The East Asians understand at an individual level how to beat epidemics. Top down interventions organise them but without a fundamental willingness to comply, it won't work. I suggest it is cultural behaviour which will come to be shown as the key determinant.
By contrast, the British are the least concerned about this virus and have seemingly changed behaviour the least. I observe a wanton ignorance in our society that is going to be a severe impediment to tackling the epidemic.
This is why the British public need to be terrified into obedience. Far too many of my educated friends are still entirely nonchalant (Oh it's like Y2K, or the Bird Flu scare etc), even when the evidence is there in front of them.
The paradox is we need some panic. If we can horrify everyone, then we have a much better chance of the most horrific outcome not happening.
I agree. Panic buying bog rolls is progress as it suggests some psychological breakthrough from denial or wanton ignorance to action. In any case, that particular commodity scarcity can be ameliorated quite easily by supermarkets setting appropriate policy.
But look in any newspaper comments page or Facebook post and there are many many deniers. These are people that scoff and sneer at guidance about washing hands and so get on trains coughing and spluttering. In short, they are cretins.
For matters of public health we can only be as good as our weakest links.
I have to say I was rather taken aback when I got a WhatsApp from a long term friend this morning, who is a well respected academic in their field, telling me flu kills 10,000 oldies a year in the UK, so this is no biggie and thought the government was over reacting.
A lot rests on how the virus will react to warmer temperatures. Because if it reacts badly (ie. in our favour) then the number of deaths really might be pretty relatively low.
Even assuming the best and it isn't too much worse than a really bad flu season, it was the claim the government is over reacting that took me aback. Italy sticking 16 million people in lock down and at the moment the UK government is telling people to wash their hands and get tested seems in anything not over reacting enough (I expect that to change tomorrow).
Normalcy Bias.
People don't want to believe really bad news, indeed some simply cannot compute it.
This was from somebody who deals with stats for a living as an academic.
One of the curious aspects of this Bias is that, apparently, it can affect almost anyone. It has been observed in 70% of people in experiments.
eg There were very smart bankers in the Twin Towers who delayed evacuation, despite the clear evidence they would die if they didn't flee. These were bankers who dealt with risk and maths every day.
Because they were told not to / to return to their desks
Hermann Kahn pointed out in his seminal work "On Thermonuclear War" that if a problem is big enough (in terms of effects or upsetting existing apple carts), the presenter of the issue becomes the problem in the eyes of those it upsets.
For context - he was talking about national level shelter programs (Swiss style bunkers for every house) and stockpiling emergency food, medicine and equipment for a post nuclear war environment.
The East Asians understand at an individual level how to beat epidemics. Top down interventions organise them but without a fundamental willingness to comply, it won't work. I suggest it is cultural behaviour which will come to be shown as the key determinant.
By contrast, the British are the least concerned about this virus and have seemingly changed behaviour the least. I observe a wanton ignorance in our society that is going to be a severe impediment to tackling the epidemic.
This is why the British public need to be terrified into obedience. Far too many of my educated friends are still entirely nonchalant (Oh it's like Y2K, or the Bird Flu scare etc), even when the evidence is there in front of them.
The paradox is we need some panic. If we can horrify everyone, then we have a much better chance of the most horrific outcome not happening.
I agree. Panic buying bog rolls is progress as it suggests some psychological breakthrough from denial or wanton ignorance to action. In any case, that particular commodity scarcity can be ameliorated quite easily by supermarkets setting appropriate policy.
But look in any newspaper comments page or Facebook post and there are many many deniers. These are people that scoff and sneer at guidance about washing hands and so get on trains coughing and spluttering. In short, they are cretins.
For matters of public health we can only be as good as our weakest links.
I have to say I was rather taken aback when I got a WhatsApp from a long term friend this morning, who is a well respected academic in their field, telling me flu kills 10,000 oldies a year in the UK, so this is no biggie and thought the government was over reacting.
A lot rests on how the virus will react to warmer temperatures. Because if it reacts badly (ie. in our favour) then the number of deaths really might be pretty relatively low.
Even assuming the best and it isn't too much worse than a really bad flu season, it was the claim the government is over reacting that took me aback. Italy sticking 16 million people in lock down and at the moment the UK government is telling people to wash their hands and get tested seems in anything not over reacting enough (I expect that to change tomorrow).
Normalcy Bias.
People don't want to believe really bad news, indeed some simply cannot compute it.
This was from somebody who deals with stats for a living as an academic.
One of the curious aspects of this Bias is that, apparently, it can affect almost anyone. It has been observed in 70% of people in experiments.
eg There were very smart bankers in the Twin Towers who delayed evacuation, despite the clear evidence they would die if they didn't flee. These were bankers who dealt with risk and maths every day.
Because they were told not to / to return to their desks
Hermann Kahn pointed out in his seminal work "On Thermonuclear War" that if a problem is big enough (in terms of effects or upsetting existing apple carts), the presenter of the issue becomes the problem in the eyes of those it upsets.
For context - he was talking about national level shelter programs (Swiss style bunkers for every house) and stockpiling emergency food, medicine and equipment for a post nuclear war environment.
Where is the BEST place in the UK to sit out this plague? What do people think?
You could argue for a Hebridean island, or the Shetlands, Scillies etc. But then you're probably far away from people you love, and what if supplies get cut off, and what if you suddenly need a hospital?
You could argue a small cottage/village near a big city, with a garden for air and sun, but again local hospitals will be filled with the city dwellers first, if anything goes wrong.
So maybe in a big city near a good hospital? But what if civil disorder breaks out?
Thoughts?
No. You sit where you are, follow basic precautions, and don't be a selfish arse. If you move from where you are and are an asymptomatic carrier you just make things worse for everyone else.
Where is the BEST place in the UK to sit out this plague? What do people think?
You could argue for a Hebridean island, or the Shetlands, Scillies etc. But then you're probably far away from people you love, and what if supplies get cut off, and what if you suddenly need a hospital?
You could argue a small cottage/village near a big city, with a garden for air and sun, but again local hospitals will be filled with the city dwellers first, if anything goes wrong.
So maybe in a big city near a good hospital? But what if civil disorder breaks out?
Thoughts?
London - that way you get it , recover in 2 weeks and get on with your life without obsessing over a nasty form of flu
Yes. There was an interview with a woman not so long ago on the radio who was the same.
She could remember everything (except being in the womb). She remembers at age one everyone encouraging her to walk so she's thought ok what the hell I'll give it a go.
Might be what all babies think.
I can remember being born. Going through the birth canal.
But I was nearly five weeks late, so maybe my memory circuits were a bit more advanced?
I could draw you a floor plan of a house we left before I was two.
What are the Italians playing at? In fact, what are we playing at?
Britons in Italy's locked-down north are 'free to return home or complete their holiday', says UK Foreign Office - despite Italians being threatened with JAIL if they leave the coronavirus quarantine zones
The Foreign Office confirmed that British tourists in the northern parts of the country - the worst affected region - 'are free to return home or complete their holiday' under guidelines from the Italian government.
They said nationals will not be met by anyone at the airport in Britain, nor will they be put into quarantine or told to take a test for the bug which has killed 3,500 world wide and has infected more than 100,000.
Whoever leaked the lockdown in Italy is probably going to have 100s if not more deaths on their hands, as now 1000s of people have scattered all across Italy.
Not to mention the newspaper that published it. Irresponsible press writ large. I think, think, that this might not happen in this country. Or at least the Government would be able to legally prevent publication, and the newspapers would comply.
Where is the BEST place in the UK to sit out this plague? What do people think?
You could argue for a Hebridean island, or the Shetlands, Scillies etc. But then you're probably far away from people you love, and what if supplies get cut off, and what if you suddenly need a hospital?
You could argue a small cottage/village near a big city, with a garden for air and sun, but again local hospitals will be filled with the city dwellers first, if anything goes wrong.
So maybe in a big city near a good hospital? But what if civil disorder breaks out?
Thoughts?
London - that way you get it , recover in 2 weeks and get on with your life without obsessing over a nasty form of flu
I thought you could catch this strain more than once?
Britons in Italy's locked-down north are 'free to return home or complete their holiday', says UK Foreign Office - despite Italians being threatened with JAIL if they leave the coronavirus quarantine zones
To be fair until the mortality rate of this is known (why the hell is no random testing being done? which would establish it ) then to close down a whole region is pretty ridiculous especialy as it is widespread beyond it . china probably did the right thing at the start but why cut off northern Italy?
I don't think I can recall a single thing from earlier than 4 years old, and I'm not certain about whether I actually remember those or I think I do based on what people told me.
Boudicca was not English, but it's probable that most inhabitants of Norfolk and Suffolk today have Icenian ancestors. And, they would undoubtedly see themselves as English.
There is little evidence for that. Most inhabitants of Norfolk today are not descendants of Icenians, as judged by their names of the place names of the towns that they built. There is little or no discernible Celtic influence.
The descendants of the Icenians are much further West, because waves of invasion pushed them there. The descendents will be in Wales or the West Country.
If you believe Boudicca was English, then you believe Pythagoras was Italian, Euclid & Aristarchus were Egyptian and Epicurus & Diogenes were Turkish.
These philosophers are all associated with Sicily or Alexandria or present-day Turkey. But they were Greek.
Does anyone know the names of his other 5 'official' kids?
2 sons and 2 daughters with ex-wife Marina Wheeler and a daughter with Helen MacIntyre. I know there are rumours of a sixth child with another woman but we're never going to know unless she goes public.
If we can find out the names of the others, it could give us a handle on the kind of names Boris prefers.
Of course there's always the possibility that he lets their mothers have the final say.
See the final paragraph of the thread header.
Doh! I didn't read that bit. Well with names like that and the possibility that Carrie might have different ideas I wouldn't touch that market, the prices are all too short and there's too much opportunity for insider betting by the staff at Downing Street and others who might be in the know.
Boudicca. Currently in favour with the posh, and spot-on combo of classical history and English nationalism.
Boudicca ... English nationalism.
Boudicca was not English because there were no English people on these islands in AD60.
Buddig was Welsh.
‘English’ is not really an ethnicity, it is a nationality.
She is not English (whether defined ethnically or by nationality). There was no notion of England until the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons.
Buddig did not speak English (but a Brythonic Celtic language).
Yours is a truly outrageous piece of cultural appropriation. The intellectual equivalent of a skinhead's fist.
In your picture, King Arthur is English ... even though he spent his life fighting the English.
The problem is we have next to no reliable historical record of what was taking place between say, 440 AD and 600 AD. It's hard to know if Arthur actually existed.
Wessex was supposedly an Anglo-Saxon kingdom, yet its founder, Cerdic, and his two successors had British names.
Boudicca was not English, but it's probable that most inhabitants of Norfolk and Suffolk today have Icenian ancestors. And, they would undoubtedly see themselves as English.
Welcome back.
I think there is pretty compelling evidence that a war leader lived at the time and had at least a temporary success in holding back the hordes.
I remember years ago reading speculation that the historical figure Riothamus (operating around AD470) was Arthur based on the suggestion that "Riothamus" was actually a title (it approximates to "Greatest King") and that there is evidence of an upsurge in babies being named "Arthur" around that time
The East Asians understand at an individual level how to beat epidemics. Top down interventions organise them but without a fundamental willingness to comply, it won't work. I suggest it is cultural behaviour which will come to be shown as the key determinant.
By contrast, the British are the least concerned about this virus and have seemingly changed behaviour the least. I observe a wanton ignorance in our society that is going to be a severe impediment to tackling the epidemic.
This is why the British public need to be terrified into obedience. Far too many of my educated friends are still entirely nonchalant (Oh it's like Y2K, or the Bird Flu scare etc), even when the evidence is there in front of them.
The paradox is we need some panic. If we can horrify everyone, then we have a much better chance of the most horrific outcome not happening.
I agree. Panic buying bog rolls is progress as it suggests some psychological breakthrough from denial or wanton ignorance to action. In any case, that particular commodity scarcity can be ameliorated quite easily by supermarkets setting appropriate policy.
But look in any newspaper comments page or Facebook post and there are many many deniers. These are people that scoff and sneer at guidance about washing hands and so get on trains coughing and spluttering. In short, they are cretins.
For matters of public health we can only be as good as our weakest links.
I have to say I was rather taken aback when I got a WhatsApp from a long term friend this morning, who is a well respected academic in their field, telling me flu kills 10,000 oldies a year in the UK, so this is no biggie and thought the government was over reacting.
A lot rests on how the virus will react to warmer temperatures. Because if it reacts badly (ie. in our favour) then the number of deaths really might be pretty relatively low.
Even assuming the best and it isn't too much worse than a really bad flu season, it was the claim the government is over reacting that took me aback. Italy sticking 16 million people in lock down and at the moment the UK government is telling people to wash their hands and get tested seems in anything not over reacting enough (I expect that to change tomorrow).
Normalcy Bias.
People don't want to believe really bad news, indeed some simply cannot compute it.
This was from somebody who deals with stats for a living as an academic.
