So it seems the general overview from the media and here is that the GOP debate was won by a candidate who is calling for Ukraine to give land to Russia? And who accused other candidates calling for military support to continue to go to Ukraine of pandering for defence contractor jobs?
Every time you think the GOP have hit rock bottom, they find new depths to get to. Wouldn't surprise me if he ends up Trump's running mate then.
OK, kind of changed my perspective on the GOP race watching the debate.
Previously I thought Pence was obviously doomed because the base want to hang him and he didn't excite anyone anti-Trump. But watching that I thought Pence was very strong, and is the obvious not-Trump schelling point.
Usually the person a party in opposition chooses is the Pence figure: Experienced, tall, sedate relatively moderate, lots of gravitas: - Biden against Trump - Romney against Obama - Kerry against Bush - Dole against Clinton
You have to go back to Ronald Reagan to break that pattern and get someone even a little bit wild, and that had a contested primary on the incumbent Dem side which changes the dynamics quite a bit.
If Trump is going to be sitting the debates out, and also everyone is kind of in the habit of ignoring his policy proposals because even his supporters know he's full of shit. Ramaswamy actually showed up, he's prepared to say whatever it takes to excite the base ("global warming is a hoax"), and he's not constrained by reality because he doesn't have a record. Also I think he's more in touch with them than Trump is; In 2016 despite being a celebrity Trump was still going to MacDonalds and meeting ordinary people, whereas now he's probably only really hearing from simps and the occasional judge. Populism is quite subtle, I think you need to tailor it to the moment rather than just playing the same old tunes the whole time.
The news is going to be a constant stream of Trump prosecution stuff, which elevates Pence, because he gets to talk about God and the constitution. I think that's all he needs to round up basically the entire prefer-the-president-doesn't-keep-committing-crimes vote, whereas the pro-crimes vote looks like it could be split between Trump and Ramaswamy.
On one level, trivial, but on another, more likely to damage MPs' brand than Nadine's no-show.
Why on earth are MPs accepting these gifts ?
In a few cases, I suppose they may be legitimately connected with the MP's interests - e.g. in gambling or hortoculture on a Committee. Yet they have expenses to claim for that sort of thing. And remember what Which do - they never accept freebies whether washing machines or holidays when they are testing. Independence is all.
There is no way you could claim a ticket to the Chelsea Flower Show on MPs' expenses. I also don't really understand why you think charging such things to the public purse would be better than taking a free ticket.
The comparison with "Which?" magazine is also a bit ludicrous. Nobody is relying on Oliver Dowden for recommendations over whether or not to go to the Chelsea Flower Show.
On one level, trivial, but on another, more likely to damage MPs' brand than Nadine's no-show.
Why on earth are MPs accepting these gifts ?
Also many of them won’t be £50 general admission tickets, they’ll be £500 hospitality tickets as guests of the sort of companies that employ former MPs.
I was going to suggest Prigozhin might have fallen out of a window shortly before the crash. But I see about 20 people got there first.
If you don't have a high capacity for one dimensional, 100% predictable humour you are in the wrong place.
The Prigozhin snuff is proper 'Гыыы' as the Russians say. Or LMAO to the power of kek as we say.
I will miss his pithy output on Telegram but his fatalistic and nihilistic posts have indicated that he's known for about a year that he's a dead man. Лучшее в аду, indeed.
Dunno what this means for the glory that is the SMO. Probably not much. The Wagners will be absorbed into the RF forces or other PMCs like Convoy and Gazprom. The Shoigu/Krivoruchka axis is definitely in ascendancy over the Surovikin/Teplinsky faction.
Any chance Wagner will move against Lukashenko, if they are still in Belarus and not all in Africa?
She almost certainly doesn't want to stand at the next election - at most, she's eking out another year or so of salary for zero actual work.
But that's the point. If she is defeated at the election she gets another chunk of free cash for zero work
I don't think she'll do that. Her selling point for her media career is that she speaks for a sizable number of continuation Johnson supporters. Losing her deposit as an independent at a General Election does more harm to the brand than the pretty small sum available for defeated (as opposed to retiring) MPs.
So it seems the general overview from the media and here is that the GOP debate was won by a candidate who is calling for Ukraine to give land to Russia? And who accused other candidates calling for military support to continue to go to Ukraine of pandering for defence contractor jobs?
Every time you think the GOP have hit rock bottom, they find new depths to get to. Wouldn't surprise me if he ends up Trump's running mate then.
Yup, although he had the worst of it on that particular exchange. He did better on the other parts because he was prepared to say whatever it took.
On one level, trivial, but on another, more likely to damage MPs' brand than Nadine's no-show.
Why on earth are MPs accepting these gifts ?
In a few cases, I suppose they may be legitimately connected with the MP's interests - e.g. in gambling or hortoculture on a Committee. Yet they have expenses to claim for that sort of thing. And remember what Which do - they never accept freebies whether washing machines or holidays when they are testing. Independence is all.
There is no way you could claim a ticket to the Chelsea Flower Show on MPs' expenses. I also don't really understand why you think charging such things to the public purse would be better than taking a free ticket.
The comparison with "Which?" magazine is also a bit ludicrous. Nobody is relying on Oliver Dowden for recommendations over whether or not to go to the Chelsea Flower Show.
Independence. Rather than being beholden to the donor.
Lockdowns and other non-pharmaceutical interventions were “unequivocally” effective in cutting the transmission of Covid-19 globally, according to a review by the Royal Society.
However, the authors of the report, which considered hundreds of studies into the use of masks, stay at home orders, test and trace, and border controls, said that future work should also quantify the social and economic costs of such measures.
The report involving more than 50 scientists from around the world, found that the strongest impact on coronavirus infections came from a full lockdown. Of 151 studies they considered that estimated an effect of stay at home orders, 119 found a substantial benefit, corresponding to a reduction in the “r number” — the rate of spread of the virus — by about 50 per cent.
It was also the wrong thing to do, illiberal, bad for children, bad for education and bad for the economy and the future of the NHS which now operates with a backlog and constrained taxes from a country that is broke.
Yes it would have been so much easier and convenient if there hadn't been a pandemic.
Does it actually occur to you that some of the effects were due to the virus rather than control methods.
Sure we could learn a lot from South Korea, Japan, Taiwan etc in terms of control. One lesson being that early control measures prevent a total shutdown.
Yes, they shut their borders. We didn't. and we had high volumes of traders coming in and out of Europe where the virus was endemic unlike them.
And no, most of the effects were due to the control methods being worse than the disease, not the virus. Had we kept schools open, then more would have died from the virus perhaps, but education would have been less harmed.
Evading death isn't the be-all and end-all that trumps everything else. Education and other factors matter just as much.
Lockdowns and other non-pharmaceutical interventions were “unequivocally” effective in cutting the transmission of Covid-19 globally, according to a review by the Royal Society.
However, the authors of the report, which considered hundreds of studies into the use of masks, stay at home orders, test and trace, and border controls, said that future work should also quantify the social and economic costs of such measures.
The report involving more than 50 scientists from around the world, found that the strongest impact on coronavirus infections came from a full lockdown. Of 151 studies they considered that estimated an effect of stay at home orders, 119 found a substantial benefit, corresponding to a reduction in the “r number” — the rate of spread of the virus — by about 50 per cent.
It was also the wrong thing to do, illiberal, bad for children, bad for education and bad for the economy and the future of the NHS which now operates with a backlog and constrained taxes from a country that is broke.
Er... "Lockdowns and other non-pharmaceutical interventions were “unequivocally” effective in cutting the transmission of Covid-19 globally, according to a review by the Royal Society."
Lockdowns and other non-pharmaceutical interventions were “unequivocally” effective in cutting the transmission of Covid-19 globally, according to a review by the Royal Society.
However, the authors of the report, which considered hundreds of studies into the use of masks, stay at home orders, test and trace, and border controls, said that future work should also quantify the social and economic costs of such measures.
The report involving more than 50 scientists from around the world, found that the strongest impact on coronavirus infections came from a full lockdown. Of 151 studies they considered that estimated an effect of stay at home orders, 119 found a substantial benefit, corresponding to a reduction in the “r number” — the rate of spread of the virus — by about 50 per cent.
It was also the wrong thing to do, illiberal, bad for children, bad for education and bad for the economy and the future of the NHS which now operates with a backlog and constrained taxes from a country that is broke.
Er... "Lockdowns and other non-pharmaceutical interventions were “unequivocally” effective in cutting the transmission of Covid-19 globally, according to a review by the Royal Society."
Er... Things to file under: No shit, Sherlock.
It was also the wrong thing to do, illiberal, bad for children, bad for education and bad for the economy and the future of the NHS which now operates with a backlog and constrained taxes from a country that is broke.
Why is Trump skipping the debates? My impression is that they always went well for him in 2015, because in the end the story was always about him. If he's not there the GOP have a better chance of forgetting him.
Lockdowns and other non-pharmaceutical interventions were “unequivocally” effective in cutting the transmission of Covid-19 globally, according to a review by the Royal Society.
However, the authors of the report, which considered hundreds of studies into the use of masks, stay at home orders, test and trace, and border controls, said that future work should also quantify the social and economic costs of such measures.
The report involving more than 50 scientists from around the world, found that the strongest impact on coronavirus infections came from a full lockdown. Of 151 studies they considered that estimated an effect of stay at home orders, 119 found a substantial benefit, corresponding to a reduction in the “r number” — the rate of spread of the virus — by about 50 per cent.
It was also the wrong thing to do, illiberal, bad for children, bad for education and bad for the economy and the future of the NHS which now operates with a backlog and constrained taxes from a country that is broke.
Yes it would have been so much easier and convenient if there hadn't been a pandemic.
Does it actually occur to you that some of the effects were due to the virus rather than control methods.
Sure we could learn a lot from South Korea, Japan, Taiwan etc in terms of control. One lesson being that early control measures prevent a total shutdown.
Also- an action can have loads of bad effects and still be the best thing to do, if all the alternatives are even worse. From the point of view of deciding what to do, there's no functional difference between "best" and "least worst".
It's not a perfect analogy, but British participation in World War 2 is similar. Required lots of illiberal actions, harmed children and disrupted education (evacuation), cost the nation an absolute fortune and required the country to liquidate most of its assets.
Some on the Conservative right questioned whether that was the right course of action as well.
Does Nadine get more money for losing the seat at the next GE? It is bad. It doesn't affect the Tories in the wider sense, more than say, being a shit Government does.
She gets redundo (double the statutory) if she sticks around till the dissolution of Pmt and doesn't stand again. If not, not. What I'm not clear about is whether the period assumed is for the current Parliament, or goes back to her previous first election.
Edit: got confused, sorry. She *has* to stand again. Which makes even less sense in her case as she is not standing again. Eking out the salary must be the answer.
"MPs are only eligible for such payments if they have held office for a continuous period of at least two years, stand for re-election but are not re-elected. MPs who choose to stand down prior to an election are not entitled to any payment."!
Lockdowns and other non-pharmaceutical interventions were “unequivocally” effective in cutting the transmission of Covid-19 globally, according to a review by the Royal Society.
However, the authors of the report, which considered hundreds of studies into the use of masks, stay at home orders, test and trace, and border controls, said that future work should also quantify the social and economic costs of such measures.
The report involving more than 50 scientists from around the world, found that the strongest impact on coronavirus infections came from a full lockdown. Of 151 studies they considered that estimated an effect of stay at home orders, 119 found a substantial benefit, corresponding to a reduction in the “r number” — the rate of spread of the virus — by about 50 per cent.
It was also the wrong thing to do, illiberal, bad for children, bad for education and bad for the economy and the future of the NHS which now operates with a backlog and constrained taxes from a country that is broke.
Yes it would have been so much easier and convenient if there hadn't been a pandemic.
Does it actually occur to you that some of the effects were due to the virus rather than control methods.
Sure we could learn a lot from South Korea, Japan, Taiwan etc in terms of control. One lesson being that early control measures prevent a total shutdown.
I think societal factors had massive effects.
From what I’ve seen, in those countries, people reacted by locking themselves down when the governments introduced minor measures. Could this be a reaction caused by previous warnings of Bird Flu etc?
The one that gets to me now is that advice still hasn’t changed to use an N95 mask (or similar). You still see people in vulnerable groups wearing paper masks…
Why is Trump skipping the debates? My impression is that they always went well for him in 2015, because in the end the story was always about him. If he's not there the GOP have a better chance of forgetting him.
Lockdowns and other non-pharmaceutical interventions were “unequivocally” effective in cutting the transmission of Covid-19 globally, according to a review by the Royal Society.
However, the authors of the report, which considered hundreds of studies into the use of masks, stay at home orders, test and trace, and border controls, said that future work should also quantify the social and economic costs of such measures.
The report involving more than 50 scientists from around the world, found that the strongest impact on coronavirus infections came from a full lockdown. Of 151 studies they considered that estimated an effect of stay at home orders, 119 found a substantial benefit, corresponding to a reduction in the “r number” — the rate of spread of the virus — by about 50 per cent.
I don’t find that remotely surprising but did they reduce the number of infections overall or simply flatten the curve to protect hospitals etc? I suspect the latter and if that is right they won’t have reduced the death rate overall. And this is the key question when considering the economic and social impacts.
Clearly governments need to act if health services are endangered. But we never got very close to that point. That might be good management, it might be an excess of caution.
One the arguments I've seen that the lockdowns, particularly the last two, saved lots of lives due to buying time for the vaccine rollout.
That would make sense. If you have a game changer like the vaccines it makes sense to buy time. But by the last lockdown we were all on our second or third dose. It was way past time to stop as Boris correctly concluded.
I appreciate things were a bit different in Scotland, but I am not sure what you mean by the last lockdown.
The first was in the first wave, in spring 2020.
The second was autumn of 2020 when schools and universities went back.
The third was in Dec 2020, coinciding with the roll out of the first vaccines, and carried on with reducing measures into spring 2021.
It was Jan/Feb 2021 when NHS services came closest to collapse, during rollout of the vaccine.
There was the Omicron wave, December 2021, when some restrictions were reintroduced, and there was a clamour for more. I had my second dose early that December.
On one level, trivial, but on another, more likely to damage MPs' brand than Nadine's no-show.
Why on earth are MPs accepting these gifts ?
Also many of them won’t be £50 general admission tickets, they’ll be £500 hospitality tickets as guests of the sort of companies that employ former MPs.
I'm not defending it but I think they'll often have convinced themselves they are doing their duty as an MP by 'supporting' such events.
Most of us are susceptible to justifying our own actions (I know I am). I am reminded of my genuinely nice and otherwise fair-minded neighbour who has clearly convinced himself that he is helping the Cornish economy by owning a second home there which is empty most of the year and on which he pays no Council Tax.
Lockdowns and other non-pharmaceutical interventions were “unequivocally” effective in cutting the transmission of Covid-19 globally, according to a review by the Royal Society.
However, the authors of the report, which considered hundreds of studies into the use of masks, stay at home orders, test and trace, and border controls, said that future work should also quantify the social and economic costs of such measures.
The report involving more than 50 scientists from around the world, found that the strongest impact on coronavirus infections came from a full lockdown. Of 151 studies they considered that estimated an effect of stay at home orders, 119 found a substantial benefit, corresponding to a reduction in the “r number” — the rate of spread of the virus — by about 50 per cent.
It was also the wrong thing to do, illiberal, bad for children, bad for education and bad for the economy and the future of the NHS which now operates with a backlog and constrained taxes from a country that is broke.
