I reckon this is the best thing we could do. Accept the economy is going to make a massive hit. 5% drop in GDP, whatever. Who cares if the alternative is bubonic apocalypse, and 5% dead, and 10% f*cked.
Just tell us all to stay home, for two months, apart from essential workers. Do the best we can via the Net. Let the virus burn out.
We will manage. It will be grim, but we will cope. Trying to soldier on seems stupid.
Under that scenario will finally find out who really are essential workers.
Indeed.
This is what China has done, and it seems to have *worked*, tho at massive cost to wider social happiness, etc
But there are no good choices. A general lockdown is possibly the best way forward now.
No, a general lockdown is possibly the best way forward in a few months time when evidence say it is necessary.
Right now, when its not in the wild here, what purpose would it serve?
If you wish, then based on Ms Patel's past performances on countering CounterTerrorism as well as some of her sartorial crimes, I shall be happy to call for her to go now.
I am in 2 minds about her. She can appear quite dim - the counter-terrorism interview and misleading the House of Commons over the number of EU citizens with settled status, for instance. She was sacked for lying and ignoring the rules and I do wonder how attached to the rule of law she is. Plus her sartorial crimes.
OTOH her instincts were right over HK, contrary to Raab’s and she showed a very human empathy with Harry Dunn’s family. And there are reports that the Home Office has resisted giving her a copy of the report on grooming gangs which, if true, seems extraordinary.
I do wonder whether her real problem is that she has been promoted too early and that some of the allegations arise from her not having the experience or guile to know how to deal with those reporting to her. I suspect also that she may be good at managing up but not at managing down and has insufficient experience actually how to get things done in a large organisation, even one reporting to you. That may be an overly charitable view. But the Home Office is not exactly famed for its competence, is it?
The Home Office needs shutting down and restarting from scratch. It seems to be continually dysfunctional no matter who heads it up so we cannot blame any Home Office faux-pas's on Ms Patel. However, comparing her to Raab is setting a very low bar. Even I think she deserves better than that.
She may be intelligent in some areas of endeavour, but I am not convinced that politics is her strength.
I reckon this is the best thing we could do. Accept the economy is going to make a massive hit. 5% drop in GDP, whatever. Who cares if the alternative is bubonic apocalypse, and 5% dead, and 10% f*cked.
Just tell us all to stay home, for two months, apart from essential workers. Do the best we can via the Net. Let the virus burn out.
We will manage. It will be grim, but we will cope. Trying to soldier on seems stupid.
Under that scenario will finally find out who really are essential workers.
Indeed.
This is what China has done, and it seems to have *worked*, tho at massive cost to wider social happiness, etc
But there are no good choices. A general lockdown is possibly the best way forward now.
No, a general lockdown is possibly the best way forward in a few months time when evidence say it is necessary.
Right now, when its not in the wild here, what purpose would it serve?
I think the purpose would be to prevent it spreading in the wild. When your data on who is infected is delayed by a long incubation period then there's a risk of always being behind the curve.
Anyone know what we should be expecting in Virginia or Vermont? What is par for both?
Big Biden win, even bigger Sanders win.
How big for Biden in Virginia?
Vermont's probably not worth paying attention to.
A good start for Sanders is putting Biden below 15% in VT, and hence sweeping the state. 20% lead is what 538 has for par in VA, and I'd agree with that. If there's been a Biden surge it should be convincing.
I reckon this is the best thing we could do. Accept the economy is going to make a massive hit. 5% drop in GDP, whatever. Who cares if the alternative is bubonic apocalypse, and 5% dead, and 10% f*cked.
Just tell us all to stay home, for two months, apart from essential workers. Do the best we can via the Net. Let the virus burn out.
We will manage. It will be grim, but we will cope. Trying to soldier on seems stupid.
Under that scenario will finally find out who really are essential workers.
Indeed.
This is what China has done, and it seems to have *worked*, tho at massive cost to wider social happiness, etc
But there are no good choices. A general lockdown is possibly the best way forward now.
No, a general lockdown is possibly the best way forward in a few months time when evidence say it is necessary.
Right now, when its not in the wild here, what purpose would it serve?
I think the purpose would be to prevent it spreading in the wild. When your data on who is infected is delayed by a long incubation period then there's a risk of always being behind the curve.