One of the curious aspects of this Bias is that, apparently, it can affect almost anyone. It has been observed in 70% of people in experiments.
eg There were very smart bankers in the Twin Towers who delayed evacuation, despite the clear evidence they would die if they didn't flee. These were bankers who dealt with risk and maths every day.
Because they were told not to / to return to their desks
Hermann Kahn pointed out in his seminal work "On Thermonuclear War" that if a problem is big enough (in terms of effects or upsetting existing apple carts), the presenter of the issue becomes the problem in the eyes of those it upsets.
For context - he was talking about national level shelter programs (Swiss style bunkers for every house) and stockpiling emergency food, medicine and equipment for a post nuclear war environment.
Interestingly, the suggestions of post attack preparations he was making were based on calculations that such preparations would save tens of millions of lives in the post attack environment and shorten rebuilding by many decades.
The reaction was (a) You want a war, (b) it is evil to think about the aftermath (c) preparing to survive an attack makes it more likely and (d) wibble.
Where is the BEST place in the UK to sit out this plague? What do people think?
You could argue for a Hebridean island, or the Shetlands, Scillies etc. But then you're probably far away from people you love, and what if supplies get cut off, and what if you suddenly need a hospital?
You could argue a small cottage/village near a big city, with a garden for air and sun, but again local hospitals will be filled with the city dwellers first, if anything goes wrong.
So maybe in a big city near a good hospital? But what if civil disorder breaks out?
Thoughts?
London - that way you get it , recover in 2 weeks and get on with your life without obsessing over a nasty form of flu
I thought you could catch this strain more than once?
I think the anecdotal reports of such are more than likely people who tested negative, were let go and then appeared again. It seems in places like Japan, you must have 2-3 concurrent negative tests before you will be signed off.
Does anyone know the names of his other 5 'official' kids?
2 sons and 2 daughters with ex-wife Marina Wheeler and a daughter with Helen MacIntyre. I know there are rumours of a sixth child with another woman but we're never going to know unless she goes public.
If we can find out the names of the others, it could give us a handle on the kind of names Boris prefers.
Of course there's always the possibility that he lets their mothers have the final say.
See the final paragraph of the thread header.
Doh! I didn't read that bit. Well with names like that and the possibility that Carrie might have different ideas I wouldn't touch that market, the prices are all too short and there's too much opportunity for insider betting by the staff at Downing Street and others who might be in the know.
Boudicca. Currently in favour with the posh, and spot-on combo of classical history and English nationalism.
Boudicca ... English nationalism.
Boudicca was not English because there were no English people on these islands in AD60.
Buddig was Welsh.
She was Iceni. There were indeed no English people in Britain in AD60 but she wasn't Welsh either, What is now Wales was split amongst a number of tribes such as the Demetae and the Silures. As for who are her heirs, that depends on whether you are talking culturally (no) or genetically (thats a whole can of worms). Contrast -
Where is the BEST place in the UK to sit out this plague? What do people think?
You could argue for a Hebridean island, or the Shetlands, Scillies etc. But then you're probably far away from people you love, and what if supplies get cut off, and what if you suddenly need a hospital?
You could argue a small cottage/village near a big city, with a garden for air and sun, but again local hospitals will be filled with the city dwellers first, if anything goes wrong.
So maybe in a big city near a good hospital? But what if civil disorder breaks out?
Thoughts?
London - that way you get it , recover in 2 weeks and get on with your life without obsessing over a nasty form of flu
It will also be eerily quiet as everyone else will have gone Somewhere Much Safer.
Where is the BEST place in the UK to sit out this plague? What do people think?
You could argue for a Hebridean island, or the Shetlands, Scillies etc. But then you're probably far away from people you love, and what if supplies get cut off, and what if you suddenly need a hospital?
You could argue a small cottage/village near a big city, with a garden for air and sun, but again local hospitals will be filled with the city dwellers first, if anything goes wrong.
So maybe in a big city near a good hospital? But what if civil disorder breaks out?
Thoughts?
London - that way you get it , recover in 2 weeks and get on with your life without obsessing over a nasty form of flu
It will also be eerily quiet as everyone else will have gone Somewhere Much Safer.
Where is the BEST place in the UK to sit out this plague? What do people think?
You could argue for a Hebridean island, or the Shetlands, Scillies etc. But then you're probably far away from people you love, and what if supplies get cut off, and what if you suddenly need a hospital?
You could argue a small cottage/village near a big city, with a garden for air and sun, but again local hospitals will be filled with the city dwellers first, if anything goes wrong.
So maybe in a big city near a good hospital? But what if civil disorder breaks out?
Thoughts?
London - that way you get it , recover in 2 weeks and get on with your life without obsessing over a nasty form of flu
I thought you could catch this strain more than once?
That would be very odd given how viruses work . Much more likely the initial tests messed up
Yes. There was an interview with a woman not so long ago on the radio who was the same.
She could remember everything (except being in the womb). She remembers at age one everyone encouraging her to walk so she's thought ok what the hell I'll give it a go.
Might be what all babies think.
I can remember being born. Going through the birth canal.
But I was nearly five weeks late, so maybe my memory circuits were a bit more advanced?
I could draw you a floor plan of a house we left before I was two.
Must be more common than people think. I can just about remember a week last Thursday that said.
Does anyone know the names of his other 5 'official' kids?
2 sons and 2 daughters with ex-wife Marina Wheeler and a daughter with Helen MacIntyre. I know there are rumours of a sixth child with another woman but we're never going to know unless she goes public.
If we can find out the names of the others, it could give us a handle on the kind of names Boris prefers.
Of course there's always the possibility that he lets their mothers have the final say.
See the final paragraph of the thread header.
Doh! I didn't read that bit. Well with names like that and the possibility that Carrie might have different ideas I wouldn't touch that market, the prices are all too short and there's too much opportunity for insider betting by the staff at Downing Street and others who might be in the know.
Boudicca. Currently in favour with the posh, and spot-on combo of classical history and English nationalism.
Boudicca ... English nationalism.
Boudicca was not English because there were no English people on these islands in AD60.
Buddig was Welsh.
She was Iceni. There were indeed no English people in Britain in AD60 but she wasn't Welsh either, What is now Wales was split amongst a number of tribes such as the Demetae and the Silures. As for who are her heirs, that depends on whether you are talking culturally (no) or genetically (thats a whole can of worms). Contrast -
Yet one of the mysteries is why there are so few celtic place and geographical names surviving, particularly in the south and east. Really it’s mostly rivers.
Where is the BEST place in the UK to sit out this plague? What do people think?
You could argue for a Hebridean island, or the Shetlands, Scillies etc. But then you're probably far away from people you love, and what if supplies get cut off, and what if you suddenly need a hospital?
You could argue a small cottage/village near a big city, with a garden for air and sun, but again local hospitals will be filled with the city dwellers first, if anything goes wrong.
So maybe in a big city near a good hospital? But what if civil disorder breaks out?
Thoughts?
London - that way you get it , recover in 2 weeks and get on with your life without obsessing over a nasty form of flu
I thought you could catch this strain more than once?
I haven't heard anyting which seriously suggests this, and all prior evidence with other coronas suggests that is not the case.
What has happened is that some people have relapsed, ie they never fully recovered fom the 1st infection, whichh can happen to most diseases, and happened to me with Flu once.
What are the Italians playing at? In fact, what are we playing at?
Britons in Italy's locked-down north are 'free to return home or complete their holiday', says UK Foreign Office - despite Italians being threatened with JAIL if they leave the coronavirus quarantine zones
The Foreign Office confirmed that British tourists in the northern parts of the country - the worst affected region - 'are free to return home or complete their holiday' under guidelines from the Italian government.
They said nationals will not be met by anyone at the airport in Britain, nor will they be put into quarantine or told to take a test for the bug which has killed 3,500 world wide and has infected more than 100,000.
Someone has war gamed this (not Cummings obvs). I just hope whoever has done it has it correct. To me it feels a little bit fatalistic.
Where is the BEST place in the UK to sit out this plague? What do people think?
You could argue for a Hebridean island, or the Shetlands, Scillies etc. But then you're probably far away from people you love, and what if supplies get cut off, and what if you suddenly need a hospital?
You could argue a small cottage/village near a big city, with a garden for air and sun, but again local hospitals will be filled with the city dwellers first, if anything goes wrong.
So maybe in a big city near a good hospital? But what if civil disorder breaks out?
Thoughts?
No. You sit where you are, follow basic precautions, and don't be a selfish arse. If you move from where you are and are an asymptomatic carrier you just make things worse for everyone else.
Feck off.
I will do what it takes to give me, my wife and my kids, and other loved ones, the best chance of making it through this unscathed. I imagine 90% of humanity feels the same.
Moreover, NOT catching the bug and therefore not spreading it is the responsible thing to do.
If you stay at home, get the food delivered, and work as best you can from there, it doesn’t really matter where in the country you are.
Where is the BEST place in the UK to sit out this plague? What do people think?
You could argue for a Hebridean island, or the Shetlands, Scillies etc. But then you're probably far away from people you love, and what if supplies get cut off, and what if you suddenly need a hospital?
You could argue a small cottage/village near a big city, with a garden for air and sun, but again local hospitals will be filled with the city dwellers first, if anything goes wrong.
So maybe in a big city near a good hospital? But what if civil disorder breaks out?
Thoughts?
Why would I tell you my plans
(location doesn't matter. Just get a ventilator hooked up in the basement and a team of three nurses to give you 24 hour service.
Britons in Italy's locked-down north are 'free to return home or complete their holiday', says UK Foreign Office - despite Italians being threatened with JAIL if they leave the coronavirus quarantine zones
To be fair until the mortality rate of this is known (why the hell is no random testing being done? which would establish it ) then to close down a whole region is pretty ridiculous especialy as it is widespread beyond it . china probably did the right thing at the start but why cut off northern Italy?
You write as if this basic point won't have occurred to the experts tracking this disease and reporting on it. And most reports are suggesting that they are finding little evidence of widespread asymptomatic infection. Now whether they are concluding this based on testing or something else, they must be basing it on something. So i'll assume for the moment that they know what they are talking about rather than yourself.
One might also point out that whilst the UK isn't doing random testing, it is doing A LOT of testing of people testing negative. They would surely be finding far more cases amongst those if there was a large amount of asymptomatic infection within the community. It wouldn't make sense that they would somehow be completely missing these people (because they could be asymptomatic for COVID-19 but still symptomatic with something else). Also there was a lot of testing on eg. cruise ships etc which was not random, but blanket testing.
Boudicca was not English, but it's probable that most inhabitants of Norfolk and Suffolk today have Icenian ancestors. And, they would undoubtedly see themselves as English.
There is little evidence for that. Most inhabitants of Norfolk today are not descendants of Icenians, as judged by their names of the place names of the towns that they built. There is little or no discernible Celtic influence.
The descendants of the Icenians are much further West, because waves of invasion pushed them there. The descendents will be in Wales or the West Country.
If you believe Boudicca was English, then you believe Pythagoras was Italian, Euclid & Aristarchus were Egyptian and Epicurus & Diogenes were Turkish.
These philosophers are all associated with Sicily or Alexandria or present-day Turkey. But they were Greek.
Boudicca was Welsh.
Her decendents will still be in East Anglia. There's a fair amount of DNA evidence that suggests that the population of East Anglia is a base layer of Celtic with a topping of Anglo-Saxon (38% to be precise).
The "invasion" was more a cultural takeover of most of the Roman Province of Britannia following the collapse of the government and, it increasingly appears, plague related to the Plague of Justinian. It was a little like the Spanish takeover in the Americas. Most people in Mexico are decended from the native populations but the cultural Spanish takeover was virtually total. That's what happened in England, with the Anglo-Saxons doing what the Spanish would later do in the Americas.
Where is the BEST place in the UK to sit out this plague? What do people think?
You could argue for a Hebridean island, or the Shetlands, Scillies etc. But then you're probably far away from people you love, and what if supplies get cut off, and what if you suddenly need a hospital?
You could argue a small cottage/village near a big city, with a garden for air and sun, but again local hospitals will be filled with the city dwellers first, if anything goes wrong.
So maybe in a big city near a good hospital? But what if civil disorder breaks out?
Thoughts?
No. You sit where you are, follow basic precautions, and don't be a selfish arse. If you move from where you are and are an asymptomatic carrier you just make things worse for everyone else.
Feck off.
I will do what it takes to give me, my wife and my kids, and other loved ones, the best chance of making it through this unscathed. I imagine 90% of humanity feels the same.
Moreover, NOT catching the bug and therefore not spreading it is the responsible thing to do.
There was a time when you were adamant you'd already had it.
Where is the BEST place in the UK to sit out this plague? What do people think?
You could argue for a Hebridean island, or the Shetlands, Scillies etc. But then you're probably far away from people you love, and what if supplies get cut off, and what if you suddenly need a hospital?
You could argue a small cottage/village near a big city, with a garden for air and sun, but again local hospitals will be filled with the city dwellers first, if anything goes wrong.
So maybe in a big city near a good hospital? But what if civil disorder breaks out?