Yes it would have been so much easier and convenient if there hadn't been a pandemic.
Does it actually occur to you that some of the effects were due to the virus rather than control methods.
Sure we could learn a lot from South Korea, Japan, Taiwan etc in terms of control. One lesson being that early control measures prevent a total shutdown.
Yes, they shut their borders. We didn't. and we had high volumes of traders coming in and out of Europe where the virus was endemic unlike them.
And no, most of the effects were due to the control methods being worse than the disease, not the virus. Had we kept schools open, then more would have died from the virus perhaps, but education would have been less harmed.
Evading death isn't the be-all and end-all that trumps everything else. Education and other factors matter just as much.
It is bonkers to suggest that the NHS could have continued operating normally. In my Trust at one point 60% of inpatients were covid patients, our ICU had expanded 3 fold, by converting operating theatres and recovery areas to ICU beds. There were neither beds nor operating theatres nor staff to operate normally, even ignoring the fact that General Anaesthesia with covid infection had a high mortality.
I think it worth considering what actions were effective, and which had little effect on disease control, and also the social and economic effects, but wishing away a pandemic doesn't work.
Lockdowns and other non-pharmaceutical interventions were “unequivocally” effective in cutting the transmission of Covid-19 globally, according to a review by the Royal Society.
However, the authors of the report, which considered hundreds of studies into the use of masks, stay at home orders, test and trace, and border controls, said that future work should also quantify the social and economic costs of such measures.
The report involving more than 50 scientists from around the world, found that the strongest impact on coronavirus infections came from a full lockdown. Of 151 studies they considered that estimated an effect of stay at home orders, 119 found a substantial benefit, corresponding to a reduction in the “r number” — the rate of spread of the virus — by about 50 per cent.
It was also the wrong thing to do, illiberal, bad for children, bad for education and bad for the economy and the future of the NHS which now operates with a backlog and constrained taxes from a country that is broke.
Yes it would have been so much easier and convenient if there hadn't been a pandemic.
Does it actually occur to you that some of the effects were due to the virus rather than control methods.
Sure we could learn a lot from South Korea, Japan, Taiwan etc in terms of control. One lesson being that early control measures prevent a total shutdown.
Yes, they shut their borders. We didn't. and we had high volumes of traders coming in and out of Europe where the virus was endemic unlike them.
And no, most of the effects were due to the control methods being worse than the disease, not the virus. Had we kept schools open, then more would have died from the virus perhaps, but education would have been less harmed.
Evading death isn't the be-all and end-all that trumps everything else. Education and other factors matter just as much.
The success of these East Asian nations in handling COVID-19 is a lot more complicated than just closing their borders. They made a lot of changes after SARS, from widespread public mask wearing to rapid and efficient contact tracing.
Although this seems to fly in the face of the idea in Scotland that younger people are less responsible for their actions?
Well, they take away the sentence reduction for being an inexperienced young driver, add an aggravating factor of killing a vulnerable road user. Then add a sentence reduction for being a twenty something and not fully competent.
Bet that ends up with the same sentence as before.
Yes Minister lives!
The hypothesis behind this is that more severe penalties will influence behaviour. I have yet to see any evidence of that. It may make the bereaved family feel better but I don’t believe it does anything for road safety.
We need more traffic calming measures, black boxes for drivers under 25 and less but better signage. But there’s probably fewer votes in that.
I was going to suggest Prigozhin might have fallen out of a window shortly before the crash. But I see about 20 people got there first.
If you don't have a high capacity for one dimensional, 100% predictable humour you are in the wrong place.
The Prigozhin snuff is proper 'Гыыы' as the Russians say. Or LMAO to the power of kek as we say.
I will miss his pithy output on Telegram but his fatalistic and nihilistic posts have indicated that he's known for about a year that he's a dead man. Лучшее в аду, indeed.
Dunno what this means for the glory that is the SMO. Probably not much. The Wagners will be absorbed into the RF forces or other PMCs like Convoy and Gazprom. The Shoigu/Krivoruchka axis is definitely in ascendancy over the Surovikin/Teplinsky faction.
Any chance Wagner will move against Lukashenko, if they are still in Belarus and not all in Africa?
Sure, if somebody pays them enough to try but I can't think who that would be. In stark contrast to almost every other apparatus of the state in the Sovietland theme park, the Belarussian internal security services are very effective.
OK, kind of changed my perspective on the GOP race watching the debate.
Previously I thought Pence was obviously doomed because the base want to hang him and he didn't excite anyone anti-Trump. But watching that I thought Pence was very strong, and is the obvious not-Trump schelling point.
Usually the person a party in opposition chooses is the Pence figure: Experienced, tall, sedate relatively moderate, lots of gravitas: - Biden against Trump - Romney against Obama - Kerry against Bush - Dole against Clinton
You have to go back to Ronald Reagan to break that pattern and get someone even a little bit wild, and that had a contested primary on the incumbent Dem side which changes the dynamics quite a bit.
If Trump is going to be sitting the debates out, and also everyone is kind of in the habit of ignoring his policy proposals because even his supporters know he's full of shit. Ramaswamy actually showed up, he's prepared to say whatever it takes to excite the base ("global warming is a hoax"), and he's not constrained by reality because he doesn't have a record. Also I think he's more in touch with them than Trump is; In 2016 despite being a celebrity Trump was still going to MacDonalds and meeting ordinary people, whereas now he's probably only really hearing from simps and the occasional judge. Populism is quite subtle, I think you need to tailor it to the moment rather than just playing the same old tunes the whole time.
The news is going to be a constant stream of Trump prosecution stuff, which elevates Pence, because he gets to talk about God and the constitution. I think that's all he needs to round up basically the entire prefer-the-president-doesn't-keep-committing-crimes vote, whereas the pro-crimes vote looks like it could be split between Trump and Ramaswamy.
Pence continues to be undervalued, like Kamala Harris on the other side. Nikki Haley seemed quite effective but probably needs to play to the Republican gallery more. Trump is best riffing off a live audience. No-one seems to be buying RDS or Christie. Really, it is hard to tell until the herd thins.
Lockdowns and other non-pharmaceutical interventions were “unequivocally” effective in cutting the transmission of Covid-19 globally, according to a review by the Royal Society.
However, the authors of the report, which considered hundreds of studies into the use of masks, stay at home orders, test and trace, and border controls, said that future work should also quantify the social and economic costs of such measures.
The report involving more than 50 scientists from around the world, found that the strongest impact on coronavirus infections came from a full lockdown. Of 151 studies they considered that estimated an effect of stay at home orders, 119 found a substantial benefit, corresponding to a reduction in the “r number” — the rate of spread of the virus — by about 50 per cent.
It was also the wrong thing to do, illiberal, bad for children, bad for education and bad for the economy and the future of the NHS which now operates with a backlog and constrained taxes from a country that is broke.
Yes it would have been so much easier and convenient if there hadn't been a pandemic.
Does it actually occur to you that some of the effects were due to the virus rather than control methods.
Sure we could learn a lot from South Korea, Japan, Taiwan etc in terms of control. One lesson being that early control measures prevent a total shutdown.
Yes, they shut their borders. We didn't. and we had high volumes of traders coming in and out of Europe where the virus was endemic unlike them.
And no, most of the effects were due to the control methods being worse than the disease, not the virus. Had we kept schools open, then more would have died from the virus perhaps, but education would have been less harmed.
Evading death isn't the be-all and end-all that trumps everything else. Education and other factors matter just as much.
It is bonkers to suggest that the NHS could have continued operating normally. In my Trust at one point 60% of inpatients were covid patients, our ICU had expanded 3 fold, by converting operating theatres and recovery areas to ICU beds. There were neither beds nor operating theatres nor staff to operate normally, even ignoring the fact that General Anaesthesia with covid infection had a high mortality.
I think it worth considering what actions were effective, and which had little effect on disease control, and also the social and economic effects, but wishing away a pandemic doesn't work.
Whereas I think that disease control isn't the be-all and end-all.
"Controlling" the virus did what it was supposed to which was flatten the curve, so that the NHS handled nothing but Covid ICU for longer.
Not controlling the virus would have meant a bigger peak, more deaths, but a faster come down of the peak and return to normal too.
And controlling the virus damaged kids education, which is a price not worth paying.
Yes there's no easy answers. In that situation where there's no easy answers, why is it beyond the pale to suggest the answer with more deaths of the vulnerable and sick might be the better answer than harming the education of the young and healthy?
Lockdowns and other non-pharmaceutical interventions were “unequivocally” effective in cutting the transmission of Covid-19 globally, according to a review by the Royal Society.
However, the authors of the report, which considered hundreds of studies into the use of masks, stay at home orders, test and trace, and border controls, said that future work should also quantify the social and economic costs of such measures.
The report involving more than 50 scientists from around the world, found that the strongest impact on coronavirus infections came from a full lockdown. Of 151 studies they considered that estimated an effect of stay at home orders, 119 found a substantial benefit, corresponding to a reduction in the “r number” — the rate of spread of the virus — by about 50 per cent.
It was also the wrong thing to do, illiberal, bad for children, bad for education and bad for the economy and the future of the NHS which now operates with a backlog and constrained taxes from a country that is broke.
Yes it would have been so much easier and convenient if there hadn't been a pandemic.
Does it actually occur to you that some of the effects were due to the virus rather than control methods.
Sure we could learn a lot from South Korea, Japan, Taiwan etc in terms of control. One lesson being that early control measures prevent a total shutdown.
Yes, they shut their borders. We didn't. and we had high volumes of traders coming in and out of Europe where the virus was endemic unlike them.
And no, most of the effects were due to the control methods being worse than the disease, not the virus. Had we kept schools open, then more would have died from the virus perhaps, but education would have been less harmed.
Evading death isn't the be-all and end-all that trumps everything else. Education and other factors matter just as much.
The success of these East Asian nations in handling COVID-19 is a lot more complicated than just closing their borders. They made a lot of changes after SARS, from widespread public mask wearing to rapid and efficient contact tracing.
Indeed the lesson to learn is that early action prevents total lockdown. The opposite lesson to what our libertarian faction concludes.
On one level, trivial, but on another, more likely to damage MPs' brand than Nadine's no-show.
Why on earth are MPs accepting these gifts ?
In a few cases, I suppose they may be legitimately connected with the MP's interests - e.g. in gambling or hortoculture on a Committee. Yet they have expenses to claim for that sort of thing. And remember what Which do - they never accept freebies whether washing machines or holidays when they are testing. Independence is all.
There is no way you could claim a ticket to the Chelsea Flower Show on MPs' expenses. I also don't really understand why you think charging such things to the public purse would be better than taking a free ticket.
The comparison with "Which?" magazine is also a bit ludicrous. Nobody is relying on Oliver Dowden for recommendations over whether or not to go to the Chelsea Flower Show.
I remember as Labour candidate for Chelsea in 1983 (ouch) I was offered a free ticket to the Chelsea Flower Show. Not knowing a rose from a dahlia, I didn't take it up, to the horror of my friends. I did have a "second job" in translation at odd moments from 2008ish onwards, as i could see the writing on the wall so it seemed wise to start up a second string - I don't think I ever let it get in the way of the day job, though.
As for handsome donations, I think the only two offers I had was a lunch with someone who wanted to promote the idea of a Government-sponsored central register like Rightmove, but for rents (I went to that - seemed an interesting idea) and a dodgy-sounding offer from a supporter of Azerbaijan, who offered me a large donation to my CLP - "we hope that friendly MPs would put our point of view in the Commons" (I declined).
On one level, trivial, but on another, more likely to damage MPs' brand than Nadine's no-show.
Why on earth are MPs accepting these gifts ?
Also many of them won’t be £50 general admission tickets, they’ll be £500 hospitality tickets as guests of the sort of companies that employ former MPs.
I'm not defending it but I think they'll often have convinced themselves they are doing their duty as an MP by 'supporting' such events.
Most of us are susceptible to justifying our own actions (I know I am). I am reminded of my genuinely nice and otherwise fair-minded neighbour who has clearly convinced himself that he is helping the Cornish economy by owning a second home there which is empty most of the year and on which he pays no Council Tax.
I think Hunt is doing a good job as Chancellor, but there's no way he should be accepting hospitality from a bank. He's plenty well off enough to purchase a ticket for the Chelsea Flower show without even the appearance of a string attached.
Why is Trump skipping the debates? My impression is that they always went well for him in 2015, because in the end the story was always about him. If he's not there the GOP have a better chance of forgetting him.
...
I presume he has no intention of signing the loyalty pledge.
Lockdowns and other non-pharmaceutical interventions were “unequivocally” effective in cutting the transmission of Covid-19 globally, according to a review by the Royal Society.
However, the authors of the report, which considered hundreds of studies into the use of masks, stay at home orders, test and trace, and border controls, said that future work should also quantify the social and economic costs of such measures.
The report involving more than 50 scientists from around the world, found that the strongest impact on coronavirus infections came from a full lockdown. Of 151 studies they considered that estimated an effect of stay at home orders, 119 found a substantial benefit, corresponding to a reduction in the “r number” — the rate of spread of the virus — by about 50 per cent.
It was also the wrong thing to do, illiberal, bad for children, bad for education and bad for the economy and the future of the NHS which now operates with a backlog and constrained taxes from a country that is broke.
Yes it would have been so much easier and convenient if there hadn't been a pandemic.
Does it actually occur to you that some of the effects were due to the virus rather than control methods.
Sure we could learn a lot from South Korea, Japan, Taiwan etc in terms of control. One lesson being that early control measures prevent a total shutdown.
Yes, they shut their borders. We didn't. and we had high volumes of traders coming in and out of Europe where the virus was endemic unlike them.
And no, most of the effects were due to the control methods being worse than the disease, not the virus. Had we kept schools open, then more would have died from the virus perhaps, but education would have been less harmed.
Evading death isn't the be-all and end-all that trumps everything else. Education and other factors matter just as much.
The success of these East Asian nations in handling COVID-19 is a lot more complicated than just closing their borders. They made a lot of changes after SARS, from widespread public mask wearing to rapid and efficient contact tracing.
Indeed the lesson to learn is that early action prevents total lockdown. The opposite lesson to what our libertarian faction concludes.
What early action though?
Should we have stopped HGVs from coming in from Europe? Should we have ended food imports?
We never shut the border. We never had effective quarantine. The virus was endemic on the continent, without doing so there was never a chance to prevent importing the virus - and given our economy, shutting down food imports and HGVs from the continent would again like shutting down education probably be worse than the disease itself.
Why is Trump skipping the debates? My impression is that they always went well for him in 2015, because in the end the story was always about him. If he's not there the GOP have a better chance of forgetting him.
Why bother? He is already the assumed nominee, with a vast lead and the entire race a ludicrous drama about the crimes committed against him, and therefore against the American people.
Although this seems to fly in the face of the idea in Scotland that younger people are less responsible for their actions?
Well, they take away the sentence reduction for being an inexperienced young driver, add an aggravating factor of killing a vulnerable road user. Then add a sentence reduction for being a twenty something and not fully competent.
Bet that ends up with the same sentence as before.
Yes Minister lives!
The hypothesis behind this is that more severe penalties will influence behaviour. I have yet to see any evidence of that. It may make the bereaved family feel better but I don’t believe it does anything for road safety.
We need more traffic calming measures, black boxes for drivers under 25 and less but better signage. But there’s probably fewer votes in that.
