One from the Guardian, especially so that people can rehearse the equality of opportunity v equality of outcome issue, this time with regard to who bothers to vote.
I don't believe him about the WhatsApp messages but don't particularly criticise him for it. The absurd use made of the messages they do have shows the government were right to try and stop the inquiry having these in the first place.
The big problem for Sunak is that he has always insisted that he followed the scientific advice about EOTHO but the scientists have already given evidence that they knew nothing about it until it was in force. His contention that he was relying on advice is looking like a lie right now. Not sure what he can come up with.
Quite. I'm sure that with most of these politicians whose WhatsApp messages have disappeared, they have taken steps ensure that their messages don't see the light of day. I don't blame them either - publishing every frustrated message sent between them and their advisors is unlikely to show them in a good light, nor yet is it likely to reveal anything of any great importance to the enquiry. The whole enquiry is demonstrating how not to do this sort of thing. One of the the reasons that airplanes and trains are so safe is that when things go wrong, the resultant investigations are conducted deliberately not to assign blame, but to figure out what went wrong, then work out how a similar incident it could be prevented or mitigated next time. This fosters a culture of openness where people will actually admit to making mistakes, and will give accurate accounts of what happened when to the best of their knowledge.
I am somewhat in despair about the way the Inquiry has been conducted to date. The questions surely should be:
What worked? What didn't? What can we do better the next time anything similar comes along?
Of these 3 questions the third is by far the most important. This absurd focus on who said what about whom is beyond irritating.
Bearing in mind that it was set up and its terms of reference determined under Boris, that's hardly a surprise. A broad brush enquiry into government, such as this, is a long grass exercise masquerading as one of accountability.
In terms of biosecurity and public health policy, it was always going to be largely a waste of time. And money, and political attention.
The problem with that approach, as we are seeing, is that it becomes an exercise in hindsight with a random generator of bad headlines for the existing government. Only a bunch of idiots would have set it up this way. When, in a few years time, it comes up with banal conclusions about those who have long since left the stage no one will care (see Iraq). The damage is being done now.
The criticism of the enquiry largely comes from conservatives unhappy that their "he got all the big decisions right" spin line has been torn apart under questioning. As you point out, the cause of that are the terms of the enquiry, set up by "a bunch of idiots" - the very same politicians you lot still support.
The reason why we need to tear apart the spin is that lies can get solidified into truth. "He got all the big calls right" could easily have become accepted political reality. Thanks to the enquiry he set up we know know the opposite is true. And people will vote accordingly.
Oh year, thats why the right don't like this enquiry...
I haven’t paid too much attention because political tittle tattle bores me.
But for me the big 3 topics are:
- The decision to devolve vaccine strategy to a non Civil Service body and lead them to get on with it. That worked - An instinctive bias to liberty be state control. Not talking about specific decisions which could be argued but mindset. Starmer was always “harder, longer, stricter” which worries me - A tendency by the civil service to gold plate rules in ridiculous detail and a pettifogging desire by police and others to enforce control. That’s worrying - Use of WhatsApp to prevent government records being kept. Problematic - but given the way the inquiry has resulted in political games being played out perhaps understandable (if not forgoveable) - Boris was a chaotic disorganised jerk who thought rules didn’t apply to him. That was priced in anyway and ultimately cost him his job
So yes, the biggest call of all and the mindset were both right
You mention Starmer, which reminds me that at the time we had PBers doubting Jeremy Corbyn would have had the necessary appetite for state intervention during the Covid pandemic.
In your eyes, yes, just as some don't like Australia's approach. But, it would become established and generally accepted.
Also, more European countries would emulate it.
Nope
No other Country is copying it, cos it doesn't, can't and won't work.
Apart from that, great point...
Read my tenses carefully.
They were watching to see if it could work and, indeed, if it did they would copy it.
No this isn’t the case . Other European countries are looking at processing asylum claims in another country but this is the key difference. Those asylum seekers whose claim is accepted will be allowed to return back to the country they wanted to remain in . The UK policy is even if they have a genuine asylum claim they remain stuck in Rwanda .
Also the public aren’t clear on the policy . Some think they go to Rwanda just for processing and will be allowed to return if their claim is successful .
What upsets me……understatement of the day ….. over the boats policy is that many of those trying to come are in fact entitled to come and have been failed by us/our government back in their home countries.
Yes, what we need to do is fix the countries in question.
Obviously the governments in question will resist.
Tell you what, you can start assembling the troops, I’ll open another wing at the British Museum. Deal?
That, I feel, is a bit unfair. We left, for example, Afghanistan, knowing that there were people there who had worked for us and who, with their families, would be in mortal danger under the new Government. Some of those people have now made their way to the French coast and, in the absence of alternative, are relying on smugglers to get them across the Channel.
After our latest imperial project there failed.
We should have done Butcher & Bolt.
It wasn't an imperial project, we were there to remove Bin Laden and then should have got out
Bin Laden wasn't killed until nearly a decade after the invasion, and he wasn't in Afghanistan (albeit I appreciate he would have probably been in Afghanistan but for the invasion).
So, applying my 3 questions, did EOTHO work or not?
There is no doubt that the Chancellor was right to be concerned about the financial impact of Covid. The level of support required to maintain hundreds of thousands of businesses not allowed to trade was immense. It made sense to have such a scheme to encourage at least limited trading.
But the scheme was not road tested in terms of its potential impact in spreading Covid. Whilst it is not hard to see the reasons for the scheme that would surely be in the do not repeat pile.
So, in a future pandemic, we need to recognise that we will need to do what we can to keep things going as much as possible but these kind of ideas need to be integrated into the overall plan for handling and modelling the pandemic and not separate from it.
I'll send my bill to the Inquiry.
It's a largely irrelevant question, as far as Sunak's scheme was concerned.
Any future pandemic will be courtesy of a different virus, likely with completely different epidemiological characteristics. And the interventions available to us - for example testing and vaccines - will also be of a completely different order to what was available even a couple of years ago.
The more interesting question is what day 1 measures could we be in a position in future to take in order to limit (and if possible halt) spread of virus, without destroying the economy in the process ?
Having such a plan was what made Taiwan such a notable success in dealing with Covid.
Beyond already having capacity in place, plans for dealing with pandemics once they have taken hold are necessarily ad hoc, I suspect.
I agree that we are much more likely to have a vaccine much faster the next time with the scientific advances made during this one, specifically the computer modelling. It is also obviously the case that any new virus will have its own characteristics.
What I think is important is that we recognise that complete and total shutdown is simply not economically viable for anything other than the shortest of periods and that we need to focus as much on what we can do safely as what we can't.
Though the faster a vaccine can be got into arms from a standing start, the more viable a shutdown in the meantime becomes. In the early days, Swedish theory was that we needed measures that could be sustained for several years because a vaccine could take that long.
But the central irony remains. The UK government were desperate to avoid lockdowns and return to normality. (See also EOTHO, which wouldn't have been a bad idea once the pandemic was actually over.) In doing so, in trying to run the pandemic warm, if not hot, they ended up in a situation where they had to lockdown- and the winter 2021 lockdown was longer and grimmer than in many other countries, despite our vaccine advantage.
Stitches in time saving nine is not a new insight.
The biggest stich in time is not allowing a virus into the country.
Yet we had planes flying in from China weeks after it had gone into lockdown, people going on holiday to covid ridden Spain in summer 2020 and then the import of the Delta variant from India in spring 2021.
Lockdowns and other restrictions were the equivalent of bailing out an overflowing bath which still had the taps turned on.
If it was in force, and effective, then 60%+ of the populace would be supportive of it with only a small voluble liberal minority crying murder about it.
Even if it worked (it won't, it doesn't, it can't) it would still be terrible.
But you are right, fewer people would care.
In your eyes, yes, just as some don't like Australia's approach. But, it would become established and generally accepted.
Also, more European countries would emulate it.
Do you have any evidence that the idea is well supported outside a Tory/UKIP rump of extreme right wingers and racists?
In your eyes, yes, just as some don't like Australia's approach. But, it would become established and generally accepted.
Also, more European countries would emulate it.
Nope
No other Country is copying it, cos it doesn't, can't and won't work.
Apart from that, great point...
Read my tenses carefully.
They were watching to see if it could work and, indeed, if it did they would copy it.
No this isn’t the case . Other European countries are looking at processing asylum claims in another country but this is the key difference. Those asylum seekers whose claim is accepted will be allowed to return back to the country they wanted to remain in . The UK policy is even if they have a genuine asylum claim they remain stuck in Rwanda .
Also the public aren’t clear on the policy . Some think they go to Rwanda just for processing and will be allowed to return if their claim is successful .
The government line depends on a good number of voters and boat going asylum seekers believing it applies to more than a tiny number of applicants.
So, applying my 3 questions, did EOTHO work or not?
There is no doubt that the Chancellor was right to be concerned about the financial impact of Covid. The level of support required to maintain hundreds of thousands of businesses not allowed to trade was immense. It made sense to have such a scheme to encourage at least limited trading.
But the scheme was not road tested in terms of its potential impact in spreading Covid. Whilst it is not hard to see the reasons for the scheme that would surely be in the do not repeat pile.
So, in a future pandemic, we need to recognise that we will need to do what we can to keep things going as much as possible but these kind of ideas need to be integrated into the overall plan for handling and modelling the pandemic and not separate from it.
I'll send my bill to the Inquiry.
It's a largely irrelevant question, as far as Sunak's scheme was concerned.
Any future pandemic will be courtesy of a different virus, likely with completely different epidemiological characteristics. And the interventions available to us - for example testing and vaccines - will also be of a completely different order to what was available even a couple of years ago.
The more interesting question is what day 1 measures could we be in a position in future to take in order to limit (and if possible halt) spread of virus, without destroying the economy in the process ?
Having such a plan was what made Taiwan such a notable success in dealing with Covid.
Beyond already having capacity in place, plans for dealing with pandemics once they have taken hold are necessarily ad hoc, I suspect.
I agree that we are much more likely to have a vaccine much faster the next time with the scientific advances made during this one, specifically the computer modelling. It is also obviously the case that any new virus will have its own characteristics.
What I think is important is that we recognise that complete and total shutdown is simply not economically viable for anything other than the shortest of periods and that we need to focus as much on what we can do safely as what we can't.
Though the faster a vaccine can be got into arms from a standing start, the more viable a shutdown in the meantime becomes. In the early days, Swedish theory was that we needed measures that could be sustained for several years because a vaccine could take that long.
