The "coronavirus action plan" document released today by the DHSC is a pathetic crock. It contains a mash of slogans, banalities, observations, grandstanding, paeans of bureaucratic self-praise, and abstract promises of readiness. Its title could be "Some old crap somebody told us to write for compliance reasons". Most of it isn't really planning at all. It's more like a low-content policy document.
E.g. on delaying the spread of infection: "Other action will be considered to help achieve a Delay in the spread of the disease. We will aim to minimise the social and economic impact, subject to keeping people safe. Such judgements will be informed based on the best available and most up to date scientific evidence, and take into account the trade-offs involved. (...) We would consider such measures in order to protect vulnerable individuals with underlying illnesses and thus at greater more at risk of becoming seriously affected by the disease. The effectiveness of these actions will need to be balanced against their impact on society."
I'd rather hear what the authorities will do, rather than what they will consider or what abstractions they will balance against what generalities.
We don't seem to be doing that "double every day" thing - was 39 yesterday. Still contained, as far as I can see.
Yes, we are doing better so far. Long may it continue.
Germany, France and Korea have just reported big jumps.
Singapore and Taiwan still doing a good job of containing it.
Iran is a nightmare.
Quite a lot of variation.
As I said to you yesterday. It is not jingoistic to say UK with our NHS and our structural advantages is better placed to face this than other nations like Iran.
Let us strike a peace deal and heartily agree on that. The English Channel may save us again, or at least prevent the worst case scenario.
Come on Blighty.
I did wonder yesterday whether our lack of skiing tourism is helping us here. Italy, France, Germany(?) have quite a few people jetting in from around the world spending a lot of time in close proximity. We perhaps do not, to the same extent.
A lot of people still visiting our cities, of course, but perhaps more likely to be out and about seeing the sights and then contained in less social settings (hotel rooms) at night.
We don't seem to be doing that "double every day" thing - was 39 yesterday. Still contained, as far as I can see.
Nick it was never "double every day" !
It was double every other day. But we're not quite doing that either.
At the moment our infection graph looks a bit more like Taiwan than it does Germany or Korea.
It may just be because we're later to the party, OR we are genuinely containing this in some way.
I think we are doing well right now. Being an island obviously helps. I don't believe we can stop this but I do believe we can really slow it down and save lives doing so.
Interesting that ROI has only one case. Spain is a kissy kissy culture, people still doing it today they like large gatherings and food sharing. There has got to be a reason for such differences between countries. Could it be the timing of school holidays ? Or some other cultural difference?
If Joe Biden is your party's answer to all those former Democratic voters in Michigan and Wisconsin.... well, yeah.... Good luck with that.
If African-Americans had turned out at 2012 levels then the Dems would have won Michigan.
Biden is the clear, clear pick of African-American voters.
In Wisconsin the absolute vote was down. Trump got less votes than Romney.
He's the clear pick of the African-American voters in the Democratic primary. And short of George Wallace coming back from the dead, anyone the Democrats run in the general will be their clear pick in the general.
That being said, those states clearly weren't thrilled with the Obama legacy. And now the Dems are going to run his Vice-President.
How many Oamam 2012 - Trump 2016 switxhers were there and how many Obama 2012 - StayingAtHomeNotVotingForHilary voters were there?
Romney got 60 million votes in 2012, Trump got 62 million votes in 2016.
Obama got 65 million 900 000 votes in 2012, Hillary got 65 million 800 000 votes, so there was a small shift of Obama voters to Trump but a bigger turnout overall for Trump than for Romney and only a small case of Obama voters staying at home and not voting for Hillary
I've been wrong about everything these last few years and I'm probably wrong here too. But it's not Dem-switchers that I think Biden has to really worry about. It's the enthusiasm gap.
Are those key voters going to turn out for him in key states comes November? And enough to overcome the Republican base's antipathy towards Obama?
If Joe Biden is your party's answer to all those former Democratic voters in Michigan and Wisconsin.... well, yeah.... Good luck with that.
If African-Americans had turned out at 2012 levels then the Dems would have won Michigan.
Biden is the clear, clear pick of African-American voters.
In Wisconsin the absolute vote was down. Trump got less votes than Romney.
He's the clear pick of the African-American voters in the Democratic primary. And short of George Wallace coming back from the dead, anyone the Democrats run in the general will be their clear pick in the general.
That being said, those states clearly weren't thrilled with the Obama legacy. And now the Dems are going to run his Vice-President.
How many Oamam 2012 - Trump 2016 switxhers were there and how many Obama 2012 - StayingAtHomeNotVotingForHilary voters were there?
Romney got 60 million votes in 2012, Trump got 62 million votes in 2016.
Obama got 65 million 900 000 votes in 2012, Hillary got 65 million 800 000 votes, so there was a small shift of Obama voters to Trump but a bigger turnout overall for Trump than for Romney and only a small case of Obama voters staying at home and not voting for Hillary
I've been wrong about everything these last few years and I'm probably wrong here too. But it's not Dem-switchers that I think Biden has to really worry about. It's the enthusiasm gap.
Are those key voters going to turn out for him in key states comes November? And enough to overcome the Republican base's antipathy towards Obama?
The big benefit to the Dems of Joe Biden is that he is more acceptable to socially conservative working Americans than Hillary was, or even Obama was. He may not excite them but it wouldn't be embarrassing for Joe to walk into a bar and have a crack with the guys as it would have been for Hillary or Barack. There is simply not the same animus. Hillary was a walking-taking provocation. It's noticeable that the worst that Trump can say about Biden is to call him "Sleepy Joe". I think people can live with that.
If Joe Biden is your party's answer to all those former Democratic voters in Michigan and Wisconsin.... well, yeah.... Good luck with that.
If African-Americans had turned out at 2012 levels then the Dems would have won Michigan.
Biden is the clear, clear pick of African-American voters.
In Wisconsin the absolute vote was down. Trump got less votes than Romney.
He's the clear pick of the African-American voters in the Democratic primary. And short of George Wallace coming back from the dead, anyone the Democrats run in the general will be their clear pick in the general.
That being said, those states clearly weren't thrilled with the Obama legacy. And now the Dems are going to run his Vice-President.
How many Oamam 2012 - Trump 2016 switxhers were there and how many Obama 2012 - StayingAtHomeNotVotingForHilary voters were there?
Romney got 60 million votes in 2012, Trump got 62 million votes in 2016.
Obama got 65 million 900 000 votes in 2012, Hillary got 65 million 800 000 votes, so there was a small shift of Obama voters to Trump but a bigger turnout overall for Trump than for Romney and only a small case of Obama voters staying at home and not voting for Hillary
I've been wrong about everything these last few years and I'm probably wrong here too. But it's not Dem-switchers that I think Biden has to really worry about. It's the enthusiasm gap.
Are those key voters going to turn out for him in key states comes November? And enough to overcome the Republican base's antipathy towards Obama?
The big benefit to the Dems of Joe Biden is that he is more acceptable to socially conservative working Americans than Hillary was, or even Obama was. He may not excite them but it wouldn't be embarrassing for Joe to walk into a bar and have a crack with the guys as it would have been for Hillary or Barack. There is simply not the same animus. Hillary was a walking-taking provocation. It's noticeable that the worst that Trump can say about Biden is to call him "Sleepy Joe". I think people can live with that.
Wait until the campaign against “Creepy Joe” begins in earnest.
If Joe Biden is your party's answer to all those former Democratic voters in Michigan and Wisconsin.... well, yeah.... Good luck with that.
If African-Americans had turned out at 2012 levels then the Dems would have won Michigan.
Biden is the clear, clear pick of African-American voters.
In Wisconsin the absolute vote was down. Trump got less votes than Romney.
He's the clear pick of the African-American voters in the Democratic primary. And short of George Wallace coming back from the dead, anyone the Democrats run in the general will be their clear pick in the general.
That being said, those states clearly weren't thrilled with the Obama legacy. And now the Dems are going to run his Vice-President.
How many Oamam 2012 - Trump 2016 switxhers were there and how many Obama 2012 - StayingAtHomeNotVotingForHilary voters were there?
Romney got 60 million votes in 2012, Trump got 62 million votes in 2016.
