that
*good thing, for avoidance of doubt, imho **only solved by drugs getting cheaper or lowering the value assigned to a QALY which would either lead to lower drug prices or to fewer being prescribed as fewer judged cost effective, with consequent reductions in lifespan
That's the whole point of the proposed enhancements to the NHS mobile apps. But this is a big project because there is no easy way to formalise the data collected and needed....
Yep. As an example (and you may well know this) even combining data from the 3 or 4 major primary care database providers is non-trivial to the extent that it's not really done. If doing research, you have to pick your provider.
There is currently a project to collect social care information for labour reporting requirements.
On one level it's a really simple piece of work until you discover that every local authority does things in different ways (with different data collected) for "reasons" so the easiest fix isn't to identify common data and collect it it was to create a centralised system and get everyone to fill in yet another set of forms.
Over time that may be simplified as software providers sending the data automatically but that may or may not be the reality.
Total cost for the project btw is £1.2m for this stage of the work so we are probably looking at £3m spent in total so far.
The opportunity for central government here, is to impose data standards on everyone within the industry. A patchwork quilt of datasets helps no-one.
Comments
And the Trafford Centre has been very bad news for the health of the likes of Stockport and Bolton.
The Trafford Centre does, however, force some of the other centres to up their games. It's not just about car parking. The Trafford Centre is also very good at giving its customers an environment which is not unpleasant to walk around - clean, well kept, no graffiti, no spiceheads, no litter, no trip hazards. It's not 'pleasant' - I'd rather walk around Grassington or Ambleside - but it's very good at being not-unpleasant. Towns and cities could learn a bit from this aspect.
Parental choice doesn't really exist.
Basically I've ended up with no friends from my youth!
But I love spreadsheets!
And I have a big sum riding on Mordaunt and Truss.
"Even if Long Covid risk is only 10% per infection (grey line), and 2 infections a year, your odds of getting Long Covid reach more than 50% in just over 3 years.
If infection damages your immune system, as several studies suggest, it'll likely happen faster - or be worse."
https://twitter.com/DavidSteadson/status/1546308770208403457?s=20&t=Yk-p5ME3c96SLRpKBUfOQw
Entire thread needs to be read; it's not long
Also for clarity: I do believe Long Covid exists, amazingly. But I would also LOVE to believe Covid is over, I am enjoying travelling around a freed up world, lockdown 3 nearly killed me, etc. So it would be great if this guy is laughably wrong
Trouble is, it is not immediately obvious that he is wrong. He gets a few critical remarks on that thread but he easily bats them away. If the PB brainiacs can show his stupid error. that would be fantastic
Charitable my arse.
It doesn't matter how often the denialism is discredited, whatever the denialists come up with gets trumpeted.
(There's an analogous issue on the alarmist side as well, unfortunately. Possibly down to the natural human tendency of binary thinking).
It's quite possibly due to the very understandable dislike of the effects of restrictions. Unfortunately, in some minds the logic chain goes:
1 - I hate these
2 - They are therefore wrong
3 - They are supposed to be helping. But if they are wrong, they cannot be helping
4 - They are therefore either unnecessary (and covid doesn't exist, or it is a minor issue, or it has already gone away forever) or do not help (and the reductions in spread just happen to occur at the same time), or are more harmful than letting it rip.
And some seem to seek some form of confirmation of that, no matter how logically implausible or strained the reasoning gets. Ivor Cummins has made a fortune from servicing this need. Toby Young has set up pretty much an industry around it. Sadly, both tend to join with the antivaxxers as well (possibly due to the fact that the logic of restrictions - to defer the spread until vaccines were available - relied on vaccines. Which adds an extra line to the "logic"
5 - As vaccines were needed to make restrictions work out long-term, they must either be useless or harmful, and justified solely by a worldwide conspiracy.
Denial is comforting.
As it happens, I'm not fully convinced that the fate of Long Covid lies in front of all of us, but I may be descending into denialism myself. We already know that self-reported long covid rates dropped enormously against infection rates following vaccination (not, unfortunately, to zero, but a long way down - from one in twelve to one in forty). It is plausible that surviving infection would help just as much. And we also know that immunity from breakthrough infection (vax plus infection immunity) is considerably stronger than either alone.