But the central irony remains. The UK government were desperate to avoid lockdowns and return to normality. (See also EOTHO, which wouldn't have been a bad idea once the pandemic was actually over.) In doing so, in trying to run the pandemic warm, if not hot, they ended up in a situation where they had to lockdown- and the winter 2021 lockdown was longer and grimmer than in many other countries, despite our vaccine advantage.
Stitches in time saving nine is not a new insight.
The biggest stich in time is not allowing a virus into the country.
Yet we had planes flying in from China weeks after it had gone into lockdown, people going on holiday to covid ridden Spain in summer 2020 and then the import of the Delta variant from India in spring 2021.
Lockdowns and other restrictions were the equivalent of bailing out an overflowing bath which still had the taps turned on.
The virus would have got in anyway unless we'd gone full New Zealand, which we couldn't because of the truckers. People visiting Spain would simply have flown back from Germany instead or something and lied on their forms. Or just hitched a ride on a boat from Calais - seems easy enough these days. And once you get one or two asymptomatic cases in, domestic transmission dominates within a few days.
Given that, you're right that lockdowns were largely pointless and completely counter-productive. And disproportionate for a virus with a 99.8% recovery rate (>99.9% amongst healthy under-70s).
I don't believe him about the WhatsApp messages but don't particularly criticise him for it. The absurd use made of the messages they do have shows the government were right to try and stop the inquiry having these in the first place.
The big problem for Sunak is that he has always insisted that he followed the scientific advice about EOTHO but the scientists have already given evidence that they knew nothing about it until it was in force. His contention that he was relying on advice is looking like a lie right now. Not sure what he can come up with.
Quite. I'm sure that with most of these politicians whose WhatsApp messages have disappeared, they have taken steps ensure that their messages don't see the light of day. I don't blame them either - publishing every frustrated message sent between them and their advisors is unlikely to show them in a good light, nor yet is it likely to reveal anything of any great importance to the enquiry. The whole enquiry is demonstrating how not to do this sort of thing. One of the the reasons that airplanes and trains are so safe is that when things go wrong, the resultant investigations are conducted deliberately not to assign blame, but to figure out what went wrong, then work out how a similar incident it could be prevented or mitigated next time. This fosters a culture of openness where people will actually admit to making mistakes, and will give accurate accounts of what happened when to the best of their knowledge.
I am somewhat in despair about the way the Inquiry has been conducted to date. The questions surely should be:
What worked? What didn't? What can we do better the next time anything similar comes along?
Of these 3 questions the third is by far the most important. This absurd focus on who said what about whom is beyond irritating.
Bearing in mind that it was set up and its terms of reference determined under Boris, that's hardly a surprise. A broad brush enquiry into government, such as this, is a long grass exercise masquerading as one of accountability.
In terms of biosecurity and public health policy, it was always going to be largely a waste of time. And money, and political attention.
The problem with that approach, as we are seeing, is that it becomes an exercise in hindsight with a random generator of bad headlines for the existing government. Only a bunch of idiots would have set it up this way. When, in a few years time, it comes up with banal conclusions about those who have long since left the stage no one will care (see Iraq). The damage is being done now.
The criticism of the enquiry largely comes from conservatives unhappy that their "he got all the big decisions right" spin line has been torn apart under questioning. As you point out, the cause of that are the terms of the enquiry, set up by "a bunch of idiots" - the very same politicians you lot still support.
The reason why we need to tear apart the spin is that lies can get solidified into truth. "He got all the big calls right" could easily have become accepted political reality. Thanks to the enquiry he set up we know know the opposite is true. And people will vote accordingly.
Oh year, thats why the right don't like this enquiry...
I haven’t paid too much attention because political tittle tattle bores me.
But for me the big 3 topics are:
- The decision to devolve vaccine strategy to a non Civil Service body and lead them to get on with it. That worked - An instinctive bias to liberty be state control. Not talking about specific decisions which could be argued but mindset. Starmer was always “harder, longer, stricter” which worries me - A tendency by the civil service to gold plate rules in ridiculous detail and a pettifogging desire by police and others to enforce control. That’s worrying - Use of WhatsApp to prevent government records being kept. Problematic - but given the way the inquiry has resulted in political games being played out perhaps understandable (if not forgoveable) - Boris was a chaotic disorganised jerk who thought rules didn’t apply to him. That was priced in anyway and ultimately cost him his - job
So yes, the biggest call of all and the mindset were both right
You mention Starmer, which reminds me that at the time we had PBers doubting Jeremy Corbyn would have had the necessary appetite for state intervention during the Covid pandemic.
I don’t recall that? I vaguely remember some saying Corbin would have used the opportunity to nationalise everything that moved in the “national interest”
I don't believe him about the WhatsApp messages but don't particularly criticise him for it. The absurd use made of the messages they do have shows the government were right to try and stop the inquiry having these in the first place.
The big problem for Sunak is that he has always insisted that he followed the scientific advice about EOTHO but the scientists have already given evidence that they knew nothing about it until it was in force. His contention that he was relying on advice is looking like a lie right now. Not sure what he can come up with.
Quite. I'm sure that with most of these politicians whose WhatsApp messages have disappeared, they have taken steps ensure that their messages don't see the light of day. I don't blame them either - publishing every frustrated message sent between them and their advisors is unlikely to show them in a good light, nor yet is it likely to reveal anything of any great importance to the enquiry. The whole enquiry is demonstrating how not to do this sort of thing. One of the the reasons that airplanes and trains are so safe is that when things go wrong, the resultant investigations are conducted deliberately not to assign blame, but to figure out what went wrong, then work out how a similar incident it could be prevented or mitigated next time. This fosters a culture of openness where people will actually admit to making mistakes, and will give accurate accounts of what happened when to the best of their knowledge.
I am somewhat in despair about the way the Inquiry has been conducted to date. The questions surely should be:
What worked? What didn't? What can we do better the next time anything similar comes along?
Of these 3 questions the third is by far the most important. This absurd focus on who said what about whom is beyond irritating.
Bearing in mind that it was set up and its terms of reference determined under Boris, that's hardly a surprise. A broad brush enquiry into government, such as this, is a long grass exercise masquerading as one of accountability.
In terms of biosecurity and public health policy, it was always going to be largely a waste of time. And money, and political attention.
The problem with that approach, as we are seeing, is that it becomes an exercise in hindsight with a random generator of bad headlines for the existing government. Only a bunch of idiots would have set it up this way. When, in a few years time, it comes up with banal conclusions about those who have long since left the stage no one will care (see Iraq). The damage is being done now.
The criticism of the enquiry largely comes from conservatives unhappy that their "he got all the big decisions right" spin line has been torn apart under questioning. As you point out, the cause of that are the terms of the enquiry, set up by "a bunch of idiots" - the very same politicians you lot still support.
The reason why we need to tear apart the spin is that lies can get solidified into truth. "He got all the big calls right" could easily have become accepted political reality. Thanks to the enquiry he set up we know know the opposite is true. And people will vote accordingly.
Oh year, thats why the right don't like this enquiry...
I haven’t paid too much attention because political tittle tattle bores me.
But for me the big 3 topics are:
- The decision to devolve vaccine strategy to a non Civil Service body and lead them to get on with it. That worked - An instinctive bias to liberty be state control. Not talking about specific decisions which could be argued but mindset. Starmer was always “harder, longer, stricter” which worries me - A tendency by the civil service to gold plate rules in ridiculous detail and a pettifogging desire by police and others to enforce control. That’s worrying - Use of WhatsApp to prevent government records being kept. Problematic - but given the way the inquiry has resulted in political games being played out perhaps understandable (if not forgoveable) - Boris was a chaotic disorganised jerk who thought rules didn’t apply to him. That was priced in anyway and ultimately cost him his - job
So yes, the biggest call of all and the mindset were both right
You mention Starmer, which reminds me that at the time we had PBers doubting Jeremy Corbyn would have had the necessary appetite for state intervention during the Covid pandemic.
I don’t recall that? I vaguely remember some saying Corbin would have used the opportunity to nationalise everything that moved in the “national interest”
They did not say it in those terms but that Corbyn would not have supported industry or vaccinations or lockdowns or whatever was the topic of the day which would have been a massive intrusion by the state.
Interesting juxtaposition on the front page of The Times.
One story on government attempts to transport refugees to Rwanda; the second on an imaginative idea for performing operations more quickly, being led by two doctors clearly of immigrant stock.
... I'm in Lisbon so no withering James O'Brien commentary on today's events at the inquiry.
Sunak could remind Keith who is PM, and who is a mere KC. Something he does to great effect at PMQs. Perhaps he will blame Keith for the failings of EOTHO. Can he respond to Keith's question with a random unrelated question himself?
So, applying my 3 questions, did EOTHO work or not?
There is no doubt that the Chancellor was right to be concerned about the financial impact of Covid. The level of support required to maintain hundreds of thousands of businesses not allowed to trade was immense. It made sense to have such a scheme to encourage at least limited trading.
But the scheme was not road tested in terms of its potential impact in spreading Covid. Whilst it is not hard to see the reasons for the scheme that would surely be in the do not repeat pile.
So, in a future pandemic, we need to recognise that we will need to do what we can to keep things going as much as possible but these kind of ideas need to be integrated into the overall plan for handling and modelling the pandemic and not separate from it.
I'll send my bill to the Inquiry.
It's a largely irrelevant question, as far as Sunak's scheme was concerned.
Any future pandemic will be courtesy of a different virus, likely with completely different epidemiological characteristics. And the interventions available to us - for example testing and vaccines - will also be of a completely different order to what was available even a couple of years ago.
The more interesting question is what day 1 measures could we be in a position in future to take in order to limit (and if possible halt) spread of virus, without destroying the economy in the process ?
Having such a plan was what made Taiwan such a notable success in dealing with Covid.
Beyond already having capacity in place, plans for dealing with pandemics once they have taken hold are necessarily ad hoc, I suspect.
I agree that we are much more likely to have a vaccine much faster the next time with the scientific advances made during this one, specifically the computer modelling. It is also obviously the case that any new virus will have its own characteristics.
What I think is important is that we recognise that complete and total shutdown is simply not economically viable for anything other than the shortest of periods and that we need to focus as much on what we can do safely as what we can't.
Though the faster a vaccine can be got into arms from a standing start, the more viable a shutdown in the meantime becomes. In the early days, Swedish theory was that we needed measures that could be sustained for several years because a vaccine could take that long.