I'd agree deterrence is the wrong approach but what has happened to road safety education? Pedestrians step into the road without looking; drivers see red lights as advisory; cyclists do whatever the hell they like.
Lockdowns and other non-pharmaceutical interventions were “unequivocally” effective in cutting the transmission of Covid-19 globally, according to a review by the Royal Society.
However, the authors of the report, which considered hundreds of studies into the use of masks, stay at home orders, test and trace, and border controls, said that future work should also quantify the social and economic costs of such measures.
The report involving more than 50 scientists from around the world, found that the strongest impact on coronavirus infections came from a full lockdown. Of 151 studies they considered that estimated an effect of stay at home orders, 119 found a substantial benefit, corresponding to a reduction in the “r number” — the rate of spread of the virus — by about 50 per cent.
It was also the wrong thing to do, illiberal, bad for children, bad for education and bad for the economy and the future of the NHS which now operates with a backlog and constrained taxes from a country that is broke.
Yes it would have been so much easier and convenient if there hadn't been a pandemic.
Does it actually occur to you that some of the effects were due to the virus rather than control methods.
Sure we could learn a lot from South Korea, Japan, Taiwan etc in terms of control. One lesson being that early control measures prevent a total shutdown.
Yes, they shut their borders. We didn't. and we had high volumes of traders coming in and out of Europe where the virus was endemic unlike them.
And no, most of the effects were due to the control methods being worse than the disease, not the virus. Had we kept schools open, then more would have died from the virus perhaps, but education would have been less harmed.
Evading death isn't the be-all and end-all that trumps everything else. Education and other factors matter just as much.
The success of these East Asian nations in handling COVID-19 is a lot more complicated than just closing their borders. They made a lot of changes after SARS, from widespread public mask wearing to rapid and efficient contact tracing.
Indeed the lesson to learn is that early action prevents total lockdown. The opposite lesson to what our libertarian faction concludes.
Quite so, and the classic logical error is being made - catastrophe Italy-style did not happen, so the restrioctions were not necessary (whether they were the right ones, or could have been done better, remains a legitimate issue).
Getting a bit Groundhog Day here, with all our PBepidemiologists coming out of the woodwork like bubonic plague in an, er, groundhog population. Nice day here, so out for a walk. Play nicely everyone.
"Something has started to go awry with life expectancy trends in Britain. After decades of rapid improvement, progress has slowed to a crawl since 2011. In the poorest parts of England, it has actually started to fall."
"According to an analysis published in The Lancet of the trends in 6,791 communities in England, female life expectancy fell in 18.7 per cent of communities between 2014 and 2019 and male life expectancy fell in 11.5 per cent of them."
"Life expectancy is a vital measure of health and human progress. When it starts to go backwards, everyone should pay attention."
Although this seems to fly in the face of the idea in Scotland that younger people are less responsible for their actions?
Well, they take away the sentence reduction for being an inexperienced young driver, add an aggravating factor of killing a vulnerable road user. Then add a sentence reduction for being a twenty something and not fully competent.
Bet that ends up with the same sentence as before.
Yes Minister lives!
The hypothesis behind this is that more severe penalties will influence behaviour. I have yet to see any evidence of that. It may make the bereaved family feel better but I don’t believe it does anything for road safety.
We need more traffic calming measures, black boxes for drivers under 25 and less but better signage. But there’s probably fewer votes in that.
I'd agree deterrence is the wrong approach but what has happened to road safety education? Pedestrians step into the road without looking; drivers see red lights as advisory; cyclists do whatever the hell they like.
The onus is on the driver of the two-tonne steel box to look out for everyone else, even if they aren't entirely at fault in collision. The tweaks to the emphasis of the Highway Code make that clear.
"Something has started to go awry with life expectancy trends in Britain. After decades of rapid improvement, progress has slowed to a crawl since 2011. In the poorest parts of England, it has actually started to fall."
"According to an analysis published in The Lancet of the trends in 6,791 communities in England, female life expectancy fell in 18.7 per cent of communities between 2014 and 2019 and male life expectancy fell in 11.5 per cent of them."
"Life expectancy is a vital measure of health and human progress. When it starts to go backwards, everyone should pay attention."
Excellent point. And that's before covid, as any fule kno.
Lockdowns and other non-pharmaceutical interventions were “unequivocally” effective in cutting the transmission of Covid-19 globally, according to a review by the Royal Society.
However, the authors of the report, which considered hundreds of studies into the use of masks, stay at home orders, test and trace, and border controls, said that future work should also quantify the social and economic costs of such measures.
The report involving more than 50 scientists from around the world, found that the strongest impact on coronavirus infections came from a full lockdown. Of 151 studies they considered that estimated an effect of stay at home orders, 119 found a substantial benefit, corresponding to a reduction in the “r number” — the rate of spread of the virus — by about 50 per cent.
It was also the wrong thing to do, illiberal, bad for children, bad for education and bad for the economy and the future of the NHS which now operates with a backlog and constrained taxes from a country that is broke.
Yes it would have been so much easier and convenient if there hadn't been a pandemic.
Does it actually occur to you that some of the effects were due to the virus rather than control methods.
Sure we could learn a lot from South Korea, Japan, Taiwan etc in terms of control. One lesson being that early control measures prevent a total shutdown.
Yes, they shut their borders. We didn't. and we had high volumes of traders coming in and out of Europe where the virus was endemic unlike them.
And no, most of the effects were due to the control methods being worse than the disease, not the virus. Had we kept schools open, then more would have died from the virus perhaps, but education would have been less harmed.
Evading death isn't the be-all and end-all that trumps everything else. Education and other factors matter just as much.
The success of these East Asian nations in handling COVID-19 is a lot more complicated than just closing their borders. They made a lot of changes after SARS, from widespread public mask wearing to rapid and efficient contact tracing.
Contract tracing only works if you have very few cases, which is only possible with a closed border, which they had.
We never closed the border, we never stopped HGVs, nor could we most likely. In that case, the virus would have continued coming into the country in a way it didn't there.
Japan style solutions are only possible if you are willing to take Japan-style action, including shutting the border and blocking large volumes of HGV drivers from coming into the country. Is that what you propose? If not, then we need to look at other solutions, like accepting that the virus was happening and dealing with it and burying the dead rather than shutting down the rest of society and harming children's education.
Lockdowns and other non-pharmaceutical interventions were “unequivocally” effective in cutting the transmission of Covid-19 globally, according to a review by the Royal Society.
However, the authors of the report, which considered hundreds of studies into the use of masks, stay at home orders, test and trace, and border controls, said that future work should also quantify the social and economic costs of such measures.
The report involving more than 50 scientists from around the world, found that the strongest impact on coronavirus infections came from a full lockdown. Of 151 studies they considered that estimated an effect of stay at home orders, 119 found a substantial benefit, corresponding to a reduction in the “r number” — the rate of spread of the virus — by about 50 per cent.
I don’t find that remotely surprising but did they reduce the number of infections overall or simply flatten the curve to protect hospitals etc? I suspect the latter and if that is right they won’t have reduced the death rate overall. And this is the key question when considering the economic and social impacts.
Clearly governments need to act if health services are endangered. But we never got very close to that point. That might be good management, it might be an excess of caution.
Not quite right, surely? Death rate would depend on whether hospitals were saturated - remember Italy in early 2020. And the UK hospitals and their staff did have a grim time of it, even so.
Also:with infectious diseases and exponential increases, it's simply not possible to fine tune to the degree retrospective critics would like. You're talking about margins in absolute ratios of ordinary numbers, effectively, when the true metric/function is a logarithmic conversion of that ratio.
I accepted the first lockdown was necessary. We didn’t know what we were dealing with and Italy was indeed alarming.
I also accept that it was rational to use lockdown measures when a vaccination program was being run out.
But, in Scotland, we were in various levels of lockdown from 5th January 21 to 1st July. That was largely unnecessary and I would be confident that the costs, economic, social and educational, far outweighed any benefits.
I really don’t say this to make a party political point. We need to learn from this and find better ways of assessing cost benefit analysis for such a thing. I very much fear that the inquiries will be a blame game with 20:20 hindsight. That is an utter waste of time and money. We need to learn the right lessons going forward and then hope that that proves to be a waste of time too because it doesn’t happen again.
OK, kind of changed my perspective on the GOP race watching the debate.
Previously I thought Pence was obviously doomed because the base want to hang him and he didn't excite anyone anti-Trump. But watching that I thought Pence was very strong, and is the obvious not-Trump schelling point.
Usually the person a party in opposition chooses is the Pence figure: Experienced, tall, sedate relatively moderate, lots of gravitas: - Biden against Trump - Romney against Obama - Kerry against Bush - Dole against Clinton
You have to go back to Ronald Reagan to break that pattern and get someone even a little bit wild, and that had a contested primary on the incumbent Dem side which changes the dynamics quite a bit.
If Trump is going to be sitting the debates out, and also everyone is kind of in the habit of ignoring his policy proposals because even his supporters know he's full of shit. Ramaswamy actually showed up, he's prepared to say whatever it takes to excite the base ("global warming is a hoax"), and he's not constrained by reality because he doesn't have a record. Also I think he's more in touch with them than Trump is; In 2016 despite being a celebrity Trump was still going to MacDonalds and meeting ordinary people, whereas now he's probably only really hearing from simps and the occasional judge. Populism is quite subtle, I think you need to tailor it to the moment rather than just playing the same old tunes the whole time.
The news is going to be a constant stream of Trump prosecution stuff, which elevates Pence, because he gets to talk about God and the constitution. I think that's all he needs to round up basically the entire prefer-the-president-doesn't-keep-committing-crimes vote, whereas the pro-crimes vote looks like it could be split between Trump and Ramaswamy.
Pence continues to be undervalued, like Kamala Harris on the other side. Nikki Haley seemed quite effective but probably needs to play to the Republican gallery more. Trump is best riffing off a live audience. No-one seems to be buying RDS or Christie. Really, it is hard to tell until the herd thins.
There is so much revisionist guff with regards to the pandemic and lockdowns. We had a choice - a controlled shut down, or an uncontrolled shut down. In no scenario was the government going to say "business as usual" and that actually happen.
You cannot operate business critical functions when significant numbers of workers are not just off sick but seriously ill or dying. So I don't get the point BR and others make, other than "wouldn't it have been good not to have had a pandemic".
"Something has started to go awry with life expectancy trends in Britain. After decades of rapid improvement, progress has slowed to a crawl since 2011. In the poorest parts of England, it has actually started to fall."
"According to an analysis published in The Lancet of the trends in 6,791 communities in England, female life expectancy fell in 18.7 per cent of communities between 2014 and 2019 and male life expectancy fell in 11.5 per cent of them."
"Life expectancy is a vital measure of health and human progress. When it starts to go backwards, everyone should pay attention."
Morning to all from sun-soaked Greece.
Strongly uncoincidentally to the above, I suspect, is the wave of social cuts starting around then.
There is so much revisionist guff with regards to the pandemic and lockdowns. We had a choice - a controlled shut down, or an uncontrolled shut down. In no scenario was the government going to say "business as usual" and that actually happen.
You cannot operate business critical functions when significant numbers of workers are not just off sick but seriously ill or dying. So I don't get the point BR and others make, other than "wouldn't it have been good not to have had a pandemic".
Then you're not paying attention.
I am saying an uncontrolled shut down would have been better than a controlled one.
If people are die, then bury them, mourn them, and life goes on.
If people are sick, they take time off but when they recover life goes on.
What you don't need is healthy people locked out of schools, healthy people locked at home.
Although this seems to fly in the face of the idea in Scotland that younger people are less responsible for their actions?
Well, they take away the sentence reduction for being an inexperienced young driver, add an aggravating factor of killing a vulnerable road user. Then add a sentence reduction for being a twenty something and not fully competent.
Bet that ends up with the same sentence as before.
Yes Minister lives!
The hypothesis behind this is that more severe penalties will influence behaviour. I have yet to see any evidence of that. It may make the bereaved family feel better but I don’t believe it does anything for road safety.
We need more traffic calming measures, black boxes for drivers under 25 and less but better signage. But there’s probably fewer votes in that.
I agree. Better side visibility from HGVs and SUVs is a big one too. More consistency in sentences would be good though.
What you often find is that the driver involved had something of a history when it comes to driving offences. See the recent horrible case near Tyndrum. And fines are a deeply unfair penalty.
I'd go for more driving bans. Mandatory life ban for death by dangerous, 10 years for careless, 6 months for 6 points, or 2 years for 12, life ban if caught driving while banned etc.
No "exceptional hardship" excuses, and cars are seized and auctioned if used by a disqualified driver. That would focus minds.
And controlling the virus damaged kids education, which is a price not worth paying.
Yes there's no easy answers. In that situation where there's no easy answers, why is it beyond the pale to suggest the answer with more deaths of the vulnerable and sick might be the better answer than harming the education of the young and healthy?
Have snipped your post (sorry) to the crux of it. Kids education was harmed, that isn't up for debate. But you seem to be suggesting an alternative where it wasn't harmed. And that is a fantasy.
Lets assume that Shagger decided to ignore the scientists and do a bluster "Keep Going For Blighty" policy. His fateful "you must stay at home" speech instead being "you must keep living your lives normally".
The pox was still spreading like wildfire - even faster this time. Which means more teachers falling sick, and more parents falling sick. Once you get past a tipping point of staff absence you cannot open the school - you need to close some years or the whole thing.
Instead of a controlled closure, you get an uncontrolled closure. Instead of the schools being able to remain open throughout so that key workers could continue to work, you'd have seen schools properly shut. And a whole load of key businesses also shut as the pox tore through them harder than it did in the prime timeline.
You can't just wish away Covid. And I honestly don't understand why you even try to.
And controlling the virus damaged kids education, which is a price not worth paying.
Yes there's no easy answers. In that situation where there's no easy answers, why is it beyond the pale to suggest the answer with more deaths of the vulnerable and sick might be the better answer than harming the education of the young and healthy?
Have snipped your post (sorry) to the crux of it. Kids education was harmed, that isn't up for debate. But you seem to be suggesting an alternative where it wasn't harmed. And that is a fantasy.
Lets assume that Shagger decided to ignore the scientists and do a bluster "Keep Going For Blighty" policy. His fateful "you must stay at home" speech instead being "you must keep living your lives normally".
The pox was still spreading like wildfire - even faster this time. Which means more teachers falling sick, and more parents falling sick. Once you get past a tipping point of staff absence you cannot open the school - you need to close some years or the whole thing.
Instead of a controlled closure, you get an uncontrolled closure. Instead of the schools being able to remain open throughout so that key workers could continue to work, you'd have seen schools properly shut. And a whole load of key businesses also shut as the pox tore through them harder than it did in the prime timeline.
You can't just wish away Covid. And I honestly don't understand why you even try to.
That's because you're tilting at windmills.
Nobody has suggested "you must keep living your lives normally" as a solution.
If you're confused, try reading what people actually wrote.
There is so much revisionist guff with regards to the pandemic and lockdowns. We had a choice - a controlled shut down, or an uncontrolled shut down. In no scenario was the government going to say "business as usual" and that actually happen.
You cannot operate business critical functions when significant numbers of workers are not just off sick but seriously ill or dying. So I don't get the point BR and others make, other than "wouldn't it have been good not to have had a pandemic".
Very, very few workers were dying. Deaths were largely a factor of age and pre existing conditions. But millions of workers were forced to self isolate. Did that work? Was it the best way to protect the truly vulnerable? I don’t know but I agree with @foxy that that is what the inquiries should be looking at.