Obama got 65 million 900 000 votes in 2012, Hillary got 65 million 800 000 votes, so there was a small shift of Obama voters to Trump but a bigger turnout overall for Trump than for Romney and only a small case of Obama voters staying at home and not voting for Hillary
I've been wrong about everything these last few years and I'm probably wrong here too. But it's not Dem-switchers that I think Biden has to really worry about. It's the enthusiasm gap.
Are those key voters going to turn out for him in key states comes November? And enough to overcome the Republican base's antipathy towards Obama?
The big benefit to the Dems of Joe Biden is that he is more acceptable to socially conservative working Americans than Hillary was, or even Obama was. He may not excite them but it wouldn't be embarrassing for Joe to walk into a bar and have a crack with the guys as it would have been for Hillary or Barack. There is simply not the same animus. Hillary was a walking-taking provocation. It's noticeable that the worst that Trump can say about Biden is to call him "Sleepy Joe". I think people can live with that.
Biden does have the advantage of being from Delaware. I'm in no way arguing that it';s not an eastern state but it's below the Mason-Dixon line. it's got a vaguely southern tinge to it. At a pinch, Biden can pass for a down-home folksy type.
Still, I don't think he can pull off the Democratic gambit of (a) not losing the white vote by an especially large margin, and (b) getting their core vote out on election day.
The worrying thing is that - aside from the 2/16 positive test reported for 31 Jan (okay, perhaps the data isn't quite as neat, but lets assume it's fairly good), the 11/375 positive tests reported for the 24 hours ending 9am this morning is the highest rate recorded for a single day (date - tests - positive - % positive):
If Joe Biden is your party's answer to all those former Democratic voters in Michigan and Wisconsin.... well, yeah.... Good luck with that.
If African-Americans had turned out at 2012 levels then the Dems would have won Michigan.
Biden is the clear, clear pick of African-American voters.
In Wisconsin the absolute vote was down. Trump got less votes than Romney.
He's the clear pick of the African-American voters in the Democratic primary. And short of George Wallace coming back from the dead, anyone the Democrats run in the general will be their clear pick in the general.
That being said, those states clearly weren't thrilled with the Obama legacy. And now the Dems are going to run his Vice-President.
How many Oamam 2012 - Trump 2016 switxhers were there and how many Obama 2012 - StayingAtHomeNotVotingForHilary voters were there?
Romney got 60 million votes in 2012, Trump got 62 million votes in 2016.
Obama got 65 million 900 000 votes in 2012, Hillary got 65 million 800 000 votes, so there was a small shift of Obama voters to Trump but a bigger turnout overall for Trump than for Romney and only a small case of Obama voters staying at home and not voting for Hillary
I've been wrong about everything these last few years and I'm probably wrong here too. But it's not Dem-switchers that I think Biden has to really worry about. It's the enthusiasm gap.
Are those key voters going to turn out for him in key states comes November? And enough to overcome the Republican base's antipathy towards Obama?
The big benefit to the Dems of Joe Biden is that he is more acceptable to socially conservative working Americans than Hillary was, or even Obama was. He may not excite them but it wouldn't be embarrassing for Joe to walk into a bar and have a crack with the guys as it would have been for Hillary or Barack. There is simply not the same animus. Hillary was a walking-taking provocation. It's noticeable that the worst that Trump can say about Biden is to call him "Sleepy Joe". I think people can live with that.
Wait until the campaign against “Creepy Joe” begins in earnest.
It may get a bit of purchase but he's running against Trump not Jimmy Carter.
We don't seem to be doing that "double every day" thing - was 39 yesterday. Still contained, as far as I can see.
Nick it was never "double every day" !
It was double every other day. But we're not quite doing that either.
At the moment our infection graph looks a bit more like Taiwan than it does Germany or Korea.
It may just be because we're later to the party, OR we are genuinely containing this in some way.
I think we are doing well right now. Being an island obviously helps. I don't believe we can stop this but I do believe we can really slow it down and save lives doing so.
I hope you are right. There is some tentative evidence you might be.
I fear you could perhaps be wrong on Korea tho. After some promising signs of a slowdown, there was a large jump today.
...When you gonna get to me, get to me It is just a matter of (time Corona) Is it d-d-destiny, d-destiny? Or is it just a game in my (mind, Corona?)
There must be a case for closing eurotunnel, and ceasing flights. Or at least screening travellers crossing the Channel, if that can be done.
Their outbreak is uncontained.
The cases yesterday were upto 191 so that’s a small increase so far today . As for stopping flights will you be recommending the same for the USA whose handling of the virus has been a shambles .
If Joe Biden is your party's answer to all those former Democratic voters in Michigan and Wisconsin.... well, yeah.... Good luck with that.
If African-Americans had turned out at 2012 levels then the Dems would have won Michigan.
Biden is the clear, clear pick of African-American voters.
In Wisconsin the absolute vote was down. Trump got less votes than Romney.
He's the clear pick of the African-American voters in the Democratic primary. And short of George Wallace coming back from the dead, anyone the Democrats run in the general will be their clear pick in the general.
That being said, those states clearly weren't thrilled with the Obama legacy. And now the Dems are going to run his Vice-President.
How many Oamam 2012 - Trump 2016 switxhers were there and how many Obama 2012 - StayingAtHomeNotVotingForHilary voters were there?
Romney got 60 million votes in 2012, Trump got 62 million votes in 2016.
Obama got 65 million 900 000 votes in 2012, Hillary got 65 million 800 000 votes, so there was a small shift of Obama voters to Trump but a bigger turnout overall for Trump than for Romney and only a small case of Obama voters staying at home and not voting for Hillary
I've been wrong about everything these last few years and I'm probably wrong here too. But it's not Dem-switchers that I think Biden has to really worry about. It's the enthusiasm gap.
Are those key voters going to turn out for him in key states comes November? And enough to overcome the Republican base's antipathy towards Obama?
The big benefit to the Dems of Joe Biden is that he is more acceptable to socially conservative working Americans than Hillary was, or even Obama was. He may not excite them but it wouldn't be embarrassing for Joe to walk into a bar and have a crack with the guys as it would have been for Hillary or Barack. There is simply not the same animus. Hillary was a walking-taking provocation. It's noticeable that the worst that Trump can say about Biden is to call him "Sleepy Joe". I think people can live with that.
Wait until the campaign against “Creepy Joe” begins in earnest.
We don't seem to be doing that "double every day" thing - was 39 yesterday. Still contained, as far as I can see.
Nick it was never "double every day" !
It was double every other day. But we're not quite doing that either.
At the moment our infection graph looks a bit more like Taiwan than it does Germany or Korea.
It may just be because we're later to the party, OR we are genuinely containing this in some way.
I think we are doing well right now. Being an island obviously helps. I don't believe we can stop this but I do believe we can really slow it down and save lives doing so.
I hope you are right. There is some tentative evidence you might be.
I fear you could perhaps be wrong on Korea tho. After some promising signs of a slowdown, there was a large jump today.
...When you gonna get to me, get to me It is just a matter of (time Corona) Is it d-d-destiny, d-destiny? Or is it just a game in my (mind, Corona?)
My wife has been singing a reworked version of that song for about a week. It amuses her.
If Joe Biden is your party's answer to all those former Democratic voters in Michigan and Wisconsin.... well, yeah.... Good luck with that.
If African-Americans had turned out at 2012 levels then the Dems would have won Michigan.
Biden is the clear, clear pick of African-American voters.
In Wisconsin the absolute vote was down. Trump got less votes than Romney.
He's the clear pick of the African-American voters in the Democratic primary. And short of George Wallace coming back from the dead, anyone the Democrats run in the general will be their clear pick in the general.
That being said, those states clearly weren't thrilled with the Obama legacy. And now the Dems are going to run his Vice-President.
How many Oamam 2012 - Trump 2016 switxhers were there and how many Obama 2012 - StayingAtHomeNotVotingForHilary voters were there?
Romney got 60 million votes in 2012, Trump got 62 million votes in 2016.
Obama got 65 million 900 000 votes in 2012, Hillary got 65 million 800 000 votes, so there was a small shift of Obama voters to Trump but a bigger turnout overall for Trump than for Romney and only a small case of Obama voters staying at home and not voting for Hillary
I've been wrong about everything these last few years and I'm probably wrong here too. But it's not Dem-switchers that I think Biden has to really worry about. It's the enthusiasm gap.
Are those key voters going to turn out for him in key states comes November? And enough to overcome the Republican base's antipathy towards Obama?