But the Chief Science Officer calmly and lucidly addressed this earlier today. He said that if you do a premature shutdown then you cause a lot of disruption for very little purpose since it isn't necessary yet - and then if you reach a point it is necessary people are already grating from the restrictions so ignore the restrictions in the future just as you need them to be followed.
He was quite clear and logical that a shutdown should be timed for maximum effect when it is scientifically the right thing to do. In 2 months time this virus will still be out in the rest of the world and might be even worse so why act now when its not necessary but might be in the future?
Am I the only one that thinks that the main flaw in the Dem primary process is that it's too late? By the time the GE comes around the losing candidate's supporters are still licking their wounds. Push it two months earlier and there'd be more time for the party to get fully behind the winner.
I reckon this is the best thing we could do. Accept the economy is going to make a massive hit. 5% drop in GDP, whatever. Who cares if the alternative is bubonic apocalypse, and 5% dead, and 10% f*cked.
Just tell us all to stay home, for two months, apart from essential workers. Do the best we can via the Net. Let the virus burn out.
We will manage. It will be grim, but we will cope. Trying to soldier on seems stupid.
You clearly missed the Chief Science Officer earlier who lucidly explained why you are wrong.
The time may come when that is necessary but that will depend upon science, not panicking. If we start doing that now when its not necessary as its not in the wild in this country yet, then what happens in 2 months time if the government believes it is necessary by then due to the science and evidence - but we've already had 2 months of lockdown and can't cope with another 2 months?
If you're going to do that you have to do it at the right time. It would need to be a Goldilocks lockdown, not too early, not too late.
When it comes to a pandemic plague, I would rather err on the side of caution, and premature action.
Look at it this way, presuming that containment measures work (and Chinese data, tho deeply flawed, suggest they do). If we go for maximum containment now, we will cause major social disruption, a spike in suicide rates, deep emotional trauma, lots of horrible stuff. Plus, of course, a deep deep recession (but that's gonna happen anyway)
If we delay, we risk all of these things anyway (from massive death tolls) plus we ensure increased mortality rates, increased infection, increased virulence, and a collapsed health system, and then possible social collapse.
I believe we should Act Now. But I am just a PBer.
No-one ever died from being paranoid and wrong, but if you were overly relaxed about a pandemic or living next to chernobyl or somesuch, that could be you and your gene pool wiped out.
Written by Americans, it mentions in passing a snag in this situation of not having a health system free at the point of use (as they think is the case in "the West") - it discourages people from getting tested, as they'll have to pay for the test (or drain their insurance allowance). China doesn't have a free health service either, but they made it free in this case so as to remove the obstacle.
China doesn't have a free health service?
Sometimes a fact will come along that staggers me.
Yes, the Chinese who I've met (typically middle-ranking officials) are matter-of-fact about it - "It'd be nice but we can't afford it yet, so we have an inexpensive hospital-centred health service instead." They find the NHS interesting as a possible future model, among others. One of the reasons I like giving talks to Chinese groups (apart from the money) is that they're quite open about not being perfect, here to learn what they might do better, etc. I've heard that this is less common in Japan (EiT can advise!), and that the Japanese regard other systems with polite respect but don't readily think of learning from them.
The delegations carefully avoid criticisng the leadership, while being frank about problems - pollution, corruption, drugs, tax avoidance, etc.
At least half the comments on this thread should have been flagged for going off-topic so soon.
I am sympathetic to your argument, as you know, but facts are facts. This POTUS election is taking place in a context of a full-on plague, which might, very conceivably, kill millions of Americans and hospitalise millions of others.
These are not fanciful figures, they are reasonable scenarios.
So whenever you start talking about the POTUS elex you will be talking about the virus within about 3 minutes, not least coz it could actually kill half the candidates. Cf Iran's parliament
A fanatic: one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
Mate, there is no other subject.
Please explain to me how you could debate the betting opportunities around the Dem primaries WITHOUT referencing a massive global menace which presages intense global death.
Answer, you can't.
It would be like discussing the Grand National betting opportunities without mentioning the fact the race will take place during a bizarre radioactive tornado, which attacks certain kinds of horses.
Then, when everyone groans, and then one horse subsequently falls over and needs to be put down, you shout even louder: "ah, you see - I told you I was right! It was just a worst case scenario!!"
I see you are still in "this is just the flu" stage. Good luck.
Absolute bollocks.