Lockdowns and other non-pharmaceutical interventions were “unequivocally” effective in cutting the transmission of Covid-19 globally, according to a review by the Royal Society.
However, the authors of the report, which considered hundreds of studies into the use of masks, stay at home orders, test and trace, and border controls, said that future work should also quantify the social and economic costs of such measures.
The report involving more than 50 scientists from around the world, found that the strongest impact on coronavirus infections came from a full lockdown. Of 151 studies they considered that estimated an effect of stay at home orders, 119 found a substantial benefit, corresponding to a reduction in the “r number” — the rate of spread of the virus — by about 50 per cent.
I don’t find that remotely surprising but did they reduce the number of infections overall or simply flatten the curve to protect hospitals etc? I suspect the latter and if that is right they won’t have reduced the death rate overall. And this is the key question when considering the economic and social impacts.
Clearly governments need to act if health services are endangered. But we never got very close to that point. That might be good management, it might be an excess of caution.
Not quite right, surely? Death rate would depend on whether hospitals were saturated - remember Italy in early 2020. And the UK hospitals and their staff did have a grim time of it, even so.
Also:with infectious diseases and exponential increases, it's simply not possible to fine tune to the degree retrospective critics would like. You're talking about margins in absolute ratios of ordinary numbers, effectively, when the true metric/function is a logarithmic conversion of that ratio.
I accepted the first lockdown was necessary. We didn’t know what we were dealing with and Italy was indeed alarming.
I also accept that it was rational to use lockdown measures when a vaccination program was being run out.
But, in Scotland, we were in various levels of lockdown from 5th January 21 to 1st July. That was largely unnecessary and I would be confident that the costs, economic, social and educational, far outweighed any benefits.
I really don’t say this to make a party political point. We need to learn from this and find better ways of assessing cost benefit analysis for such a thing. I very much fear that the inquiries will be a blame game with 20:20 hindsight. That is an utter waste of time and money. We need to learn the right lessons going forward and then hope that that proves to be a waste of time too because it doesn’t happen again.
Only too happy to agree with the latter - though I have no doubt there willbe another pandemic of something sooner or later, the need for flexibility being a key issue flagged up by covid not being flu etc.
Interesting question: why on earth aren't planes disembarked by aisle rather than row, when it would considerably speed up the process of leaving a plane?
"The way we get off airplanes makes absolutely no sense
Using computer simulations, multiple groups of independent researchers have found that deboarding by aisle, rather than row, would cut deboarding times down significantly. In other words, you'd let all aisle passengers off first, then all middle seats, then all windows."
For the very obvious reason that people don't do as they are told.
If you land at most of the smaller regional airports in India, you'll see the locals always undo their seatbelts as soon as the plane touches down!
Lockdowns and other non-pharmaceutical interventions were “unequivocally” effective in cutting the transmission of Covid-19 globally, according to a review by the Royal Society.
However, the authors of the report, which considered hundreds of studies into the use of masks, stay at home orders, test and trace, and border controls, said that future work should also quantify the social and economic costs of such measures.
The report involving more than 50 scientists from around the world, found that the strongest impact on coronavirus infections came from a full lockdown. Of 151 studies they considered that estimated an effect of stay at home orders, 119 found a substantial benefit, corresponding to a reduction in the “r number” — the rate of spread of the virus — by about 50 per cent.
It was also the wrong thing to do, illiberal, bad for children, bad for education and bad for the economy and the future of the NHS which now operates with a backlog and constrained taxes from a country that is broke.
Er... "Lockdowns and other non-pharmaceutical interventions were “unequivocally” effective in cutting the transmission of Covid-19 globally, according to a review by the Royal Society."
Except the actual data is highly equivocal.
The peak of deaths in the first wave occurred just two weeks (12th April) after the first lockdown. At the time the period before symptoms emerged was estimated at 5-7 days, with around another 10 days before being hospitalised and then a median stay in hospital of 6 days. Hence, this is far too early to have resulted from the lockdown. The second lockdown produced no real decline in the death rate. And the peak death rate in 2021 was on 19th January, just 13 days after lockdown and so again too short a period.
And controlling the virus damaged kids education, which is a price not worth paying.
Yes there's no easy answers. In that situation where there's no easy answers, why is it beyond the pale to suggest the answer with more deaths of the vulnerable and sick might be the better answer than harming the education of the young and healthy?
Have snipped your post (sorry) to the crux of it. Kids education was harmed, that isn't up for debate. But you seem to be suggesting an alternative where it wasn't harmed. And that is a fantasy.
Lets assume that Shagger decided to ignore the scientists and do a bluster "Keep Going For Blighty" policy. His fateful "you must stay at home" speech instead being "you must keep living your lives normally".
The pox was still spreading like wildfire - even faster this time. Which means more teachers falling sick, and more parents falling sick. Once you get past a tipping point of staff absence you cannot open the school - you need to close some years or the whole thing.
Instead of a controlled closure, you get an uncontrolled closure. Instead of the schools being able to remain open throughout so that key workers could continue to work, you'd have seen schools properly shut. And a whole load of key businesses also shut as the pox tore through them harder than it did in the prime timeline.
You can't just wish away Covid. And I honestly don't understand why you even try to.
It is the reason why we need a proper enquiry, rather than one where conclusions are written first, then evidence made to fit.
There is so much revisionist guff with regards to the pandemic and lockdowns. We had a choice - a controlled shut down, or an uncontrolled shut down. In no scenario was the government going to say "business as usual" and that actually happen.
You cannot operate business critical functions when significant numbers of workers are not just off sick but seriously ill or dying. So I don't get the point BR and others make, other than "wouldn't it have been good not to have had a pandemic".
I am reminded of one of our former panic- stricken posters who hi-tailed it out of the Smoke to a safer and less frenetic bolt hole during Lockdown One. He came back after the pandemic (albeit as a shiny new former poster) as an ardent lockdown denier. It's a funny old game Saint!
There is so much revisionist guff with regards to the pandemic and lockdowns. We had a choice - a controlled shut down, or an uncontrolled shut down. In no scenario was the government going to say "business as usual" and that actually happen.
You cannot operate business critical functions when significant numbers of workers are not just off sick but seriously ill or dying. So I don't get the point BR and others make, other than "wouldn't it have been good not to have had a pandemic".
Then you're not paying attention.
I am saying an uncontrolled shut down would have been better than a controlled one.
If people are die, then bury them, mourn them, and life goes on.
If people are sick, they take time off but when they recover life goes on.
What you don't need is healthy people locked out of schools, healthy people locked at home.
Operationally a controlled shutdown is always better than an uncontrolled shutdown. What you are suggesting is that there would not have been a shut down at all. "People die, so what?" was your earlier alternative to "If people are die, then bury them, mourn them, and life goes on."
If one person dies in a company, then yes, life goes on. But if a significant part of the workforce are ill, some seriously so, a few actually dying, then no. Life does not go on for that company. Everything stops, because nobody sane is going to keep coming in to risk their lives for a job.
I have been impressed by your mea culpa list recently. It shows a level of self awareness that many do not have, likely myself included. But you do have this sociopathic tendency when it comes to Covid which demonstrates a disconnection from how people think and behave.
Ramaswarmy is a simply awful husk of a human who'd clearly endorse the lynching of his own mother if it gave him half a percentage point in the polls.
Ron's just a loser who doesn't stand a chance.
Christie doesn't stand a chance but at least he's somewhat anchored in reality.
Pence and Haley are the only other two worth mentioning, but it's remarkable how much the US Rep base needs pandering to, I don't see their approach of being somewhat anchored in reality working (even Pence's I defended the constitution line wasn't well received!).
Although this seems to fly in the face of the idea in Scotland that younger people are less responsible for their actions?
Well, they take away the sentence reduction for being an inexperienced young driver, add an aggravating factor of killing a vulnerable road user. Then add a sentence reduction for being a twenty something and not fully competent.
Bet that ends up with the same sentence as before.
Yes Minister lives!
The hypothesis behind this is that more severe penalties will influence behaviour. I have yet to see any evidence of that. It may make the bereaved family feel better but I don’t believe it does anything for road safety.
We need more traffic calming measures, black boxes for drivers under 25 and less but better signage. But there’s probably fewer votes in that.
I agree. Better side visibility from HGVs and SUVs is a big one too. More consistency in sentences would be good though.
What you often find is that the driver involved had something of a history when it comes to driving offences. See the recent horrible case near Tyndrum. And fines are a deeply unfair penalty.
I'd go for more driving bans. Mandatory life ban for death by dangerous, 10 years for careless, 6 months for 6 points, or 2 years for 12, life ban if caught driving while banned etc.
No "exceptional hardship" excuses, and cars are seized and auctioned if used by a disqualified driver. That would focus minds.
Also - Police Scotland are the only UK Police Force to not have a dashcam portal. English forces are prosecuting thousands of drivers from user-submitted footage (mainly from drivers), but here they just can't be bothered to set it up.
When a bunch of pedestrians were killed last year in Glasgow, the Police advised people to wear High-vis when walking round the city.
And controlling the virus damaged kids education, which is a price not worth paying.
Yes there's no easy answers. In that situation where there's no easy answers, why is it beyond the pale to suggest the answer with more deaths of the vulnerable and sick might be the better answer than harming the education of the young and healthy?
Have snipped your post (sorry) to the crux of it. Kids education was harmed, that isn't up for debate. But you seem to be suggesting an alternative where it wasn't harmed. And that is a fantasy.
Lets assume that Shagger decided to ignore the scientists and do a bluster "Keep Going For Blighty" policy. His fateful "you must stay at home" speech instead being "you must keep living your lives normally".
The pox was still spreading like wildfire - even faster this time. Which means more teachers falling sick, and more parents falling sick. Once you get past a tipping point of staff absence you cannot open the school - you need to close some years or the whole thing.
Instead of a controlled closure, you get an uncontrolled closure. Instead of the schools being able to remain open throughout so that key workers could continue to work, you'd have seen schools properly shut. And a whole load of key businesses also shut as the pox tore through them harder than it did in the prime timeline.
You can't just wish away Covid. And I honestly don't understand why you even try to.
It is the reason why we need a proper enquiry, rather than one where conclusions are written first, then evidence made to fit.
Absolutely! Any choice any government would have made can be proven to be in error in hindsight when all the facts are known and the scenario has played out. We need to understand what happened, what the alternatives were, and how we could do it better next time.
Although this seems to fly in the face of the idea in Scotland that younger people are less responsible for their actions?
Well, they take away the sentence reduction for being an inexperienced young driver, add an aggravating factor of killing a vulnerable road user. Then add a sentence reduction for being a twenty something and not fully competent.
Bet that ends up with the same sentence as before.
Yes Minister lives!
The hypothesis behind this is that more severe penalties will influence behaviour. I have yet to see any evidence of that. It may make the bereaved family feel better but I don’t believe it does anything for road safety.
We need more traffic calming measures, black boxes for drivers under 25 and less but better signage. But there’s probably fewer votes in that.
I'd agree deterrence is the wrong approach but what has happened to road safety education? Pedestrians step into the road without looking; drivers see red lights as advisory; cyclists do whatever the hell they like.
The onus is on the driver of the two-tonne steel box to look out for everyone else, even if they aren't entirely at fault in collision. The tweaks to the emphasis of the Highway Code make that clear.
Yes, but avoiding accidents is surely better than systematising the assignment of blame. As I said, from casual observation it does seem that all classes of road users are getting worse, and as DavidL suggested, maybe the streets are too.
I quite literally said an uncontrolled shut down is better than a controlled one, and now Rochdale just keeps repeating that if we hadn't had a controlled shut down we'd have had uncontrolled ones as if that's a killer argument. Yes, if we hadn't had a controlled shut down, we'd have had what is better. That's a better choice.
If the choice is scenario (A) shut down all schools, all the time, for months, or scenario (B) shut down individual classes in individual schools for a week if the teacher is off sick and no cover is available that week, then return back afterwards - then I prefer scenario B.
I'm not pretending that you could 'wish away' the pandemic, just live with it. And if the vulnerable choose to isolate, then let them choose that, free choice.
On one level, trivial, but on another, more likely to damage MPs' brand than Nadine's no-show.
Why on earth are MPs accepting these gifts ?
Also many of them won’t be £50 general admission tickets, they’ll be £500 hospitality tickets as guests of the sort of companies that employ former MPs.
I'm not defending it but I think they'll often have convinced themselves they are doing their duty as an MP by 'supporting' such events.
Most of us are susceptible to justifying our own actions (I know I am). I am reminded of my genuinely nice and otherwise fair-minded neighbour who has clearly convinced himself that he is helping the Cornish economy by owning a second home there which is empty most of the year and on which he pays no Council Tax.
If you want to ‘support’ such events, then buy a ticket.
Didn’t a dozen MPs go to the Grand Prix, none of whom paid for tickets themselves? Fair enough for the sports minister, who’s presenting a trophy and there in an official capacity, but the rest of them, nope. Same with the FA Cup final.
Lockdowns and other non-pharmaceutical interventions were “unequivocally” effective in cutting the transmission of Covid-19 globally, according to a review by the Royal Society.
However, the authors of the report, which considered hundreds of studies into the use of masks, stay at home orders, test and trace, and border controls, said that future work should also quantify the social and economic costs of such measures.
The report involving more than 50 scientists from around the world, found that the strongest impact on coronavirus infections came from a full lockdown. Of 151 studies they considered that estimated an effect of stay at home orders, 119 found a substantial benefit, corresponding to a reduction in the “r number” — the rate of spread of the virus — by about 50 per cent.
It was also the wrong thing to do, illiberal, bad for children, bad for education and bad for the economy and the future of the NHS which now operates with a backlog and constrained taxes from a country that is broke.
Yes it would have been so much easier and convenient if there hadn't been a pandemic.
Does it actually occur to you that some of the effects were due to the virus rather than control methods.
Sure we could learn a lot from South Korea, Japan, Taiwan etc in terms of control. One lesson being that early control measures prevent a total shutdown.
Yes, they shut their borders. We didn't. and we had high volumes of traders coming in and out of Europe where the virus was endemic unlike them.
And no, most of the effects were due to the control methods being worse than the disease, not the virus. Had we kept schools open, then more would have died from the virus perhaps, but education would have been less harmed.
Evading death isn't the be-all and end-all that trumps everything else. Education and other factors matter just as much.
The success of these East Asian nations in handling COVID-19 is a lot more complicated than just closing their borders. They made a lot of changes after SARS, from widespread public mask wearing to rapid and efficient contact tracing.
Contract tracing only works if you have very few cases, which is only possible with a closed border, which they had.
We never closed the border, we never stopped HGVs, nor could we most likely. In that case, the virus would have continued coming into the country in a way it didn't there.
Japan style solutions are only possible if you are willing to take Japan-style action, including shutting the border and blocking large volumes of HGV drivers from coming into the country. Is that what you propose? If not, then we need to look at other solutions, like accepting that the virus was happening and dealing with it and burying the dead rather than shutting down the rest of society and harming children's education.
I don't think it's really clear that the border closures were what did the trick. If you're close to zero then it plausibly helps a lot, but Japan was never close to zero; They got the first strain direct from Wuhan, and all the others got a decent foothold. They maybe held off the delta strain for a couple of weeks, but it inevitably got through since the quarantine for returning Japanese people was voluntary and inevitably somebody wants to see their boyfriend then the boyfriend wants to watch the match.