The big benefit to the Dems of Joe Biden is that he is more acceptable to socially conservative working Americans than Hillary was, or even Obama was. He may not excite them but it wouldn't be embarrassing for Joe to walk into a bar and have a crack with the guys as it would have been for Hillary or Barack. There is simply not the same animus. Hillary was a walking-taking provocation. It's noticeable that the worst that Trump can say about Biden is to call him "Sleepy Joe". I think people can live with that.
Wait until the campaign against “Creepy Joe” begins in earnest.
Pot, kettle springs to mind.
Voters who would be swayed by moral repulsion are already in the not-Trump column. If they can be deterred from voting altogether, Trump is the clear winner.
We don't seem to be doing that "double every day" thing - was 39 yesterday. Still contained, as far as I can see.
Nick it was never "double every day" !
It was double every other day. But we're not quite doing that either.
At the moment our infection graph looks a bit more like Taiwan than it does Germany or Korea.
It may just be because we're later to the party, OR we are genuinely containing this in some way.
I think we are doing well right now. Being an island obviously helps. I don't believe we can stop this but I do believe we can really slow it down and save lives doing so.
I hope you are right. There is some tentative evidence you might be.
I fear you could perhaps be wrong on Korea tho. After some promising signs of a slowdown, there was a large jump today.
...When you gonna get to me, get to me It is just a matter of (time Corona) Is it d-d-destiny, d-destiny? Or is it just a game in my (mind, Corona?)
My wife has been singing a reworked version of that song for about a week. It amuses her.
"Ai no Corona I find myself No other thought Just you and nothing else You and nothing else."
Biden does have the advantage of being from Delaware. I'm in no way arguing that it';s not an eastern state but it's below the Mason-Dixon line. it's got a vaguely southern tinge to it. At a pinch, Biden can pass for a down-home folksy type.
Still, I don't think he can pull off the Democratic gambit of (a) not losing the white vote by an especially large margin, and (b) getting their core vote out on election day.
There's a possibility that Trump can get the Democrats core vote out on election day.
If Joe Biden is your party's answer to all those former Democratic voters in Michigan and Wisconsin.... well, yeah.... Good luck with that.
If African-Americans had turned out at 2012 levels then the Dems would have won Michigan.
Biden is the clear, clear pick of African-American voters.
In Wisconsin the absolute vote was down. Trump got less votes than Romney.
He's the clear pick of the African-American voters in the Democratic primary. And short of George Wallace coming back from the dead, anyone the Democrats run in the general will be their clear pick in the general.
That being said, those states clearly weren't thrilled with the Obama legacy. And now the Dems are going to run his Vice-President.
How many Oamam 2012 - Trump 2016 switxhers were there and how many Obama 2012 - StayingAtHomeNotVotingForHilary voters were there?
Romney got 60 million votes in 2012, Trump got 62 million votes in 2016.
Obama got 65 million 900 000 votes in 2012, Hillary got 65 million 800 000 votes, so there was a small shift of Obama voters to Trump but a bigger turnout overall for Trump than for Romney and only a small case of Obama voters staying at home and not voting for Hillary
I've been wrong about everything these last few years and I'm probably wrong here too. But it's not Dem-switchers that I think Biden has to really worry about. It's the enthusiasm gap.
Are those key voters going to turn out for him in key states comes November? And enough to overcome the Republican base's antipathy towards Obama?
The big benefit to the Dems of Joe Biden is that he is more acceptable to socially conservative working Americans than Hillary was, or even Obama was. He may not excite them but it wouldn't be embarrassing for Joe to walk into a bar and have a crack with the guys as it would have been for Hillary or Barack. There is simply not the same animus. Hillary was a walking-taking provocation. It's noticeable that the worst that Trump can say about Biden is to call him "Sleepy Joe". I think people can live with that.
Wait until the campaign against “Creepy Joe” begins in earnest.
It is not Sleepy Joe or Creepy Joe the Dems should worry about. It is the compilation video of Biden's brainfades that Trump will post on Twitter.
We don't seem to be doing that "double every day" thing - was 39 yesterday. Still contained, as far as I can see.
Nick it was never "double every day" !
It was double every other day. But we're not quite doing that either.
At the moment our infection graph looks a bit more like Taiwan than it does Germany or Korea.
It may just be because we're later to the party, OR we are genuinely containing this in some way.
I think we are doing well right now. Being an island obviously helps. I don't believe we can stop this but I do believe we can really slow it down and save lives doing so.
I hope you are right. There is some tentative evidence you might be.
I fear you could perhaps be wrong on Korea tho. After some promising signs of a slowdown, there was a large jump today.
...When you gonna get to me, get to me It is just a matter of (time Corona) Is it d-d-destiny, d-destiny? Or is it just a game in my (mind, Corona?)
My wife has been singing a reworked version of that song for about a week. It amuses her.
"Ai no Corona I find myself No other thought Just you and nothing else You and nothing else."
alternating with "Hey My Corona (Aiii)".
I just don't have the knack of writing parodies...
Worth remembering that the UK-EU trade talks have begun in earnest this week and will probably for the long term be more important than a temporarily really bad flu season.
I wonder how the talks are going while absolutely nobody is paying attention to them - and I wonder if the absence of people paying attention will make the talks easier or harder. I suspect easier.
I watched a few minutes of the Prime Minister's briefing between meetings this morning. All fine but to be honest this is easy for any Prime Minister - I could easily imagine Keir Starmer up there sounding equally convincing and in control.
Chris Whitty was superb as was the other scientific adviser and they batted back the obvious invitations to over-react (closing schools) without too much trouble.
I've two areas of concern - first, while the virus is not a risk for the majority, for those with pre-existing pulmonary and respiratory conditions it must be a huge concern. We also have concentrations of elderly people in the residential care system and if the virus gets into these facilities (via staff or visitors) the potential for disaster is obvious.
Second, while we won't all catch it, there's a risk of pockets where the infection rate is much higher.so if for example 40% of train drivers or tube drivers went off sick or were forced to self isolate, the consequences for the service would be considerable so even those not in self-isolation might find it harder to get out with all the economic and productive consequences that flow from that.
Other than that, the response so far is what it is - if the virus is loose in the general population a) we'll soon know and b) there may be no point shutting down Birmingham or York (even if you could) as the virus will be everywhere.
If Joe Biden is your party's answer to all those former Democratic voters in Michigan and Wisconsin.... well, yeah.... Good luck with that.
If African-Americans had turned out at 2012 levels then the Dems would have won Michigan.
Biden is the clear, clear pick of African-American voters.
In Wisconsin the absolute vote was down. Trump got less votes than Romney.
He's the clear pick of the African-American voters in the Democratic primary. And short of George Wallace coming back from the dead, anyone the Democrats run in the general will be their clear pick in the general.
That being said, those states clearly weren't thrilled with the Obama legacy. And now the Dems are going to run his Vice-President.
How many Oamam 2012 - Trump 2016 switxhers were there and how many Obama 2012 - StayingAtHomeNotVotingForHilary voters were there?
Romney got 60 million votes in 2012, Trump got 62 million votes in 2016.
Obama got 65 million 900 000 votes in 2012, Hillary got 65 million 800 000 votes, so there was a small shift of Obama voters to Trump but a bigger turnout overall for Trump than for Romney and only a small case of Obama voters staying at home and not voting for Hillary
I've been wrong about everything these last few years and I'm probably wrong here too. But it's not Dem-switchers that I think Biden has to really worry about. It's the enthusiasm gap.
Are those key voters going to turn out for him in key states comes November? And enough to overcome the Republican base's antipathy towards Obama?
The big benefit to the Dems of Joe Biden is that he is more acceptable to socially conservative working Americans than Hillary was, or even Obama was. He may not excite them but it wouldn't be embarrassing for Joe to walk into a bar and have a crack with the guys as it would have been for Hillary or Barack. There is simply not the same animus. Hillary was a walking-taking provocation. It's noticeable that the worst that Trump can say about Biden is to call him "Sleepy Joe". I think people can live with that.
Wait until the campaign against “Creepy Joe” begins in earnest.
It is not Sleepy Joe or Creepy Joe the Dems should worry about. It is the compilation video of Biden's brainfades that Trump will post on Twitter.
He probably will, but Trump is frequently incoherent himself and the biggest creep of all (even about his own daughter).