But the central irony remains. The UK government were desperate to avoid lockdowns and return to normality. (See also EOTHO, which wouldn't have been a bad idea once the pandemic was actually over.) In doing so, in trying to run the pandemic warm, if not hot, they ended up in a situation where they had to lockdown- and the winter 2021 lockdown was longer and grimmer than in many other countries, despite our vaccine advantage.
Stitches in time saving nine is not a new insight.
The biggest stich in time is not allowing a virus into the country.
Yet we had planes flying in from China weeks after it had gone into lockdown, people going on holiday to covid ridden Spain in summer 2020 and then the import of the Delta variant from India in spring 2021.
Lockdowns and other restrictions were the equivalent of bailing out an overflowing bath which still had the taps turned on.
The virus would have got in anyway unless we'd gone full New Zealand, which we couldn't because of the truckers. People visiting Spain would simply have flown back from Germany instead or something and lied on their forms. Or just hitched a ride on a boat from Calais - seems easy enough these days. And once you get one or two asymptomatic cases in, domestic transmission dominates within a few days.
Given that, you're right that lockdowns were largely pointless and completely counter-productive. And disproportionate for a virus with a 99.8% recovery rate (>99.9% amongst healthy under-70s).
People going on holiday to Spain go by plane directly to and from British airports, they're not going to mess about 'hitching a ride on a boat from Calais'.
We saw in spring 2021 how the Delta variant was seeded in Bolton and Blackburn by people returning from India - in summer/autumn 2020 the whole country was reseeded by people coming back from Spain etc.
Now perhaps the virus would have entered eventually but that's no reason not to attempt top stop it with the extra benefit that it would be certainly delayed.
What upsets me……understatement of the day ….. over the boats policy is that many of those trying to come are in fact entitled to come and have been failed by us/our government back in their home countries.
Yes, what we need to do is fix the countries in question.
Obviously the governments in question will resist.
Tell you what, you can start assembling the troops, I’ll open another wing at the British Museum. Deal?
That, I feel, is a bit unfair. We left, for example, Afghanistan, knowing that there were people there who had worked for us and who, with their families, would be in mortal danger under the new Government. Some of those people have now made their way to the French coast and, in the absence of alternative, are relying on smugglers to get them across the Channel.
After our latest imperial project there failed.
We should have done Butcher & Bolt.
It wasn't an imperial project, we were there to remove Bin Laden and then should have got out
Bin Laden wasn't killed until nearly a decade after the invasion, and he wasn't in Afghanistan (albeit I appreciate he would have probably been in Afghanistan but for the invasion).
Bin Laden was killed in 2011, we didn't leave Afghanistan until 2021
If it was in force, and effective, then 60%+ of the populace would be supportive of it with only a small voluble liberal minority crying murder about it.
Even if it worked (it won't, it doesn't, it can't) it would still be terrible.
But you are right, fewer people would care.
In your eyes, yes, just as some don't like Australia's approach. But, it would become established and generally accepted.
Also, more European countries would emulate it.
Do you have any evidence that the idea is well supported outside a Tory/UKIP rump of extreme right wingers and racists?
Labour's Wes Streeting accuses NHS of “waste and inefficiency”, saying NHS uses every winter crisis "as an excuse to ask for more money".
A Public NHS Supporting Socialist Muslim Candidate needed for Ilford North Methinks
He's on manoeuvres (spelling?). He's positioning himself as a Blairite realist and teller-of-hard-truths of the upcoming Labour government.
Which is a problem, because the hard truth of the 20s and 30s is that we have 10-15 million pensioners, they will all have health problems, and they'll cost stacks. Any government that isn't preparing and repositioning for this is a silly government.
Labour's Wes Streeting accuses NHS of “waste and inefficiency”, saying NHS uses every winter crisis "as an excuse to ask for more money".
A Public NHS Supporting Socialist Muslim Candidate needed for Ilford North Methinks
He's right of course, as the other story on the front page of the Times, where a week's surgery is being done in a day, shows all too well. The best cure for waiting lists is going to be increased efficiency in the massive resources already deployed rather than additional resources which any government is going to find hard to come by.
So, applying my 3 questions, did EOTHO work or not?
There is no doubt that the Chancellor was right to be concerned about the financial impact of Covid. The level of support required to maintain hundreds of thousands of businesses not allowed to trade was immense. It made sense to have such a scheme to encourage at least limited trading.
But the scheme was not road tested in terms of its potential impact in spreading Covid. Whilst it is not hard to see the reasons for the scheme that would surely be in the do not repeat pile.
So, in a future pandemic, we need to recognise that we will need to do what we can to keep things going as much as possible but these kind of ideas need to be integrated into the overall plan for handling and modelling the pandemic and not separate from it.
I'll send my bill to the Inquiry.
It's a largely irrelevant question, as far as Sunak's scheme was concerned.
Any future pandemic will be courtesy of a different virus, likely with completely different epidemiological characteristics. And the interventions available to us - for example testing and vaccines - will also be of a completely different order to what was available even a couple of years ago.
The more interesting question is what day 1 measures could we be in a position in future to take in order to limit (and if possible halt) spread of virus, without destroying the economy in the process ?
Having such a plan was what made Taiwan such a notable success in dealing with Covid.
Beyond already having capacity in place, plans for dealing with pandemics once they have taken hold are necessarily ad hoc, I suspect.
I agree that we are much more likely to have a vaccine much faster the next time with the scientific advances made during this one, specifically the computer modelling. It is also obviously the case that any new virus will have its own characteristics.
What I think is important is that we recognise that complete and total shutdown is simply not economically viable for anything other than the shortest of periods and that we need to focus as much on what we can do safely as what we can't.
Though the faster a vaccine can be got into arms from a standing start, the more viable a shutdown in the meantime becomes. In the early days, Swedish theory was that we needed measures that could be sustained for several years because a vaccine could take that long.
But the central irony remains. The UK government were desperate to avoid lockdowns and return to normality. (See also EOTHO, which wouldn't have been a bad idea once the pandemic was actually over.) In doing so, in trying to run the pandemic warm, if not hot, they ended up in a situation where they had to lockdown- and the winter 2021 lockdown was longer and grimmer than in many other countries, despite our vaccine advantage.
Stitches in time saving nine is not a new insight.
The biggest stich in time is not allowing a virus into the country.
Yet we had planes flying in from China weeks after it had gone into lockdown, people going on holiday to covid ridden Spain in summer 2020 and then the import of the Delta variant from India in spring 2021.
Lockdowns and other restrictions were the equivalent of bailing out an overflowing bath which still had the taps turned on.
The virus would have got in anyway unless we'd gone full New Zealand, which we couldn't because of the truckers. People visiting Spain would simply have flown back from Germany instead or something and lied on their forms. Or just hitched a ride on a boat from Calais - seems easy enough these days. And once you get one or two asymptomatic cases in, domestic transmission dominates within a few days.
Given that, you're right that lockdowns were largely pointless and completely counter-productive. And disproportionate for a virus with a 99.8% recovery rate (>99.9% amongst healthy under-70s).
People going on holiday to Spain go by plane directly to and from British airports, they're not going to mess about 'hitching a ride on a boat from Calais'.
We saw in spring 2021 how the Delta variant was seeded in Bolton and Blackburn by people returning from India - in summer/autumn 2020 the whole country was reseeded by people coming back from Spain etc.
Now perhaps the virus would have entered eventually but that's no reason not to attempt to stop it with the extra benefit that it would be certainly delayed.
We're not talking about hindsight now, anyway - it's what we might do in the future that's important.
It ought to be possible to design systems which would allow us to effectively seal ourselves off for a period of months given the advances in testing systems. You'd still need a very good reason to do such a thing, but the cost/benefit calculation would be quite different from the one in 2019/2020. (And even in that case, a faster response would probably have had a greater benefit for the same cost.)
In any event, a rerun of the last pandemic response isn't economically feasible; what we need to be looking at is what an effective response might be in the future, and in what circumstances it would make sense to implement it.
So, applying my 3 questions, did EOTHO work or not?
There is no doubt that the Chancellor was right to be concerned about the financial impact of Covid. The level of support required to maintain hundreds of thousands of businesses not allowed to trade was immense. It made sense to have such a scheme to encourage at least limited trading.
But the scheme was not road tested in terms of its potential impact in spreading Covid. Whilst it is not hard to see the reasons for the scheme that would surely be in the do not repeat pile.
So, in a future pandemic, we need to recognise that we will need to do what we can to keep things going as much as possible but these kind of ideas need to be integrated into the overall plan for handling and modelling the pandemic and not separate from it.
I'll send my bill to the Inquiry.
It's a largely irrelevant question, as far as Sunak's scheme was concerned.
Any future pandemic will be courtesy of a different virus, likely with completely different epidemiological characteristics. And the interventions available to us - for example testing and vaccines - will also be of a completely different order to what was available even a couple of years ago.
The more interesting question is what day 1 measures could we be in a position in future to take in order to limit (and if possible halt) spread of virus, without destroying the economy in the process ?
Having such a plan was what made Taiwan such a notable success in dealing with Covid.
Beyond already having capacity in place, plans for dealing with pandemics once they have taken hold are necessarily ad hoc, I suspect.
I agree that we are much more likely to have a vaccine much faster the next time with the scientific advances made during this one, specifically the computer modelling. It is also obviously the case that any new virus will have its own characteristics.
What I think is important is that we recognise that complete and total shutdown is simply not economically viable for anything other than the shortest of periods and that we need to focus as much on what we can do safely as what we can't.
Though the faster a vaccine can be got into arms from a standing start, the more viable a shutdown in the meantime becomes. In the early days, Swedish theory was that we needed measures that could be sustained for several years because a vaccine could take that long.
But the central irony remains. The UK government were desperate to avoid lockdowns and return to normality. (See also EOTHO, which wouldn't have been a bad idea once the pandemic was actually over.) In doing so, in trying to run the pandemic warm, if not hot, they ended up in a situation where they had to lockdown- and the winter 2021 lockdown was longer and grimmer than in many other countries, despite our vaccine advantage.
Stitches in time saving nine is not a new insight.
The biggest stich in time is not allowing a virus into the country.
Yet we had planes flying in from China weeks after it had gone into lockdown, people going on holiday to covid ridden Spain in summer 2020 and then the import of the Delta variant from India in spring 2021.
Lockdowns and other restrictions were the equivalent of bailing out an overflowing bath which still had the taps turned on.