What Japan (and other east asian countries) managed to do was to keep the transmission rate down. The big difference with the UK was that they did the little things like wearing masks and asking people to cancel events much sooner, whereas western countries seemed to want to wait until their healthcare systems were about to melt down then do a big coercive lockdown.
And controlling the virus damaged kids education, which is a price not worth paying.
Yes there's no easy answers. In that situation where there's no easy answers, why is it beyond the pale to suggest the answer with more deaths of the vulnerable and sick might be the better answer than harming the education of the young and healthy?
Have snipped your post (sorry) to the crux of it. Kids education was harmed, that isn't up for debate. But you seem to be suggesting an alternative where it wasn't harmed. And that is a fantasy.
Lets assume that Shagger decided to ignore the scientists and do a bluster "Keep Going For Blighty" policy. His fateful "you must stay at home" speech instead being "you must keep living your lives normally".
The pox was still spreading like wildfire - even faster this time. Which means more teachers falling sick, and more parents falling sick. Once you get past a tipping point of staff absence you cannot open the school - you need to close some years or the whole thing.
Instead of a controlled closure, you get an uncontrolled closure. Instead of the schools being able to remain open throughout so that key workers could continue to work, you'd have seen schools properly shut. And a whole load of key businesses also shut as the pox tore through them harder than it did in the prime timeline.
You can't just wish away Covid. And I honestly don't understand why you even try to.
That's because you're tilting at windmills.
Nobody has suggested "you must keep living your lives normally" as a solution.
If you're confused, try reading what people actually wrote.
OK, earlier you posted this:
"Controlling" the virus did what it was supposed to which was flatten the curve, so that the NHS handled nothing but Covid ICU for longer.
Not controlling the virus would have meant a bigger peak, more deaths, but a faster come down of the peak and return to normal too.
And controlling the virus damaged kids education, which is a price not worth paying.
Yes there's no easy answers. In that situation where there's no easy answers, why is it beyond the pale to suggest the answer with more deaths of the vulnerable and sick might be the better answer than harming the education of the young and healthy?
You are - correct me if I am wrong - arguing that we should have not controlled the virus and had that higher peak with more deaths early? No? And not controlling it means what? Leaving schools open to not harm the education of the young and healthy?
I won't post any response to that, I just want you to confirm that is your argument.
Although this seems to fly in the face of the idea in Scotland that younger people are less responsible for their actions?
Well, they take away the sentence reduction for being an inexperienced young driver, add an aggravating factor of killing a vulnerable road user. Then add a sentence reduction for being a twenty something and not fully competent.
Bet that ends up with the same sentence as before.
Yes Minister lives!
The hypothesis behind this is that more severe penalties will influence behaviour. I have yet to see any evidence of that. It may make the bereaved family feel better but I don’t believe it does anything for road safety.
We need more traffic calming measures, black boxes for drivers under 25 and less but better signage. But there’s probably fewer votes in that.
I'd agree deterrence is the wrong approach but what has happened to road safety education? Pedestrians step into the road without looking; drivers see red lights as advisory; cyclists do whatever the hell they like.
The onus is on the driver of the two-tonne steel box to look out for everyone else, even if they aren't entirely at fault in collision. The tweaks to the emphasis of the Highway Code make that clear.
Yes, but avoiding accidents is surely better than systematising the assignment of blame. As I said, from casual observation it does seem that all classes of road users are getting worse, and as DavidL suggested, maybe the streets are too.
But deaths and accidents are long-term trending down.
So how is that getting worse?
People do need to take more responsibility for themselves though, and not step onto the road if there's a red light without looking. We can't achieve, nor should we, zero deaths though. Just like with Covid, death isn't the end of the world, life goes on even if some people die.
There is so much revisionist guff with regards to the pandemic and lockdowns. We had a choice - a controlled shut down, or an uncontrolled shut down. In no scenario was the government going to say "business as usual" and that actually happen.
You cannot operate business critical functions when significant numbers of workers are not just off sick but seriously ill or dying. So I don't get the point BR and others make, other than "wouldn't it have been good not to have had a pandemic".
Then you're not paying attention.
I am saying an uncontrolled shut down would have been better than a controlled one.
If people are die, then bury them, mourn them, and life goes on.
If people are sick, they take time off but when they recover life goes on.
What you don't need is healthy people locked out of schools, healthy people locked at home.
Because you couldn't confirm quickly enough at the time that healthy people were indeed pox-free.
Your attitude might not be so blase as you ponder what might have been and strum your harp on a convenient cloud, having succumbed in non-Lockdown One or Two.
There is so much revisionist guff with regards to the pandemic and lockdowns. We had a choice - a controlled shut down, or an uncontrolled shut down. In no scenario was the government going to say "business as usual" and that actually happen.
You cannot operate business critical functions when significant numbers of workers are not just off sick but seriously ill or dying. So I don't get the point BR and others make, other than "wouldn't it have been good not to have had a pandemic".
Very, very few workers were dying. Deaths were largely a factor of age and pre existing conditions. But millions of workers were forced to self isolate. Did that work? Was it the best way to protect the truly vulnerable? I don’t know but I agree with @foxy that that is what the inquiries should be looking at.
I think the pandemic was quite an eye-opening moment for a lot of younger people - it exposed the fact that the state had been fully captured by the old, which has been transformed to the extent that almost every limb of the british state has been designed to maximise wealth transfer from the young to the old, from housing to healthcare, and tax to covid.
"Something has started to go awry with life expectancy trends in Britain. After decades of rapid improvement, progress has slowed to a crawl since 2011. In the poorest parts of England, it has actually started to fall."
"According to an analysis published in The Lancet of the trends in 6,791 communities in England, female life expectancy fell in 18.7 per cent of communities between 2014 and 2019 and male life expectancy fell in 11.5 per cent of them."
"Life expectancy is a vital measure of health and human progress. When it starts to go backwards, everyone should pay attention."
Morning to all from sun-soaked Greece.
Strongly uncoincidentally to the above, I suspect, is the wave of social cuts starting around then.
And controlling the virus damaged kids education, which is a price not worth paying.
Yes there's no easy answers. In that situation where there's no easy answers, why is it beyond the pale to suggest the answer with more deaths of the vulnerable and sick might be the better answer than harming the education of the young and healthy?
Have snipped your post (sorry) to the crux of it. Kids education was harmed, that isn't up for debate. But you seem to be suggesting an alternative where it wasn't harmed. And that is a fantasy.
Lets assume that Shagger decided to ignore the scientists and do a bluster "Keep Going For Blighty" policy. His fateful "you must stay at home" speech instead being "you must keep living your lives normally".
The pox was still spreading like wildfire - even faster this time. Which means more teachers falling sick, and more parents falling sick. Once you get past a tipping point of staff absence you cannot open the school - you need to close some years or the whole thing.
Instead of a controlled closure, you get an uncontrolled closure. Instead of the schools being able to remain open throughout so that key workers could continue to work, you'd have seen schools properly shut. And a whole load of key businesses also shut as the pox tore through them harder than it did in the prime timeline.
You can't just wish away Covid. And I honestly don't understand why you even try to.
That's because you're tilting at windmills.
Nobody has suggested "you must keep living your lives normally" as a solution.
If you're confused, try reading what people actually wrote.
OK, earlier you posted this:
"Controlling" the virus did what it was supposed to which was flatten the curve, so that the NHS handled nothing but Covid ICU for longer.
Not controlling the virus would have meant a bigger peak, more deaths, but a faster come down of the peak and return to normal too.
And controlling the virus damaged kids education, which is a price not worth paying.
Yes there's no easy answers. In that situation where there's no easy answers, why is it beyond the pale to suggest the answer with more deaths of the vulnerable and sick might be the better answer than harming the education of the young and healthy?
You are - correct me if I am wrong - arguing that we should have not controlled the virus and had that higher peak with more deaths early? No? And not controlling it means what? Leaving schools open to not harm the education of the young and healthy?
I won't post any response to that, I just want you to confirm that is your argument.
Its what I said isn't it? Yes my argument is what I said.
If people voluntarily wanted to stay at home because they're vulnerable etc, then that should be their choice. Free will.
If people didn't, then that should be their choice. Free will again.
Deaths happen. Life happens too, and shutting down life to prevent death was a horrendous mistake.
There is so much revisionist guff with regards to the pandemic and lockdowns. We had a choice - a controlled shut down, or an uncontrolled shut down. In no scenario was the government going to say "business as usual" and that actually happen.
You cannot operate business critical functions when significant numbers of workers are not just off sick but seriously ill or dying. So I don't get the point BR and others make, other than "wouldn't it have been good not to have had a pandemic".
Very, very few workers were dying. Deaths were largely a factor of age and pre existing conditions. But millions of workers were forced to self isolate. Did that work? Was it the best way to protect the truly vulnerable? I don’t know but I agree with @foxy that that is what the inquiries should be looking at.
A not insignificant number of workers did die.
During 2020 expected annual mortality pretty much doubled at all ages. Obviously baseline mortality at age 80 is a lot higher than 60 or 40, but the effect was there at all ages.
That is before you consider numbers of workers in households that also include vulnerable people with diabetes, respiratory disease, obesity, elderly family members. It just isn't possible to ring fence a third of the population.
How was I supposed to ringfence my diabetic patients and carry on working normally in a hospital full of covid?
There are lessons to study and learn, but wishing away a deadly virus has never been an effective control measure.
Although this seems to fly in the face of the idea in Scotland that younger people are less responsible for their actions?
Well, they take away the sentence reduction for being an inexperienced young driver, add an aggravating factor of killing a vulnerable road user. Then add a sentence reduction for being a twenty something and not fully competent.
Bet that ends up with the same sentence as before.
Yes Minister lives!
The hypothesis behind this is that more severe penalties will influence behaviour. I have yet to see any evidence of that. It may make the bereaved family feel better but I don’t believe it does anything for road safety.
We need more traffic calming measures, black boxes for drivers under 25 and less but better signage. But there’s probably fewer votes in that.
I'd agree deterrence is the wrong approach but what has happened to road safety education? Pedestrians step into the road without looking; drivers see red lights as advisory; cyclists do whatever the hell they like.
The onus is on the driver of the two-tonne steel box to look out for everyone else, even if they aren't entirely at fault in collision. The tweaks to the emphasis of the Highway Code make that clear.
Yes, but avoiding accidents is surely better than systematising the assignment of blame. As I said, from casual observation it does seem that all classes of road users are getting worse, and as DavidL suggested, maybe the streets are too.
This is where the data is rather interesting. The number of collisions and slight injuries, particularly for drivers, has fallen significantly over the last 20 years or so, while serious injuries and fatalities for other road users had been steady (or increased a bit for cyclists).
It's tricky interpreting it all. Increasing cycling rates will almost certainly increase fatalities with current street design, and SUVs haven't shown up in the data yet (maybe because of COVID?), but will likely follow the US pattern for pedestrian fatalities.
Although this seems to fly in the face of the idea in Scotland that younger people are less responsible for their actions?
Well, they take away the sentence reduction for being an inexperienced young driver, add an aggravating factor of killing a vulnerable road user. Then add a sentence reduction for being a twenty something and not fully competent.
Bet that ends up with the same sentence as before.
Yes Minister lives!
The hypothesis behind this is that more severe penalties will influence behaviour. I have yet to see any evidence of that. It may make the bereaved family feel better but I don’t believe it does anything for road safety.
We need more traffic calming measures, black boxes for drivers under 25 and less but better signage. But there’s probably fewer votes in that.
I agree. Better side visibility from HGVs and SUVs is a big one too. More consistency in sentences would be good though.
What you often find is that the driver involved had something of a history when it comes to driving offences. See the recent horrible case near Tyndrum. And fines are a deeply unfair penalty.
I'd go for more driving bans. Mandatory life ban for death by dangerous, 10 years for careless, 6 months for 6 points, or 2 years for 12, life ban if caught driving while banned etc.
No "exceptional hardship" excuses, and cars are seized and auctioned if used by a disqualified driver. That would focus minds.
Of course you can get careless or even dangerous cyclists too
There is so much revisionist guff with regards to the pandemic and lockdowns. We had a choice - a controlled shut down, or an uncontrolled shut down. In no scenario was the government going to say "business as usual" and that actually happen.
You cannot operate business critical functions when significant numbers of workers are not just off sick but seriously ill or dying. So I don't get the point BR and others make, other than "wouldn't it have been good not to have had a pandemic".
Very, very few workers were dying. Deaths were largely a factor of age and pre existing conditions. But millions of workers were forced to self isolate. Did that work? Was it the best way to protect the truly vulnerable? I don’t know but I agree with @foxy that that is what the inquiries should be looking at.
A not insignificant number of workers did die.
During 2020 expected annual mortality pretty much doubled at all ages. Obviously baseline mortality at age 80 is a lot higher than 60 or 40, but the effect was there at all ages.
That is before you consider numbers of workers in households that also include vulnerable people with diabetes, respiratory disease, obesity, elderly family members. It just isn't possible to ring fence a third of the population.
How was I supposed to ringfence my diabetic patients and carry on working normally in a hospital full of covid?
There are lessons to study and learn, but wishing away a deadly virus has never been an effective control measure.
Having a year and a half of lockdown restrictions, to prevent a year of deaths, is not worthwhile.
Better to have that year of deaths, and have that year and a half of life.
Nobody is proposing wishing away the virus, except those who still believe in lockdown. I am saying we should have lived with the virus.
I was going to suggest Prigozhin might have fallen out of a window shortly before the crash. But I see about 20 people got there first.
If you don't have a high capacity for one dimensional, 100% predictable humour you are in the wrong place.
The Prigozhin snuff is proper 'Гыыы' as the Russians say. Or LMAO to the power of kek as we say.
I will miss his pithy output on Telegram but his fatalistic and nihilistic posts have indicated that he's known for about a year that he's a dead man. Лучшее в аду, indeed.
Dunno what this means for the glory that is the SMO. Probably not much. The Wagners will be absorbed into the RF forces or other PMCs like Convoy and Gazprom. The Shoigu/Krivoruchka axis is definitely in ascendancy over the Surovikin/Teplinsky faction.
Murderer murdered by murderer.
If nothing else, it will notch up the internal paranoia marginally. The St. Petersburg gang is no longer untouchable.
I quite literally said an uncontrolled shut down is better than a controlled one, and now Rochdale just keeps repeating that if we hadn't had a controlled shut down we'd have had uncontrolled ones as if that's a killer argument. Yes, if we hadn't had a controlled shut down, we'd have had what is better. That's a better choice.
If the choice is scenario (A) shut down all schools, all the time, for months, or scenario (B) shut down individual classes in individual schools for a week if the teacher is off sick and no cover is available that week, then return back afterwards - then I prefer scenario B.
I'm not pretending that you could 'wish away' the pandemic, just live with it. And if the vulnerable choose to isolate, then let them choose that, free choice.
Thanks for the clarification. How does an uncontrolled shut down of education serve kids education better than a controlled one?
The piece you seem to be missing is that (1) it isn't that odd teachers are off for a few weeks then return - its a lot of teachers off an awful lot as the virus tears through schools as super spreader nodes, and (2) kids being off means working parents can't work. And then get sick from their kids anyway. I assume your argument is that business should also have carried on as normal?
We could have let the thing rip through us. Perhaps that would have been a shorter disruption to the economy and education. But the disruption would have been harder and deeper than we had.