Worth remembering that the UK-EU trade talks have begun in earnest this week and will probably for the long term be more important than a temporarily really bad flu season.
I wonder how the talks are going while absolutely nobody is paying attention to them - and I wonder if the absence of people paying attention will make the talks easier or harder. I suspect easier.
Worth remembering that the UK-EU trade talks have begun in earnest this week and will probably for the long term be more important than a temporarily really bad flu season.
I wonder how the talks are going while absolutely nobody is paying attention to them - and I wonder if the absence of people paying attention will make the talks easier or harder. I suspect easier.
If this gets worse I suspect the talks will be postponed. Or they'll do it via Skype. Literally.
I don't think that would make that much of a difference to be honest.
On a far more important topic, I have to say I'm far from impressed with David Frost, our new "tough guy" negotiator with the EU, claiming he started his first day with a "Full English" breakfast consisting of sausages, egg, bacon and beans.
If he thinks that's a Full English, we are on the road to catastrophe.
A Full English doesn't include baked beans in my book (an optional extra or side). We would need two fried slices, kidneys, mushrooms, white pudding, black pudding and perhaps bubble & squeak to round off the repast.
I know when I've had a decent scoff for breakfast, I feel like I can chew nails in the morning - as long as I can have a nap in the afternoon but most employers seem reticent on the latter for reasons which aren't entirely clear.
It shows how brave medical stuff have been, and will have to be. I salute the likes of Foxy.
There is, however, a note of encouragement here. The doctor says the virus is worse in its earliest incarnations; then, as it spreads, it weakens.
We need to delay this f*cker, and we might escape the worst.
@eadric - perhaps there is a crumb of comfort for you in this statement by the author of the article
"Second, in the process of the virus entering the human body from the intermediate host across species and then spreading from human to human, the first and second-generation viruses are the most potent and most toxic. The earliest infected patients (including our hospital staff) were like forwards in the battle, and they paid the highest price."
On a far more important topic, I have to say I'm far from impressed with David Frost, our new "tough guy" negotiator with the EU, claiming he started his first day with a "Full English" breakfast consisting of sausages, egg, bacon and beans.
If he thinks that's a Full English, we are on the road to catastrophe.
A Full English doesn't include baked beans in my book (an optional extra or side). We would need two fried slices, kidneys, mushrooms, white pudding, black pudding and perhaps bubble & squeak to round off the repast.
I know when I've had a decent scoff for breakfast, I feel like I can chew nails in the morning - as long as I can have a nap in the afternoon but most employers seem reticent on the latter for reasons which aren't entirely clear.
It occured to me, whilst eating a non full English breakfast in the cafe earlier, that James O'Brien and the like are quite comfortable with being the kind of people who, if they saw someone they knew on the day of England playing a big football match eating a full English who happened to say "Having a patriotic breakfast before the game!", would rebuke them, list the countries the ingredients originated from and take offence for implicitly being called a traitor for not eating one.
I watched a few minutes of the Prime Minister's briefing between meetings this morning. All fine but to be honest this is easy for any Prime Minister - I could easily imagine Keir Starmer up there sounding equally convincing and in control.
Chris Whitty was superb as was the other scientific adviser and they batted back the obvious invitations to over-react (closing schools) without too much trouble.
I've two areas of concern - first, while the virus is not a risk for the majority, for those with pre-existing pulmonary and respiratory conditions it must be a huge concern. We also have concentrations of elderly people in the residential care system and if the virus gets into these facilities (via staff or visitors) the potential for disaster is obvious.
Second, while we won't all catch it, there's a risk of pockets where the infection rate is much higher.so if for example 40% of train drivers or tube drivers went off sick or were forced to self isolate, the consequences for the service would be considerable so even those not in self-isolation might find it harder to get out with all the economic and productive consequences that flow from that.
Other than that, the response so far is what it is - if the virus is loose in the general population a) we'll soon know and b) there may be no point shutting down Birmingham or York (even if you could) as the virus will be everywhere.
A good summary. I found it answered a few questions that I had been wondering about. Two things struck me:
a) It was stated by the CMO that 80% catching it was the worse case scenario, but expect it to be much less. What is magic about 80% as the upper limit. It seemed to quite a firm limit.
b) The CMO also stated that it is assumed the mortality rate is about 1% of those infected, but it may be much less as there had been no mass testing of people without symptoms in areas of mass outbreaks to see if the virus was much more widespread in the healthy population in an area where it was out of control. I am surprised the Chinese haven't done this as this would be very useful.
On a far more important topic, I have to say I'm far from impressed with David Frost, our new "tough guy" negotiator with the EU, claiming he started his first day with a "Full English" breakfast consisting of sausages, egg, bacon and beans.
If he thinks that's a Full English, we are on the road to catastrophe.
A Full English doesn't include baked beans in my book (an optional extra or side). We would need two fried slices, kidneys, mushrooms, white pudding, black pudding and perhaps bubble & squeak to round off the repast.
I know when I've had a decent scoff for breakfast, I feel like I can chew nails in the morning - as long as I can have a nap in the afternoon but most employers seem reticent on the latter for reasons which aren't entirely clear.
It occured to me, whilst eating a non full English breakfast in the cafe earlier, that James O'Brien and the like are quite comfortable with being the kind of people who, if they saw someone they knew on the day of England playing a big football match eating a full English who happened to say "Having a patriotic breakfast before the game!", would rebuke them, list the countries the ingredients originated from and take offence for implicitly being called a traitor for not eating one.
A right laugh!
Are you actually triggering yourself?
I know a lot of lefty liberals, and can think of a few who might be interested in the etymology or the English Breakfast, and might even be curious enough to read an article about the food's origins.
However, I'd be astonished if any of them read your worries and reacted with outrage, rather than just finding it mildly amusing.
On a far more important topic, I have to say I'm far from impressed with David Frost, our new "tough guy" negotiator with the EU, claiming he started his first day with a "Full English".
He made no such claim.
A Telegraph journalist did and succeeded spectacularly in winding up Rejoiners.
I watched a few minutes of the Prime Minister's briefing between meetings this morning. All fine but to be honest this is easy for any Prime Minister - I could easily imagine Keir Starmer up there sounding equally convincing and in control.
Chris Whitty was superb as was the other scientific adviser and they batted back the obvious invitations to over-react (closing schools) without too much trouble.
I've two areas of concern - first, while the virus is not a risk for the majority, for those with pre-existing pulmonary and respiratory conditions it must be a huge concern. We also have concentrations of elderly people in the residential care system and if the virus gets into these facilities (via staff or visitors) the potential for disaster is obvious.
Second, while we won't all catch it, there's a risk of pockets where the infection rate is much higher.so if for example 40% of train drivers or tube drivers went off sick or were forced to self isolate, the consequences for the service would be considerable so even those not in self-isolation might find it harder to get out with all the economic and productive consequences that flow from that.
Other than that, the response so far is what it is - if the virus is loose in the general population a) we'll soon know and b) there may be no point shutting down Birmingham or York (even if you could) as the virus will be everywhere.
A good summary. I found it answered a few questions that I had been wondering about. Two things struck me:
a) It was stated by the CMO that 80% catching it was the worse case scenario, but expect it to be much less. What is magic about 80% as the upper limit. It seemed to quite a firm limit.
Don’t know where 80% comes from, but in general the virus starts hitting diminishing returns as more and more of the people it tries to infect have recovered from a previous infection and have immunity. At the moment immunity is zero, the more infected the more that falls.
On a far more important topic, I have to say I'm far from impressed with David Frost, our new "tough guy" negotiator with the EU, claiming he started his first day with a "Full English" breakfast consisting of sausages, egg, bacon and beans.
If he thinks that's a Full English, we are on the road to catastrophe.
A Full English doesn't include baked beans in my book (an optional extra or side). We would need two fried slices, kidneys, mushrooms, white pudding, black pudding and perhaps bubble & squeak to round off the repast.
I know when I've had a decent scoff for breakfast, I feel like I can chew nails in the morning - as long as I can have a nap in the afternoon but most employers seem reticent on the latter for reasons which aren't entirely clear.
It occured to me, whilst eating a non full English breakfast in the cafe earlier, that James O'Brien and the like are quite comfortable with being the kind of people who, if they saw someone they knew on the day of England playing a big football match eating a full English who happened to say "Having a patriotic breakfast before the game!", would rebuke them, list the countries the ingredients originated from and take offence for implicitly being called a traitor for not eating one.