The virus would have got in anyway unless we'd gone full New Zealand, which we couldn't because of the truckers. People visiting Spain would simply have flown back from Germany instead or something and lied on their forms. Or just hitched a ride on a boat from Calais - seems easy enough these days. And once you get one or two asymptomatic cases in, domestic transmission dominates within a few days.
Given that, you're right that lockdowns were largely pointless and completely counter-productive. And disproportionate for a virus with a 99.8% recovery rate (>99.9% amongst healthy under-70s).
Citation needed for those figures. Pre-vaccine studies put it at ~1% overall, possibly a bit less.
Those figures may be correct after vaccination (I've not seen studies on that) but the lockdowns were all before widespread rollout of vaccines. Some restrictions continued, but the final lockdown was wound down once most people had been offered the jab.
What upsets me……understatement of the day ….. over the boats policy is that many of those trying to come are in fact entitled to come and have been failed by us/our government back in their home countries.
Yes, what we need to do is fix the countries in question.
Obviously the governments in question will resist.
Tell you what, you can start assembling the troops, I’ll open another wing at the British Museum. Deal?
That, I feel, is a bit unfair. We left, for example, Afghanistan, knowing that there were people there who had worked for us and who, with their families, would be in mortal danger under the new Government. Some of those people have now made their way to the French coast and, in the absence of alternative, are relying on smugglers to get them across the Channel.
After our latest imperial project there failed.
We should have done Butcher & Bolt.
It wasn't an imperial project, we were there to remove Bin Laden and then should have got out
Bin Laden wasn't killed until nearly a decade after the invasion, and he wasn't in Afghanistan (albeit I appreciate he would have probably been in Afghanistan but for the invasion).
Bin Laden was killed in 2011, we didn't leave Afghanistan until 2021
No, but we'd been in for a decade by 2011.
Clearly, establishing a functioning democracy in Afghanistan failed. But the point is we had been there for ten years in before what you characterise as the aim was achieved (and not, in fact, in Afghanistan). The alternative to occupation wasn't, in fact, some kind of clinical smash and grab operation for Al Queda leaders.
I just read that Man Utd have lost more home games since Sir Alex left than in all the 21 years he was at the club.
Do they have university degrees in finding obscure statistics?
Just remember statistics are like bikinis, what they reveal is interesting, what they hide is much more fascinating.
Erm, did you miss the HR circular suggesting we no longer use sexist analogies like this? Circa 2003.
Mankinis can be used if you prefer.
Just as sexist, Shirley? Perhaps the non-binary 'swimwear' would be better. We should perhaps set up a committee for Perfectly Cromulent Generally Observed Non-Exclusionary Modes of Address and Discourse (PCGONEMAD) to avoid any future unfortunate turns of phrase?
So, applying my 3 questions, did EOTHO work or not?
There is no doubt that the Chancellor was right to be concerned about the financial impact of Covid. The level of support required to maintain hundreds of thousands of businesses not allowed to trade was immense. It made sense to have such a scheme to encourage at least limited trading.
But the scheme was not road tested in terms of its potential impact in spreading Covid. Whilst it is not hard to see the reasons for the scheme that would surely be in the do not repeat pile.
So, in a future pandemic, we need to recognise that we will need to do what we can to keep things going as much as possible but these kind of ideas need to be integrated into the overall plan for handling and modelling the pandemic and not separate from it.
I'll send my bill to the Inquiry.
It's a largely irrelevant question, as far as Sunak's scheme was concerned.
Any future pandemic will be courtesy of a different virus, likely with completely different epidemiological characteristics. And the interventions available to us - for example testing and vaccines - will also be of a completely different order to what was available even a couple of years ago.
The more interesting question is what day 1 measures could we be in a position in future to take in order to limit (and if possible halt) spread of virus, without destroying the economy in the process ?
Having such a plan was what made Taiwan such a notable success in dealing with Covid.
Beyond already having capacity in place, plans for dealing with pandemics once they have taken hold are necessarily ad hoc, I suspect.
I agree that we are much more likely to have a vaccine much faster the next time with the scientific advances made during this one, specifically the computer modelling. It is also obviously the case that any new virus will have its own characteristics.
What I think is important is that we recognise that complete and total shutdown is simply not economically viable for anything other than the shortest of periods and that we need to focus as much on what we can do safely as what we can't.
Though the faster a vaccine can be got into arms from a standing start, the more viable a shutdown in the meantime becomes. In the early days, Swedish theory was that we needed measures that could be sustained for several years because a vaccine could take that long.
But the central irony remains. The UK government were desperate to avoid lockdowns and return to normality. (See also EOTHO, which wouldn't have been a bad idea once the pandemic was actually over.) In doing so, in trying to run the pandemic warm, if not hot, they ended up in a situation where they had to lockdown- and the winter 2021 lockdown was longer and grimmer than in many other countries, despite our vaccine advantage.
Stitches in time saving nine is not a new insight.
The biggest stich in time is not allowing a virus into the country.
Yet we had planes flying in from China weeks after it had gone into lockdown, people going on holiday to covid ridden Spain in summer 2020 and then the import of the Delta variant from India in spring 2021.
Lockdowns and other restrictions were the equivalent of bailing out an overflowing bath which still had the taps turned on.
The virus would have got in anyway unless we'd gone full New Zealand, which we couldn't because of the truckers. People visiting Spain would simply have flown back from Germany instead or something and lied on their forms. Or just hitched a ride on a boat from Calais - seems easy enough these days. And once you get one or two asymptomatic cases in, domestic transmission dominates within a few days.
Given that, you're right that lockdowns were largely pointless and completely counter-productive. And disproportionate for a virus with a 99.8% recovery rate (>99.9% amongst healthy under-70s).
It's been pointed out to you before that your repeated quoting of fantasy figures for "recovery rates" is not only wrong (and you seem to be basing it on a discredited study by a single scientist that completely clashes with the vast majority of others), but obviously absurd when you just divide population numbers by deaths.
(If 10% of the country had covid by the end of 2020 prior to vaccines and 90,000 had died, then if 0.2% was an average rate over the entire population (which you claim it isn't, as under 70s are far lower), then the population of the UK would need to be just under half a billion. Which it really isn't, honest)
Not to mention ignoring the problem of hospitalisations (which ran at over 5% of those infected, and whilst it did skew considerably by age, it wasn't anywhere near as steep as the deaths - especially for those in ICU, of which more than half were under 65) and long-term effects and pretending that everyone who doesn't die is absolutely fine.
If you quote known-wrong figures for this, can we trust your figures for other things?
I just read that Man Utd have lost more home games since Sir Alex left than in all the 21 years he was at the club.
Do they have university degrees in finding obscure statistics?
Just remember statistics are like bikinis, what they reveal is interesting, what they hide is much more fascinating.
Erm, did you miss the HR circular suggesting we no longer use sexist analogies like this? Circa 2003.
Mankinis can be used if you prefer.
Just as sexist, Shirley? Perhaps the non-binary 'swimwear' would be better. We should perhaps set up a committee for Perfectly Cromulent Generally Observed Non-Exclusionary Modes of Address and Discourse (PCGONEMAD) to avoid any future unfortunate turns of phrase?
This is possibly not the best time to bring up the Jupiter Mining Corporation's committee for liberation and integration of terrifying organisms and their rehabilitation into society.
New Dutch study on the economic impact of immigration demo-demo.nl/wp-content/upl… migration from other rich countries a net benefit, migration from poor countries a net drain
43:53 "...I mean sometime in the next 15 years they're talking about in semi-intelligent neural nets, multi-media up the ying-yang, massively parallel computing operating systems using DNA or light or quantum (or all of the above) super computing systems capable of recreating a virtual human being down to cellular level and above all write your own ticket software for virtually every activity that used to require a human PhD and all this that will allow the individual if they wish to do everything from bridge building two non-invasive surgery to balancing the books to painting better than Michelangelo or playing better than Agassi..."
Now. Stonehenge. I grew up being told that the road that ran alongside it was a bloody eyesore and putting the traffic through a tunnel would restore the site's peace and ancient mysticism. But now, apparently, the road is great and the tunnel an act of cultural barbrarism.
So, applying my 3 questions, did EOTHO work or not?
There is no doubt that the Chancellor was right to be concerned about the financial impact of Covid. The level of support required to maintain hundreds of thousands of businesses not allowed to trade was immense. It made sense to have such a scheme to encourage at least limited trading.
But the scheme was not road tested in terms of its potential impact in spreading Covid. Whilst it is not hard to see the reasons for the scheme that would surely be in the do not repeat pile.
So, in a future pandemic, we need to recognise that we will need to do what we can to keep things going as much as possible but these kind of ideas need to be integrated into the overall plan for handling and modelling the pandemic and not separate from it.
I'll send my bill to the Inquiry.
Also worth pointing out that it did nothing to save the hospitality industry. A rapid slide into the abyss during lockdown one, then a brief period of relative calm, followed by a slower slide into the abyss during lockdown 2.
That’s a little unfair - easy to say with hindsight. At the time the concern was people were nervous of going out / had lost the cultural habit of eating out!and the policy was intended to address that. There was a known risk of more infections but that was deemed an acceptable trade off vs the economic risks of the hospitality sector failing
There is a very high turnover of businesses starting and failing in the hospitality industry anyway.
New Dutch study on the economic impact of immigration demo-demo.nl/wp-content/upl… migration from other rich countries a net benefit, migration from poor countries a net drain
Some insane stats from the usually fairly accurate Economist: 57% of students claim to have a mental health issue 75%+ parents sought mental health advice for children in 2021/2 25%+ 16-18 yo are given extra time in official exams because of health conditions.
43:53 "...I mean sometime in the next 15 years they're talking about in semi-intelligent neural nets, multi-media up the ying-yang, massively parallel computing operating systems using DNA or light or quantum (or all of the above) super computing systems capable of recreating a virtual human being down to cellular level and above all write your own ticket software for virtually every activity that used to require a human PhD and all this that will allow the individual if they wish to do everything from bridge building two non-invasive surgery to balancing the books to painting better than Michelangelo or playing better than Agassi..."
Yup, predicted ChatGPT. 23 years ago.
1:02:03 "...what happens to my national commercial structures, my national employment strategies, my national ability to provide social services my nation when I can educate myself in any classroom on earth through distant learning, exposed to influences and information from a thousand different sources..."
Now. Stonehenge. I grew up being told that the road that ran alongside it was a bloody eyesore and putting the traffic through a tunnel would restore the site's peace and ancient mysticism. But now, apparently, the road is great and the tunnel an act of cultural barbrarism.