Thoughts?
London - that way you get it , recover in 2 weeks and get on with your life without obsessing over a nasty form of flu
It will also be eerily quiet as everyone else will have gone Somewhere Much Safer.
But where is safe from an invisble virus that you may have already caught? Apparently there's a case on the isle of Wight according to the local radio, I would have thought that was a safer than average place.
Boudicca was not English, but it's probable that most inhabitants of Norfolk and Suffolk today have Icenian ancestors. And, they would undoubtedly see themselves as English.
There is little evidence for that. Most inhabitants of Norfolk today are not descendants of Icenians, as judged by their names of the place names of the towns that they built. There is little or no discernible Celtic influence.
The descendants of the Icenians are much further West, because waves of invasion pushed them there. The descendents will be in Wales or the West Country.
If you believe Boudicca was English, then you believe Pythagoras was Italian, Euclid & Aristarchus were Egyptian and Epicurus & Diogenes were Turkish.
These philosophers are all associated with Sicily or Alexandria or present-day Turkey. But they were Greek.
Boudicca was Welsh.
It's interesting how this is controversial because of the current distinction between Welsh and English identity.
If someone thinks of Stonehenge as "English" nobody argues.. Even though the builders of Stonehenge have even less to do with the "English" than Boudicca
I am trying to work out the three dimensional matrix together with associated correlations of PB-ers' views on Brexit, Party politics, and Coronavirus.
Where is the BEST place in the UK to sit out this plague? What do people think?
You could argue for a Hebridean island, or the Shetlands, Scillies etc. But then you're probably far away from people you love, and what if supplies get cut off, and what if you suddenly need a hospital?
You could argue a small cottage/village near a big city, with a garden for air and sun, but again local hospitals will be filled with the city dwellers first, if anything goes wrong.
So maybe in a big city near a good hospital? But what if civil disorder breaks out?
Thoughts?
London - that way you get it , recover in 2 weeks and get on with your life without obsessing over a nasty form of flu
If you don't mind sounding the way you sound, that's up to you, but please stop saying it is flu. Different virus. Coronavirus, not influenza virus.
This from a surgeon in Bergamo, who obviously has no kind of handle on the situation at all.
"I still remember my night shift a week ago spent without any rest, waiting for a call from the microbiology department. I was waiting for the results of a swab taken from the first suspect case in our hospital, thinking about what consequences it would have for us and the hospital. If I think about it, my agitation for one possible case seems almost ridiculous and unjustified, now that I have seen what is happening. Well, the situation is now nothing short of dramatic. No other words come to mind. The war has literally exploded and battles are uninterrupted day and night. One after the other, these unfortunate people come to the emergency room. They have far from the complications of a flu. Let's stop saying it's a bad flu. In my two years working in Bergamo, I have learned that the people here do not come to the emergency room for no reason. They did well this time too. They followed all the recommendations given: a week or ten days at home with a fever without going out to prevent contagion, but now they can't take it anymore. They don't breathe enough, they need oxygen. Drug therapies for this virus are few.
The course mainly depends on our organism. We can only support it when it can't take it anymore. It is mainly hoped that our body will eradicate the virus on its own, let's face it. Antiviral therapies are experimental on this virus and we learn its behavior day after day. Staying at home until the symptoms worsen does not change the prognosis of the disease. Now, however, that need for beds in all its drama has arrived. One after another, the departments that had been emptied are filling up at an impressive rate. The display boards with the names of the sicks, of different colors depending on the department they belong to, are now all red and instead of the surgical procedure, there is the diagnosis, which is always the same: bilateral interstitial pneumonia. Now, tell me which flu virus causes such a rapid tragedy.
Britons in Italy's locked-down north are 'free to return home or complete their holiday', says UK Foreign Office - despite Italians being threatened with JAIL if they leave the coronavirus quarantine zones
To be fair until the mortality rate of this is known (why the hell is no random testing being done? which would establish it ) then to close down a whole region is pretty ridiculous especialy as it is widespread beyond it . china probably did the right thing at the start but why cut off northern Italy?
You write as if this basic point won't have occurred to the experts tracking this disease and reporting on it. And most reports are suggesting that they are finding little evidence of widespread asymptomatic infection. Now whether they are concluding this based on testing or something else, they must be basing it on something. So i'll assume for the moment that they know what they are talking about rather than yourself.
One might also point out that whilst the UK isn't doing random testing, it is doing A LOT of testing of people testing negative. They would surely be finding far more cases amongst those if there was a large amount of asymptomatic infection within the community. It wouldn't make sense that they would somehow be completely missing these people (because they could be asymptomatic for COVID-19 but still symptomatic with something else). Also there was a lot of testing on eg. cruise ships etc which was not random, but blanket testing.
Ok thanks for that - a bit pompous but never mind given the whole point of a forum is to exchange views and opinions without the dreaded ' you are not an expert so shut up reply" . I hope it is being done but not heard of it being done yet I have heard of a lot of stuff about covid 19 including death rate updates daily on this forum . Something practical like knowing if random testing is being done would be more informative.
Does anyone know the names of his other 5 'official' kids?
2 sons and 2 daughters with ex-wife Marina Wheeler and a daughter with Helen MacIntyre. I know there are rumours of a sixth child with another woman but we're never going to know unless she goes public.
If we can find out the names of the others, it could give us a handle on the kind of names Boris prefers.
Of course there's always the possibility that he lets their mothers have the final say.
See the final paragraph of the thread header.
Doh! I didn't read that bit. Well with names like that and the possibility that Carrie might have different ideas I wouldn't touch that market, the prices are all too short and there's too much opportunity for insider betting by the staff at Downing Street and others who might be in the know.
Boudicca. Currently in favour with the posh, and spot-on combo of classical history and English nationalism.
Boudicca ... English nationalism.
Boudicca was not English because there were no English people on these islands in AD60.
Buddig was Welsh.
‘English’ is not really an ethnicity, it is a nationality.
She is not English (whether defined ethnically or by nationality). There was no notion of England until the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons.
Buddig did not speak English (but a Brythonic Celtic language).
Yours is a truly outrageous piece of cultural appropriation. The intellectual equivalent of a skinhead's fist.
In your picture, King Arthur is English ... even though he spent his life fighting the English.
The problem is we have next to no reliable historical record of what was taking place between say, 440 AD and 600 AD. It's hard to know if Arthur actually existed.
Wessex was supposedly an Anglo-Saxon kingdom, yet its founder, Cerdic, and his two successors had British names.
Boudicca was not English, but it's probable that most inhabitants of Norfolk and Suffolk today have Icenian ancestors. And, they would undoubtedly see themselves as English.
Welcome back.
I think there is pretty compelling evidence that a war leader lived at the time and had at least a temporary success in holding back the hordes.
I remember years ago reading speculation that the historical figure Riothamus (operating around AD470) was Arthur based on the suggestion that "Riothamus" was actually a title (it approximates to "Greatest King") and that there is evidence of an upsurge in babies being named "Arthur" around that time
Channel 5 programme reckoned King Arthur was a Welsh warlord known as The Bear (which sounds like Arthur in Welsh, apparently). For what it's worth.
With the Italian news, I think we will probably see the panic over-reaction now in the UK, from nothing to worry about to we are all going to die.
Hopefully. Our best chance of lowering the rate of spread is for people to change their behaviour. Buying one week, maybe two or three from Italy will be crucial.
Boudicca was not English, but it's probable that most inhabitants of Norfolk and Suffolk today have Icenian ancestors. And, they would undoubtedly see themselves as English.
There is little evidence for that. Most inhabitants of Norfolk today are not descendants of Icenians, as judged by their names of the place names of the towns that they built. There is little or no discernible Celtic influence.
The descendants of the Icenians are much further West, because waves of invasion pushed them there. The descendents will be in Wales or the West Country.
If you believe Boudicca was English, then you believe Pythagoras was Italian, Euclid & Aristarchus were Egyptian and Epicurus & Diogenes were Turkish.
These philosophers are all associated with Sicily or Alexandria or present-day Turkey. But they were Greek.
Boudicca was Welsh.
Her decendents will still be in East Anglia. There's a fair amount of DNA evidence that suggests that the population of East Anglia is a base layer of Celtic with a topping of Anglo-Saxon (38% to be precise).
The "invasion" was more a cultural takeover of most of the Roman Province of Britannia following the collapse of the government and, it increasingly appears, plague related to the Plague of Justinian. It was a little like the Spanish takeover in South America. Most people in Mexico are decended from the native populations but the cultural Spanish takeover was virtually total. That's what happened in England, with the Anglo-Saxons doing what the Spanish would later do in the Americas.
The point is Boudicca was not English.
She was a leader of a Celtic tribe, she spoke a language akin to Welsh.
You could perhaps describe Boudicca as British (I would not).
Where is the BEST place in the UK to sit out this plague? What do people think?
You could argue for a Hebridean island, or the Shetlands, Scillies etc. But then you're probably far away from people you love, and what if supplies get cut off, and what if you suddenly need a hospital?
You could argue a small cottage/village near a big city, with a garden for air and sun, but again local hospitals will be filled with the city dwellers first, if anything goes wrong.
So maybe in a big city near a good hospital? But what if civil disorder breaks out?
Thoughts?
No. You sit where you are, follow basic precautions, and don't be a selfish arse. If you move from where you are and are an asymptomatic carrier you just make things worse for everyone else.
Feck off.
I will do what it takes to give me, my wife and my kids, and other loved ones, the best chance of making it through this unscathed. I imagine 90% of humanity feels the same.
Moreover, NOT catching the bug and therefore not spreading it is the responsible thing to do.
If everyone follows your lead, though, the consequences of a mass migration of millions of people will make the effects of this immesurably worse. If 90% of, say, London feels as you do (as you suggest) and decides to piss off to the Scillies and the Shetlands, they will starve. This isn't "The Stand".
I think that is remarkably different from the Chinese figures, even allowing for the demographic differences. My back-of-an-envelope calculation of the deaths by age group in China, for the same total (133), based on the paper I cited earlier, is: 0-49: 8 50-59: 17 60-69: 40 70-79: 41 80-89: 25 >90: 3
The larger number of elderly people in Italy explains part of the difference. But why should the number of deaths in Italy under 60 be so small by comparison?
Boudicca was not English, but it's probable that most inhabitants of Norfolk and Suffolk today have Icenian ancestors. And, they would undoubtedly see themselves as English.
There is little evidence for that. Most inhabitants of Norfolk today are not descendants of Icenians, as judged by their names of the place names of the towns that they built. There is little or no discernible Celtic influence.
The descendants of the Icenians are much further West, because waves of invasion pushed them there. The descendents will be in Wales or the West Country.
If you believe Boudicca was English, then you believe Pythagoras was Italian, Euclid & Aristarchus were Egyptian and Epicurus & Diogenes were Turkish.
These philosophers are all associated with Sicily or Alexandria or present-day Turkey. But they were Greek.
Boudicca was Welsh.
"Welsh" is as big an anachronism as "English." It's an Old English word applied centuries after Boudicca's time by the English to the subset of British Celts living in and around (anachronistically) Wales.
Does anyone know the names of his other 5 'official' kids?
2 sons and 2 daughters with ex-wife Marina Wheeler and a daughter with Helen MacIntyre. I know there are rumours of a sixth child with another woman but we're never going to know unless she goes public.
If we can find out the names of the others, it could give us a handle on the kind of names Boris prefers.
Of course there's always the possibility that he lets their mothers have the final say.
See the final paragraph of the thread header.
Doh! I didn't read that bit. Well with names like that and the possibility that Carrie might have different ideas I wouldn't touch that market, the prices are all too short and there's too much opportunity for insider betting by the staff at Downing Street and others who might be in the know.
Boudicca. Currently in favour with the posh, and spot-on combo of classical history and English nationalism.
Boudicca ... English nationalism.
Boudicca was not English because there were no English people on these islands in AD60.
Buddig was Welsh.
‘English’ is not really an ethnicity, it is a nationality.
She is not English (whether defined ethnically or by nationality). There was no notion of England until the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons.
Buddig did not speak English (but a Brythonic Celtic language).
Yours is a truly outrageous piece of cultural appropriation. The intellectual equivalent of a skinhead's fist.
In your picture, King Arthur is English ... even though he spent his life fighting the English.
“The English“ culturally appropriated Boudicca hundreds of years ago. You need to get over it really.
They did not. Only the thick and ignorant did.
You seem to be in the same boat as Nick Griffin and some stupid members of English nationalist parties. I hope you are happy there.
You are getting overexcited, because this started precisely as a joke claim about English nationalists.
They are also quite keen on St George by the way, and nobody thinks he was English. I won't compound the problem by stating that he was Turkish...
In the lifetime of St. George the Turks were still in Central Asia, I think he was (roughly) Greek.