It is therefore plausible to me (a layperson, I must highlight) that subsequent infections would each by progressively less and less likely to cause Long Covid. Meaning that we wouldn't all inevitably get it, but it would rise to a certain (low) level and no higher.
Like my dad fearing that scenario shared with me, many other life long Tory’s fear it too I suspect. What is the most positive spin I can offer - after a bad defeat in the election she would be very vulnerable, so if a Tom or Penny do a Starmer and sit in Truss cabinet for two years toughing it out, their time can come in two years?
If Truss wins first ballot and gets on roll towards coronation, Tom and Penny should cut a deal in my opinion.
Who are you supporting for the leadership?
But all 3 schools really do far less than they should do...
I will add all 3 private schools are up North, Eton actually does a lot locally and in the surrounding areas...
The stats guy deals with your hopeful slant (to an extent) and he says there is *some* modest evidence that new infections are less and less likely to cause Long Covid, but he says there is equal but also modest evidence to say new infections are MORE likely to cause Long Covid, as the body weakens with each infection
It is disquieting
We can accept that there is a problem. Somewhere between 700,000 and 1.4 million of us have ongoing symptoms very likely due to having had covid that are limiting their daily activities (extended periods of fatigue, shortness of breath, and difficulty concentrating).
https://www.ft.com/content/63dcc4d1-8b53-4110-bd44-10e3d1d98585
We can plausibly hope that this figure doesn't rise too much further (if my hopeful and arguably motivated reasoning in my previous post is correct). And we can plausibly hope that we learn to treat it (I've seen hopeful studies pointing to a reservoir of virus in the gut that escapes being cleared being behind some of these, for example - understanding is the first step to treating).
The Government has put out some remarkably good design guidance for cycle tracks (LTN 1/20). I would estimate that probably 3% of cycleways nationally conform to it.
(The proliferation of “One-X” astroturf groups has have also been popping their heads up here in Oxford too.)
They should have been introduced at the same time as the bus gates (coming soon IIRC), in a single big-bang transformation instead of this drip drip of changes, none of which work very well in isolation.
Again: things are much better at being what they actually are than at being what you would like them to be.
Your numerous references to Gove in particular, are a great example of that.
Here is the cumulative probability based on the measured yearly max temperatures from 1900 to 2018. It implies 35C is about 1 year in 10, but anything above 40C is 1 year in 8000 or so. I had to extend it to 5 sigma to get 42C in...
If we get there, then that is a massive red flag, although perhaps the sample size is too small to estimate the extremes properly.
There was a Laura Trott cyclist, of course, before she married and changed to Kenny. (Hell of a start according to Wiki: "Kenny was born a month prematurely in Harlow in Essex with a collapsed lung and was later diagnosed with asthma" - and before anyone says it, I'm referring to being premature with a collapsed lung, rather than being born in Harlow
"She's someone who's won tough seats against Labour in the north, in the same way I've won tough seats against the Lib Dems in the south."
Given that Esther McVey is MP for Tatton does Hunt have any idea about what a 'tough seat in the north' actually is ?
Masks were ineffective, then they were 'our best line of defence' and needed 'because of asymptomatic blah blah blah' (now shown to be massively overstated) yet there was no bombshell 'the Billy Bluebottle report on masking' that entered the public domain to 'change the science'. Lockdown itself was an entirely new approach and the world were the guinea pigs.
It was back of fag packet bollocks that ruined lives.
Thats why it will never be allowed again, or flat out ignored.
Hong Kong now saying they will be electronically tagging quaratiners to ensure they dont leave home. Covid hysteria will prevent governments from being able to deal with any pandemic in the future without full on authoritarianisn due to mass non compliance.
On reflection, that suggests he will never lead his Party.
An irish epidemiologist has replied to that statgeek's thread, and told him he is talking drivel
"One consequence of under-investing in rigorous public health surveillance systems and programs of scientific research is that you wind up with people filling the vacuum with nonsense like this."
https://twitter.com/statsepi/status/1546389531280252928?s=20&t=HbDMKUEpN2mHG0woRKayiQ
Which is reassuring. It's nonsense! Trouble is, I followed that thread and I can't see where it so obviously nonsense, and the Irish expert refuses to explain his thinking, and simply says "it's up to the statgeek to explain his working"
Hmm
How are the temperatures? Alexa says we are at 26C here, but I've managed to keep my kitchen & office to 22C through purge overnight / seal during the day.