The way that NIMBYism and Greenery works is that you aggregate all the people opposed to individual things. With enough membership, the group opposes *everything*.
For Stonehenge, you have people who hate the road. You also have people who want no digging in the ground for miles, because of archaeological concerns.
Now. Stonehenge. I grew up being told that the road that ran alongside it was a bloody eyesore and putting the traffic through a tunnel would restore the site's peace and ancient mysticism. But now, apparently, the road is great and the tunnel an act of cultural barbrarism.
Nothing, apart from it's being far more expensive now. And Shapps has held another half dozen ministerial posts.
...In 2017, the Tory government unveiled plans for a 1.8-mile tunnel and a lengthy official examination was launched. Planning inspectors concluded a tunnel would cause “permanent, irreversible harm” to the site but nevertheless, in 2020, the then transport secretary, Grant Shapps, over-ruled the inspectors and gave the go-ahead...
43:53 "...I mean sometime in the next 15 years they're talking about in semi-intelligent neural nets, multi-media up the ying-yang, massively parallel computing operating systems using DNA or light or quantum (or all of the above) super computing systems capable of recreating a virtual human being down to cellular level and above all write your own ticket software for virtually every activity that used to require a human PhD and all this that will allow the individual if they wish to do everything from bridge building two non-invasive surgery to balancing the books to painting better than Michelangelo or playing better than Agassi..."
Yup, predicted ChatGPT. 23 years ago.
1:02:03 "...what happens to my national commercial structures, my national employment strategies, my national ability to provide social services my nation when I can educate myself in any classroom on earth through distant learning, exposed to influences and information from a thousand different sources..."
Again, this was a lecture in 2001. 23 years ago.
1:02:15 "...what happens to my local cultural values when online electronic agents working 24 hours a day to represent me go out onto the web and bring back what my profile tells the agent I want. Would I ever get anything other than self gratification? Will I ever emerge from starring in my own utterly personal virtual reality paradise? And if all I hear is the news I want to hear, what does that do to my political and social opinions? And in any case how do you run a country when every individuals electronic agent is inputting every individuals political opinion on every issue in every section of the country every second of the day and night, 186,000 times a second. What happens to the old pre-internet structures like the European Union or the United States when the internet removes the limitations of time and space from international commercial and political relations?..."
Labour's Wes Streeting accuses NHS of “waste and inefficiency”, saying NHS uses every winter crisis "as an excuse to ask for more money".
A Public NHS Supporting Socialist Muslim Candidate needed for Ilford North Methinks
The next Labour Government is going to be more Right Wing than the current Tory Government.
I don't know if that's strictly true. I do think it will be more authoritarian, which is similar.
Ih the event that it is then Parliament will simply pass an Act stating that it is not
Speaking of Acts creating facts, among the dozens of legal matters and challenges arising from the Rwanda (Paddington Bear Deportation) Bill, (if passed and in force which it won't be) is that it is unthinkable that the government would not be required regularly to review the question of whether Rwanda is 'safe'. In just the same way as issues of safety in Abroadland are reviewed all the time by the FCO giving advice on which bits of Sudan/Syria/Gaza are sub optimal for your honeymoon drinking cocktails out of coconuts under an azure sky.
Some insane stats from the usually fairly accurate Economist: 57% of students claim to have a mental health issue 75%+ parents sought mental health advice for children in 2021/2 25%+ 16-18 yo are given extra time in official exams because of health conditions.
Can any of this be true?
No idea how this has been measured, but that's an interesting collection of stats.
From my experience from primary care data, you can get very different estimates depending on whether you look at formal diagnoses, symptoms or associated medications (or combinations). for surveys, you can ask straightforward questions on whether you have or ever had a mental health condition (which give different figures) or use one of the screening tools and set the threshold at different places for different definitions. So the 57% could mean almost anything without further context.
For the 75%, if you assume average of two children then you're looking at potentially a much lower figure for affected children and again it depends what is meant by 'seeking advice' (reading online guides on mental health?)
For the 25%, it mentions health conditions, not mental health. Dyslexia prevalence (from a quick google) is quoted at 10% and time extensions would often be available for that - there are plenty of other relevant physical conditions before you get into mental health.
ETA: I'd be interested in a link to untangle some of that
New Dutch study on the economic impact of immigration demo-demo.nl/wp-content/upl… migration from other rich countries a net benefit, migration from poor countries a net drain
New Dutch study on the economic impact of immigration demo-demo.nl/wp-content/upl… migration from other rich countries a net benefit, migration from poor countries a net drain
So, applying my 3 questions, did EOTHO work or not?
There is no doubt that the Chancellor was right to be concerned about the financial impact of Covid. The level of support required to maintain hundreds of thousands of businesses not allowed to trade was immense. It made sense to have such a scheme to encourage at least limited trading.
But the scheme was not road tested in terms of its potential impact in spreading Covid. Whilst it is not hard to see the reasons for the scheme that would surely be in the do not repeat pile.
So, in a future pandemic, we need to recognise that we will need to do what we can to keep things going as much as possible but these kind of ideas need to be integrated into the overall plan for handling and modelling the pandemic and not separate from it.
I'll send my bill to the Inquiry.
It's a largely irrelevant question, as far as Sunak's scheme was concerned.
Any future pandemic will be courtesy of a different virus, likely with completely different epidemiological characteristics. And the interventions available to us - for example testing and vaccines - will also be of a completely different order to what was available even a couple of years ago.
The more interesting question is what day 1 measures could we be in a position in future to take in order to limit (and if possible halt) spread of virus, without destroying the economy in the process ?
Having such a plan was what made Taiwan such a notable success in dealing with Covid.
Beyond already having capacity in place, plans for dealing with pandemics once they have taken hold are necessarily ad hoc, I suspect.
I agree that we are much more likely to have a vaccine much faster the next time with the scientific advances made during this one, specifically the computer modelling. It is also obviously the case that any new virus will have its own characteristics.
What I think is important is that we recognise that complete and total shutdown is simply not economically viable for anything other than the shortest of periods and that we need to focus as much on what we can do safely as what we can't.
Though the faster a vaccine can be got into arms from a standing start, the more viable a shutdown in the meantime becomes. In the early days, Swedish theory was that we needed measures that could be sustained for several years because a vaccine could take that long.
But the central irony remains. The UK government were desperate to avoid lockdowns and return to normality. (See also EOTHO, which wouldn't have been a bad idea once the pandemic was actually over.) In doing so, in trying to run the pandemic warm, if not hot, they ended up in a situation where they had to lockdown- and the winter 2021 lockdown was longer and grimmer than in many other countries, despite our vaccine advantage.
Stitches in time saving nine is not a new insight.
The biggest stich in time is not allowing a virus into the country.
Yet we had planes flying in from China weeks after it had gone into lockdown, people going on holiday to covid ridden Spain in summer 2020 and then the import of the Delta variant from India in spring 2021.
Lockdowns and other restrictions were the equivalent of bailing out an overflowing bath which still had the taps turned on.
The virus would have got in anyway unless we'd gone full New Zealand, which we couldn't because of the truckers. People visiting Spain would simply have flown back from Germany instead or something and lied on their forms. Or just hitched a ride on a boat from Calais - seems easy enough these days. And once you get one or two asymptomatic cases in, domestic transmission dominates within a few days.
Given that, you're right that lockdowns were largely pointless and completely counter-productive. And disproportionate for a virus with a 99.8% recovery rate (>99.9% amongst healthy under-70s).
It's been pointed out to you before that your repeated quoting of fantasy figures for "recovery rates" is not only wrong (and you seem to be basing it on a discredited study by a single scientist that completely clashes with the vast majority of others), but obviously absurd when you just divide population numbers by deaths.
(If 10% of the country had covid by the end of 2020 prior to vaccines and 90,000 had died, then if 0.2% was an average rate over the entire population (which you claim it isn't, as under 70s are far lower), then the population of the UK would need to be just under half a billion. Which it really isn't, honest)
Not to mention ignoring the problem of hospitalisations (which ran at over 5% of those infected, and whilst it did skew considerably by age, it wasn't anywhere near as steep as the deaths - especially for those in ICU, of which more than half were under 65) and long-term effects and pretending that everyone who doesn't die is absolutely fine.
If you quote known-wrong figures for this, can we trust your figures for other things?
Mind you, if the population of the country is half a billion - well, that does change things.
For a start, Europe might need to think of joining *us*.
Why attempt to put harnesses on a pair of strong dogs on a public railway platform, when there is a legal requirement on the owner to keep them under control in public, and the harnesses could have been put on at home?
One hopes the owner will receive criminal charges.
New Dutch study on the economic impact of immigration demo-demo.nl/wp-content/upl… migration from other rich countries a net benefit, migration from poor countries a net drain
Now. Stonehenge. I grew up being told that the road that ran alongside it was a bloody eyesore and putting the traffic through a tunnel would restore the site's peace and ancient mysticism. But now, apparently, the road is great and the tunnel an act of cultural barbrarism.
We are supposed to believe that "tech bro", "AI expert" Sunak is unable to transfer his WhatsApp messages from one phone to another? It literally prompts you to do it when you log in.
Some insane stats from the usually fairly accurate Economist: 57% of students claim to have a mental health issue 75%+ parents sought mental health advice for children in 2021/2 25%+ 16-18 yo are given extra time in official exams because of health conditions.
Can any of this be true?
One issue is that many students are deploying 'issues; to gain advantage in exams etc. We have hoards of students with DAPs (disability action plans) than get them extra time in exams etc.
Now they may ALL be genuine, but my skeptical head says not. Its another way to game the system.
Quite what they expect in the workplace I have no idea, Boots won't be happy with you getting extra time to do your job...
The Daily Mail there, shutting down the right for Gary Lineker to freely speak. It only appears that they care about free speech when it is for right-wing causes.
The Daily Mail there, shutting down the right for Gary Lineker to freely speak. It only appears that they care about free speech when it is for right-wing causes.
Its not about free speech, the ire for Lineker is about BBC impartiality. BBC employees do not opine on stuff in general. For instance any of the hosts of discussions on radio 5 or say question time will not give an opinion. Lineker does, but argues he is NOT a BBC employee and is not bound (AIUI). I'd argue there are too many who claim contractor status as a way round not working for the BBC (tax and other purposes).
But does he have the right to say what he thinks? Of course he does.
The Daily Mail there, shutting down the right for Gary Lineker to freely speak. It only appears that they care about free speech when it is for right-wing causes.
Who's being shut down?
Mr Smokey Bacon signed the petition, and the Waily Mail is having a go at him.