Assigning today's identities to people who lived even 200, let alone 2000, years ago is really problematic. Mozart came from what is now Austria but, at the time, Austrians regarded themselves as German as any other German speaking people and would do so until (and perhaps after) Austria lost the battle for domination of "Germany" to Prussia. Cleopatra was culturally, and by decent, Greek, but we consider her Egyptian. St George was a Roman soldier of Cappadocian Greek origins. The Byzantines spoke Greek but considered themselves Roman right until the fall of Constantinople. The "English" conquest of Ireland was started by a bunch of French speaking Normans who lived in Wales. George Washington was happy to regard himself as a British American during the Seven Years/French & Indian War, but like many of his countrymen had a change of heart in the following 10-15 years...
Yes, it is problematic. Beethoven was Austrian and Hitler was German, and in a sense they really were.
The East Asians understand at an individual level how to beat epidemics. Top down interventions organise them but without a fundamental willingness to comply, it won't work. I suggest it is cultural behaviour which will come to be shown as the key determinant.
By contrast, the British are the least concerned about this virus and have seemingly changed behaviour the least. I observe a wanton ignorance in our society that is going to be a severe impediment to tackling the epidemic.
This is why the British public need to be terrified into obedience. Far too many of my educated friends are still entirely nonchalant (Oh it's like Y2K, or the Bird Flu scare etc), even when the evidence is there in front of them.
The paradox is we need some panic. If we can horrify everyone, then we have a much better chance of the most horrific outcome not happening.
I agree. Panic buying bog rolls is progress as it suggests some psychological breakthrough from denial or wanton ignorance to action. In any case, that particular commodity scarcity can be ameliorated quite easily by supermarkets setting appropriate policy.
But look in any newspaper comments page or Facebook post and there are many many deniers. These are people that scoff and sneer at guidance about washing hands and so get on trains coughing and spluttering. In short, they are cretins.
For matters of public health we can only be as good as our weakest links.
My wife's mother is an intelligent woman in her early 50s. Well educated, degree, senior teacher just retired.
She is barely aware that coronavirus EXISTS, let alone that it is a national emergency. She doesn't read or watch much news, she is obsessed with climate change and XR, she's buying a new house in Brighton (little does she know this will likely all fall through)
If someone like her isn't even aware of this thing then we are in trouble.
We need big scary ads on the TV, like we had in the first days of AIDS. We need tombstones and sombre music.
F*ck it. Scare them.
My wife had an exploratory conversation with some people who work "at" the US Embassy lastr week. They don't have a f****** clue.
I am in the US at the moment. People's level of seriousness about it is sharply divided by partisan affiliation. Democrats are taking it seriously (but not as much as in Europe). Republicans think it is all a media conspiracy to hurt Trump.
It will be interesting to see what happens when reality intervenes.
Where is the BEST place in the UK to sit out this plague? What do people think?
You could argue for a Hebridean island, or the Shetlands, Scillies etc. But then you're probably far away from people you love, and what if supplies get cut off, and what if you suddenly need a hospital?
You could argue a small cottage/village near a big city, with a garden for air and sun, but again local hospitals will be filled with the city dwellers first, if anything goes wrong.
So maybe in a big city near a good hospital? But what if civil disorder breaks out?
Thoughts?
Why would I tell you my plans
(location doesn't matter. Just get a ventilator hooked up in the basement and a team of three nurses to give you 24 hour service.
Boudicca was not English, but it's probable that most inhabitants of Norfolk and Suffolk today have Icenian ancestors. And, they would undoubtedly see themselves as English.
There is little evidence for that. Most inhabitants of Norfolk today are not descendants of Icenians, as judged by their names of the place names of the towns that they built. There is little or no discernible Celtic influence.
The descendants of the Icenians are much further West, because waves of invasion pushed them there. The descendents will be in Wales or the West Country.
If you believe Boudicca was English, then you believe Pythagoras was Italian, Euclid & Aristarchus were Egyptian and Epicurus & Diogenes were Turkish.
These philosophers are all associated with Sicily or Alexandria or present-day Turkey. But they were Greek.
Boudicca was Welsh.
Her decendents will still be in East Anglia. There's a fair amount of DNA evidence that suggests that the population of East Anglia is a base layer of Celtic with a topping of Anglo-Saxon (38% to be precise).
The "invasion" was more a cultural takeover of most of the Roman Province of Britannia following the collapse of the government and, it increasingly appears, plague related to the Plague of Justinian. It was a little like the Spanish takeover in South America. Most people in Mexico are decended from the native populations but the cultural Spanish takeover was virtually total. That's what happened in England, with the Anglo-Saxons doing what the Spanish would later do in the Americas.
The point is Boudicca was not English.
She was a leader of a Celtic tribe, she spoke a language akin to Welsh.
You could perhaps describe Boudicca as British (I would not).
But, she is not English.
I'll grant you that she was not English. But neither was she Welsh - speaking "a language akin" to Welsh doesn't make her so. The Dutch speak a "language akin" to English, but they are not English. Neither of those concepts had yet been invented. She belonged to one of a number of tribes on these islands who, until they found a common enemy in the Romans, were happilly knocking seven bells out of each other.
I think that is remarkably different from the Chinese figures, even allowing for the demographic differences. My back-of-an-envelope calculation of the deaths by age group in China, for the same total (133), based on the paper I cited earlier, is: 0-49: 8 50-59: 17 60-69: 40 70-79: 41 80-89: 25 >90: 3
The larger number of elderly people in Italy explains part of the difference. But why should the number of deaths in Italy under 60 be so small by comparison?
Newer outbreak so that young people haven't had time to die yet? Also, assuming decent medical care up to now, young people generally shouldn't die from this.
I think that is remarkably different from the Chinese figures, even allowing for the demographic differences. My back-of-an-envelope calculation of the deaths by age group in China, for the same total (133), based on the paper I cited earlier, is: 0-49: 8 50-59: 17 60-69: 40 70-79: 41 80-89: 25 >90: 3
The larger number of elderly people in Italy explains part of the difference. But why should the number of deaths in Italy under 60 be so small by comparison?
Not being tested because of mild symptoms ? Wheras china did a more wholesale approach . Again need random testing of all ages to establish how dangerous this is . I doubt it is as serious as made out especially on here
Britons in Italy's locked-down north are 'free to return home or complete their holiday', says UK Foreign Office - despite Italians being threatened with JAIL if they leave the coronavirus quarantine zones
To be fair until the mortality rate of this is known (why the hell is no random testing being done? which would establish it ) then to close down a whole region is pretty ridiculous especialy as it is widespread beyond it . china probably did the right thing at the start but why cut off northern Italy?
You write as if this basic point won't have occurred to the experts tracking this disease and reporting on it. And most reports are suggesting that they are finding little evidence of widespread asymptomatic infection. Now whether they are concluding this based on testing or something else, they must be basing it on something. So i'll assume for the moment that they know what they are talking about rather than yourself.
One might also point out that whilst the UK isn't doing random testing, it is doing A LOT of testing of people testing negative. They would surely be finding far more cases amongst those if there was a large amount of asymptomatic infection within the community. It wouldn't make sense that they would somehow be completely missing these people (because they could be asymptomatic for COVID-19 but still symptomatic with something else). Also there was a lot of testing on eg. cruise ships etc which was not random, but blanket testing.
The UK did thousands of random tests before the outbreak really hit North Europe. That seems nowt to have stopped, probably because they need to test patients with symptoms and their families.
Where is the BEST place in the UK to sit out this plague? What do people think?
You could argue for a Hebridean island, or the Shetlands, Scillies etc. But then you're probably far away from people you love, and what if supplies get cut off, and what if you suddenly need a hospital?
You could argue a small cottage/village near a big city, with a garden for air and sun, but again local hospitals will be filled with the city dwellers first, if anything goes wrong.
So maybe in a big city near a good hospital? But what if civil disorder breaks out?
Thoughts?
No. You sit where you are, follow basic precautions, and don't be a selfish arse. If you move from where you are and are an asymptomatic carrier you just make things worse for everyone else.
Feck off.
I will do what it takes to give me, my wife and my kids, and other loved ones, the best chance of making it through this unscathed. I imagine 90% of humanity feels the same.
Moreover, NOT catching the bug and therefore not spreading it is the responsible thing to do.
If you stay at home, get the food delivered, and work as best you can from there, it doesn’t really matter where in the country you are.
Maybe. I'd personally say somewhere with a young population, as (if you do catch it bad) you stand more chance of having an ICU bed than I do in crumbly-filled south Devon....
Just saw the Manchester derby score. Guessing we now need a Gunners midweek victory to be able to finish the season at Goodison right? Cheering on all red clubs for once.
Britons in Italy's locked-down north are 'free to return home or complete their holiday', says UK Foreign Office - despite Italians being threatened with JAIL if they leave the coronavirus quarantine zones
To be fair until the mortality rate of this is known (why the hell is no random testing being done? which would establish it ) then to close down a whole region is pretty ridiculous especialy as it is widespread beyond it . china probably did the right thing at the start but why cut off northern Italy?
You write as if this basic point won't have occurred to the experts tracking this disease and reporting on it. And most reports are suggesting that they are finding little evidence of widespread asymptomatic infection. Now whether they are concluding this based on testing or something else, they must be basing it on something. So i'll assume for the moment that they know what they are talking about rather than yourself.
One might also point out that whilst the UK isn't doing random testing, it is doing A LOT of testing of people testing negative. They would surely be finding far more cases amongst those if there was a large amount of asymptomatic infection within the community. It wouldn't make sense that they would somehow be completely missing these people (because they could be asymptomatic for COVID-19 but still symptomatic with something else). Also there was a lot of testing on eg. cruise ships etc which was not random, but blanket testing.
The UK did thousands of random tests before the outbreak really hit North Europe. That seems nowt to have stopped, probably because they need to test patients with symptoms and their families.
I think its more effective to do once there is a significant outbreak not when there is not
Boudicca was not English, but it's probable that most inhabitants of Norfolk and Suffolk today have Icenian ancestors. And, they would undoubtedly see themselves as English.
There is little evidence for that. Most inhabitants of Norfolk today are not descendants of Icenians, as judged by their names of the place names of the towns that they built. There is little or no discernible Celtic influence.
The descendants of the Icenians are much further West, because waves of invasion pushed them there. The descendents will be in Wales or the West Country.
If you believe Boudicca was English, then you believe Pythagoras was Italian, Euclid & Aristarchus were Egyptian and Epicurus & Diogenes were Turkish.
These philosophers are all associated with Sicily or Alexandria or present-day Turkey. But they were Greek.
Boudicca was Welsh.
It's interesting how this is controversial because of the current distinction between Welsh and English identity.
If someone thinks of Stonehenge as "English" nobody argues.. Even though the builders of Stonehenge have even less to do with the "English" than Boudicca
I would certainly dispute the description of the builders as Stonehenge as English.
Anything within the present-day boundaries of the UK constructed before 450 AD is not English.
Just saw the Manchester derby score. Guessing we now need a Gunners midweek victory to be able to finish the season at Goodison right? Cheering on all red clubs for once.
The season is over already.
Liverpool have walked it, and well done from this Man Utd lifetime supporter
Where is the BEST place in the UK to sit out this plague? What do people think?
You could argue for a Hebridean island, or the Shetlands, Scillies etc. But then you're probably far away from people you love, and what if supplies get cut off, and what if you suddenly need a hospital?
You could argue a small cottage/village near a big city, with a garden for air and sun, but again local hospitals will be filled with the city dwellers first, if anything goes wrong.
So maybe in a big city near a good hospital? But what if civil disorder breaks out?
Thoughts?
No. You sit where you are, follow basic precautions, and don't be a selfish arse. If you move from where you are and are an asymptomatic carrier you just make things worse for everyone else.
Feck off.
I will do what it takes to give me, my wife and my kids, and other loved ones, the best chance of making it through this unscathed. I imagine 90% of humanity feels the same.
Moreover, NOT catching the bug and therefore not spreading it is the responsible thing to do.
There was a time when you were adamant you'd already had it.
They never bloody tested me! So I just don't know. Also there are now two different types, at least. So presumably you could catch both.
And they are not even sure that getting it confers any immunity.
Besides, we're all thinking the same: where is the best place to be, during this time of trial. What increases me odds, and the odds of those I love?
Not islands. We are going to see prejudice and vigilantism, and insularity isn't called insularity for nothing, and the transport bottleneck is a killer. You can get round a road cordon, but if CalMac shuts down you are buggered. If you have West Country links anyway, it's a no brainer, surely?
Boudicca was not English, but it's probable that most inhabitants of Norfolk and Suffolk today have Icenian ancestors. And, they would undoubtedly see themselves as English.
There is little evidence for that. Most inhabitants of Norfolk today are not descendants of Icenians, as judged by their names of the place names of the towns that they built. There is little or no discernible Celtic influence.
The descendants of the Icenians are much further West, because waves of invasion pushed them there. The descendents will be in Wales or the West Country.
If you believe Boudicca was English, then you believe Pythagoras was Italian, Euclid & Aristarchus were Egyptian and Epicurus & Diogenes were Turkish.
These philosophers are all associated with Sicily or Alexandria or present-day Turkey. But they were Greek.
Boudicca was Welsh.