Good luck,
No offence, but I don't need your "luck".
This may hurt you to hear this but none of the actions I've taken over this virus have been predicated on a single thing you've said on this website. I've done my own research (weeks before you popped up) and I'm most impressed by professionals, experts and those able to conduct sober analysis of data and information even in highly charged situations, without letting their emotions get the better of them.
You think you're helping but actually your presence on this site is supremely selfish as you're using it to exorcise your innermost fears and help develop and roadtest a juicy future plot narrative.
I think it's atrocious behaviour.
Log off, and have a think about that.
I wish you well, and hope you and your kids do fine. They should do, looking at the science.
Exit polls showing Biden getting 6 in 10 black voters in Virginia, same rate as in South Carolina. Biden could sweep the south if that holds everywhere.
ABC calls Maine for Biden. That's a state Sanders was expected to win, if Biden has won it clearly enough that an early call makes sense then that's huge!
EDIT: Scrap that, they called it for Sanders and someone tweeted it wrong!
When it comes to a pandemic plague, I would rather err on the side of caution, and premature action.
Look at it this way, presuming that containment measures work (and Chinese data, tho deeply flawed, suggest they do). If we go for maximum containment now, we will cause major social disruption, a spike in suicide rates, deep emotional trauma, lots of horrible stuff. Plus, of course, a deep deep recession (but that's gonna happen anyway)
If we delay, we risk all of these things anyway (from massive death tolls) plus we ensure increased mortality rates, increased infection, increased virulence, and a collapsed health system, and then possible social collapse.
I believe we should Act Now. But I am just a PBer.
You're not being cautious, you're being paranoid and panicking.
Cautious is listening to the scientific evidence.
The key point was that containment measures can't be done for long. Serious containment can only be time limited. So you don't waste your opportunity to do serious containment when it isn't necessary (thus inflicting unnecessary damage) while also ensuring when you do need to do containment you're incapable of doing so as you've already done it.
To use an analogy, you know that a zombie is potentially coming to kill you and you have a gun with one bullet in it that can kill the zombie. Do you point in the vague distance despite the fact that you can't even see the zombie in your sights yet and shoot the gun immediately to be "cautious"? Do you hold the gun with your only bullet, steady yourself, aim and fire when only you have the zombie locked within your sights and are able to take it down?
Don't waste our silver bullet of containment prematurely. Its too valuable, we may need it yet.
ABC calls Maine for Biden. That's a state Sanders was expected to win, if Biden has won it clearly enough that an early call makes sense then that's huge!
Bloody hell, that was supposed to be nailed-on for Sanders as you say. Maybe California is in play now.
ABC calls Maine for Biden. That's a state Sanders was expected to win, if Biden has won it clearly enough that an early call makes sense then that's huge!
Bloody hell, that was supposed to be nailed-on for Sanders as you say. Maybe California is in play now.
Abort, abort, it was a twitter error and Sanders did win it.
Interesting that Biden looks on course for a big VA win but Sanders holding ME comfortably enough to call before polls even close.
ABC calls Maine for Biden. That's a state Sanders was expected to win, if Biden has won it clearly enough that an early call makes sense then that's huge!
EDIT: Scrap that, they called it for Sanders and someone tweeted it wrong!
Annoying, I have a couple of quid on Biden in Maine
Biden could have been boosted by his S.C. win and the endorsements that followed. 47% of Virginia voters made up their mind in the past few days, early exit polls show.
I reckon this is the best thing we could do. Accept the economy is going to make a massive hit. 5% drop in GDP, whatever. Who cares if the alternative is bubonic apocalypse, and 5% dead, and 10% f*cked.
Just tell us all to stay home, for two months, apart from essential workers. Do the best we can via the Net. Let the virus burn out.
We will manage. It will be grim, but we will cope. Trying to soldier on seems stupid.
Under that scenario will finally find out who really are essential workers.
Indeed.
This is what China has done, and it seems to have *worked*, tho at massive cost to wider social happiness, etc
But there are no good choices. A general lockdown is possibly the best way forward now.
No, a general lockdown is possibly the best way forward in a few months time when evidence say it is necessary.
Right now, when its not in the wild here, what purpose would it serve?
I think the purpose would be to prevent it spreading in the wild. When your data on who is infected is delayed by a long incubation period then there's a risk of always being behind the curve.