So, applying my 3 questions, did EOTHO work or not?
There is no doubt that the Chancellor was right to be concerned about the financial impact of Covid. The level of support required to maintain hundreds of thousands of businesses not allowed to trade was immense. It made sense to have such a scheme to encourage at least limited trading.
But the scheme was not road tested in terms of its potential impact in spreading Covid. Whilst it is not hard to see the reasons for the scheme that would surely be in the do not repeat pile.
So, in a future pandemic, we need to recognise that we will need to do what we can to keep things going as much as possible but these kind of ideas need to be integrated into the overall plan for handling and modelling the pandemic and not separate from it.
I'll send my bill to the Inquiry.
It's a largely irrelevant question, as far as Sunak's scheme was concerned.
Any future pandemic will be courtesy of a different virus, likely with completely different epidemiological characteristics. And the interventions available to us - for example testing and vaccines - will also be of a completely different order to what was available even a couple of years ago.
The more interesting question is what day 1 measures could we be in a position in future to take in order to limit (and if possible halt) spread of virus, without destroying the economy in the process ?
Having such a plan was what made Taiwan such a notable success in dealing with Covid.
Beyond already having capacity in place, plans for dealing with pandemics once they have taken hold are necessarily ad hoc, I suspect.
I agree that we are much more likely to have a vaccine much faster the next time with the scientific advances made during this one, specifically the computer modelling. It is also obviously the case that any new virus will have its own characteristics.
What I think is important is that we recognise that complete and total shutdown is simply not economically viable for anything other than the shortest of periods and that we need to focus as much on what we can do safely as what we can't.
Though the faster a vaccine can be got into arms from a standing start, the more viable a shutdown in the meantime becomes. In the early days, Swedish theory was that we needed measures that could be sustained for several years because a vaccine could take that long.
But the central irony remains. The UK government were desperate to avoid lockdowns and return to normality. (See also EOTHO, which wouldn't have been a bad idea once the pandemic was actually over.) In doing so, in trying to run the pandemic warm, if not hot, they ended up in a situation where they had to lockdown- and the winter 2021 lockdown was longer and grimmer than in many other countries, despite our vaccine advantage.
Stitches in time saving nine is not a new insight.
The biggest stich in time is not allowing a virus into the country.
Yet we had planes flying in from China weeks after it had gone into lockdown, people going on holiday to covid ridden Spain in summer 2020 and then the import of the Delta variant from India in spring 2021.
Lockdowns and other restrictions were the equivalent of bailing out an overflowing bath which still had the taps turned on.
The virus would have got in anyway unless we'd gone full New Zealand, which we couldn't because of the truckers. People visiting Spain would simply have flown back from Germany instead or something and lied on their forms. Or just hitched a ride on a boat from Calais - seems easy enough these days. And once you get one or two asymptomatic cases in, domestic transmission dominates within a few days.
Given that, you're right that lockdowns were largely pointless and completely counter-productive. And disproportionate for a virus with a 99.8% recovery rate (>99.9% amongst healthy under-70s).
It's been pointed out to you before that your repeated quoting of fantasy figures for "recovery rates" is not only wrong (and you seem to be basing it on a discredited study by a single scientist that completely clashes with the vast majority of others), but obviously absurd when you just divide population numbers by deaths.
(If 10% of the country had covid by the end of 2020 prior to vaccines and 90,000 had died, then if 0.2% was an average rate over the entire population (which you claim it isn't, as under 70s are far lower), then the population of the UK would need to be just under half a billion. Which it really isn't, honest)
Not to mention ignoring the problem of hospitalisations (which ran at over 5% of those infected, and whilst it did skew considerably by age, it wasn't anywhere near as steep as the deaths - especially for those in ICU, of which more than half were under 65) and long-term effects and pretending that everyone who doesn't die is absolutely fine.
If you quote known-wrong figures for this, can we trust your figures for other things?
The other thing to point out is that the death rate in the UK is in the context that the hospital system didn't crash, and most people, particularly younger people, who needed intensive treatment received it.
Not sure what the death rate would be without medical treatment being available, but I think it would have been considerably worse than the death rate we saw.
New Dutch study on the economic impact of immigration demo-demo.nl/wp-content/upl… migration from other rich countries a net benefit, migration from poor countries a net drain
Overall EU nationals were a net plus for the Treasury . Those figures were published regularly . Non-EU nationals overall were negative for the Treasury , that’s because they often are more likely to bring family members , especially older relatives, less healthy and more likely to use public services . It’s uncomfortable reading for the Leave brigade who remain in denial !
That’s why net migration went through the roof . To fill the same amount of vacancies you’d always end up with higher net migration. We also now have fewer Brits moving to the EU as FOM ended so that impacts net migration.
Brits lost FOM and have ended up with more immigration !
New Dutch study on the economic impact of immigration demo-demo.nl/wp-content/upl… migration from other rich countries a net benefit, migration from poor countries a net drain
Overall EU nationals were a net plus for the Treasury . Those figures were published regularly . Non-EU nationals overall were negative for the Treasury , that’s because they often are more likely to bring family members , especially older relatives, less healthy and more likely to use public services . It’s uncomfortable reading for the Leave brigade who remain in denial !
Funny how the overweening opressive EU quickly reverts to individual countries when there's cherry picking to be done. And we can't even get foreigns to do the cherry picking any more!
New Dutch study on the economic impact of immigration demo-demo.nl/wp-content/upl… migration from other rich countries a net benefit, migration from poor countries a net drain
Thanks for the interesting link. It's also important to look at the table on page 90 and the subsequent discussion. Essentially immigration (from anywhere) for the purposes of work produces a large average net benefit, while immigration related to asylum claims produces a large net loss, because:
"The largest negative contribution of - €392,000 is made by asylum seekers, mainly due to poor labour market performance. Unlike labour immigrants, these asylum immigrants are subject to restrictions during the asylum procedure for performing paid work, as a result of which most of them start their stay as status holders from a position of benefit dependence."
In other words, we ban asylum-seekers from working, and then complain that they are not making a contribution (and then keep them waiting for years). It's also true that asylum-seekers are all sorts, including people with low skills, whereas people coming to take up work by definition have skills that somebody wants.
There should therefore be a reasonable consensus that bringing people in to fill persistent job vacancies (e.g. nursing staff and carers) is financially a good thing and it seems sensible to look at whether asylum-seekers couldn't also fill gaps while they are awaiting a decision, especially since our system makes them wait for years.
That would need to explicitly rule out an effect on the asylum decision (i.e. you couldn't appeal rejection on the basis that you'd got a job) but would potentially greatly alleviate the cost of handing the applications. If we speeded them up (and sent home the rejected cases), we'd probably be looking at a pretty cost-effective system, and could then reduce the debate to the cultural issue - "Would we rather have a shortage of carers, or enough carers but some of them with a foreign cultural background?"
The Daily Mail there, shutting down the right for Gary Lineker to freely speak. It only appears that they care about free speech when it is for right-wing causes.
Its not about free speech, the ire for Lineker is about BBC impartiality. BBC employees do not opine on stuff in general. For instance any of the hosts of discussions on radio 5 or say question time will not give an opinion.
...
That's quite an odd example to give, as you'd fully expect the hosts of current affairs programmes have additional restrictions placed on them.
It's more arguable when it comes to sports presenters. And, of course, lots of BBC employees opine on stuff - no doubt there are BBC accountants, cameramen etc who have social media accounts.
New Dutch study on the economic impact of immigration demo-demo.nl/wp-content/upl… migration from other rich countries a net benefit, migration from poor countries a net drain
Thanks for the interesting link. It's also important to look at the table on page 90 and the subsequent discussion. Essentially immigration (from anywhere) for the purposes of work produces a large average net benefit, while immigration related to asylum claims produces a large net loss, because:
"The largest negative contribution of - €392,000 is made by asylum seekers, mainly due to poor labour market performance. Unlike labour immigrants, these asylum immigrants are subject to restrictions during the asylum procedure for performing paid work, as a result of which most of them start their stay as status holders from a position of benefit dependence."
In other words, we ban asylum-seekers from working, and then complain that they are not making a contribution (and then keep them waiting for years). It's also true that asylum-seekers are all sorts, including people with low skills, whereas people coming to take up work by definition have skills that somebody wants.
There should therefore be a reasonable consensus that bringing people in to fill persistent job vacancies (e.g. nursing staff and carers) is financially a good thing and it seems sensible to look at whether asylum-seekers couldn't also fill gaps while they are awaiting a decision, especially since our system makes them wait for years.
That would need to explicitly rule out an effect on the asylum decision (i.e. you couldn't appeal rejection on the basis that you'd got a job) but would potentially greatly alleviate the cost of handing the applications. If we speeded them up (and sent home the rejected cases), we'd probably be looking at a pretty cost-effective system, and could then reduce the debate to the cultural issue - "Would we rather have a shortage of carers, or enough carers but some of them with a foreign cultural background?"
Enough of that sensible measured talk if you don't mind.
I see (source Tortoise Media) that Macron has a package including work for asylum-seekers, but also faster processing and return:
"Sunak is not alone in facing a parliamentary split over immigration: later today French parliamentarians will vote on Emmanuel Macron’s immigration proposals. They include cutting the number of asylum application appeals from 12 to two, and speeding up deportations, while at the same time providing work permits to undocumented people to deal with labour shortages."
Now. Stonehenge. I grew up being told that the road that ran alongside it was a bloody eyesore and putting the traffic through a tunnel would restore the site's peace and ancient mysticism. But now, apparently, the road is great and the tunnel an act of cultural barbrarism.
The Daily Mail there, shutting down the right for Gary Lineker to freely speak. It only appears that they care about free speech when it is for right-wing causes.
I may be behind the curve, but in what sense has the DM shut down the right to speak freely for Lineker?
Free speech does not mean:
That the DM can't reply to free speech with robust, ridiculous and obsessive free speech as the DM does
That it has no consequences in terms of other people's opinions of you and so on.
Loads of people have contractual consequences if the speak in certain ways. The Archbishop of Canterbury is absolutely free to deny that Jesus ever lived or that God exists, but won't expect to keep his job. Sunak is free to speak in support of the SWP but would be sacked.
Maybe Lineker does or should face these consequences. I have no idea, nor does it matter at all. What has he said? I have no idea.
Now. Stonehenge. I grew up being told that the road that ran alongside it was a bloody eyesore and putting the traffic through a tunnel would restore the site's peace and ancient mysticism. But now, apparently, the road is great and the tunnel an act of cultural barbrarism.