At least with "you must stay at home" we had furlough and CBILS and other support. "people die so what" just means empty cinemas and pubs and no support and mass bankruptcies. I know that as a libertarian you support businesses going bankrupt as a sign of a market economy doing its job, but it isn't good when a lot fail within a short space of time. Does tend to have a very negative effect on the economy.
The independent enquiry needs to get into all of this. But the "it would have been fine" scenario still feels like wishful thinking on your part.
There is so much revisionist guff with regards to the pandemic and lockdowns. We had a choice - a controlled shut down, or an uncontrolled shut down. In no scenario was the government going to say "business as usual" and that actually happen.
You cannot operate business critical functions when significant numbers of workers are not just off sick but seriously ill or dying. So I don't get the point BR and others make, other than "wouldn't it have been good not to have had a pandemic".
Very, very few workers were dying. Deaths were largely a factor of age and pre existing conditions. But millions of workers were forced to self isolate. Did that work? Was it the best way to protect the truly vulnerable? I don’t know but I agree with @foxy that that is what the inquiries should be looking at.
A not insignificant number of workers did die.
During 2020 expected annual mortality pretty much doubled at all ages. Obviously baseline mortality at age 80 is a lot higher than 60 or 40, but the effect was there at all ages.
That is before you consider numbers of workers in households that also include vulnerable people with diabetes, respiratory disease, obesity, elderly family members. It just isn't possible to ring fence a third of the population.
How was I supposed to ringfence my diabetic patients and carry on working normally in a hospital full of covid?
There are lessons to study and learn, but wishing away a deadly virus has never been an effective control measure.
Effectively what's being argued is "I want to be free to do whatever I like and I don't care how many other people die."
Although this seems to fly in the face of the idea in Scotland that younger people are less responsible for their actions?
Well, they take away the sentence reduction for being an inexperienced young driver, add an aggravating factor of killing a vulnerable road user. Then add a sentence reduction for being a twenty something and not fully competent.
Bet that ends up with the same sentence as before.
Yes Minister lives!
The hypothesis behind this is that more severe penalties will influence behaviour. I have yet to see any evidence of that. It may make the bereaved family feel better but I don’t believe it does anything for road safety.
We need more traffic calming measures, black boxes for drivers under 25 and less but better signage. But there’s probably fewer votes in that.
I agree. Better side visibility from HGVs and SUVs is a big one too. More consistency in sentences would be good though.
What you often find is that the driver involved had something of a history when it comes to driving offences. See the recent horrible case near Tyndrum. And fines are a deeply unfair penalty.
I'd go for more driving bans. Mandatory life ban for death by dangerous, 10 years for careless, 6 months for 6 points, or 2 years for 12, life ban if caught driving while banned etc.
No "exceptional hardship" excuses, and cars are seized and auctioned if used by a disqualified driver. That would focus minds.
Of course you can get careless or even dangerous cyclists too
Not in law you can't (at least for causing death).
That's because it's exceedingly unlikely, though not impossible, that you are killed or injured by a cyclist.
I quite literally said an uncontrolled shut down is better than a controlled one, and now Rochdale just keeps repeating that if we hadn't had a controlled shut down we'd have had uncontrolled ones as if that's a killer argument. Yes, if we hadn't had a controlled shut down, we'd have had what is better. That's a better choice.
If the choice is scenario (A) shut down all schools, all the time, for months, or scenario (B) shut down individual classes in individual schools for a week if the teacher is off sick and no cover is available that week, then return back afterwards - then I prefer scenario B.
I'm not pretending that you could 'wish away' the pandemic, just live with it. And if the vulnerable choose to isolate, then let them choose that, free choice.
Thanks for the clarification. How does an uncontrolled shut down of education serve kids education better than a controlled one?
The piece you seem to be missing is that (1) it isn't that odd teachers are off for a few weeks then return - its a lot of teachers off an awful lot as the virus tears through schools as super spreader nodes, and (2) kids being off means working parents can't work. And then get sick from their kids anyway. I assume your argument is that business should also have carried on as normal?
We could have let the thing rip through us. Perhaps that would have been a shorter disruption to the economy and education. But the disruption would have been harder and deeper than we had.
At least with "you must stay at home" we had furlough and CBILS and other support. "people die so what" just means empty cinemas and pubs and no support and mass bankruptcies. I know that as a libertarian you support businesses going bankrupt as a sign of a market economy doing its job, but it isn't good when a lot fail within a short space of time. Does tend to have a very negative effect on the economy.
The independent enquiry needs to get into all of this. But the "it would have been fine" scenario still feels like wishful thinking on your part.
Yes a lot of teachers might be off for a few days while they're actually sick.
That does not equate to months of shutdown of all classes in all schools.
Sweden had furlough too - but the difference is it was voluntary, not compulsory. So if you're vulnerable and want to voluntarily isolate you could be furloughed, but if you're not and you don't want to, you can work.
Your solution is lowering everyone to the lowest common denominator. There is no need to shut down all schools for months, because some teachers might be sick for days. There is no need to shut down all non-"key" employment that can't work from home, just because some people might rather isolate.
Let those who are sick be off, let those who feel vulnerable voluntarily isolate, no compulsion on anyone else.
The virus would have been harder and deeper I agree, the disruption would not have been since the disruption applied to everyone regardless of whether they were affected by the virus or not.
And controlling the virus damaged kids education, which is a price not worth paying.
Yes there's no easy answers. In that situation where there's no easy answers, why is it beyond the pale to suggest the answer with more deaths of the vulnerable and sick might be the better answer than harming the education of the young and healthy?
Have snipped your post (sorry) to the crux of it. Kids education was harmed, that isn't up for debate. But you seem to be suggesting an alternative where it wasn't harmed. And that is a fantasy.
Lets assume that Shagger decided to ignore the scientists and do a bluster "Keep Going For Blighty" policy. His fateful "you must stay at home" speech instead being "you must keep living your lives normally".
The pox was still spreading like wildfire - even faster this time. Which means more teachers falling sick, and more parents falling sick. Once you get past a tipping point of staff absence you cannot open the school - you need to close some years or the whole thing.
Instead of a controlled closure, you get an uncontrolled closure. Instead of the schools being able to remain open throughout so that key workers could continue to work, you'd have seen schools properly shut. And a whole load of key businesses also shut as the pox tore through them harder than it did in the prime timeline.
You can't just wish away Covid. And I honestly don't understand why you even try to.
That's because you're tilting at windmills.
Nobody has suggested "you must keep living your lives normally" as a solution.
If you're confused, try reading what people actually wrote.
OK, earlier you posted this:
"Controlling" the virus did what it was supposed to which was flatten the curve, so that the NHS handled nothing but Covid ICU for longer.
Not controlling the virus would have meant a bigger peak, more deaths, but a faster come down of the peak and return to normal too.
And controlling the virus damaged kids education, which is a price not worth paying.
Yes there's no easy answers. In that situation where there's no easy answers, why is it beyond the pale to suggest the answer with more deaths of the vulnerable and sick might be the better answer than harming the education of the young and healthy?
You are - correct me if I am wrong - arguing that we should have not controlled the virus and had that higher peak with more deaths early? No? And not controlling it means what? Leaving schools open to not harm the education of the young and healthy?
I won't post any response to that, I just want you to confirm that is your argument.
Its what I said isn't it? Yes my argument is what I said.
If people voluntarily wanted to stay at home because they're vulnerable etc, then that should be their choice. Free will.
If people didn't, then that should be their choice. Free will again.
Deaths happen. Life happens too, and shutting down life to prevent death was a horrendous mistake.
Good. So in this scenario "people voluntarily stay at home". Not because they are vulnerable, because they are scared. In the "let the virus do its thing" scenario you advocate, people are not going to work normally and socialising normally. They're doing the least they can with increasing reluctance. We don't save the economy by having much of the leisure, tourism and hospitality industries bankrupted by a lack of customers and no government support.
I'm not saying your scenario is callous or wrong. Just that it wasn't a magic wand solution that would have been much better. To go back to education for a minute, we get a scenario with an awful lot of teachers off sick and worse, and a rapidly-increasing numbers of schools actually closed. OK they would likely have reopened sooner, but we could have made reopen education choices differently after the first lockdown in the prime timeline as well...
Although this seems to fly in the face of the idea in Scotland that younger people are less responsible for their actions?
Well, they take away the sentence reduction for being an inexperienced young driver, add an aggravating factor of killing a vulnerable road user. Then add a sentence reduction for being a twenty something and not fully competent.
Bet that ends up with the same sentence as before.
Yes Minister lives!
The hypothesis behind this is that more severe penalties will influence behaviour. I have yet to see any evidence of that. It may make the bereaved family feel better but I don’t believe it does anything for road safety.
We need more traffic calming measures, black boxes for drivers under 25 and less but better signage. But there’s probably fewer votes in that.
I'd agree deterrence is the wrong approach but what has happened to road safety education? Pedestrians step into the road without looking; drivers see red lights as advisory; cyclists do whatever the hell they like.
The onus is on the driver of the two-tonne steel box to look out for everyone else, even if they aren't entirely at fault in collision. The tweaks to the emphasis of the Highway Code make that clear.
Yes, but avoiding accidents is surely better than systematising the assignment of blame. As I said, from casual observation it does seem that all classes of road users are getting worse, and as DavidL suggested, maybe the streets are too.
But deaths and accidents are long-term trending down.
So how is that getting worse?
People do need to take more responsibility for themselves though, and not step onto the road if there's a red light without looking. We can't achieve, nor should we, zero deaths though. Just like with Covid, death isn't the end of the world, life goes on even if some people die.
People's behaviour seems to be getting worse, as drivers, cyclists and pedestrians. Cars are getting safer, at least for passengers but that is a separate issue.
And controlling the virus damaged kids education, which is a price not worth paying.
Yes there's no easy answers. In that situation where there's no easy answers, why is it beyond the pale to suggest the answer with more deaths of the vulnerable and sick might be the better answer than harming the education of the young and healthy?
Have snipped your post (sorry) to the crux of it. Kids education was harmed, that isn't up for debate. But you seem to be suggesting an alternative where it wasn't harmed. And that is a fantasy.
Lets assume that Shagger decided to ignore the scientists and do a bluster "Keep Going For Blighty" policy. His fateful "you must stay at home" speech instead being "you must keep living your lives normally".
The pox was still spreading like wildfire - even faster this time. Which means more teachers falling sick, and more parents falling sick. Once you get past a tipping point of staff absence you cannot open the school - you need to close some years or the whole thing.
Instead of a controlled closure, you get an uncontrolled closure. Instead of the schools being able to remain open throughout so that key workers could continue to work, you'd have seen schools properly shut. And a whole load of key businesses also shut as the pox tore through them harder than it did in the prime timeline.
You can't just wish away Covid. And I honestly don't understand why you even try to.
That's because you're tilting at windmills.
Nobody has suggested "you must keep living your lives normally" as a solution.
If you're confused, try reading what people actually wrote.
OK, earlier you posted this:
"Controlling" the virus did what it was supposed to which was flatten the curve, so that the NHS handled nothing but Covid ICU for longer.
Not controlling the virus would have meant a bigger peak, more deaths, but a faster come down of the peak and return to normal too.
And controlling the virus damaged kids education, which is a price not worth paying.
Yes there's no easy answers. In that situation where there's no easy answers, why is it beyond the pale to suggest the answer with more deaths of the vulnerable and sick might be the better answer than harming the education of the young and healthy?
You are - correct me if I am wrong - arguing that we should have not controlled the virus and had that higher peak with more deaths early? No? And not controlling it means what? Leaving schools open to not harm the education of the young and healthy?
I won't post any response to that, I just want you to confirm that is your argument.
Its what I said isn't it? Yes my argument is what I said.
If people voluntarily wanted to stay at home because they're vulnerable etc, then that should be their choice. Free will.
If people didn't, then that should be their choice. Free will again.
Deaths happen. Life happens too, and shutting down life to prevent death was a horrendous mistake.
Good. So in this scenario "people voluntarily stay at home". Not because they are vulnerable, because they are scared. In the "let the virus do its thing" scenario you advocate, people are not going to work normally and socialising normally. They're doing the least they can with increasing reluctance. We don't save the economy by having much of the leisure, tourism and hospitality industries bankrupted by a lack of customers and no government support.
I'm not saying your scenario is callous or wrong. Just that it wasn't a magic wand solution that would have been much better. To go back to education for a minute, we get a scenario with an awful lot of teachers off sick and worse, and a rapidly-increasing numbers of schools actually closed. OK they would likely have reopened sooner, but we could have made reopen education choices differently after the first lockdown in the prime timeline as well...
Yes. Having scared people voluntarily stay at home > having scared + non-scared people compulsorily staying at home.
Nobody is saying normality was an option, so stop arguing against it.
Although this seems to fly in the face of the idea in Scotland that younger people are less responsible for their actions?
Well, they take away the sentence reduction for being an inexperienced young driver, add an aggravating factor of killing a vulnerable road user. Then add a sentence reduction for being a twenty something and not fully competent.
Bet that ends up with the same sentence as before.
Yes Minister lives!
The hypothesis behind this is that more severe penalties will influence behaviour. I have yet to see any evidence of that. It may make the bereaved family feel better but I don’t believe it does anything for road safety.
We need more traffic calming measures, black boxes for drivers under 25 and less but better signage. But there’s probably fewer votes in that.
I agree. Better side visibility from HGVs and SUVs is a big one too. More consistency in sentences would be good though.
What you often find is that the driver involved had something of a history when it comes to driving offences. See the recent horrible case near Tyndrum. And fines are a deeply unfair penalty.
I'd go for more driving bans. Mandatory life ban for death by dangerous, 10 years for careless, 6 months for 6 points, or 2 years for 12, life ban if caught driving while banned etc.
No "exceptional hardship" excuses, and cars are seized and auctioned if used by a disqualified driver. That would focus minds.
Of course you can get careless or even dangerous cyclists too
Not in law you can't.
That's because it's exceedingly unlikely, though not impossible, that you are killed or injured by a cyclist.
There was that lad a few years ago that was convicted and jailed for running down and killing a lady after being charged with "wanton and furious cycling".
OK, kind of changed my perspective on the GOP race watching the debate.
Previously I thought Pence was obviously doomed because the base want to hang him and he didn't excite anyone anti-Trump. But watching that I thought Pence was very strong, and is the obvious not-Trump schelling point.
Usually the person a party in opposition chooses is the Pence figure: Experienced, tall, sedate relatively moderate, lots of gravitas: - Biden against Trump - Romney against Obama - Kerry against Bush - Dole against Clinton
You have to go back to Ronald Reagan to break that pattern and get someone even a little bit wild, and that had a contested primary on the incumbent Dem side which changes the dynamics quite a bit.
If Trump is going to be sitting the debates out, and also everyone is kind of in the habit of ignoring his policy proposals because even his supporters know he's full of shit. Ramaswamy actually showed up, he's prepared to say whatever it takes to excite the base ("global warming is a hoax"), and he's not constrained by reality because he doesn't have a record. Also I think he's more in touch with them than Trump is; In 2016 despite being a celebrity Trump was still going to MacDonalds and meeting ordinary people, whereas now he's probably only really hearing from simps and the occasional judge. Populism is quite subtle, I think you need to tailor it to the moment rather than just playing the same old tunes the whole time.