But the Chief Science Officer calmly and lucidly addressed this earlier today. He said that if you do a premature shutdown then you cause a lot of disruption for very little purpose since it isn't necessary yet - and then if you reach a point it is necessary people are already grating from the restrictions so ignore the restrictions in the future just as you need them to be followed.
He was quite clear and logical that a shutdown should be timed for maximum effect when it is scientifically the right thing to do. In 2 months time this virus will still be out in the rest of the world and might be even worse so why act now when its not necessary but might be in the future?
I've been very impressed by our response. We have 1/50th the number of unknown origin cases of Spain, France, Germany, while doing 15x as many tests for a reason.
I reckon this is the best thing we could do. Accept the economy is going to make a massive hit. 5% drop in GDP, whatever. Who cares if the alternative is bubonic apocalypse, and 5% dead, and 10% f*cked.
Just tell us all to stay home, for two months, apart from essential workers. Do the best we can via the Net. Let the virus burn out.
We will manage. It will be grim, but we will cope. Trying to soldier on seems stupid.
Under that scenario will finally find out who really are essential workers.
Indeed.
This is what China has done, and it seems to have *worked*, tho at massive cost to wider social happiness, etc
But there are no good choices. A general lockdown is possibly the best way forward now.
No, a general lockdown is possibly the best way forward in a few months time when evidence say it is necessary.
Right now, when its not in the wild here, what purpose would it serve?
I think the purpose would be to prevent it spreading in the wild. When your data on who is infected is delayed by a long incubation period then there's a risk of always being behind the curve.
But the Chief Science Officer calmly and lucidly addressed this earlier today. He said that if you do a premature shutdown then you cause a lot of disruption for very little purpose since it isn't necessary yet - and then if you reach a point it is necessary people are already grating from the restrictions so ignore the restrictions in the future just as you need them to be followed.
He was quite clear and logical that a shutdown should be timed for maximum effect when it is scientifically the right thing to do. In 2 months time this virus will still be out in the rest of the world and might be even worse so why act now when its not necessary but might be in the future?
I've been very impressed by our response. We have 1/50th the number of unknown origin cases of Spain, France, Germany, while doing 15x as many tests for a reason.
Its very impressive.
And somewhat creepy in a "Big Brother is Watching You" kind of way.
I really like Bernie Sanders but elections in the USA aren’t won on running up huge scores in states that are slam dunks for either the Dems or GOP .
Biden maybe gaffe prone and not as punchy as he used to be but I think he’ll have a better chance of winning in swing states .
I think that Virginia result is huge for Biden . Sanders will romp home in California . Texas is now the real interest .
It's definitely part of my bias, but Biden reminds me of my recently deceased grandfather. He's a good bloke and won't do anything outrageous, and he'd be a good chat with in the pub. Sanders would be an absolute bore. I'll never back someone that I wouldn't be able to have a drink with.
I've been very impressed by our response. We have 1/50th the number of unknown origin cases of Spain, France, Germany, while doing 15x as many tests for a reason.
Its very impressive.
And somewhat creepy in a "Big Brother is Watching You" kind of way.
If Big Brother means that the NHS watches out for virus epidemics efficiently. bring it on.
Seems like the NHS really trying to get out in front...unlike America
Thousands of intensive care patients to be tested for Covid-19
NHS bosses have ramped up their efforts to detect the virus by ordering all 135 acute hospital trusts in England to routinely test anyone in intensive care units (ICUs) who has a breathing problem.
This looks like another defeat for the Woke crowd who were fully behind Bernie Sanders (although I don't think Bernie is particularly Woke himself, more of an old-fashioned socialist).
I really like Bernie Sanders but elections in the USA aren’t won on running up huge scores in states that are slam dunks for either the Dems or GOP .
Biden maybe gaffe prone and not as punchy as he used to be but I think he’ll have a better chance of winning in swing states .
I think that Virginia result is huge for Biden . Sanders will romp home in California . Texas is now the real interest .
It's definitely part of my bias, but Biden reminds me of my recently deceased grandfather. He's a good bloke and won't do anything outrageous, and he'd be a good chat with in the pub. Sanders would be an absolute bore. I'll never back someone that I wouldn't be able to have a drink with.
It's partly because Sanders has relaxed his style in this respect, particularly with key voting groups like African-Americans, that he's doing better. However, as mentioned somewhere below, Biden has a hint of "Southern" interpersonal appeal, too.