Now. Stonehenge. I grew up being told that the road that ran alongside it was a bloody eyesore and putting the traffic through a tunnel would restore the site's peace and ancient mysticism. But now, apparently, the road is great and the tunnel an act of cultural barbrarism.
Now. Stonehenge. I grew up being told that the road that ran alongside it was a bloody eyesore and putting the traffic through a tunnel would restore the site's peace and ancient mysticism. But now, apparently, the road is great and the tunnel an act of cultural barbrarism.
Some insane stats from the usually fairly accurate Economist: 57% of students claim to have a mental health issue 75%+ parents sought mental health advice for children in 2021/2 25%+ 16-18 yo are given extra time in official exams because of health conditions.
Can any of this be true?
You can get results like that from smallish studies that are unrepresentative, often designed for journalistic reporting rather than scientific investigations. Online questionnaires are particulary bad for this.
Put a online poll on PB and 95%+ will respond that they read PB at least once in the last week.
"As I have changed my phones, the messages wouldn't have come across."
Rishi Sunak's words.
Unless you specifically choose not to bring the messages across, they always come across.
Didn’t the KC probe him further on the point you’re making . Seems like a lost opportunity to call out the spineless gimp liar .
He's at best staggeringly incompetent, i.e. he chose not to backup his phone and restore from a backup in which case he cannot be trusted with our nation's security or he's a malicious liar and is therefore not suitable for high office.
I tend to think it is the latter as he strikes me as the kind of guy to get a new phone every 5 minutes and tell us all about how much faster it is.
Some insane stats from the usually fairly accurate Economist: 57% of students claim to have a mental health issue 75%+ parents sought mental health advice for children in 2021/2 25%+ 16-18 yo are given extra time in official exams because of health conditions.
Can any of this be true?
One issue is that many students are deploying 'issues; to gain advantage in exams etc. We have hoards of students with DAPs (disability action plans) than get them extra time in exams etc.
Now they may ALL be genuine, but my skeptical head says not. Its another way to game the system.
Quite what they expect in the workplace I have no idea, Boots won't be happy with you getting extra time to do your job...
Boots will be happy if DAPers have to work 5 minutes per hour longer with the same pay.
We are supposed to believe that "tech bro", "AI expert" Sunak is unable to transfer his WhatsApp messages from one phone to another? It literally prompts you to do it when you log in.
Now. Stonehenge. I grew up being told that the road that ran alongside it was a bloody eyesore and putting the traffic through a tunnel would restore the site's peace and ancient mysticism. But now, apparently, the road is great and the tunnel an act of cultural barbrarism.
Different road. There used to be one to the North that ran towards Shrewton.
No. That road was insignificant compared with the A303 that runs (checks) 200m south of Stonehenge.
The objections on the basis of trashing the site by removing a trunk road from view are, quite frankly, bonkers.
These protests are all about the anti-road (indeed the anti-everything) brigade, nothing to do with protecting a World Heritage site.
Believe me when I say I know all about Stonehenge and the roads - I was brought up in Shrewton for 15 years and my parents still live there. I was being a bit cheeky - the north road was indeed described as an eyesore etc and was closed, although arguably it was more to stop tourists failing to pay to go in (they would stop on the roadside, take photo's over the fence and move on).
It is a farce right now. There is no need for a tunnel - a decent cutting with the road shifted south by a mile would be fine. In reality there are many who just oppose anything at all.
New Dutch study on the economic impact of immigration demo-demo.nl/wp-content/upl… migration from other rich countries a net benefit, migration from poor countries a net drain
Overall EU nationals were a net plus for the Treasury . Those figures were published regularly . Non-EU nationals overall were negative for the Treasury , that’s because they often are more likely to bring family members , especially older relatives, less healthy and more likely to use public services . It’s uncomfortable reading for the Leave brigade who remain in denial !
Funny how the overweening opressive EU quickly reverts to individual countries when there's cherry picking to be done. And we can't even get foreigns to do the cherry picking any more!
I’ve always 100% said it’s the A8 accession that was the problem, you know that
Now. Stonehenge. I grew up being told that the road that ran alongside it was a bloody eyesore and putting the traffic through a tunnel would restore the site's peace and ancient mysticism. But now, apparently, the road is great and the tunnel an act of cultural barbrarism.
Not only that. 50+ years on I still have a memory of the many long holiday trips from London to Devon of my childhood, looking out from the back seat waiting for Stonehenge to come into view, and the excitement when we finally drove past it. We didn't usually stop, yet the sight from the road was magnificent enough to stick in the memory even now. How do you quantify the loss of such memories to future generations of children (and adults), in economic terms?
Now. Stonehenge. I grew up being told that the road that ran alongside it was a bloody eyesore and putting the traffic through a tunnel would restore the site's peace and ancient mysticism. But now, apparently, the road is great and the tunnel an act of cultural barbrarism.
Different road. There used to be one to the North that ran towards Shrewton.
No. That road was insignificant compared with the A303 that runs (checks) 200m south of Stonehenge.
The objections on the basis of trashing the site by removing a trunk road from view are, quite frankly, bonkers.
These protests are all about the anti-road (indeed the anti-everything) brigade, nothing to do with protecting a World Heritage site.
Yes. For years it was always 'Only the philistine British would ruin a site like Stonehenge by allowing a crappy road to run past it. If they cared they'd invest in a tunnel.' Now the road is apparently the most wonderful thing ever and people are campaigning to save it.
I remember these people calling into Radio Scotland and suggesting banning under 40s from pubs in the winter of 2020/21. They are at least as dangerous as the "let it rip" libertarians.
Now. Stonehenge. I grew up being told that the road that ran alongside it was a bloody eyesore and putting the traffic through a tunnel would restore the site's peace and ancient mysticism. But now, apparently, the road is great and the tunnel an act of cultural barbrarism.
Different road. There used to be one to the North that ran towards Shrewton.
No. That road was insignificant compared with the A303 that runs (checks) 200m south of Stonehenge.
The objections on the basis of trashing the site by removing a trunk road from view are, quite frankly, bonkers.
These protests are all about the anti-road (indeed the anti-everything) brigade, nothing to do with protecting a World Heritage site.
Believe me when I say I know all about Stonehenge and the roads - I was brought up in Shrewton for 15 years and my parents still live there. I was being a bit cheeky - the north road was indeed described as an eyesore etc and was closed, although arguably it was more to stop tourists failing to pay to go in (they would stop on the roadside, take photo's over the fence and move on).
It is a farce right now. There is no need for a tunnel - a decent cutting with the road shifted south by a mile would be fine. In reality there are many who just oppose anything at all.
Well I agree with you about there being no need for a tunnel but let's just get the f*cking thing done!
While we're at it close that byway to the west of Stonehenge; it's just used by people too lazy to walk from the visitor centre and new age camper vans for a free campsite - now they *are* and eyesore.
New Dutch study on the economic impact of immigration demo-demo.nl/wp-content/upl… migration from other rich countries a net benefit, migration from poor countries a net drain
Thanks for the interesting link. It's also important to look at the table on page 90 and the subsequent discussion. Essentially immigration (from anywhere) for the purposes of work produces a large average net benefit, while immigration related to asylum claims produces a large net loss, because:
"The largest negative contribution of - €392,000 is made by asylum seekers, mainly due to poor labour market performance. Unlike labour immigrants, these asylum immigrants are subject to restrictions during the asylum procedure for performing paid work, as a result of which most of them start their stay as status holders from a position of benefit dependence."
In other words, we ban asylum-seekers from working, and then complain that they are not making a contribution (and then keep them waiting for years). It's also true that asylum-seekers are all sorts, including people with low skills, whereas people coming to take up work by definition have skills that somebody wants.
There should therefore be a reasonable consensus that bringing people in to fill persistent job vacancies (e.g. nursing staff and carers) is financially a good thing and it seems sensible to look at whether asylum-seekers couldn't also fill gaps while they are awaiting a decision, especially since our system makes them wait for years.
That would need to explicitly rule out an effect on the asylum decision (i.e. you couldn't appeal rejection on the basis that you'd got a job) but would potentially greatly alleviate the cost of handing the applications. If we speeded them up (and sent home the rejected cases), we'd probably be looking at a pretty cost-effective system, and could then reduce the debate to the cultural issue - "Would we rather have a shortage of carers, or enough carers but some of them with a foreign cultural background?"
I think the benefit just comes from the person who works - ie the stereotype, true as it is, of 8 Eastern European men sharing a 4 bed house and working like there’s no tomorrow is an economic benefit to the host country ( The Netherlands in this case). When they bring their wives and kids over to join them, the benefit is negated
Now. Stonehenge. I grew up being told that the road that ran alongside it was a bloody eyesore and putting the traffic through a tunnel would restore the site's peace and ancient mysticism. But now, apparently, the road is great and the tunnel an act of cultural barbrarism.
Different road. There used to be one to the North that ran towards Shrewton.
No. That road was insignificant compared with the A303 that runs (checks) 200m south of Stonehenge.
The objections on the basis of trashing the site by removing a trunk road from view are, quite frankly, bonkers.
These protests are all about the anti-road (indeed the anti-everything) brigade, nothing to do with protecting a World Heritage site.
Believe me when I say I know all about Stonehenge and the roads - I was brought up in Shrewton for 15 years and my parents still live there. I was being a bit cheeky - the north road was indeed described as an eyesore etc and was closed, although arguably it was more to stop tourists failing to pay to go in (they would stop on the roadside, take photo's over the fence and move on).
It is a farce right now. There is no need for a tunnel - a decent cutting with the road shifted south by a mile would be fine. In reality there are many who just oppose anything at all.
One of the reasons given for opposing the tunnel is that without rubber necking from the A303, many less people would see the stones.
Apparently requiring people to stop, park & walk to the site is too much.
Sounds American style car mad to me - spiritual experiences at 7000rpm.
Comments
One from the Guardian, especially so that people can rehearse the equality of opportunity v equality of outcome issue, this time with regard to who bothers to vote.
Also the public aren’t clear on the policy . Some think they go to Rwanda just for processing and will be allowed to return if their claim is successful .
Yet we had planes flying in from China weeks after it had gone into lockdown, people going on holiday to covid ridden Spain in summer 2020 and then the import of the Delta variant from India in spring 2021.
Lockdowns and other restrictions were the equivalent of bailing out an overflowing bath which still had the taps turned on.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/cxwdwz5d8gxt
The legacy of his policies was not positive.