DNA evidence tends to suggest that the inhabitants of Norfolk would be descended from Icenians. Culturally, however, they are very different to them.
It would be as anachronistic to call Boudicca English as to call Henry II English, but those of us who are English can claim them as ancestors.
I am trying to work out the three dimensional matrix together with associated correlations of PB-ers' views on Brexit, Party politics, and Coronavirus.
It’s not that difficult we can only wait to see who is right. The panicers are more difficult to place but the not a problem brigade are entirely predictable.
Does anyone know the names of his other 5 'official' kids?
2 sons and 2 daughters with ex-wife Marina Wheeler and a daughter with Helen MacIntyre. I know there are rumours of a sixth child with another woman but we're never going to know unless she goes public.
If we can find out the names of the others, it could give us a handle on the kind of names Boris prefers.
Of course there's always the possibility that he lets their mothers have the final say.
See the final paragraph of the thread header.
Doh! I didn't read that bit. Well with names like that and the possibility that Carrie might have different ideas I wouldn't touch that market, the prices are all too short and there's too much opportunity for insider betting by the staff at Downing Street and others who might be in the know.
Boudicca. Currently in favour with the posh, and spot-on combo of classical history and English nationalism.
Boudicca ... English nationalism.
Boudicca was not English because there were no English people on these islands in AD60.
Buddig was Welsh.
‘English’ is not really an ethnicity, it is a nationality.
She is not English (whether defined ethnically or by nationality). There was no notion of England until the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons.
Buddig did not speak English (but a Brythonic Celtic language).
Yours is a truly outrageous piece of cultural appropriation. The intellectual equivalent of a skinhead's fist.
In your picture, King Arthur is English ... even though he spent his life fighting the English.
The problem is we have next to no reliable historical record of what was taking place between say, 440 AD and 600 AD. It's hard to know if Arthur actually existed.
Wessex was supposedly an Anglo-Saxon kingdom, yet its founder, Cerdic, and his two successors had British names.
Boudicca was not English, but it's probable that most inhabitants of Norfolk and Suffolk today have Icenian ancestors. And, they would undoubtedly see themselves as English.
Welcome back.
I think there is pretty compelling evidence that a war leader lived at the time and had at least a temporary success in holding back the hordes.
I remember years ago reading speculation that the historical figure Riothamus (operating around AD470) was Arthur based on the suggestion that "Riothamus" was actually a title (it approximates to "Greatest King") and that there is evidence of an upsurge in babies being named "Arthur" around that time
Channel 5 programme reckoned King Arthur was a Welsh warlord known as The Bear (which sounds like Arthur in Welsh, apparently). For what it's worth.
Arth is bear in Welsh. There’s a pub in Penarth High St called the Bear’s Head, which is a pub on “Penarth”. Pen being Welsh for head.
I too read a thesis that the absence of references to an “Arthur” in the (few!) contemporary writings maybe because it was a nickname. A bit like a future civilisation finding the odd reference to the “Desert Fox” but nothing on Erwin Rommel.
I think that is remarkably different from the Chinese figures, even allowing for the demographic differences. My back-of-an-envelope calculation of the deaths by age group in China, for the same total (133), based on the paper I cited earlier, is: 0-49: 8 50-59: 17 60-69: 40 70-79: 41 80-89: 25 >90: 3
The larger number of elderly people in Italy explains part of the difference. But why should the number of deaths in Italy under 60 be so small by comparison?
Not being tested because of mild symptoms ? Wheras china did a more wholesale approach . Again need random testing of all ages to establish how dangerous this is . I doubt it is as serious as made out especially on here
How would not testing people with mild symptoms reduce the number of deaths?
Boudicca was not English, but it's probable that most inhabitants of Norfolk and Suffolk today have Icenian ancestors. And, they would undoubtedly see themselves as English.
There is little evidence for that. Most inhabitants of Norfolk today are not descendants of Icenians, as judged by their names of the place names of the towns that they built. There is little or no discernible Celtic influence.
The descendants of the Icenians are much further West, because waves of invasion pushed them there. The descendents will be in Wales or the West Country.
If you believe Boudicca was English, then you believe Pythagoras was Italian, Euclid & Aristarchus were Egyptian and Epicurus & Diogenes were Turkish.
These philosophers are all associated with Sicily or Alexandria or present-day Turkey. But they were Greek.
Boudicca was Welsh.
It’s a conundrum. Almost all archaeologists reject the notion that there was a large-scale population transfer of Anglo-Saxons that physically drove the Romano-British/proto-Welsh from the lowlands, rather than they formed a new ruling class on top of the existing population.
Yet as others have said there is a dearth of Celtic placenames in south and east England and next to no Brythonic loanwords in Anglo-Saxon or indeed modern English, so the putative Anglo-Saxon “ruling class” did a far better job of rooting out the general population’s language than the Romans did, or indeed the Normans, who really did form just a ruling class, did to the Anglo-Saxons. Then we have placenames like “Walton” (“foreigner settlement”) which suggest that remnant British populations did exist but lived to some degree separate from the Anglo-Saxons.
Genetics doesn’t resolve the issue either: I’m not super up to date on the latest research but what I recall is that while the lowland “English” population is somewhat distinct from the upland “Celtic” population it’s not particularly close to the regions on the Continent that the Anglo-Saxons hailed from, and probably reflects a much older set of population movements.
Where is the BEST place in the UK to sit out this plague? What do people think?
You could argue for a Hebridean island, or the Shetlands, Scillies etc. But then you're probably far away from people you love, and what if supplies get cut off, and what if you suddenly need a hospital?
You could argue a small cottage/village near a big city, with a garden for air and sun, but again local hospitals will be filled with the city dwellers first, if anything goes wrong.
So maybe in a big city near a good hospital? But what if civil disorder breaks out?
Thoughts?
You want to be in the middle of nowhere, but only a few miles from a big-ish city. Think villages close to York, Carlisle, Exeter, Norwich etc. Definitely not anywhere where all the residents are commuters elsewhere though, so avoid places with a train station or next to a motorway.
Alternatively, stay where you are with food supplies and good internet, and see how far you can get down the Netflix catalogue!
Boudicca was not English, but it's probable that most inhabitants of Norfolk and Suffolk today have Icenian ancestors. And, they would undoubtedly see themselves as English.
There is little evidence for that. Most inhabitants of Norfolk today are not descendants of Icenians, as judged by their names of the place names of the towns that they built. There is little or no discernible Celtic influence.
The descendants of the Icenians are much further West, because waves of invasion pushed them there. The descendents will be in Wales or the West Country.
If you believe Boudicca was English, then you believe Pythagoras was Italian, Euclid & Aristarchus were Egyptian and Epicurus & Diogenes were Turkish.
These philosophers are all associated with Sicily or Alexandria or present-day Turkey. But they were Greek.
Boudicca was Welsh.
Her decendents will still be in East Anglia. There's a fair amount of DNA evidence that suggests that the population of East Anglia is a base layer of Celtic with a topping of Anglo-Saxon (38% to be precise).
The "invasion" was more a cultural takeover of most of the Roman Province of Britannia following the collapse of the government and, it increasingly appears, plague related to the Plague of Justinian. It was a little like the Spanish takeover in South America. Most people in Mexico are decended from the native populations but the cultural Spanish takeover was virtually total. That's what happened in England, with the Anglo-Saxons doing what the Spanish would later do in the Americas.
The point is Boudicca was not English.
She was a leader of a Celtic tribe, she spoke a language akin to Welsh.
You could perhaps describe Boudicca as British (I would not).
But, she is not English.
I'll grant you that she was not English. But neither was she Welsh - speaking "a language akin" to Welsh doesn't make her so. The Dutch speak a "language akin" to English, but they are not English. Neither of those concepts had yet been invented. She belonged to one of a number of tribes on these islands who, until they found a common enemy in the Romans, were happilly knocking seven bells out of each other.
She was a member of a Brythonic Celtic tribe, whose language is closest to modern-day Welsh (or Cornish). She had a name Boudicca that was Brythonic Celtic.
I merely disputed the description of her as English.
It is difficult to make connections from the remote past to the present-day. But if you are going to do, Boudicca was Welsh. In the same way that Pythagoras was Greek (though he lived in Italy).
Boudicca was not English, but it's probable that most inhabitants of Norfolk and Suffolk today have Icenian ancestors. And, they would undoubtedly see themselves as English.
There is little evidence for that. Most inhabitants of Norfolk today are not descendants of Icenians, as judged by their names of the place names of the towns that they built. There is little or no discernible Celtic influence.
The descendants of the Icenians are much further West, because waves of invasion pushed them there. The descendents will be in Wales or the West Country.
If you believe Boudicca was English, then you believe Pythagoras was Italian, Euclid & Aristarchus were Egyptian and Epicurus & Diogenes were Turkish.
These philosophers are all associated with Sicily or Alexandria or present-day Turkey. But they were Greek.
Boudicca was Welsh.
Her decendents will still be in East Anglia. There's a fair amount of DNA evidence that suggests that the population of East Anglia is a base layer of Celtic with a topping of Anglo-Saxon (38% to be precise).
The "invasion" was more a cultural takeover of most of the Roman Province of Britannia following the collapse of the government and, it increasingly appears, plague related to the Plague of Justinian. It was a little like the Spanish takeover in South America. Most people in Mexico are decended from the native populations but the cultural Spanish takeover was virtually total. That's what happened in England, with the Anglo-Saxons doing what the Spanish would later do in the Americas.
The point is Boudicca was not English.
She was a leader of a Celtic tribe, she spoke a language akin to Welsh.
You could perhaps describe Boudicca as British (I would not).
But, she is not English.
I'll grant you that she was not English. But neither was she Welsh - speaking "a language akin" to Welsh doesn't make her so. The Dutch speak a "language akin" to English, but they are not English. Neither of those concepts had yet been invented. She belonged to one of a number of tribes on these islands who, until they found a common enemy in the Romans, were happilly knocking seven bells out of each other.
I merely disputed the description of her as English.
.
No you didn't 'merely' do that. We can see the rest of the quotes in that thread.
Does anyone know the names of his other 5 'official' kids?
2 sons and 2 daughters with ex-wife Marina Wheeler and a daughter with Helen MacIntyre. I know there are rumours of a sixth child with another woman but we're never going to know unless she goes public.
If we can find out the names of the others, it could give us a handle on the kind of names Boris prefers.
Of course there's always the possibility that he lets their mothers have the final say.
See the final paragraph of the thread header.
Doh! I didn't read that bit. Well with names like that and the possibility that Carrie might have different ideas I wouldn't touch that market, the prices are all too short and there's too much opportunity for insider betting by the staff at Downing Street and others who might be in the know.
Boudicca. Currently in favour with the posh, and spot-on combo of classical history and English nationalism.
Boudicca ... English nationalism.
Boudicca was not English because there were no English people on these islands in AD60.
Buddig was Welsh.
‘English’ is not really an ethnicity, it is a nationality.
She is not English (whether defined ethnically or by nationality). There was no notion of England until the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons.
Buddig did not speak English (but a Brythonic Celtic language).
Yours is a truly outrageous piece of cultural appropriation. The intellectual equivalent of a skinhead's fist.
In your picture, King Arthur is English ... even though he spent his life fighting the English.
“The English“ culturally appropriated Boudicca hundreds of years ago. You need to get over it really.
They did not. Only the thick and ignorant did.
You seem to be in the same boat as Nick Griffin and some stupid members of English nationalist parties. I hope you are happy there.
You are getting overexcited, because this started precisely as a joke claim about English nationalists.
They are also quite keen on St George by the way, and nobody thinks he was English. I won't compound the problem by stating that he was Turkish...
In the lifetime of St. George the Turks were still in Central Asia, I think he was (roughly) Greek.
Assigning today's identities to people who lived even 200, let alone 2000, years ago is really problematic. Mozart came from what is now Austria but, at the time, Austrians regarded themselves as German as any other German speaking people and would do so until (and perhaps after) Austria lost the battle for domination of "Germany" to Prussia. Cleopatra was culturally, and by decent, Greek, but we consider her Egyptian. St George was a Roman soldier of Cappadocian Greek origins. The Byzantines spoke Greek but considered themselves Roman right until the fall of Constantinople. The "English" conquest of Ireland was started by a bunch of French speaking Normans who lived in Wales. George Washington was happy to regard himself as a British American during the Seven Years/French & Indian War, but like many of his countrymen had a change of heart in the following 10-15 years...
Cleopatra wasn't Egyptian, any more than George VI was Indian for being Emperor of India. She didn't even speak the language (but was allegedly the first of the dynasty even to try to learn it).
Boudicca was not English, but it's probable that most inhabitants of Norfolk and Suffolk today have Icenian ancestors. And, they would undoubtedly see themselves as English.
There is little evidence for that. Most inhabitants of Norfolk today are not descendants of Icenians, as judged by their names of the place names of the towns that they built. There is little or no discernible Celtic influence.
The descendants of the Icenians are much further West, because waves of invasion pushed them there. The descendents will be in Wales or the West Country.