Beyond their rival "bar-room" appeals, it must still be a concern for Democrats that Biden is not going to look like a super keyed-in man of action in a crisis like the Corononavirus outbreak though, I think.
I've been very impressed by our response. We have 1/50th the number of unknown origin cases of Spain, France, Germany, while doing 15x as many tests for a reason.
Its very impressive.
And somewhat creepy in a "Big Brother is Watching You" kind of way.
If Big Brother means that the NHS watches out for virus epidemics efficiently. bring it on.
Comments
Right now, when its not in the wild here, what purpose would it serve?
She may be intelligent in some areas of endeavour, but I am not convinced that politics is her strength.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/03/03/us/elections/results-virginia-president-democrat-primary-election.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5ckTlBGXyM
Vermont's probably not worth paying attention to.
Virginia is much less certain, NYT predictor has it as likely Biden, and he needs to see a big win there to have the Joementum.
Edit: CNN call Virginia for Biden, Vermont for Sanders, so no surprises there.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/03/03/us/elections/forecast-super-tuesday-primary.html?action=click&module=ELEX_results&pgtype=Interactive®ion=Navigation
He was quite clear and logical that a shutdown should be timed for maximum effect when it is scientifically the right thing to do. In 2 months time this virus will still be out in the rest of the world and might be even worse so why act now when its not necessary but might be in the future?
The delegations carefully avoid criticisng the leadership, while being frank about problems - pollution, corruption, drugs, tax avoidance, etc.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.128161111
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/03/03/us/elections/results-vermont-president-democrat-primary-election.html?action=click&module=Spotlight&pgtype=Homepage
EDIT: Scrap that, they called it for Sanders and someone tweeted it wrong!
Cautious is listening to the scientific evidence.
The key point was that containment measures can't be done for long. Serious containment can only be time limited. So you don't waste your opportunity to do serious containment when it isn't necessary (thus inflicting unnecessary damage) while also ensuring when you do need to do containment you're incapable of doing so as you've already done it.
To use an analogy, you know that a zombie is potentially coming to kill you and you have a gun with one bullet in it that can kill the zombie.
Do you point in the vague distance despite the fact that you can't even see the zombie in your sights yet and shoot the gun immediately to be "cautious"?
Do you hold the gun with your only bullet, steady yourself, aim and fire when only you have the zombie locked within your sights and are able to take it down?
Don't waste our silver bullet of containment prematurely. Its too valuable, we may need it yet.
Are you sure that information is correct?
Interesting that Biden looks on course for a big VA win but Sanders holding ME comfortably enough to call before polls even close.
Biden could have been boosted by his S.C. win and the endorsements that followed. 47% of Virginia voters made up their mind in the past few days, early exit polls show.
And somewhat creepy in a "Big Brother is Watching You" kind of way.
Biden 47%
Sanders 31%
Bloomberg 8%
Warren 8%
Gabbard 2%
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/03/03/us/elections/results-virginia-president-democrat-primary-election.html
https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-51676923?__twitter_impression=true
VA,VT 7pm
NC 7.30pm
AL, ME, MA, OK, TN 8pm
AR 8.30pm
CO, MN, TX 9pm
UT 10pm
CA 11pm
Some TN polls will be open until 11pm Eastern due to tornadoes
When you should have said "Polls have now closed on much of the East coast"
Is it so hard to admit you might have made a tiny error?
Biden maybe gaffe prone and not as punchy as he used to be but I think he’ll have a better chance of winning in swing states .
I think that Virginia result is huge for Biden . Sanders will romp home in California . Texas is now the real interest .
And even if I could have phrased it better I am certainly not going to concede anything to Philip Thompson and TimB
12:00AM
12:00AM
Joementum in the South.
Trump may not get four more years
Thousands of intensive care patients to be tested for Covid-19
NHS bosses have ramped up their efforts to detect the virus by ordering all 135 acute hospital trusts in England to routinely test anyone in intensive care units (ICUs) who has a breathing problem.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/03/thousands-of-intensive-care-patients-to-be-tested-for-covid-19
Beyond their rival "bar-room" appeals, it must still be a concern for Democrats that Biden is not going to look like a super keyed-in man of action in a crisis like the Corononavirus outbreak though, I think.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8XdL1nZrIU&t=3s