Given that, you're right that lockdowns were largely pointless and completely counter-productive. And disproportionate for a virus with a 99.8% recovery rate (>99.9% amongst healthy under-70s).
Derek "Del Boy" Trotter on that washing machine he sold you.
Subsidies from UK Gov't are going down
The British Energy Market is rigged.
Do they have university degrees in finding obscure statistics?
One story on government attempts to transport refugees to Rwanda; the second on an imaginative idea for performing operations more quickly, being led by two doctors clearly of immigrant stock.
Sunak could remind Keith who is PM, and who is a mere KC. Something he does to great effect at PMQs. Perhaps he will blame Keith for the failings of EOTHO. Can he respond to Keith's question with a random unrelated question himself?
We saw in spring 2021 how the Delta variant was seeded in Bolton and Blackburn by people returning from India - in summer/autumn 2020 the whole country was reseeded by people coming back from Spain etc.
Now perhaps the virus would have entered eventually but that's no reason not to attempt top stop it with the extra benefit that it would be certainly delayed.
A Public NHS Supporting Socialist Muslim Candidate needed for Ilford North Methinks
77% of Conservative voters support processing asylum claims in Rwanda, as do 75% of Leave voters.
61% of Labour voters, 59% of LD voters and 58% of Remainers don't however
BJO on his attempts to knock any sort of dent into Labour's polling advantage and return the Tories.
...I could go on. And indeed I probably will.
Which is a problem, because the hard truth of the 20s and 30s is that we have 10-15 million pensioners, they will all have health problems, and they'll cost stacks. Any government that isn't preparing and repositioning for this is a silly government.
It ought to be possible to design systems which would allow us to effectively seal ourselves off for a period of months given the advances in testing systems. You'd still need a very good reason to do such a thing, but the cost/benefit calculation would be quite different from the one in 2019/2020.
(And even in that case, a faster response would probably have had a greater benefit for the same cost.)
In any event, a rerun of the last pandemic response isn't economically feasible; what we need to be looking at is what an effective response might be in the future, and in what circumstances it would make sense to implement it.
Those figures may be correct after vaccination (I've not seen studies on that) but the lockdowns were all before widespread rollout of vaccines. Some restrictions continued, but the final lockdown was wound down once most people had been offered the jab.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCbhb8WhbVg
Clearly, establishing a functioning democracy in Afghanistan failed. But the point is we had been there for ten years in before what you characterise as the aim was achieved (and not, in fact, in Afghanistan). The alternative to occupation wasn't, in fact, some kind of clinical smash and grab operation for Al Queda leaders.
(If 10% of the country had covid by the end of 2020 prior to vaccines and 90,000 had died, then if 0.2% was an average rate over the entire population (which you claim it isn't, as under 70s are far lower), then the population of the UK would need to be just under half a billion. Which it really isn't, honest)
Not to mention ignoring the problem of hospitalisations (which ran at over 5% of those infected, and whilst it did skew considerably by age, it wasn't anywhere near as steep as the deaths - especially for those in ICU, of which more than half were under 65) and long-term effects and pretending that everyone who doesn't die is absolutely fine.
If you quote known-wrong figures for this, can we trust your figures for other things?
https://x.com/edwest/status/1734122125013782708?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
Yup, predicted ChatGPT. 23 years ago.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/dec/11/stonehenge-campaigners-last-chance-bid-to-save-site-from-road-tunnel
What's changed?
57% of students claim to have a mental health issue
75%+ parents sought mental health advice for children in 2021/2
25%+ 16-18 yo are given extra time in official exams because of health conditions.
Can any of this be true?
What's the history of Sunak hiding his Whatsapp messaged from the Judicial Enquiry?
I knew the Cabinet Office were trying to manipulate data to go to the enquiry, but I thought they had been spanked into submission on that one.
That's easy - it is because he obviously is.
You can argue about the possible justification or otherwise but you cannot argue that he is doing anything but telling lies.
Again, this was a lecture in 2001. 23 years ago.
For Stonehenge, you have people who hate the road. You also have people who want no digging in the ground for miles, because of archaeological concerns.
And Shapps has held another half dozen ministerial posts.
...In 2017, the Tory government unveiled plans for a 1.8-mile tunnel and a lengthy official examination was launched. Planning inspectors concluded a tunnel would cause “permanent, irreversible harm” to the site but nevertheless, in 2020, the then transport secretary, Grant Shapps, over-ruled the inspectors and gave the go-ahead...
Again, this is from 23 years ago...
From my experience from primary care data, you can get very different estimates depending on whether you look at formal diagnoses, symptoms or associated medications (or combinations). for surveys, you can ask straightforward questions on whether you have or ever had a mental health condition (which give different figures) or use one of the screening tools and set the threshold at different places for different definitions. So the 57% could mean almost anything without further context.
For the 75%, if you assume average of two children then you're looking at potentially a much lower figure for affected children and again it depends what is meant by 'seeking advice' (reading online guides on mental health?)
For the 25%, it mentions health conditions, not mental health. Dyslexia prevalence (from a quick google) is quoted at 10% and time extensions would often be available for that - there are plenty of other relevant physical conditions before you get into mental health.
ETA: I'd be interested in a link to untangle some of that
from the A8. Then the question of whether to stay in or not wouldn’t have gained any traction
For a start, Europe might need to think of joining *us*.
Why attempt to put harnesses on a pair of strong dogs on a public railway platform, when there is a legal requirement on the owner to keep them under control in public, and the harnesses could have been put on at home?
One hopes the owner will receive criminal charges.
Unless I’m reading it wrong, haven’t read it all admittedly
Page 93
https://demo-demo.nl/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Borderless_Welfare_State-2.pdf
We are supposed to believe that "tech bro", "AI expert" Sunak is unable to transfer his WhatsApp messages from one phone to another? It literally prompts you to do it when you log in.
Now they may ALL be genuine, but my skeptical head says not. Its another way to game the system.
Quite what they expect in the workplace I have no idea, Boots won't be happy with you getting extra time to do your job...
The Daily Mail there, shutting down the right for Gary Lineker to freely speak. It only appears that they care about free speech when it is for right-wing causes.
Lineker does, but argues he is NOT a BBC employee and is not bound (AIUI). I'd argue there are too many who claim contractor status as a way round not working for the BBC (tax and other purposes).
But does he have the right to say what he thinks? Of course he does.
Mr Smokey Bacon signed the petition, and the Waily Mail is having a go at him.
Not sure what the death rate would be without medical treatment being available, but I think it would have been considerably worse than the death rate we saw.
That’s why net migration went through the roof . To fill the same amount of vacancies you’d always end up with higher net migration. We also now have fewer Brits moving to the EU as FOM ended so that impacts net migration.
Brits lost FOM and have ended up with more immigration !
And we can't even get foreigns to do the cherry picking any more!
"The largest negative contribution of - €392,000 is made by asylum seekers, mainly due to poor labour
market performance. Unlike labour immigrants, these asylum immigrants are subject to restrictions
during the asylum procedure for performing paid work, as a result of which most of them start their
stay as status holders from a position of benefit dependence."
In other words, we ban asylum-seekers from working, and then complain that they are not making a contribution (and then keep them waiting for years). It's also true that asylum-seekers are all sorts, including people with low skills, whereas people coming to take up work by definition have skills that somebody wants.
There should therefore be a reasonable consensus that bringing people in to fill persistent job vacancies (e.g. nursing staff and carers) is financially a good thing and it seems sensible to look at whether asylum-seekers couldn't also fill gaps while they are awaiting a decision, especially since our system makes them wait for years.
That would need to explicitly rule out an effect on the asylum decision (i.e. you couldn't appeal rejection on the basis that you'd got a job) but would potentially greatly alleviate the cost of handing the applications. If we speeded them up (and sent home the rejected cases), we'd probably be looking at a pretty cost-effective system, and could then reduce the debate to the cultural issue - "Would we rather have a shortage of carers, or enough carers but some of them with a foreign cultural background?"
It's more arguable when it comes to sports presenters. And, of course, lots of BBC employees opine on stuff - no doubt there are BBC accountants, cameramen etc who have social media accounts.
"Sunak is not alone in facing a parliamentary split over immigration: later today French parliamentarians will vote on Emmanuel Macron’s immigration proposals. They include cutting the number of asylum application appeals from 12 to two, and speeding up deportations, while at the same time providing work permits to undocumented people to deal with labour shortages."
Free speech does not mean:
That the DM can't reply to free speech with robust, ridiculous and obsessive free speech as the DM does
That it has no consequences in terms of other people's opinions of you and so on.
Loads of people have contractual consequences if the speak in certain ways. The Archbishop of Canterbury is absolutely free to deny that Jesus ever lived or that God exists, but won't expect to keep his job. Sunak is free to speak in support of the SWP but would be sacked.
Maybe Lineker does or should face these consequences. I have no idea, nor does it matter at all. What has he said? I have no idea.
https://x.com/BBCPolitics/status/1734167511539548424
"I've changed my phone multiple times over the past few years and as that has happened the messages have not come across"
Rishi Sunak outlines the reason for missing WhatsApp messages after questioning from Hugo Keith KC
So basically he is dangerously incompetent. Okay then.
The objections on the basis of trashing the site by removing a trunk road from view are, quite frankly, bonkers.
These protests are all about the anti-road (indeed the anti-everything) brigade, nothing to do with protecting a World Heritage site.
The economic justification for it seems worse than that for HS2.
https://stonehengealliance.org.uk/weak-business-case/
Rishi Sunak's words.
Unless you specifically choose not to bring the messages across, they always come across.
Put a online poll on PB and 95%+ will respond that they read PB at least once in the last week.
I tend to think it is the latter as he strikes me as the kind of guy to get a new phone every 5 minutes and tell us all about how much faster it is.
It is a farce right now. There is no need for a tunnel - a decent cutting with the road shifted south by a mile would be fine. In reality there are many who just oppose anything at all.
Where's Joe 90 's breeding pod when we need it?
https://x.com/LukeTryl/status/1734172331247894591?s=20
I remember these people calling into Radio Scotland and suggesting banning under 40s from pubs in the winter of 2020/21. They are at least as dangerous as the "let it rip" libertarians.
While we're at it close that byway to the west of Stonehenge; it's just used by people too lazy to walk from the visitor centre and new age camper vans for a free campsite - now they *are* and eyesore.
Apparently requiring people to stop, park & walk to the site is too much.
Sounds American style car mad to me - spiritual experiences at 7000rpm.