I was at a livery hall event last night where I saw two 75 year olds unironically bump elbows on meeting. I was halfway between being amused and being impressed at their pragmatic adaptability to changing circumstances.
A lovely smile is perfectly fine. Why the need to touch someone at all?
If Joe Biden is your party's answer to all those former Democratic voters in Michigan and Wisconsin.... well, yeah.... Good luck with that.
If African-Americans had turned out at 2012 levels then the Dems would have won Michigan.
Biden is the clear, clear pick of African-American voters.
In Wisconsin the absolute vote was down. Trump got less votes than Romney.
He's the clear pick of the African-American voters in the Democratic primary. And short of George Wallace coming back from the dead, anyone the Democrats run in the general will be their clear pick in the general.
That being said, those states clearly weren't thrilled with the Obama legacy. And now the Dems are going to run his Vice-President.
How many Oamam 2012 - Trump 2016 switxhers were there and how many Obama 2012 - StayingAtHomeNotVotingForHilary voters were there?
Romney got 60 million votes in 2012, Trump got 62 million votes in 2016.
Obama got 65 million 900 000 votes in 2012, Hillary got 65 million 800 000 votes, so there was a small shift of Obama voters to Trump but a bigger turnout overall for Trump than for Romney and only a small case of Obama voters staying at home and not voting for Hillary
The US population is growing more strongly than ours so I suspect that it's more useful to look at such figures in terms of percentage turnout of voting-age adults.
My best guess is that would show the Republicans nearly static in 2016 v 2012 and the Democrats significantly down.
For a cruise in the Far East in January I'm pretty confident the average age would be well above 46.7 - the 46.7 average will include many 20s & 30s cruising for 3 & 4 days out of Miami - in January in the Far East the overwhelming majority will be retirees - who else takes time off in January? For World Cruise & Destination Cruises the average age is 63:
For a cruise in the Far East in January I'm pretty confident the average age would be well above 46.7 - the 46.7 average will include many 20s & 30s cruising for 3 & 4 days out of Miami - in January in the Far East the overwhelming majority will be retirees - who else takes time off in January?
If Joe Biden is your party's answer to all those former Democratic voters in Michigan and Wisconsin.... well, yeah.... Good luck with that.
If African-Americans had turned out at 2012 levels then the Dems would have won Michigan.
Biden is the clear, clear pick of African-American voters.
In Wisconsin the absolute vote was down. Trump got less votes than Romney.
He's the clear pick of the African-American voters in the Democratic primary. And short of George Wallace coming back from the dead, anyone the Democrats run in the general will be their clear pick in the general.
That being said, those states clearly weren't thrilled with the Obama legacy. And now the Dems are going to run his Vice-President.
How many Oamam 2012 - Trump 2016 switxhers were there and how many Obama 2012 - StayingAtHomeNotVotingForHilary voters were there?
Romney got 60 million votes in 2012, Trump got 62 million votes in 2016.
Obama got 65 million 900 000 votes in 2012, Hillary got 65 million 800 000 votes, so there was a small shift of Obama voters to Trump but a bigger turnout overall for Trump than for Romney and only a small case of Obama voters staying at home and not voting for Hillary
The US population is growing more strongly than ours so I suspect that it's more useful to look at such figures in terms of percentage turnout of voting-age adults.
My best guess is that would show the Republicans nearly static in 2016 v 2012 and the Democrats significantly down.
Trump was down on Romney by 1.1 percentage points.
He won because Democratic turnout was masssssively down.
I watched a few minutes of the Prime Minister's briefing between meetings this morning. All fine but to be honest this is easy for any Prime Minister - I could easily imagine Keir Starmer up there sounding equally convincing and in control.
Chris Whitty was superb as was the other scientific adviser and they batted back the obvious invitations to over-react (closing schools) without too much trouble.
I've two areas of concern - first, while the virus is not a risk for the majority, for those with pre-existing pulmonary and respiratory conditions it must be a huge concern. We also have concentrations of elderly people in the residential care system and if the virus gets into these facilities (via staff or visitors) the potential for disaster is obvious.
Second, while we won't all catch it, there's a risk of pockets where the infection rate is much higher.so if for example 40% of train drivers or tube drivers went off sick or were forced to self isolate, the consequences for the service would be considerable so even those not in self-isolation might find it harder to get out with all the economic and productive consequences that flow from that.
Other than that, the response so far is what it is - if the virus is loose in the general population a) we'll soon know and b) there may be no point shutting down Birmingham or York (even if you could) as the virus will be everywhere.
A good summary. I found it answered a few questions that I had been wondering about. Two things struck me:
a) It was stated by the CMO that 80% catching it was the worse case scenario, but expect it to be much less. What is magic about 80% as the upper limit. It seemed to quite a firm limit.
Don’t know where 80% comes from, but in general the virus starts hitting diminishing returns as more and more of the people it tries to infect have recovered from a previous infection and have immunity. At the moment immunity is zero, the more infected the more that falls.
So those lucky enough not to have caught it through pure chance (or being anti social) get less likely to catch it at as time passes because of herd immunity. That is it become more and more difficult to be in contact with someone who has it as more an more will have had it and got immunity. I assume there is some maths that puts that at 80%.
On a far more important topic, I have to say I'm far from impressed with David Frost, our new "tough guy" negotiator with the EU, claiming he started his first day with a "Full English" breakfast consisting of sausages, egg, bacon and beans.
If he thinks that's a Full English, we are on the road to catastrophe.
A Full English doesn't include baked beans in my book (an optional extra or side). We would need two fried slices, kidneys, mushrooms, white pudding, black pudding and perhaps bubble & squeak to round off the repast.
I know when I've had a decent scoff for breakfast, I feel like I can chew nails in the morning - as long as I can have a nap in the afternoon but most employers seem reticent on the latter for reasons which aren't entirely clear.
It occured to me, whilst eating a non full English breakfast in the cafe earlier, that James O'Brien and the like are quite comfortable with being the kind of people who, if they saw someone they knew on the day of England playing a big football match eating a full English who happened to say "Having a patriotic breakfast before the game!", would rebuke them, list the countries the ingredients originated from and take offence for implicitly being called a traitor for not eating one.
A right laugh!
Are you actually triggering yourself?
I know a lot of lefty liberals, and can think of a few who might be interested in the etymology or the English Breakfast, and might even be curious enough to read an article about the food's origins.
However, I'd be astonished if any of them read your worries and reacted with outrage, rather than just finding it mildly amusing.
I don't get it, what are my "worries"?
I just imagined James O'Brien in a cafe seeing someone in an England shirt describing a full English as a "patriotic" breakfast before a big game and wondered if he would tear a strip off them with a "I'm so bored of having to educate people" sigh
I cant imagine not giving the benefit of the doubt to someone if the roles were reversed
I'm carryin on a bout this a bit now! It doesnt matter really I suppose
I was at a livery hall event last night where I saw two 75 year olds unironically bump elbows on meeting. I was halfway between being amused and being impressed at their pragmatic adaptability to changing circumstances.
A lovely smile is perfectly fine. Why the need to touch someone at all?
The Doctor on GMTV suggested a Namaste greeting. Why not?
I watched a few minutes of the Prime Minister's briefing between meetings this morning. All fine but to be honest this is easy for any Prime Minister - I could easily imagine Keir Starmer up there sounding equally convincing and in control.
Chris Whitty was superb as was the other scientific adviser and they batted back the obvious invitations to over-react (closing schools) without too much trouble.
I've two areas of concern - first, while the virus is not a risk for the majority, for those with pre-existing pulmonary and respiratory conditions it must be a huge concern. We also have concentrations of elderly people in the residential care system and if the virus gets into these facilities (via staff or visitors) the potential for disaster is obvious.
Second, while we won't all catch it, there's a risk of pockets where the infection rate is much higher.so if for example 40% of train drivers or tube drivers went off sick or were forced to self isolate, the consequences for the service would be considerable so even those not in self-isolation might find it harder to get out with all the economic and productive consequences that flow from that.
Other than that, the response so far is what it is - if the virus is loose in the general population a) we'll soon know and b) there may be no point shutting down Birmingham or York (even if you could) as the virus will be everywhere.