If you believe Boudicca was English, then you believe Pythagoras was Italian, Euclid & Aristarchus were Egyptian and Epicurus & Diogenes were Turkish.
These philosophers are all associated with Sicily or Alexandria or present-day Turkey. But they were Greek.
Boudicca was Welsh.
It’s a conundrum. Almost all archaeologists reject the notion that there was a large-scale population transfer of Anglo-Saxons that physically drove the Romano-British/proto-Welsh from the lowlands, rather than they formed a new ruling class on top of the existing population.
Yet as others have said there is a dearth of Celtic placenames in south and east England and next to no Brythonic loanwords in Anglo-Saxon or indeed modern English, so the putative Anglo-Saxon “ruling class” did a far better job of rooting out the general population’s language than the Romans did, or indeed the Normans, who really did form just a ruling class, did to the Anglo-Saxons. Then we have placenames like “Walton” (“foreigner settlement”) which suggest that remnant British populations did exist but lived to some degree separate from the Anglo-Saxons.
Genetics doesn’t resolve the issue either: I’m not super up to date on the latest research but what I recall is that while the lowland “English” population is somewhat distinct from the upland “Celtic” population it’s not particularly close to the regions on the Continent that the Anglo-Saxons hailed from, and probably reflects a much older set of population movements.
In the North East of the US, plenty of Native American names survive in geographical features or place names, even though the Indian tribes were annihilated or pushed further West.
There are very few names of Celtic origin in East Anglia.
If we look at the evidence of placenames, I think it shows that the Anglo-Saxon invasion of what is now the East of England was one of incredible violence and fury -- the Welshness was obliterated, far more so than Native American names were obliterated in the US.
Boudicca was not English, but it's probable that most inhabitants of Norfolk and Suffolk today have Icenian ancestors. And, they would undoubtedly see themselves as English.
There is little evidence for that. Most inhabitants of Norfolk today are not descendants of Icenians, as judged by their names of the place names of the towns that they built. There is little or no discernible Celtic influence.
The descendants of the Icenians are much further West, because waves of invasion pushed them there. The descendents will be in Wales or the West Country.
If you believe Boudicca was English, then you believe Pythagoras was Italian, Euclid & Aristarchus were Egyptian and Epicurus & Diogenes were Turkish.
These philosophers are all associated with Sicily or Alexandria or present-day Turkey. But they were Greek.
Boudicca was Welsh.
Her decendents will still be in East Anglia. There's a fair amount of DNA evidence that suggests that the population of East Anglia is a base layer of Celtic with a topping of Anglo-Saxon (38% to be precise).
The "invasion" was more a cultural takeover of most of the Roman Province of Britannia following the collapse of the government and, it increasingly appears, plague related to the Plague of Justinian. It was a little like the Spanish takeover in South America. Most people in Mexico are decended from the native populations but the cultural Spanish takeover was virtually total. That's what happened in England, with the Anglo-Saxons doing what the Spanish would later do in the Americas.
The point is Boudicca was not English.
She was a leader of a Celtic tribe, she spoke a language akin to Welsh.
You could perhaps describe Boudicca as British (I would not).
But, she is not English.
I'll grant you that she was not English. But neither was she Welsh - speaking "a language akin" to Welsh doesn't make her so. The Dutch speak a "language akin" to English, but they are not English. Neither of those concepts had yet been invented. She belonged to one of a number of tribes on these islands who, until they found a common enemy in the Romans, were happilly knocking seven bells out of each other.
I merely disputed the description of her as English.
.
No you didn't 'merely' do that. We can see the rest of the quotes in that thread.
I made the correct attribution -- she was a Brythonic Celt. Or she was culturally Welsh.
Boudicca was not English, but it's probable that most inhabitants of Norfolk and Suffolk today have Icenian ancestors. And, they would undoubtedly see themselves as English.
There is little evidence for that. Most inhabitants of Norfolk today are not descendants of Icenians, as judged by their names of the place names of the towns that they built. There is little or no discernible Celtic influence.
The descendants of the Icenians are much further West, because waves of invasion pushed them there. The descendents will be in Wales or the West Country.
If you believe Boudicca was English, then you believe Pythagoras was Italian, Euclid & Aristarchus were Egyptian and Epicurus & Diogenes were Turkish.
These philosophers are all associated with Sicily or Alexandria or present-day Turkey. But they were Greek.
Boudicca was Welsh.
It’s a conundrum. Almost all archaeologists reject the notion that there was a large-scale population transfer of Anglo-Saxons that physically drove the Romano-British/proto-Welsh from the lowlands, rather than they formed a new ruling class on top of the existing population.
Yet as others have said there is a dearth of Celtic placenames in south and east England and next to no Brythonic loanwords in Anglo-Saxon or indeed modern English, so the putative Anglo-Saxon “ruling class” did a far better job of rooting out the general population’s language than the Romans did, or indeed the Normans, who really did form just a ruling class, did to the Anglo-Saxons. Then we have placenames like “Walton” (“foreigner settlement”) which suggest that remnant British populations did exist but lived to some degree separate from the Anglo-Saxons.
Genetics doesn’t resolve the issue either: I’m not super up to date on the latest research but what I recall is that while the lowland “English” population is somewhat distinct from the upland “Celtic” population it’s not particularly close to the regions on the Continent that the Anglo-Saxons hailed from, and probably reflects a much older set of population movements.
There’s a theory that the south and east of England were settled by Germanic language speakers long before the Anglo Saxon arrived, and therefore weren’t speaking celtic to begin with.
Boudicca was not English, but it's probable that most inhabitants of Norfolk and Suffolk today have Icenian ancestors. And, they would undoubtedly see themselves as English.
There is little evidence for that. Most inhabitants of Norfolk today are not descendants of Icenians, as judged by their names of the place names of the towns that they built. There is little or no discernible Celtic influence.
The descendants of the Icenians are much further West, because waves of invasion pushed them there. The descendents will be in Wales or the West Country.
If you believe Boudicca was English, then you believe Pythagoras was Italian, Euclid & Aristarchus were Egyptian and Epicurus & Diogenes were Turkish.
These philosophers are all associated with Sicily or Alexandria or present-day Turkey. But they were Greek.
Boudicca was Welsh.
It’s a conundrum. Almost all archaeologists reject the notion that there was a large-scale population transfer of Anglo-Saxons that physically drove the Romano-British/proto-Welsh from the lowlands, rather than they formed a new ruling class on top of the existing population.
Yet as others have said there is a dearth of Celtic placenames in south and east England and next to no Brythonic loanwords in Anglo-Saxon or indeed modern English, so the putative Anglo-Saxon “ruling class” did a far better job of rooting out the general population’s language than the Romans did, or indeed the Normans, who really did form just a ruling class, did to the Anglo-Saxons. Then we have placenames like “Walton” (“foreigner settlement”) which suggest that remnant British populations did exist but lived to some degree separate from the Anglo-Saxons.
Genetics doesn’t resolve the issue either: I’m not super up to date on the latest research but what I recall is that while the lowland “English” population is somewhat distinct from the upland “Celtic” population it’s not particularly close to the regions on the Continent that the Anglo-Saxons hailed from, and probably reflects a much older set of population movements.
There’s a theory that the south and east of England were settled by Germanic language speakers long before the Anglo Saxon arrived, and therefore weren’t speaking celtic to begin with.
Boudicca was not English, but it's probable that most inhabitants of Norfolk and Suffolk today have Icenian ancestors. And, they would undoubtedly see themselves as English.
There is little evidence for that. Most inhabitants of Norfolk today are not descendants of Icenians, as judged by their names of the place names of the towns that they built. There is little or no discernible Celtic influence.
The descendants of the Icenians are much further West, because waves of invasion pushed them there. The descendents will be in Wales or the West Country.
If you believe Boudicca was English, then you believe Pythagoras was Italian, Euclid & Aristarchus were Egyptian and Epicurus & Diogenes were Turkish.
These philosophers are all associated with Sicily or Alexandria or present-day Turkey. But they were Greek.
Boudicca was Welsh.
It’s a conundrum. Almost all archaeologists reject the notion that there was a large-scale population transfer of Anglo-Saxons that physically drove the Romano-British/proto-Welsh from the lowlands, rather than they formed a new ruling class on top of the existing population.
Yet as others have said there is a dearth of Celtic placenames in south and east England and next to no Brythonic loanwords in Anglo-Saxon or indeed modern English, so the putative Anglo-Saxon “ruling class” did a far better job of rooting out the general population’s language than the Romans did, or indeed the Normans, who really did form just a ruling class, did to the Anglo-Saxons. Then we have placenames like “Walton” (“foreigner settlement”) which suggest that remnant British populations did exist but lived to some degree separate from the Anglo-Saxons.
Genetics doesn’t resolve the issue either: I’m not super up to date on the latest research but what I recall is that while the lowland “English” population is somewhat distinct from the upland “Celtic” population it’s not particularly close to the regions on the Continent that the Anglo-Saxons hailed from, and probably reflects a much older set of population movements.
In the North East of the US, plenty of Native American names survive in geographical features or place names, even though the Indian tribes were annihilated or pushed further West.
There are very few names of Celtic origin in East Anglia.
If we look at the evidence of placenames, I think it shows that the Anglo-Saxon invasion of what is now the East of England was one of incredible violence and fury -- the Welshness was obliterated, far more so than Native American names were obliterated in the US.
England is the land of a terrible genocide.
That theory is about fifty years out of date. It was discredited even when i studied Anglo Saxon history thirty five years ago.
Um, does anyone know of a nice little cottage type place, with 2-3 beds, to rent?
Ideally in the countryside or a village, but not far from a city. Asking for a friend. OK, me. Serious question.
I've stayed in a number of nice places on the northern edge of Snowdonia that you can find on an infamous short-term rental website. That would be close to the hospital in Bangor, also Holyhead for the ferry route to Ireland if that comes to look like a better option.
Boudicca was not English, but it's probable that most inhabitants of Norfolk and Suffolk today have Icenian ancestors. And, they would undoubtedly see themselves as English.
There is little evidence for that. Most inhabitants of Norfolk today are not descendants of Icenians, as judged by their names of the place names of the towns that they built. There is little or no discernible Celtic influence.
The descendants of the Icenians are much further West, because waves of invasion pushed them there. The descendents will be in Wales or the West Country.
If you believe Boudicca was English, then you believe Pythagoras was Italian, Euclid & Aristarchus were Egyptian and Epicurus & Diogenes were Turkish.
These philosophers are all associated with Sicily or Alexandria or present-day Turkey. But they were Greek.
Boudicca was Welsh.
It’s a conundrum. Almost all archaeologists reject the notion that there was a large-scale population transfer of Anglo-Saxons that physically drove the Romano-British/proto-Welsh from the lowlands, rather than they formed a new ruling class on top of the existing population.
Yet as others have said there is a dearth of Celtic placenames in south and east England and next to no Brythonic loanwords in Anglo-Saxon or indeed modern English, so the putative Anglo-Saxon “ruling class” did a far better job of rooting out the general population’s language than the Romans did, or indeed the Normans, who really did form just a ruling class, did to the Anglo-Saxons. Then we have placenames like “Walton” (“foreigner settlement”) which suggest that remnant British populations did exist but lived to some degree separate from the Anglo-Saxons.
Genetics doesn’t resolve the issue either: I’m not super up to date on the latest research but what I recall is that while the lowland “English” population is somewhat distinct from the upland “Celtic” population it’s not particularly close to the regions on the Continent that the Anglo-Saxons hailed from, and probably reflects a much older set of population movements.
In the North East of the US, plenty of Native American names survive in geographical features or place names, even though the Indian tribes were annihilated or pushed further West.
There are very few names of Celtic origin in East Anglia.
If we look at the evidence of placenames, I think it shows that the Anglo-Saxon invasion of what is now the East of England was one of incredible violence and fury -- the Welshness was obliterated, far more so than Native American names were obliterated in the US.
England is the land of a terrible genocide.
That theory is about fifty years out of date. It was discredited even when i studied Anglo Saxon history thirty five years ago.
What theory?
I merely made an assertion about place names.
If you have evidence, present it, rather than invoice the Papal Infallability of IanB2's teachers thirty-five years ago.
Boudicca was not English, but it's probable that most inhabitants of Norfolk and Suffolk today have Icenian ancestors. And, they would undoubtedly see themselves as English.
There is little evidence for that. Most inhabitants of Norfolk today are not descendants of Icenians, as judged by their names of the place names of the towns that they built. There is little or no discernible Celtic influence.
The descendants of the Icenians are much further West, because waves of invasion pushed them there. The descendents will be in Wales or the West Country.
If you believe Boudicca was English, then you believe Pythagoras was Italian, Euclid & Aristarchus were Egyptian and Epicurus & Diogenes were Turkish.
These philosophers are all associated with Sicily or Alexandria or present-day Turkey. But they were Greek.
Boudicca was Welsh.
It’s a conundrum. Almost all archaeologists reject the notion that there was a large-scale population transfer of Anglo-Saxons that physically drove the Romano-British/proto-Welsh from the lowlands, rather than they formed a new ruling class on top of the existing population.