The news is going to be a constant stream of Trump prosecution stuff, which elevates Pence, because he gets to talk about God and the constitution. I think that's all he needs to round up basically the entire prefer-the-president-doesn't-keep-committing-crimes vote, whereas the pro-crimes vote looks like it could be split between Trump and Ramaswamy.
Pence continues to be undervalued, like Kamala Harris on the other side. Nikki Haley seemed quite effective but probably needs to play to the Republican gallery more. Trump is best riffing off a live audience. No-one seems to be buying RDS or Christie. Really, it is hard to tell until the herd thins.
"Something has started to go awry with life expectancy trends in Britain. After decades of rapid improvement, progress has slowed to a crawl since 2011. In the poorest parts of England, it has actually started to fall."
"According to an analysis published in The Lancet of the trends in 6,791 communities in England, female life expectancy fell in 18.7 per cent of communities between 2014 and 2019 and male life expectancy fell in 11.5 per cent of them."
"Life expectancy is a vital measure of health and human progress. When it starts to go backwards, everyone should pay attention."
Has this not been the situation in the US for some time now? We seem to be following their path, albeit a decade or so behind. I also suspect that the easy win of people giving up smoking has now fully worked through with little further gains to come (overall, of course smokers would benefit enormously individually).
OK, kind of changed my perspective on the GOP race watching the debate.
Previously I thought Pence was obviously doomed because the base want to hang him and he didn't excite anyone anti-Trump. But watching that I thought Pence was very strong, and is the obvious not-Trump schelling point.
Usually the person a party in opposition chooses is the Pence figure: Experienced, tall, sedate relatively moderate, lots of gravitas: - Biden against Trump - Romney against Obama - Kerry against Bush - Dole against Clinton
You have to go back to Ronald Reagan to break that pattern and get someone even a little bit wild, and that had a contested primary on the incumbent Dem side which changes the dynamics quite a bit.
If Trump is going to be sitting the debates out, and also everyone is kind of in the habit of ignoring his policy proposals because even his supporters know he's full of shit. Ramaswamy actually showed up, he's prepared to say whatever it takes to excite the base ("global warming is a hoax"), and he's not constrained by reality because he doesn't have a record. Also I think he's more in touch with them than Trump is; In 2016 despite being a celebrity Trump was still going to MacDonalds and meeting ordinary people, whereas now he's probably only really hearing from simps and the occasional judge. Populism is quite subtle, I think you need to tailor it to the moment rather than just playing the same old tunes the whole time.
The news is going to be a constant stream of Trump prosecution stuff, which elevates Pence, because he gets to talk about God and the constitution. I think that's all he needs to round up basically the entire prefer-the-president-doesn't-keep-committing-crimes vote, whereas the pro-crimes vote looks like it could be split between Trump and Ramaswamy.
Yes Pence has emerged as the clear anti Trump GOP candidate
Although this seems to fly in the face of the idea in Scotland that younger people are less responsible for their actions?
Well, they take away the sentence reduction for being an inexperienced young driver, add an aggravating factor of killing a vulnerable road user. Then add a sentence reduction for being a twenty something and not fully competent.
Bet that ends up with the same sentence as before.
Yes Minister lives!
The hypothesis behind this is that more severe penalties will influence behaviour. I have yet to see any evidence of that. It may make the bereaved family feel better but I don’t believe it does anything for road safety.
We need more traffic calming measures, black boxes for drivers under 25 and less but better signage. But there’s probably fewer votes in that.
I agree. Better side visibility from HGVs and SUVs is a big one too. More consistency in sentences would be good though.
What you often find is that the driver involved had something of a history when it comes to driving offences. See the recent horrible case near Tyndrum. And fines are a deeply unfair penalty.
I'd go for more driving bans. Mandatory life ban for death by dangerous, 10 years for careless, 6 months for 6 points, or 2 years for 12, life ban if caught driving while banned etc.
No "exceptional hardship" excuses, and cars are seized and auctioned if used by a disqualified driver. That would focus minds.
Of course you can get careless or even dangerous cyclists too
Not in law you can't.
That's because it's exceedingly unlikely, though not impossible, that you are killed or injured by a cyclist.
There was that lad a few years ago that was convicted and jailed for running down and killing a lady after being charged with "wanton and furious cycling".
I've done some furious cycling in my time, generally after trying to dodge the pedestrians walking down the cycle lane with headphones on, or after being overtaken by a taxi with 2cm clearance...
On one level, trivial, but on another, more likely to damage MPs' brand than Nadine's no-show.
Why on earth are MPs accepting these gifts ?
Also many of them won’t be £50 general admission tickets, they’ll be £500 hospitality tickets as guests of the sort of companies that employ former MPs.
I'm not defending it but I think they'll often have convinced themselves they are doing their duty as an MP by 'supporting' such events.
Most of us are susceptible to justifying our own actions (I know I am). I am reminded of my genuinely nice and otherwise fair-minded neighbour who has clearly convinced himself that he is helping the Cornish economy by owning a second home there which is empty most of the year and on which he pays no Council Tax.
If you want to ‘support’ such events, then buy a ticket.
Didn’t a dozen MPs go to the Grand Prix, none of whom paid for tickets themselves? Fair enough for the sports minister, who’s presenting a trophy and there in an official capacity, but the rest of them, nope. Same with the FA Cup final.
I agree. I wasn't defending the actions, was just trying to think of some explanation for what seems like a nigh on universal susceptibility to such things.
Although this seems to fly in the face of the idea in Scotland that younger people are less responsible for their actions?
Well, they take away the sentence reduction for being an inexperienced young driver, add an aggravating factor of killing a vulnerable road user. Then add a sentence reduction for being a twenty something and not fully competent.
Bet that ends up with the same sentence as before.
Yes Minister lives!
The hypothesis behind this is that more severe penalties will influence behaviour. I have yet to see any evidence of that. It may make the bereaved family feel better but I don’t believe it does anything for road safety.
We need more traffic calming measures, black boxes for drivers under 25 and less but better signage. But there’s probably fewer votes in that.
I'd agree deterrence is the wrong approach but what has happened to road safety education? Pedestrians step into the road without looking; drivers see red lights as advisory; cyclists do whatever the hell they like.
The onus is on the driver of the two-tonne steel box to look out for everyone else, even if they aren't entirely at fault in collision. The tweaks to the emphasis of the Highway Code make that clear.
Yes, but avoiding accidents is surely better than systematising the assignment of blame. As I said, from casual observation it does seem that all classes of road users are getting worse, and as DavidL suggested, maybe the streets are too.
But deaths and accidents are long-term trending down.
So how is that getting worse?
People do need to take more responsibility for themselves though, and not step onto the road if there's a red light without looking. We can't achieve, nor should we, zero deaths though. Just like with Covid, death isn't the end of the world, life goes on even if some people die.
People's behaviour seems to be getting worse, as drivers, cyclists and pedestrians. Cars are getting safer, at least for passengers but that is a separate issue.
Hard to prove. Anecdotally, driver behaviour seems to have declined since COVID, but you can't back that up with data easily as driving rates fell significantly in 2020/21/22 due to the lockdowns.
Lockdown was wrong because young people had to put their lives on hold despite little risk of having serious complications from the disease but instead to protect the elderly.
In response to this, young people had their taxes raised to the highest level ever, had the student loan conditions changed so they will never pay off their debt, are persistently called "thick", "woke", "entitled" and have literally nothing given to them at all and instead all money is funnelled to the elderly.
Although this seems to fly in the face of the idea in Scotland that younger people are less responsible for their actions?
Well, they take away the sentence reduction for being an inexperienced young driver, add an aggravating factor of killing a vulnerable road user. Then add a sentence reduction for being a twenty something and not fully competent.
Bet that ends up with the same sentence as before.
Yes Minister lives!
The hypothesis behind this is that more severe penalties will influence behaviour. I have yet to see any evidence of that. It may make the bereaved family feel better but I don’t believe it does anything for road safety.
We need more traffic calming measures, black boxes for drivers under 25 and less but better signage. But there’s probably fewer votes in that.
I'd agree deterrence is the wrong approach but what has happened to road safety education? Pedestrians step into the road without looking; drivers see red lights as advisory; cyclists do whatever the hell they like.
The onus is on the driver of the two-tonne steel box to look out for everyone else, even if they aren't entirely at fault in collision. The tweaks to the emphasis of the Highway Code make that clear.
Yes, but avoiding accidents is surely better than systematising the assignment of blame. As I said, from casual observation it does seem that all classes of road users are getting worse, and as DavidL suggested, maybe the streets are too.
This is where the data is rather interesting. The number of collisions and slight injuries, particularly for drivers, has fallen significantly over the last 20 years or so, while serious injuries and fatalities for other road users had been steady (or increased a bit for cyclists).
It's tricky interpreting it all. Increasing cycling rates will almost certainly increase fatalities with current street design, and SUVs haven't shown up in the data yet (maybe because of COVID?), but will likely follow the US pattern for pedestrian fatalities.
Another instance where comparisons with America doesn't work. The reason they don't show in the data is that British "SUVs" are nothing like US SUVs. British ones would be small to mid-sized cars over there.
American ones would be considered like trucks here.
Although this seems to fly in the face of the idea in Scotland that younger people are less responsible for their actions?
Well, they take away the sentence reduction for being an inexperienced young driver, add an aggravating factor of killing a vulnerable road user. Then add a sentence reduction for being a twenty something and not fully competent.
Bet that ends up with the same sentence as before.
Yes Minister lives!
The hypothesis behind this is that more severe penalties will influence behaviour. I have yet to see any evidence of that. It may make the bereaved family feel better but I don’t believe it does anything for road safety.
We need more traffic calming measures, black boxes for drivers under 25 and less but better signage. But there’s probably fewer votes in that.
I agree. Better side visibility from HGVs and SUVs is a big one too. More consistency in sentences would be good though.
What you often find is that the driver involved had something of a history when it comes to driving offences. See the recent horrible case near Tyndrum. And fines are a deeply unfair penalty.
I'd go for more driving bans. Mandatory life ban for death by dangerous, 10 years for careless, 6 months for 6 points, or 2 years for 12, life ban if caught driving while banned etc.
No "exceptional hardship" excuses, and cars are seized and auctioned if used by a disqualified driver. That would focus minds.
Of course you can get careless or even dangerous cyclists too
Not in law you can't.
That's because it's exceedingly unlikely, though not impossible, that you are killed or injured by a cyclist.
There was that lad a few years ago that was convicted and jailed for running down and killing a lady after being charged with "wanton and furious cycling".
There is so much revisionist guff with regards to the pandemic and lockdowns. We had a choice - a controlled shut down, or an uncontrolled shut down. In no scenario was the government going to say "business as usual" and that actually happen.
You cannot operate business critical functions when significant numbers of workers are not just off sick but seriously ill or dying. So I don't get the point BR and others make, other than "wouldn't it have been good not to have had a pandemic".
Very, very few workers were dying. Deaths were largely a factor of age and pre existing conditions. But millions of workers were forced to self isolate. Did that work? Was it the best way to protect the truly vulnerable? I don’t know but I agree with @foxy that that is what the inquiries should be looking at.
A not insignificant number of workers did die.
During 2020 expected annual mortality pretty much doubled at all ages. Obviously baseline mortality at age 80 is a lot higher than 60 or 40, but the effect was there at all ages.
That is before you consider numbers of workers in households that also include vulnerable people with diabetes, respiratory disease, obesity, elderly family members. It just isn't possible to ring fence a third of the population.
How was I supposed to ringfence my diabetic patients and carry on working normally in a hospital full of covid?
There are lessons to study and learn, but wishing away a deadly virus has never been an effective control measure.
Effectively what's being argued is "I want to be free to do whatever I like and I don't care how many other people die."
Thankfully most people don't have that attitude.
Though it isn't uncommon a view on the New World Libertarian Right; Live Free Or Die and all that.
It doesn't work quite so well in the Old World, where we all live much closer together.
There's that libertarian mantra of freedom stopping at the other guy's nose which is rather... on the nose (ayethanguou) in this scenario. As it is for questions of air quality, actually.
Saying "if you don't want to breathe it in, stay at home" isn't an honourable answer.
"Something has started to go awry with life expectancy trends in Britain. After decades of rapid improvement, progress has slowed to a crawl since 2011. In the poorest parts of England, it has actually started to fall."
"According to an analysis published in The Lancet of the trends in 6,791 communities in England, female life expectancy fell in 18.7 per cent of communities between 2014 and 2019 and male life expectancy fell in 11.5 per cent of them."
"Life expectancy is a vital measure of health and human progress. When it starts to go backwards, everyone should pay attention."
Morning to all from sun-soaked Greece.
Strongly uncoincidentally to the above, I suspect, is the wave of social cuts starting around then.
Although the paper found inconclusive evidence that austerity had had a worse impact on women’s life expectancy, it did claim that the austerity policies pursued by the UK government had had an “immensely damaging” impact on life expectancy overall. It said approximately 335,000 additional deaths had occurred between 2012 and 2019 compared with what had been previously been predicted. It also said the change in these trends was greater for people living in the 20% most deprived areas in England, Scotland and Wales.
I quite literally said an uncontrolled shut down is better than a controlled one, and now Rochdale just keeps repeating that if we hadn't had a controlled shut down we'd have had uncontrolled ones as if that's a killer argument. Yes, if we hadn't had a controlled shut down, we'd have had what is better. That's a better choice.
If the choice is scenario (A) shut down all schools, all the time, for months, or scenario (B) shut down individual classes in individual schools for a week if the teacher is off sick and no cover is available that week, then return back afterwards - then I prefer scenario B.
I'm not pretending that you could 'wish away' the pandemic, just live with it. And if the vulnerable choose to isolate, then let them choose that, free choice.
Thanks for the clarification. How does an uncontrolled shut down of education serve kids education better than a controlled one?
The piece you seem to be missing is that (1) it isn't that odd teachers are off for a few weeks then return - its a lot of teachers off an awful lot as the virus tears through schools as super spreader nodes, and (2) kids being off means working parents can't work. And then get sick from their kids anyway. I assume your argument is that business should also have carried on as normal?
We could have let the thing rip through us. Perhaps that would have been a shorter disruption to the economy and education. But the disruption would have been harder and deeper than we had.
At least with "you must stay at home" we had furlough and CBILS and other support. "people die so what" just means empty cinemas and pubs and no support and mass bankruptcies. I know that as a libertarian you support businesses going bankrupt as a sign of a market economy doing its job, but it isn't good when a lot fail within a short space of time. Does tend to have a very negative effect on the economy.
The independent enquiry needs to get into all of this. But the "it would have been fine" scenario still feels like wishful thinking on your part.
Yes a lot of teachers might be off for a few days while they're actually sick.
That does not equate to months of shutdown of all classes in all schools.
You keep saying this thing. It did not happen. Schools remained open throughout.
Comments
Every time you think the GOP have hit rock bottom, they find new depths to get to. Wouldn't surprise me if he ends up Trump's running mate then.
Previously I thought Pence was obviously doomed because the base want to hang him and he didn't excite anyone anti-Trump. But watching that I thought Pence was very strong, and is the obvious not-Trump schelling point.
Usually the person a party in opposition chooses is the Pence figure: Experienced, tall, sedate relatively moderate, lots of gravitas:
- Biden against Trump
- Romney against Obama
- Kerry against Bush
- Dole against Clinton
You have to go back to Ronald Reagan to break that pattern and get someone even a little bit wild, and that had a contested primary on the incumbent Dem side which changes the dynamics quite a bit.