I've been out for a surreal stroll looking at all the south facing windows open to keep the houses well-ventilated, so letting the all the heated air in.
I'll struggle to keep mine cool if we get overnights at 24C plus.
Green policy also decimated the important tea industry. The organic programme was ten times as expensive as the conventional, to produce half the yield of tea.
Green policy is solely and completely responsible for this, and this is the tip of an enormous iceberg. Sri Lanka is a template for what will happen elsewhere, on a much bigger scale, if these hard targets persist.
One wonders what would happen if there was a permanently parked ice-cream van on the hard shoulder of the M6, and a queue of customers extending all the way across the main carriageway. I suspect Highways England would move it on rather more quickly than the one on Westminster Bridge.
This was why I reference 2010 because surely the important fact isn't that it's easier to get into town than it was but that it shouldn't be more difficult.
And it's not more difficult to get into Bishop Auckland (it's always been roundabout city with a strange half built bypass on one side) it's just the out of town centre is way easier to get to because it's on the bypass.
And the combination of slightly easier + x percentage of total expenditure results in the easier to get to place winning as feedback loops kick in and generates a winner and a loser when previously there was only a single player (the town centre).
Faith Angwet, 37, a single mother of two from Southwark, south London, who used to work in fashion and retail, said her weekly shopping bill has risen from £200 during the pandemic to £400. She has cut back on spending on toothpaste, soap and washing powder and uses minimum lighting at night.
“If you open my fridge it’s like a single person is living there rather than a family,” she said. “It’s worse now than the pandemic. When I think about it, it’s enough to make my head explode. It is definitely grimmer than before.”
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/jul/11/worse-than-the-pandemic-price-rises-push-more-people-into-financial-trouble
Firstly where have shop prices doubled during the last two years ?
Secondly £400pw for three people is nearly £20 per day for each person.
What on earth is she getting for all that money ? Especially as she claims to have little in her fridge.
Problem with that is that you need a massive IT project with Care.Data levels of risk. Likely career ending for the minister who proposes it. So it won't happen.
The main problem though is lots of old people living longer* and lots of effective (and cost effective**) but expensive drugs/treatments to achieve that
*good thing, for avoidance of doubt, imho
**only solved by drugs getting cheaper or lowering the value assigned to a QALY which would either lead to lower drug prices or to fewer being prescribed as fewer judged cost effective, with consequent reductions in lifespan
https://twitter.com/MichaelWarbur17/status/1545680032768696320/photo/1
https://labourlist.org/2022/07/apsana-begum-to-face-trigger-ballot-amid-campaign-of-misogynistic-abuse/
Oh. I see what you mean...
I think it is safe to say that they don't have the numbers to get two in the final, and I would be surprised if we ended up with two out of Rishi-Rich, Tug-End, *unt and Penny-for-your-Thoughts going to the membership.
The membership are predominantly swivel-eyed loons (present company mostly excepted), so the candidate who howls at the moon should win it.
Because it had to meet the new design guidance and there isn't room for the full width of a shared path (3m), they have split it into cycle route (2m) - on an existing route used by everybody - and a new pedestrian route.
Unfortunately, the new pedestrian route is right next to the roadway in full sun unlike the existing one which is tree lined.
No prizes for guessing what will happen.
That wouldn't matter except that the new pedestrian route will knacker the roots of the trees which provide the shade...
Whatever happens, I will continue to cycle on the road as there's nothing worse than having to check over your shoulder every time you cross a side road, whether you have legal "priority" or not.