Yet as others have said there is a dearth of Celtic placenames in south and east England and next to no Brythonic loanwords in Anglo-Saxon or indeed modern English, so the putative Anglo-Saxon “ruling class” did a far better job of rooting out the general population’s language than the Romans did, or indeed the Normans, who really did form just a ruling class, did to the Anglo-Saxons. Then we have placenames like “Walton” (“foreigner settlement”) which suggest that remnant British populations did exist but lived to some degree separate from the Anglo-Saxons.
Genetics doesn’t resolve the issue either: I’m not super up to date on the latest research but what I recall is that while the lowland “English” population is somewhat distinct from the upland “Celtic” population it’s not particularly close to the regions on the Continent that the Anglo-Saxons hailed from, and probably reflects a much older set of population movements.
There’s a theory that the south and east of England were settled by Germanic language speakers long before the Anglo Saxon arrived, and therefore weren’t speaking celtic to begin with.
Boudicca was not English, but it's probable that most inhabitants of Norfolk and Suffolk today have Icenian ancestors. And, they would undoubtedly see themselves as English.
There is little evidence for that. Most inhabitants of Norfolk today are not descendants of Icenians, as judged by their names of the place names of the towns that they built. There is little or no discernible Celtic influence.
The descendants of the Icenians are much further West, because waves of invasion pushed them there. The descendents will be in Wales or the West Country.
If you believe Boudicca was English, then you believe Pythagoras was Italian, Euclid & Aristarchus were Egyptian and Epicurus & Diogenes were Turkish.
These philosophers are all associated with Sicily or Alexandria or present-day Turkey. But they were Greek.
Boudicca was Welsh.
It’s a conundrum. Almost all archaeologists reject the notion that there was a large-scale population transfer of Anglo-Saxons that physically drove the Romano-British/proto-Welsh from the lowlands, rather than they formed a new ruling class on top of the existing population.
Yet as others have said there is a dearth of Celtic placenames in south and east England and next to no Brythonic loanwords in Anglo-Saxon or indeed modern English, so the putative Anglo-Saxon “ruling class” did a far better job of rooting out the general population’s language than the Romans did, or indeed the Normans, who really did form just a ruling class, did to the Anglo-Saxons. Then we have placenames like “Walton” (“foreigner settlement”) which suggest that remnant British populations did exist but lived to some degree separate from the Anglo-Saxons.
Genetics doesn’t resolve the issue either: I’m not super up to date on the latest research but what I recall is that while the lowland “English” population is somewhat distinct from the upland “Celtic” population it’s not particularly close to the regions on the Continent that the Anglo-Saxons hailed from, and probably reflects a much older set of population movements.
In the North East of the US, plenty of Native American names survive in geographical features or place names, even though the Indian tribes were annihilated or pushed further West.
There are very few names of Celtic origin in East Anglia.
If we look at the evidence of placenames, I think it shows that the Anglo-Saxon invasion of what is now the East of England was one of incredible violence and fury -- the Welshness was obliterated, far more so than Native American names were obliterated in the US.
England is the land of a terrible genocide.
The way you describe it sounds like the land of "well executed and delivered" genocide
Boudicca was not English, but it's probable that most inhabitants of Norfolk and Suffolk today have Icenian ancestors. And, they would undoubtedly see themselves as English.
There is little evidence for that. Most inhabitants of Norfolk today are not descendants of Icenians, as judged by their names of the place names of the towns that they built. There is little or no discernible Celtic influence.
The descendants of the Icenians are much further West, because waves of invasion pushed them there. The descendents will be in Wales or the West Country.
If you believe Boudicca was English, then you believe Pythagoras was Italian, Euclid & Aristarchus were Egyptian and Epicurus & Diogenes were Turkish.
These philosophers are all associated with Sicily or Alexandria or present-day Turkey. But they were Greek.
Boudicca was Welsh.
It’s a conundrum. Almost all archaeologists reject the notion that there was a large-scale population transfer of Anglo-Saxons that physically drove the Romano-British/proto-Welsh from the lowlands, rather than they formed a new ruling class on top of the existing population.
Yet as others have said there is a dearth of Celtic placenames in south and east England and next to no Brythonic loanwords in Anglo-Saxon or indeed modern English, so the putative Anglo-Saxon “ruling class” did a far better job of rooting out the general population’s language than the Romans did, or indeed the Normans, who really did form just a ruling class, did to the Anglo-Saxons. Then we have placenames like “Walton” (“foreigner settlement”) which suggest that remnant British populations did exist but lived to some degree separate from the Anglo-Saxons.
Genetics doesn’t resolve the issue either: I’m not super up to date on the latest research but what I recall is that while the lowland “English” population is somewhat distinct from the upland “Celtic” population it’s not particularly close to the regions on the Continent that the Anglo-Saxons hailed from, and probably reflects a much older set of population movements.
There’s a theory that the south and east of England were settled by Germanic language speakers long before the Anglo Saxon arrived, and therefore weren’t speaking celtic to begin with.
Does anyone know the names of his other 5 'official' kids?
2 sons and 2 daughters with ex-wife Marina Wheeler and a daughter with Helen MacIntyre. I know there are rumours of a sixth child with another woman but we're never going to know unless she goes public.
If we can find out the names of the others, it could give us a handle on the kind of names Boris prefers.
Of course there's always the possibility that he lets their mothers have the final say.
See the final paragraph of the thread header.
Doh! I didn't read that bit. Well with names like that and the possibility that Carrie might have different ideas I wouldn't touch that market, the prices are all too short and there's too much opportunity for insider betting by the staff at Downing Street and others who might be in the know.
Boudicca. Currently in favour with the posh, and spot-on combo of classical history and English nationalism.
Boudicca ... English nationalism.
Boudicca was not English because there were no English people on these islands in AD60.
Buddig was Welsh.
‘English’ is not really an ethnicity, it is a nationality.
She is not English (whether defined ethnically or by nationality). There was no notion of England until the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons.
Buddig did not speak English (but a Brythonic Celtic language).
Yours is a truly outrageous piece of cultural appropriation. The intellectual equivalent of a skinhead's fist.
In your picture, King Arthur is English ... even though he spent his life fighting the English.
The problem is we have next to no reliable historical record of what was taking place between say, 440 AD and 600 AD. It's hard to know if Arthur actually existed.
Wessex was supposedly an Anglo-Saxon kingdom, yet its founder, Cerdic, and his two successors had British names.
Boudicca was not English, but it's probable that most inhabitants of Norfolk and Suffolk today have Icenian ancestors. And, they would undoubtedly see themselves as English.
Welcome back.
I think there is pretty compelling evidence that a war leader lived at the time and had at least a temporary success in holding back the hordes.
I remember years ago reading speculation that the historical figure Riothamus (operating around AD470) was Arthur based on the suggestion that "Riothamus" was actually a title (it approximates to "Greatest King") and that there is evidence of an upsurge in babies being named "Arthur" around that time
Channel 5 programme reckoned King Arthur was a Welsh warlord known as The Bear (which sounds like Arthur in Welsh, apparently). For what it's worth.
Arth is bear in Welsh. There’s a pub in Penarth High St called the Bear’s Head, which is a pub on “Penarth”. Pen being Welsh for head.
I too read a thesis that the absence of references to an “Arthur” in the (few!) contemporary writings maybe because it was a nickname. A bit like a future civilisation finding the odd reference to the “Desert Fox” but nothing on Erwin Rommel.
Or he was a berserker.
In both Germanic languages and Slavic languages the original word for bear has been forgotten because it has been so completely replaced by a euphemism (brown one in Germanic languages and honey eater in Slavic languages). That’s how scary bears were.
Just saw the Manchester derby score. Guessing we now need a Gunners midweek victory to be able to finish the season at Goodison right? Cheering on all red clubs for once.
The season is over already.
Liverpool have walked it, and well done from this Man Utd lifetime supporter
Lets get things in perspective. The Scottish Rugby result is far more important, as is calling out the loons in Women's cricket who do not set aside spare days in case of bad weather.
Boudicca was not English, but it's probable that most inhabitants of Norfolk and Suffolk today have Icenian ancestors. And, they would undoubtedly see themselves as English.
There is little evidence for that. Most inhabitants of Norfolk today are not descendants of Icenians, as judged by their names of the place names of the towns that they built. There is little or no discernible Celtic influence.
The descendants of the Icenians are much further West, because waves of invasion pushed them there. The descendents will be in Wales or the West Country.
If you believe Boudicca was English, then you believe Pythagoras was Italian, Euclid & Aristarchus were Egyptian and Epicurus & Diogenes were Turkish.
These philosophers are all associated with Sicily or Alexandria or present-day Turkey. But they were Greek.
Boudicca was Welsh.
It’s a conundrum. Almost all archaeologists reject the notion that there was a large-scale population transfer of Anglo-Saxons that physically drove the Romano-British/proto-Welsh from the lowlands, rather than they formed a new ruling class on top of the existing population.
Yet as others have said there is a dearth of Celtic placenames in south and east England and next to no Brythonic loanwords in Anglo-Saxon or indeed modern English, so the putative Anglo-Saxon “ruling class” did a far better job of rooting out the general population’s language than the Romans did, or indeed the Normans, who really did form just a ruling class, did to the Anglo-Saxons. Then we have placenames like “Walton” (“foreigner settlement”) which suggest that remnant British populations did exist but lived to some degree separate from the Anglo-Saxons.
Genetics doesn’t resolve the issue either: I’m not super up to date on the latest research but what I recall is that while the lowland “English” population is somewhat distinct from the upland “Celtic” population it’s not particularly close to the regions on the Continent that the Anglo-Saxons hailed from, and probably reflects a much older set of population movements.
In the North East of the US, plenty of Native American names survive in geographical features or place names, even though the Indian tribes were annihilated or pushed further West.
There are very few names of Celtic origin in East Anglia.
If we look at the evidence of placenames, I think it shows that the Anglo-Saxon invasion of what is now the East of England was one of incredible violence and fury -- the Welshness was obliterated, far more so than Native American names were obliterated in the US.
England is the land of a terrible genocide.
That theory is about fifty years out of date. It was discredited even when i studied Anglo Saxon history thirty five years ago.
What theory?
I merely made an assertion about place names.
If you have evidence, present it, rather than invoice the Papal Infallability of IanB2's teachers thirty-five years ago.
Certainly not infallible. And my notes are in a box somewhere in the loft.
There’s no right answer, given the inadequacy of the evidence. Wikipedia has a reasonable article with links to a stack of citations. Here’s part of its summary:
However, another view, the most widely accepted among 21st century scholars, is that the migrants were fewer, possibly centred on a warrior elite. This hypothesis suggests that the incomers, having achieved a position of political and social dominance, initiated a process of acculturation by the natives to their language and material culture, and intermarried with them to a significant degree. Archaeologists have found that settlement patterns and land use show no clear break with the Romano-British past, though there were marked changes in material culture. This view predicts that the ancestry of the people of Anglo-Saxon and modern England would be largely derived from the native Romano-British. The uncertain results of genetic studies have tended to support both a predominant amount of native British Celtic ancestry and a significant continental contribution resulting from Germanic immigration.
According to this report, in Italy, nobody is enforcing the rules, people are still doing things despite what the government have said. It isn't going to be 3000 like in China is it.
Boudicca was not English, but it's probable that most inhabitants of Norfolk and Suffolk today have Icenian ancestors. And, they would undoubtedly see themselves as English.
There is little evidence for that. Most inhabitants of Norfolk today are not descendants of Icenians, as judged by their names of the place names of the towns that they built. There is little or no discernible Celtic influence.
The descendants of the Icenians are much further West, because waves of invasion pushed them there. The descendents will be in Wales or the West Country.
If you believe Boudicca was English, then you believe Pythagoras was Italian, Euclid & Aristarchus were Egyptian and Epicurus & Diogenes were Turkish.
These philosophers are all associated with Sicily or Alexandria or present-day Turkey. But they were Greek.
Boudicca was Welsh.
It’s a conundrum. Almost all archaeologists reject the notion that there was a large-scale population transfer of Anglo-Saxons that physically drove the Romano-British/proto-Welsh from the lowlands, rather than they formed a new ruling class on top of the existing population.
Yet as others have said there is a dearth of Celtic placenames in south and east England and next to no Brythonic loanwords in Anglo-Saxon or indeed modern English, so the putative Anglo-Saxon “ruling class” did a far better job of rooting out the general population’s language than the Romans did, or indeed the Normans, who really did form just a ruling class, did to the Anglo-Saxons. Then we have placenames like “Walton” (“foreigner settlement”) which suggest that remnant British populations did exist but lived to some degree separate from the Anglo-Saxons.
Genetics doesn’t resolve the issue either: I’m not super up to date on the latest research but what I recall is that while the lowland “English” population is somewhat distinct from the upland “Celtic” population it’s not particularly close to the regions on the Continent that the Anglo-Saxons hailed from, and probably reflects a much older set of population movements.