A good summary. I found it answered a few questions that I had been wondering about. Two things struck me:
a) It was stated by the CMO that 80% catching it was the worse case scenario, but expect it to be much less. What is magic about 80% as the upper limit. It seemed to quite a firm limit.
Don’t know where 80% comes from, but in general the virus starts hitting diminishing returns as more and more of the people it tries to infect have recovered from a previous infection and have immunity. At the moment immunity is zero, the more infected the more that falls.
So those lucky enough not to have caught it through pure chance (or being anti social) get less likely to catch it at as time passes because of herd immunity. That is it become more and more difficult to be in contact with someone who has it as more an more will have had it and got immunity. I assume there is some maths that puts that at 80%.
In addition to lower infection rates treatments will have been optimised and next year sometime there will be a vaccine.
I was at a livery hall event last night where I saw two 75 year olds unironically bump elbows on meeting. I was halfway between being amused and being impressed at their pragmatic adaptability to changing circumstances.
A lovely smile is perfectly fine. Why the need to touch someone at all?
Not all of us are blessed with a lovely smile. Some of us have teeth like the Ten Commandments: all broken.
It shows how brave medical stuff have been, and will have to be. I salute the likes of Foxy.
There is, however, a note of encouragement here. The doctor says the virus is worse in its earliest incarnations; then, as it spreads, it weakens.
We need to delay this f*cker, and we might escape the worst.
@eadric - perhaps there is a crumb of comfort for you in this statement by the author of the article
"Second, in the process of the virus entering the human body from the intermediate host across species and then spreading from human to human, the first and second-generation viruses are the most potent and most toxic. The earliest infected patients (including our hospital staff) were like forwards in the battle, and they paid the highest price."
Did you not manage to read the bit in my comment, to which you are replying, where I say:
"There is, however, a note of encouragement here. The doctor says the virus is worse in its earliest incarnations; then, as it spreads, it weakens."
For a cruise in the Far East in January I'm pretty confident the average age would be well above 46.7 - the 46.7 average will include many 20s & 30s cruising for 3 & 4 days out of Miami - in January in the Far East the overwhelming majority will be retirees - who else takes time off in January?
People in the leisure and tourism industry.
They generally don't get paid enough to go on World Cruises....And a lot of them will be getting a lot of (unpaid) time off too...
I was at a livery hall event last night where I saw two 75 year olds unironically bump elbows on meeting. I was halfway between being amused and being impressed at their pragmatic adaptability to changing circumstances.
A lovely smile is perfectly fine. Why the need to touch someone at all?
And perhaps a brief inclination of the head if you don't feel like smiling at someone ?
a) It was stated by the CMO that 80% catching it was the worse case scenario, but expect it to be much less. What is magic about 80% as the upper limit. It seemed to quite a firm limit.
Don’t know where 80% comes from, but in general the virus starts hitting diminishing returns as more and more of the people it tries to infect have recovered from a previous infection and have immunity. At the moment immunity is zero, the more infected the more that falls.
So those lucky enough not to have caught it through pure chance (or being anti social) get less likely to catch it at as time passes because of herd immunity. That is it become more and more difficult to be in contact with someone who has it as more an more will have had it and got immunity. I assume there is some maths that puts that at 80%.
The key thing is how quickly the virus spreads (i.e. how many people each active carrier infects) which is a combination of how easily it's transmitted, how long an infected person is infectious and how successful any containment is. Tweaking those assumptions changes the end point. 80% just seems to be the top end of those estimates - at least I've not seen any higher than that (I've not crunched any numbers nor seen any of the models).
Re your point about population testing, that would indeed be very interesting. However, given the numbers of actual suspected cases there's probably no time/money for that yet.
There was one jarring moment in Boris Johnson's otherwise excellent presser.
When he jovially said "Oh yes, I'm still shaking hands, I shook the hands of some coronavirus sufferers yesterday!"
I can see why he might say this in a cheerul, stoical, British, Keep Calm and Get a Buxom Girlfriend way, but as far as I can tell it is bad advice.
Experts say do NOT shake hands. Bump elbows, or wave, or touch your shoes together. Do NOT shake hands.
Tsk.
experts seem divided on this. pretty sure one of them this morning said it made little difference.
I guess it is probably OK if you immediately wash your hands afterwards? Maybe?
Either way, why take the risk? Just bump elbows. Stupid.
I think because imagine the PR of Boris meeting people and then refusing to touch them like they are a leper. There would be videos all over the internet ranging from look at the posho unwilling to touch the great unwashed to massive panicking.
You really can't win in these situations if you a politician.
A polite bow, as in Japan or Korea, ought to suffice.
In Tanzania, the president did a leg shake.
If I were PM I'd greet everybody Gangnam style.
You are a monster and must be stopped before it's too late.
a) It was stated by the CMO that 80% catching it was the worse case scenario, but expect it to be much less. What is magic about 80% as the upper limit. It seemed to quite a firm limit.
Don’t know where 80% comes from, but in general the virus starts hitting diminishing returns as more and more of the people it tries to infect have recovered from a previous infection and have immunity. At the moment immunity is zero, the more infected the more that falls.
So those lucky enough not to have caught it through pure chance (or being anti social) get less likely to catch it at as time passes because of herd immunity. That is it become more and more difficult to be in contact with someone who has it as more an more will have had it and got immunity. I assume there is some maths that puts that at 80%.
The key thing is how quickly the virus spreads (i.e. how many people each active carrier infects) which is a combination of how easily it's transmitted, how long an infected person is infectious and how successful any containment is. Tweaking those assumptions changes the end point. 80% just seems to be the top end of those estimates - at least I've not seen any higher than that (I've not crunched any numbers nor seen any of the models).
Re your point about population testing, that would indeed be very interesting. However, given the numbers of actual suspected cases there's probably no time/money for that yet.
The general idea is right but 80% is a practical rule of thumb rather than a mathematical change point, and I have often seen 90% used as the point where herd immunity kicks in as well. Herd immunity is usually considered for vaccinations rather than for the actual disease. For example with chicken pox, before there was a vaccine, there were lots of outbreaks amongst children even though well over 80% of adults had immunity.
If 80% of people get this virus within the next 12 months, we are in for a very miserable time. I cannot see the proportion of infections getting anywhere near that level. 10% will be bad enough.
I was at a livery hall event last night where I saw two 75 year olds unironically bump elbows on meeting. I was halfway between being amused and being impressed at their pragmatic adaptability to changing circumstances.
A lovely smile is perfectly fine. Why the need to touch someone at all?
And perhaps a brief inclination of the head if you don't feel like smiling at someone ?
Exactly.
We need to behave like our grandparents and great grandparents did before vaccines and antibiotics were prevalent ie much much less social touching. Take our cue from all those Jane Austen dramas where it is all longing looks and the occasional gloved touching during decorous dances, with all the action - as it were - in the eyes.
If Joe Biden is your party's answer to all those former Democratic voters in Michigan and Wisconsin.... well, yeah.... Good luck with that.
If African-Americans had turned out at 2012 levels then the Dems would have won Michigan.
Biden is the clear, clear pick of African-American voters.
In Wisconsin the absolute vote was down. Trump got less votes than Romney.
He's the clear pick of the African-American voters in the Democratic primary. And short of George Wallace coming back from the dead, anyone the Democrats run in the general will be their clear pick in the general.
That being said, those states clearly weren't thrilled with the Obama legacy. And now the Dems are going to run his Vice-President.
How many Oamam 2012 - Trump 2016 switxhers were there and how many Obama 2012 - StayingAtHomeNotVotingForHilary voters were there?
Romney got 60 million votes in 2012, Trump got 62 million votes in 2016.
Obama got 65 million 900 000 votes in 2012, Hillary got 65 million 800 000 votes, so there was a small shift of Obama voters to Trump but a bigger turnout overall for Trump than for Romney and only a small case of Obama voters staying at home and not voting for Hillary
The US population is growing more strongly than ours so I suspect that it's more useful to look at such figures in terms of percentage turnout of voting-age adults.
My best guess is that would show the Republicans nearly static in 2016 v 2012 and the Democrats significantly down.
Trump was down on Romney by 1.1 percentage points.
He won because Democratic turnout was masssssively down.
Was that 1.1% drop across the US? I had assumed that it was down considerably in places lick Utah, but up in places lick Michigan, but I have not checked.