But China is still pursuing Zero Covid
"Shanghai fears second lockdown as China battles BA.5 covid variant - The Washington Post"
https://twitter.com/abigailstern1/status/1546465590906429440?s=20&t=HbDMKUEpN2mHG0woRKayiQ
Hitherto, we have all presumed this Zero Covid policy is just a terrible error, or a byproduct of Xi's need to save face in 2022 etc etc
But what it, at least in part, they have looked at Long Covid and decided any societal pain is better than losing 20% (and growing) of the workforce to chronic illness? It sounds far-fetched but the phrase "far-fetched" has lost its impact in recent years
And let me underline I am NOT proposing Zero Covid or even new lockdowns. Fuck all that. If Long Covid becomes a major problem (arguably it is already) we will have to find different ways of dealing with it, not masks and lockdowns. Never again
Everyone attacks Sunak over tax rises
Truss allies say only she can beat him
But she accused of being “remainer in Brexiteer clothing”
Patel described Keir Starmer’s ideal candidate
And Javid’s NI u-turn mocked
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/45d8a766-008f-11ed-809e-d123192dfb7c?shareToken=6c9e2619a81a459be04f2c25c70333d0
The bus gates will do huge damage to the city and local communities. Forcing people to use the ring road (which is not fit for purpose as it is) to get from Jericho to the train station is ridiculous. Cutting off people from easy access to their GP is unacceptable. Doing this without any business impact assessment is just wrong.
You cannot connect up the city by splitting it up into enclaves. And having lived through the closure of Walton Street, I know how this will play out.
And if you look back in history, you can see how shutting off parts of the city never ends well. Look at the previous attempt to cut traffic in Divinity Road. Or the infamous Cutteslowe experiment.
The councils have got this wrong. They need to pause any further roll out of the Connecting Oxford agenda and start again from scratch. Listen to communities, listen to business. Do the research. Do the modelling. Build the case for radical change.
Forcing it through will end badly. Very badly.
As she is unemployed, she cannot get any other form of benefit or financial help from the government so has turned to food banks for support.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/jul/11/worse-than-the-pandemic-price-rises-push-more-people-into-financial-trouble
Faith Angwet, 37, a single mother of two from Southwark, south London, who used to work in fashion and retail, said her weekly shopping bill has risen from £200 during the pandemic to £400.
Well....
All the research was being done in a hurry. We didn’t know anything at the start, and we got a lot of things wrong at first. There wasn’t a bombshell report on masking because that isn’t how medical science generally operates. There was an accumulation of evidence that built up over time.
The Comprehensive system in general is failing because it has been made to fail through wilful under investment.
Selection at age 11 is immoral! I am a product of both, albeit an awful long time ago. A properly funded and managed Comprehensive school worked better in my case than a provincial Grammar.
Very low
Due to very
serious risk of bias,
Due to serious
inconsistency, Due
to very serious
imprecision.
https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng188/resources/covid19-rapid-guideline-managing-the-longterm-effects-of-covid19-pdf-51035515742
One of the acquaintances is this woman, who wrote about it in the Mail
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-9292521/100-days-long-Covid-torture-counting.html
She is absolutely NOT the kind of person to malinger. Dynamic, energetic, sardonic
That article is from Feb 2021, and when I last inquired, a few months ago, she STILL has Long Covid (tho significantly better). It's real
I feel like we're just at the end of this particular part of Tory Government.
Starmer is a lucky general. Whether he'll get a majority or not is another matter, but this leadership contest makes me more convinced he's going to end up in No10.
i) Long covid is very real
ii) Some people will absolubtely take the piss claiming it when they have no such condition.
Yes, Sri Lanka stands as a grave warning about the follies of organic farming. It doesn’t tell us about net zero policies.
On one level it's a really simple piece of work until you discover that every local authority does things in different ways (with different data collected) for "reasons" so the easiest fix isn't to identify common data and collect it it was to create a centralised system and get everyone to fill in yet another set of forms.
Over time that may be simplified as software providers sending the data automatically but that may or may not be the reality.
Total cost for the project btw is £1.2m for this stage of the work so we are probably looking at £3m spent in total so far.
The only exception is Eton which can get fucked
One example:
"Exposure to the 1918 flu was linked to more than 1 million cases of encephalitis lethargica, a severe form of virally induced Parkinson’s that was memorably recorded in Oliver Sack’s book Awakenings. The H1N1 virus does not enter the brain, but it can cause so much inflammation in other organs and tissues that it triggers subsequent inflammation in the brain. "
https://cvmbs.source.colostate.edu/viral-pandemics-offer-clues-to-neurodegenerative-disorders/