In the North East of the US, plenty of Native American names survive in geographical features or place names, even though the Indian tribes were annihilated or pushed further West.
There are very few names of Celtic origin in East Anglia.
If we look at the evidence of placenames, I think it shows that the Anglo-Saxon invasion of what is now the East of England was one of incredible violence and fury -- the Welshness was obliterated, far more so than Native American names were obliterated in the US.
England is the land of a terrible genocide.
That theory is about fifty years out of date. It was discredited even when i studied Anglo Saxon history thirty five years ago.
What theory?
I merely made an assertion about place names.
If you have evidence, present it, rather than invoice the Papal Infallability of IanB2's teachers thirty-five years ago.
Certainly not infallible. And my notes are in a box somewhere in the loft.
There’s no right answer, given the inadequacy of the evidence. Wikipedia has a reasonable article with links to a stack of citations. Here’s part of its summary:
However, another view, the most widely accepted among 21st century scholars, is that the migrants were fewer, possibly centred on a warrior elite. This hypothesis suggests that the incomers, having achieved a position of political and social dominance, initiated a process of acculturation by the natives to their language and material culture, and intermarried with them to a significant degree. Archaeologists have found that settlement patterns and land use show no clear break with the Romano-British past, though there were marked changes in material culture. This view predicts that the ancestry of the people of Anglo-Saxon and modern England would be largely derived from the native Romano-British. The uncertain results of genetic studies have tended to support both a predominant amount of native British Celtic ancestry and a significant continental contribution resulting from Germanic immigration.
As an interesting counterfactual, I wonder if something similar would have occurred if the Danes had conquered Wessex in 878. Would we now be a Danish-speaking population, with most place names being Danish?
Boudicca was not English, but it's probable that most inhabitants of Norfolk and Suffolk today have Icenian ancestors. And, they would undoubtedly see themselves as English.
There is little evidence for that. Most inhabitants of Norfolk today are not descendants of Icenians, as judged by their names of the place names of the towns that they built. There is little or no discernible Celtic influence.
The descendants of the Icenians are much further West, because waves of invasion pushed them there. The descendents will be in Wales or the West Country.
If you believe Boudicca was English, then you believe Pythagoras was Italian, Euclid & Aristarchus were Egyptian and Epicurus & Diogenes were Turkish.
These philosophers are all associated with Sicily or Alexandria or present-day Turkey. But they were Greek.
Boudicca was Welsh.
It’s a conundrum. Almost all archaeologists reject the notion that there was a large-scale population transfer of Anglo-Saxons that physically drove the Romano-British/proto-Welsh from the lowlands, rather than they formed a new ruling class on top of the existing population.
Yet as others have said there is a dearth of Celtic placenames in south and east England and next to no Brythonic loanwords in Anglo-Saxon or indeed modern English, so the putative Anglo-Saxon “ruling class” did a far better job of rooting out the general population’s language than the Romans did, or indeed the Normans, who really did form just a ruling class, did to the Anglo-Saxons. Then we have placenames like “Walton” (“foreigner settlement”) which suggest that remnant British populations did exist but lived to some degree separate from the Anglo-Saxons.
Genetics doesn’t resolve the issue either: I’m not super up to date on the latest research but what I recall is that while the lowland “English” population is somewhat distinct from the upland “Celtic” population it’s not particularly close to the regions on the Continent that the Anglo-Saxons hailed from, and probably reflects a much older set of population movements.
In the North East of the US, plenty of Native American names survive in geographical features or place names, even though the Indian tribes were annihilated or pushed further West.
There are very few names of Celtic origin in East Anglia.
If we look at the evidence of placenames, I think it shows that the Anglo-Saxon invasion of what is now the East of England was one of incredible violence and fury -- the Welshness was obliterated, far more so than Native American names were obliterated in the US.
England is the land of a terrible genocide.
That theory is about fifty years out of date. It was discredited even when i studied Anglo Saxon history thirty five years ago.
What theory?
I merely made an assertion about place names.
If you have evidence, present it, rather than invoice the Papal Infallability of IanB2's teachers thirty-five years ago.
Certainly not infallible. And my notes are in a box somewhere in the loft.
There’s no right answer, given the inadequacy of the evidence. Wikipedia has a reasonable article with links to a stack of citations. Here’s part of its summary:
However, another view, the most widely accepted among 21st century scholars, is that the migrants were fewer, possibly centred on a warrior elite. This hypothesis suggests that the incomers, having achieved a position of political and social dominance, initiated a process of acculturation by the natives to their language and material culture, and intermarried with them to a significant degree. Archaeologists have found that settlement patterns and land use show no clear break with the Romano-British past, though there were marked changes in material culture. This view predicts that the ancestry of the people of Anglo-Saxon and modern England would be largely derived from the native Romano-British. The uncertain results of genetic studies have tended to support both a predominant amount of native British Celtic ancestry and a significant continental contribution resulting from Germanic immigration.
You kept your notes from a degree course 35 years ago, Have you looked at them since? Christ, mine (such as they were, they were, er, limited) went in the trash the day after the final exam.
According to this report, in Italy, nobody is enforcing the rules, people are still doing things despite what the government have said. It isn't going to be 3000 like in China is it.
Comments
For context - he was talking about national level shelter programs (Swiss style bunkers for every house) and stockpiling emergency food, medicine and equipment for a post nuclear war environment.
But I was nearly five weeks late, so maybe my memory circuits were a bit more advanced?
I could draw you a floor plan of a house we left before I was two.
Britons in Italy's locked-down north are 'free to return home or complete their holiday', says UK Foreign Office - despite Italians being threatened with JAIL if they leave the coronavirus quarantine zones
The Foreign Office confirmed that British tourists in the northern parts of the country - the worst affected region - 'are free to return home or complete their holiday' under guidelines from the Italian government.
They said nationals will not be met by anyone at the airport in Britain, nor will they be put into quarantine or told to take a test for the bug which has killed 3,500 world wide and has infected more than 100,000.
The descendants of the Icenians are much further West, because waves of invasion pushed them there. The descendents will be in Wales or the West Country.
If you believe Boudicca was English, then you believe Pythagoras was Italian, Euclid & Aristarchus were Egyptian and Epicurus & Diogenes were Turkish.
These philosophers are all associated with Sicily or Alexandria or present-day Turkey. But they were Greek.
Boudicca was Welsh.
I think there is pretty compelling evidence that a war leader lived at the time and had at least a temporary success in holding back the hordes.
I remember years ago reading speculation that the historical figure Riothamus (operating around AD470) was Arthur based on the suggestion that "Riothamus" was actually a title (it approximates to "Greatest King") and that there is evidence of an upsurge in babies being named "Arthur" around that time
The reaction was (a) You want a war, (b) it is evil to think about the aftermath (c) preparing to survive an attack makes it more likely and (d) wibble.
The Swiss simply carried out his ideas.
What has happened is that some people have relapsed, ie they never fully recovered fom the 1st infection, whichh can happen to most diseases, and happened to me with Flu once.
(location doesn't matter. Just get a ventilator hooked up in the basement and a team of three nurses to give you 24 hour service.
One might also point out that whilst the UK isn't doing random testing, it is doing A LOT of testing of people testing negative. They would surely be finding far more cases amongst those if there was a large amount of asymptomatic infection within the community. It wouldn't make sense that they would somehow be completely missing these people (because they could be asymptomatic for COVID-19 but still symptomatic with something else). Also there was a lot of testing on eg. cruise ships etc which was not random, but blanket testing.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4735688/
The "invasion" was more a cultural takeover of most of the Roman Province of Britannia following the collapse of the government and, it increasingly appears, plague related to the Plague of Justinian. It was a little like the Spanish takeover in the Americas. Most people in Mexico are decended from the native populations but the cultural Spanish takeover was virtually total. That's what happened in England, with the Anglo-Saxons doing what the Spanish would later do in the Americas.
How many kids do you have?
Apparently there's a case on the isle of Wight according to the local radio, I would have thought that was a safer than average place.
If someone thinks of Stonehenge as "English" nobody argues.. Even though the builders of Stonehenge have even less to do with the "English" than Boudicca
This from a surgeon in Bergamo, who obviously has no kind of handle on the situation at all.
"I still remember my night shift a week ago spent without any rest, waiting for a call from the microbiology department. I was waiting for the results of a swab taken from the first suspect case in our hospital, thinking about what consequences it would have for us and the hospital. If I think about it, my agitation for one possible case seems almost ridiculous and unjustified, now that I have seen what is happening. Well, the situation is now nothing short of dramatic. No other words come to mind. The war has literally exploded and battles are uninterrupted day and night. One after the other, these unfortunate people come to the emergency room. They have far from the complications of a flu. Let's stop saying it's a bad flu. In my two years working in Bergamo, I have learned that the people here do not come to the emergency room for no reason. They did well this time too. They followed all the recommendations given: a week or ten days at home with a fever without going out to prevent contagion, but now they can't take it anymore. They don't breathe enough, they need oxygen. Drug therapies for this virus are few.
The course mainly depends on our organism. We can only support it when it can't take it anymore. It is mainly hoped that our body will eradicate the virus on its own, let's face it. Antiviral therapies are experimental on this virus and we learn its behavior day after day. Staying at home until the symptoms worsen does not change the prognosis of the disease. Now, however, that need for beds in all its drama has arrived. One after another, the departments that had been emptied are filling up at an impressive rate. The display boards with the names of the sicks, of different colors depending on the department they belong to, are now all red and instead of the surgical procedure, there is the diagnosis, which is always the same: bilateral interstitial pneumonia. Now, tell me which flu virus causes such a rapid tragedy.
For what it's worth.
She was a leader of a Celtic tribe, she spoke a language akin to Welsh.
You could perhaps describe Boudicca as British (I would not).
But, she is not English.
0-49: 8
50-59: 17
60-69: 40
70-79: 41
80-89: 25
>90: 3
The larger number of elderly people in Italy explains part of the difference. But why should the number of deaths in Italy under 60 be so small by comparison?
HMG have just barred Northern Italy from all but essential travel
No, I am SeanT
etc
Next question.
Anything within the present-day boundaries of the UK constructed before 450 AD is not English.
Liverpool have walked it, and well done from this Man Utd lifetime supporter
It would be as anachronistic to call Boudicca English as to call Henry II English, but those of us who are English can claim them as ancestors.
I too read a thesis that the absence of references to an “Arthur” in the (few!) contemporary writings maybe because it was a nickname. A bit like a future civilisation finding the odd reference to the “Desert Fox” but nothing on Erwin Rommel.
And Iran Air have just suspended all flights to Europe indefinitely
Yet as others have said there is a dearth of Celtic placenames in south and east England and next to no Brythonic loanwords in Anglo-Saxon or indeed modern English, so the putative Anglo-Saxon “ruling class” did a far better job of rooting out the general population’s language than the Romans did, or indeed the Normans, who really did form just a ruling class, did to the Anglo-Saxons. Then we have placenames like “Walton” (“foreigner settlement”) which suggest that remnant British populations did exist but lived to some degree separate from the Anglo-Saxons.
Genetics doesn’t resolve the issue either: I’m not super up to date on the latest research but what I recall is that while the lowland “English” population is somewhat distinct from the upland “Celtic” population it’s not particularly close to the regions on the Continent that the Anglo-Saxons hailed from, and probably reflects a much older set of population movements.
Alternatively, stay where you are with food supplies and good internet, and see how far you can get down the Netflix catalogue!
I merely disputed the description of her as English.
It is difficult to make connections from the remote past to the present-day. But if you are going to do, Boudicca was Welsh. In the same way that Pythagoras was Greek (though he lived in Italy).
There are very few names of Celtic origin in East Anglia.
If we look at the evidence of placenames, I think it shows that the Anglo-Saxon invasion of what is now the East of England was one of incredible violence and fury -- the Welshness was obliterated, far more so than Native American names were obliterated in the US.
England is the land of a terrible genocide.
I merely made an assertion about place names.
If you have evidence, present it, rather than invoice the Papal Infallability of IanB2's teachers thirty-five years ago.
In both Germanic languages and Slavic languages the original word for bear has been forgotten because it has been so completely replaced by a euphemism (brown one in Germanic languages and honey eater in Slavic languages). That’s how scary bears were.
There’s no right answer, given the inadequacy of the evidence. Wikipedia has a reasonable article with links to a stack of citations. Here’s part of its summary:
However, another view, the most widely accepted among 21st century scholars, is that the migrants were fewer, possibly centred on a warrior elite. This hypothesis suggests that the incomers, having achieved a position of political and social dominance, initiated a process of acculturation by the natives to their language and material culture, and intermarried with them to a significant degree. Archaeologists have found that settlement patterns and land use show no clear break with the Romano-British past, though there were marked changes in material culture. This view predicts that the ancestry of the people of Anglo-Saxon and modern England would be largely derived from the native Romano-British. The uncertain results of genetic studies have tended to support both a predominant amount of native British Celtic ancestry and a significant continental contribution resulting from Germanic immigration.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQsKe2n3bk4