I was at a livery hall event last night where I saw two 75 year olds unironically bump elbows on meeting. I was halfway between being amused and being impressed at their pragmatic adaptability to changing circumstances.
A lovely smile is perfectly fine. Why the need to touch someone at all?
Update from the front line. Am in Paris for meetings.
Of the three, one cancelled because they are trying to cut down on interactions with travellers, one cancelled because the markets are crazy, and one withdrew his hand as I put mine (newly sanitised) out to shake it.
I was at a livery hall event last night where I saw two 75 year olds unironically bump elbows on meeting. I was halfway between being amused and being impressed at their pragmatic adaptability to changing circumstances.
A lovely smile is perfectly fine. Why the need to touch someone at all?
The Doctor on GMTV suggested a Namaste greeting. Why not?
On a far more important topic, I have to say I'm far from impressed with David Frost, our new "tough guy" negotiator with the EU, claiming he started his first day with a "Full English" breakfast consisting of sausages, egg, bacon and beans.
If he thinks that's a Full English, we are on the road to catastrophe.
A Full English doesn't include baked beans in my book (an optional extra or side). We would need two fried slices, kidneys, mushrooms, white pudding, black pudding and perhaps bubble & squeak to round off the repast.
I know when I've had a decent scoff for breakfast, I feel like I can chew nails in the morning - as long as I can have a nap in the afternoon but most employers seem reticent on the latter for reasons which aren't entirely clear.
It occured to me, whilst eating a non full English breakfast in the cafe earlier, that James O'Brien and the like are quite comfortable with being the kind of people who, if they saw someone they knew on the day of England playing a big football match eating a full English who happened to say "Having a patriotic breakfast before the game!", would rebuke them, list the countries the ingredients originated from and take offence for implicitly being called a traitor for not eating one.
A right laugh!
Are you actually triggering yourself?
I know a lot of lefty liberals, and can think of a few who might be interested in the etymology or the English Breakfast, and might even be curious enough to read an article about the food's origins.
However, I'd be astonished if any of them read your worries and reacted with outrage, rather than just finding it mildly amusing.
I don't get it, what are my "worries"?
I just imagined James O'Brien in a cafe seeing someone in an England shirt describing a full English as a "patriotic" breakfast before a big game and wondered if he would tear a strip off them with a "I'm so bored of having to educate people" sigh
I cant imagine not giving the benefit of the doubt to someone if the roles were reversed
I'm carryin on a bout this a bit now! It doesnt matter really I suppose
You didn't just say you imagined it, but that you believed he would be "quite comfortable" acting that way, and what you described was someone acting in a fairly offensive, and stupid manner.
My reply was clearly lighthearted - but I was suggesting that you're causing yourself offence, even if you're laughing it off at the same time.
If Joe Biden is your party's answer to all those former Democratic voters in Michigan and Wisconsin.... well, yeah.... Good luck with that.
If African-Americans had turned out at 2012 levels then the Dems would have won Michigan.
Biden is the clear, clear pick of African-American voters.
In Wisconsin the absolute vote was down. Trump got less votes than Romney.
He's the clear pick of the African-American voters in the Democratic primary. And short of George Wallace coming back from the dead, anyone the Democrats run in the general will be their clear pick in the general.
That being said, those states clearly weren't thrilled with the Obama legacy. And now the Dems are going to run his Vice-President.
How many Oamam 2012 - Trump 2016 switxhers were there and how many Obama 2012 - StayingAtHomeNotVotingForHilary voters were there?
Romney got 60 million votes in 2012, Trump got 62 million votes in 2016.
Obama got 65 million 900 000 votes in 2012, Hillary got 65 million 800 000 votes, so there was a small shift of Obama voters to Trump but a bigger turnout overall for Trump than for Romney and only a small case of Obama voters staying at home and not voting for Hillary
The US population is growing more strongly than ours so I suspect that it's more useful to look at such figures in terms of percentage turnout of voting-age adults.
My best guess is that would show the Republicans nearly static in 2016 v 2012 and the Democrats significantly down.
Trump was down on Romney by 1.1 percentage points.
He won because Democratic turnout was masssssively down.
Thanks for that - so an important point is that Trump only had more votes than Romney because the population had expanded so much overall and it's not a sign that he was a better candidate than Romney.
I was at a livery hall event last night where I saw two 75 year olds unironically bump elbows on meeting. I was halfway between being amused and being impressed at their pragmatic adaptability to changing circumstances.
A lovely smile is perfectly fine. Why the need to touch someone at all?
The Doctor on GMTV suggested a Namaste greeting. Why not?
Wise PB preppers - what's the best way to get enough of the nutrients that would normally come from fresh fruit and vegetables if we enter a long period of self-isolation? Or to put it another way, what deficiencies are likely to result from a diet of rice, pasta, and dried peaches / apricots?
If you've set the book up for a two horse race, just rejoice in that polling.
Amazing that just a few days ago the markets were implying a 29% chance of someone other than Biden or Bernie getting the gig. That was clearly too high.
Wise PB preppers - what's the best way to get enough of the nutrients that would normally come from fresh fruit and vegetables if we enter a long period of self-isolation? Or to put it another way, what deficiencies are likely to result from a diet of rice, pasta, and dried peaches / apricots?
Wise PB preppers - what's the best way to get enough of the nutrients that would normally come from fresh fruit and vegetables if we enter a long period of self-isolation? Or to put it another way, what deficiencies are likely to result from a diet of rice, pasta, and dried peaches / apricots?
Have you considered frozen veg?
Hate the stuff, and don't have a particularly large freezer in one of the locations I'm prepping.
On a far more important topic, I have to say I'm far from impressed with David Frost, our new "tough guy" negotiator with the EU, claiming he started his first day with a "Full English" breakfast consisting of sausages, egg, bacon and beans.
If he thinks that's a Full English, we are on the road to catastrophe.
A Full English doesn't include baked beans in my book (an optional extra or side). We would need two fried slices, kidneys, mushrooms, white pudding, black pudding and perhaps bubble & squeak to round off the repast.
I know when I've had a decent scoff for breakfast, I feel like I can chew nails in the morning - as long as I can have a nap in the afternoon but most employers seem reticent on the latter for reasons which aren't entirely clear.
It occured to me, whilst eating a non full English breakfast in the cafe earlier, that James O'Brien and the like are quite comfortable with being the kind of people who, if they saw someone they knew on the day of England playing a big football match eating a full English who happened to say "Having a patriotic breakfast before the game!", would rebuke them, list the countries the ingredients originated from and take offence for implicitly being called a traitor for not eating one.
A right laugh!
Are you actually triggering yourself?
I know a lot of lefty liberals, and can think of a few who might be interested in the etymology or the English Breakfast, and might even be curious enough to read an article about the food's origins.
However, I'd be astonished if any of them read your worries and reacted with outrage, rather than just finding it mildly amusing.
I don't get it, what are my "worries"?
I just imagined James O'Brien in a cafe seeing someone in an England shirt describing a full English as a "patriotic" breakfast before a big game and wondered if he would tear a strip off them with a "I'm so bored of having to educate people" sigh
I cant imagine not giving the benefit of the doubt to someone if the roles were reversed
I'm carryin on a bout this a bit now! It doesnt matter really I suppose
You didn't just say you imagined it, but that you believed he would be "quite comfortable" acting that way, and what you described was someone acting in a fairly offensive, and stupid manner.
My reply was clearly lighthearted - but I was suggesting that you're causing yourself offence, even if you're laughing it off at the same time.
I imagined him being comfortable with it, because he did exactly that voluntarily on twitter this morning, and the example I described is the real life version of his tweet.
Wise PB preppers - what's the best way to get enough of the nutrients that would normally come from fresh fruit and vegetables if we enter a long period of self-isolation? Or to put it another way, what deficiencies are likely to result from a diet of rice, pasta, and dried peaches / apricots?
Tinned tuna is apparently excellent for providing lots of things. Bit tough on the tuna if this wipes them out, but if we have to choose which species get to survive...
I was at a livery hall event last night where I saw two 75 year olds unironically bump elbows on meeting. I was halfway between being amused and being impressed at their pragmatic adaptability to changing circumstances.
A lovely smile is perfectly fine. Why the need to touch someone at all?
Not all of us are blessed with a lovely smile. Some of us have teeth like the Ten Commandments: all broken.