If Trump is going to be sitting the debates out, and also everyone is kind of in the habit of ignoring his policy proposals because even his supporters know he's full of shit. Ramaswamy actually showed up, he's prepared to say whatever it takes to excite the base ("global warming is a hoax"), and he's not constrained by reality because he doesn't have a record. Also I think he's more in touch with them than Trump is; In 2016 despite being a celebrity Trump was still going to MacDonalds and meeting ordinary people, whereas now he's probably only really hearing from simps and the occasional judge. Populism is quite subtle, I think you need to tailor it to the moment rather than just playing the same old tunes the whole time.
The news is going to be a constant stream of Trump prosecution stuff, which elevates Pence, because he gets to talk about God and the constitution. I think that's all he needs to round up basically the entire prefer-the-president-doesn't-keep-committing-crimes vote, whereas the pro-crimes vote looks like it could be split between Trump and Ramaswamy.
The comparison with "Which?" magazine is also a bit ludicrous. Nobody is relying on Oliver Dowden for recommendations over whether or not to go to the Chelsea Flower Show.
And no, most of the effects were due to the control methods being worse than the disease, not the virus. Had we kept schools open, then more would have died from the virus perhaps, but education would have been less harmed.
Evading death isn't the be-all and end-all that trumps everything else. Education and other factors matter just as much.
It was also the wrong thing to do, illiberal, bad for children, bad for education and bad for the economy and the future of the NHS which now operates with a backlog and constrained taxes from a country that is broke.
It's not a perfect analogy, but British participation in World War 2 is similar. Required lots of illiberal actions, harmed children and disrupted education (evacuation), cost the nation an absolute fortune and required the country to liquidate most of its assets.
Some on the Conservative right questioned whether that was the right course of action as well.
"MPs are only eligible for such payments if they have held office for a continuous period of at least two years, stand for re-election but are not re-elected. MPs who choose to stand down prior to an election are not entitled to any payment."!
From what I’ve seen, in those countries, people reacted by locking themselves down when the governments introduced minor measures. Could this be a reaction caused by previous warnings of Bird Flu etc?
The one that gets to me now is that advice still hasn’t changed to use an N95 mask (or similar). You still see people in vulnerable groups wearing paper masks…
Has anyone added up the total spondulicks that Mad Nad and all her relations gain in payoffs if she stays until the end of the Parliament?
Most of us are susceptible to justifying our own actions (I know I am). I am reminded of my genuinely nice and otherwise fair-minded neighbour who has clearly convinced himself that he is helping the Cornish economy by owning a second home there which is empty most of the year and on which he pays no Council Tax.
I think it worth considering what actions were effective, and which had little effect on disease control, and also the social and economic effects, but wishing away a pandemic doesn't work.
We need more traffic calming measures, black boxes for drivers under 25 and less but better signage. But there’s probably fewer votes in that.
Here is Nikki Haley on how it's all the GOP's fault
https://twitter.com/AccountableGOP/status/1694519898880282652
"Controlling" the virus did what it was supposed to which was flatten the curve, so that the NHS handled nothing but Covid ICU for longer.
Not controlling the virus would have meant a bigger peak, more deaths, but a faster come down of the peak and return to normal too.
And controlling the virus damaged kids education, which is a price not worth paying.
Yes there's no easy answers. In that situation where there's no easy answers, why is it beyond the pale to suggest the answer with more deaths of the vulnerable and sick might be the better answer than harming the education of the young and healthy?
As for handsome donations, I think the only two offers I had was a lunch with someone who wanted to promote the idea of a Government-sponsored central register like Rightmove, but for rents (I went to that - seemed an interesting idea) and a dodgy-sounding offer from a supporter of Azerbaijan, who offered me a large donation to my CLP - "we hope that friendly MPs would put our point of view in the Commons" (I declined).
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4148039-heres-where-2024-republicans-stand-on-the-rncs-loyalty-pledge/
Should we have stopped HGVs from coming in from Europe? Should we have ended food imports?
We never shut the border. We never had effective quarantine. The virus was endemic on the continent, without doing so there was never a chance to prevent importing the virus - and given our economy, shutting down food imports and HGVs from the continent would again like shutting down education probably be worse than the disease itself.
To debate is to give credibility to the defeated.
Getting a bit Groundhog Day here, with all our PBepidemiologists coming out of the woodwork like bubonic plague in an, er, groundhog population. Nice day here, so out for a walk. Play nicely everyone.
FT published an article on UK Life Expectancy on 9th April 2023.
https://www.ft.com/content/3d25b1c9-33bf-448a-bb07-6a0fc3a8a603
Quotes from article.
"Something has started to go awry with life expectancy trends in Britain. After decades of rapid improvement, progress has slowed to a crawl since 2011. In the poorest parts of England, it has actually started to fall."
"According to an analysis published in The Lancet of the trends in 6,791 communities in England, female life expectancy fell in 18.7 per cent of communities between 2014 and 2019 and male life expectancy fell in 11.5 per cent of them."
"Life expectancy is a vital measure of health and human progress. When it starts to go backwards, everyone should pay attention."
We never closed the border, we never stopped HGVs, nor could we most likely. In that case, the virus would have continued coming into the country in a way it didn't there.
Japan style solutions are only possible if you are willing to take Japan-style action, including shutting the border and blocking large volumes of HGV drivers from coming into the country. Is that what you propose? If not, then we need to look at other solutions, like accepting that the virus was happening and dealing with it and burying the dead rather than shutting down the rest of society and harming children's education.
I also accept that it was rational to use lockdown measures when a vaccination program was being run out.
But, in Scotland, we were in various levels of lockdown from 5th January 21 to 1st July. That was largely unnecessary and I would be confident that the costs, economic, social and educational, far outweighed any benefits.
I really don’t say this to make a party political point. We need to learn from this and find better ways of assessing cost benefit analysis for such a thing. I very much fear that the inquiries will be a blame game with 20:20 hindsight. That is an utter waste of time and money. We need to learn the right lessons going forward and then hope that that proves to be a waste of time too because it doesn’t happen again.
You cannot operate business critical functions when significant numbers of workers are not just off sick but seriously ill or dying. So I don't get the point BR and others make, other than "wouldn't it have been good not to have had a pandemic".
Strongly uncoincidentally to the above, I suspect, is the wave of social cuts starting around then.
I am saying an uncontrolled shut down would have been better than a controlled one.
If people are die, then bury them, mourn them, and life goes on.
If people are sick, they take time off but when they recover life goes on.
What you don't need is healthy people locked out of schools, healthy people locked at home.
What you often find is that the driver involved had something of a history when it comes to driving offences. See the recent horrible case near Tyndrum. And fines are a deeply unfair penalty.
I'd go for more driving bans. Mandatory life ban for death by dangerous, 10 years for careless, 6 months for 6 points, or 2 years for 12, life ban if caught driving while banned etc.
No "exceptional hardship" excuses, and cars are seized and auctioned if used by a disqualified driver. That would focus minds.
Lets assume that Shagger decided to ignore the scientists and do a bluster "Keep Going For Blighty" policy. His fateful "you must stay at home" speech instead being "you must keep living your lives normally".
The pox was still spreading like wildfire - even faster this time. Which means more teachers falling sick, and more parents falling sick. Once you get past a tipping point of staff absence you cannot open the school - you need to close some years or the whole thing.
Instead of a controlled closure, you get an uncontrolled closure. Instead of the schools being able to remain open throughout so that key workers could continue to work, you'd have seen schools properly shut. And a whole load of key businesses also shut as the pox tore through them harder than it did in the prime timeline.
You can't just wish away Covid. And I honestly don't understand why you even try to.
Nobody has suggested "you must keep living your lives normally" as a solution.
If you're confused, try reading what people actually wrote.
I don’t know but I agree with @foxy that that is what the inquiries should be looking at.
The peak of deaths in the first wave occurred just two weeks (12th April) after the first lockdown. At the time the period before symptoms emerged was estimated at 5-7 days, with around another 10 days before being hospitalised and then a median stay in hospital of 6 days. Hence, this is far too early to have resulted from the lockdown. The second lockdown produced no real decline in the death rate. And the peak death rate in 2021 was on 19th January, just 13 days after lockdown and so again too short a period.
If one person dies in a company, then yes, life goes on. But if a significant part of the workforce are ill, some seriously so, a few actually dying, then no. Life does not go on for that company. Everything stops, because nobody sane is going to keep coming in to risk their lives for a job.
I have been impressed by your mea culpa list recently. It shows a level of self awareness that many do not have, likely myself included. But you do have this sociopathic tendency when it comes to Covid which demonstrates a disconnection from how people think and behave.
Ron's just a loser who doesn't stand a chance.
Christie doesn't stand a chance but at least he's somewhat anchored in reality.
Pence and Haley are the only other two worth mentioning, but it's remarkable how much the US Rep base needs pandering to, I don't see their approach of being somewhat anchored in reality working (even Pence's I defended the constitution line wasn't well received!).
When a bunch of pedestrians were killed last year in Glasgow, the Police advised people to wear High-vis when walking round the city.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/02/18/police-tell-pedestrians-wear-hi-vis-surge-road-deaths/
If the choice is scenario (A) shut down all schools, all the time, for months, or scenario (B) shut down individual classes in individual schools for a week if the teacher is off sick and no cover is available that week, then return back afterwards - then I prefer scenario B.
I'm not pretending that you could 'wish away' the pandemic, just live with it. And if the vulnerable choose to isolate, then let them choose that, free choice.
Didn’t a dozen MPs go to the Grand Prix, none of whom paid for tickets themselves? Fair enough for the sports minister, who’s presenting a trophy and there in an official capacity, but the rest of them, nope. Same with the FA Cup final.
What Japan (and other east asian countries) managed to do was to keep the transmission rate down. The big difference with the UK was that they did the little things like wearing masks and asking people to cancel events much sooner, whereas western countries seemed to want to wait until their healthcare systems were about to melt down then do a big coercive lockdown.
Even in Mid Bedfordshire the Tories have selected a replacement parliamentary candidate for her now
"Controlling" the virus did what it was supposed to which was flatten the curve, so that the NHS handled nothing but Covid ICU for longer.
Not controlling the virus would have meant a bigger peak, more deaths, but a faster come down of the peak and return to normal too.
And controlling the virus damaged kids education, which is a price not worth paying.
Yes there's no easy answers. In that situation where there's no easy answers, why is it beyond the pale to suggest the answer with more deaths of the vulnerable and sick might be the better answer than harming the education of the young and healthy?
You are - correct me if I am wrong - arguing that we should have not controlled the virus and had that higher peak with more deaths early? No? And not controlling it means what? Leaving schools open to not harm the education of the young and healthy?
I won't post any response to that, I just want you to confirm that is your argument.
So how is that getting worse?
People do need to take more responsibility for themselves though, and not step onto the road if there's a red light without looking. We can't achieve, nor should we, zero deaths though. Just like with Covid, death isn't the end of the world, life goes on even if some people die.
Your attitude might not be so blase as you ponder what might have been and strum your harp on a convenient cloud, having
succumbed in non-Lockdown One or Two.
https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/mortality-rates-among-men-and-women-impact-of-austerity/
If people voluntarily wanted to stay at home because they're vulnerable etc, then that should be their choice. Free will.
If people didn't, then that should be their choice. Free will again.
Deaths happen. Life happens too, and shutting down life to prevent death was a horrendous mistake.
During 2020 expected annual mortality pretty much doubled at all ages. Obviously baseline mortality at age 80 is a lot higher than 60 or 40, but the effect was there at all ages.
That is before you consider numbers of workers in households that also include vulnerable people with diabetes, respiratory disease, obesity, elderly family members. It just isn't possible to ring fence a third of the population.
How was I supposed to ringfence my diabetic patients and carry on working normally in a hospital full of covid?
There are lessons to study and learn, but wishing away a deadly virus has never been an effective control measure.
It's tricky interpreting it all. Increasing cycling rates will almost certainly increase fatalities with current street design, and SUVs haven't shown up in the data yet (maybe because of COVID?), but will likely follow the US pattern for pedestrian fatalities.
Better to have that year of deaths, and have that year and a half of life.
Nobody is proposing wishing away the virus, except those who still believe in lockdown. I am saying we should have lived with the virus.
If nothing else, it will notch up the internal paranoia marginally. The St. Petersburg gang is no longer untouchable.
The piece you seem to be missing is that (1) it isn't that odd teachers are off for a few weeks then return - its a lot of teachers off an awful lot as the virus tears through schools as super spreader nodes, and (2) kids being off means working parents can't work. And then get sick from their kids anyway. I assume your argument is that business should also have carried on as normal?
We could have let the thing rip through us. Perhaps that would have been a shorter disruption to the economy and education. But the disruption would have been harder and deeper than we had.
At least with "you must stay at home" we had furlough and CBILS and other support. "people die so what" just means empty cinemas and pubs and no support and mass bankruptcies. I know that as a libertarian you support businesses going bankrupt as a sign of a market economy doing its job, but it isn't good when a lot fail within a short space of time. Does tend to have a very negative effect on the economy.
The independent enquiry needs to get into all of this. But the "it would have been fine" scenario still feels like wishful thinking on your part.
Thankfully most people don't have that attitude.
That's because it's exceedingly unlikely, though not impossible, that you are killed or injured by a cyclist.
That does not equate to months of shutdown of all classes in all schools.
Sweden had furlough too - but the difference is it was voluntary, not compulsory. So if you're vulnerable and want to voluntarily isolate you could be furloughed, but if you're not and you don't want to, you can work.
Your solution is lowering everyone to the lowest common denominator. There is no need to shut down all schools for months, because some teachers might be sick for days. There is no need to shut down all non-"key" employment that can't work from home, just because some people might rather isolate.
Let those who are sick be off, let those who feel vulnerable voluntarily isolate, no compulsion on anyone else.
The virus would have been harder and deeper I agree, the disruption would not have been since the disruption applied to everyone regardless of whether they were affected by the virus or not.
I'm not saying your scenario is callous or wrong. Just that it wasn't a magic wand solution that would have been much better. To go back to education for a minute, we get a scenario with an awful lot of teachers off sick and worse, and a rapidly-increasing numbers of schools actually closed. OK they would likely have reopened sooner, but we could have made reopen education choices differently after the first lockdown in the prime timeline as well...
Nobody is saying normality was an option, so stop arguing against it.
She's as economically incoherent as the rest of them.
In response to this, young people had their taxes raised to the highest level ever, had the student loan conditions changed so they will never pay off their debt, are persistently called "thick", "woke", "entitled" and have literally nothing given to them at all and instead all money is funnelled to the elderly.
I got lockdown wrong.
And many teachers were placed in an impossible situation of having to teach both remote and in person at the same time.
American ones would be considered like trucks here.
It doesn't work quite so well in the Old World, where we all live much closer together.
There's that libertarian mantra of freedom stopping at the other guy's nose which is rather... on the nose (ayethanguou) in this scenario. As it is for questions of air quality, actually.
Saying "if you don't want to breathe it in, stay at home" isn't an honourable answer.
QUOTE from the lordslibray document.
Although the paper found inconclusive evidence that austerity had had a worse impact on women’s life expectancy, it did claim that the austerity policies pursued by the UK government had had an “immensely damaging” impact on life expectancy overall. It said approximately 335,000 additional deaths had occurred between 2012 and 2019 compared with what had been previously been predicted. It also said the change in these trends was greater for people living in the 20% most deprived areas in England, Scotland and Wales.