Wise PB preppers - what's the best way to get enough of the nutrients that would normally come from fresh fruit and vegetables if we enter a long period of self-isolation? Or to put it another way, what deficiencies are likely to result from a diet of rice, pasta, and dried peaches / apricots?
Wise PB preppers - what's the best way to get enough of the nutrients that would normally come from fresh fruit and vegetables if we enter a long period of self-isolation? Or to put it another way, what deficiencies are likely to result from a diet of rice, pasta, and dried peaches / apricots?
Vitamin D due to lack of sun?
Tinned sardines and pickled herrings.
In 14 days, I'd suggest not a lot. It takes longer than that to get scurvy.
Comments
A lot of people still visiting our cities, of course, but perhaps more likely to be out and about seeing the sights and then contained in less social settings (hotel rooms) at night.
Are those key voters going to turn out for him in key states comes November? And enough to overcome the Republican base's antipathy towards Obama?
Still, I don't think he can pull off the Democratic gambit of (a) not losing the white vote by an especially large margin, and (b) getting their core vote out on election day.
25/01/2020 31 0 0.0%
26/01/2020 21 0 0.0%
27/01/2020 21 0 0.0%
28/01/2020 24 0 0.0%
29/01/2020 33 0 0.0%
30/01/2020 31 0 0.0%
31/01/2020 16 2 12.5%
01/02/2020 26 0 0.0%
02/02/2020 63 0 0.0%
03/02/2020 60 0 0.0%
04/02/2020 90 0 0.0%
05/02/2020 50 0 0.0%
06/02/2020 97 1 1.0%
07/02/2020 54 0 0.0%
08/02/2020 66 0 0.0%
09/02/2020 108 1 0.9%
10/02/2020 323 4 1.2%
11/02/2020 244 0 0.0%
12/02/2020 400 0 0.0%
13/02/2020 763 1 0.1%
14/02/2020 443 0 0.0%
15/02/2020 28 0 0.0%
16/02/2020 117 0 0.0%
17/02/2020 1,392 0 0.0%
18/02/2020 415 0 0.0%
19/02/2020 300 0 0.0%
20/02/2020 333 0 0.0%
21/02/2020 336 0 0.0%
22/02/2020 258 0 0.0%
23/02/2020 172 0 0.0%
24/02/2020 212 0 0.0%
25/02/2020 255 4 1.6%
26/02/2020 350 0 0.0%
27/02/2020 558 2 0.4%
28/02/2020 1,296 5 0.4%
29/02/2020 1,497 3 0.2%
01/03/2020 1,232 12 1.0%
02/03/2020 1,770 5 0.3%
03/03/2020 375 11 2.9%
It is just a matter of (time Corona)
Is it d-d-destiny, d-destiny?
Or is it just a game in my (mind, Corona?)
"Ai no Corona
I find myself
No other thought
Just you and nothing else
You and nothing else."
alternating with "Hey My Corona (Aiii)".
I wonder how the talks are going while absolutely nobody is paying attention to them - and I wonder if the absence of people paying attention will make the talks easier or harder. I suspect easier.
I watched a few minutes of the Prime Minister's briefing between meetings this morning. All fine but to be honest this is easy for any Prime Minister - I could easily imagine Keir Starmer up there sounding equally convincing and in control.
Chris Whitty was superb as was the other scientific adviser and they batted back the obvious invitations to over-react (closing schools) without too much trouble.
I've two areas of concern - first, while the virus is not a risk for the majority, for those with pre-existing pulmonary and respiratory conditions it must be a huge concern. We also have concentrations of elderly people in the residential care system and if the virus gets into these facilities (via staff or visitors) the potential for disaster is obvious.
Second, while we won't all catch it, there's a risk of pockets where the infection rate is much higher.so if for example 40% of train drivers or tube drivers went off sick or were forced to self isolate, the consequences for the service would be considerable so even those not in self-isolation might find it harder to get out with all the economic and productive consequences that flow from that.
Other than that, the response so far is what it is - if the virus is loose in the general population a) we'll soon know and b) there may be no point shutting down Birmingham or York (even if you could) as the virus will be everywhere.
https://twitter.com/JulianBKing/status/1234188246378217472?s=20
If he thinks that's a Full English, we are on the road to catastrophe.
A Full English doesn't include baked beans in my book (an optional extra or side). We would need two fried slices, kidneys, mushrooms, white pudding, black pudding and perhaps bubble & squeak to round off the repast.
I know when I've had a decent scoff for breakfast, I feel like I can chew nails in the morning - as long as I can have a nap in the afternoon but most employers seem reticent on the latter for reasons which aren't entirely clear.
"Second, in the process of the virus entering the human body from the intermediate host across species and then spreading from human to human, the first and second-generation viruses are the most potent and most toxic. The earliest infected patients (including our hospital staff) were like forwards in the battle, and they paid the highest price."
A right laugh!
a) It was stated by the CMO that 80% catching it was the worse case scenario, but expect it to be much less. What is magic about 80% as the upper limit. It seemed to quite a firm limit.
b) The CMO also stated that it is assumed the mortality rate is about 1% of those infected, but it may be much less as there had been no mass testing of people without symptoms in areas of mass outbreaks to see if the virus was much more widespread in the healthy population in an area where it was out of control. I am surprised the Chinese haven't done this as this would be very useful.
Winner of Texas takes the nomination.
I know a lot of lefty liberals, and can think of a few who might be interested in the etymology or the English Breakfast, and might even be curious enough to read an article about the food's origins.
However, I'd be astonished if any of them read your worries and reacted with outrage, rather than just finding it mildly amusing.
A Telegraph journalist did and succeeded spectacularly in winding up Rejoiners.
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1234850131633156097?s=20
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1234849281410027526?s=20
My best guess is that would show the Republicans nearly static in 2016 v 2012 and the Democrats significantly down.
https://www.cruise1st.co.uk/blog/cruise-holidays/how-old-is-the-average-cruise-passenger/
He won because Democratic turnout was masssssively down.
I just imagined James O'Brien in a cafe seeing someone in an England shirt describing a full English as a "patriotic" breakfast before a big game and wondered if he would tear a strip off them with a "I'm so bored of having to educate people" sigh
I cant imagine not giving the benefit of the doubt to someone if the roles were reversed
I'm carryin on a bout this a bit now! It doesnt matter really I suppose
They generally don't get paid enough to go on World Cruises....And a lot of them will be getting a lot of (unpaid) time off too...
Re your point about population testing, that would indeed be very interesting. However, given the numbers of actual suspected cases there's probably no time/money for that yet.
https://twitter.com/MajestyMagazine/status/1234844445201326080
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1234728724219691008?s=20
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1234728725574561792?s=20
https://www.rd.com/culture/queen-elizabeth-gloves/
https://twitter.com/PpollingNumbers/status/1234864999471947777
If 80% of people get this virus within the next 12 months, we are in for a very miserable time. I cannot see the proportion of infections getting anywhere near that level. 10% will be bad enough.
We need to behave like our grandparents and great grandparents did before vaccines and antibiotics were prevalent ie much much less social touching. Take our cue from all those Jane Austen dramas where it is all longing looks and the occasional gloved touching during decorous dances, with all the action - as it were - in the eyes.
https://twitter.com/BBCNews/status/1234865641850535943
Of the three, one cancelled because they are trying to cut down on interactions with travellers, one cancelled because the markets are crazy, and one withdrew his hand as I put mine (newly sanitised) out to shake it.
Uber driver most phlegmatic of the lot.
My reply was clearly lighthearted - but I was suggesting that you're causing yourself offence, even if you're laughing it off at the same time.
Let’s hope so.
...although if it takes hold... 28 weeks later we might be wishing we could leave
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmSjmvY9MLc
First piece of decent PR for Iran for months.
https://twitter.com/business/status/1234870015846948865
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-cases/
It has gone from 248 on 5Feb to 10297 on 2 Mar.
That is an exponential growth of 17% a day or a doubling every five days.
The increase in the UK from 39 to 51 in a day is a 30% growth in a day, or a doubling every three days.
If the first case in the UK was on 31st Jan, then it has been a 17% a day growth to get up to 51 today, or a doubling every five days.
Biden 1.81
Sanders 3.05
Bloomberg 16.5
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.128161111
In 14 days, I'd suggest not a lot. It takes longer than that to get scurvy.