"Greece's powerful Orthodox Church has rejected calls to stop communion that has been identified a risk for spreading the coronavirus, Instead, priests have been instructed nationwide to pray against the spread of the disease.
The Church of Greece's governing body said Monday that the spoonful of wine inserted into believers' mouths during communion "clearly cannot cause the spread of disease."
It called communion is an "act of love" that conquers fear in a statement."
"Islamic cleric Ilyas Sharafuddin said in an audio address that “Allah unleashed Coronavirus on Chinese for persecuting Uighur Muslims”. Ilyas said that "they the Chinese have threatened the Muslims and tried to destroy lives of 20 million Muslims. Muslims were forced to drink alcohol, their mosques were destroyed and their Holy Book was burned. They thought that no one can challenge them, but Allah the most powerful punished them." "
He's a bit behind the curve. Allah has spared the Chinese and is now turning his wrathful attention on pious Iran.
What a difference a couple of weeks makes. Greatest US primary comeback? Clinton was another famous one, but was he so written off compared to where Biden was?
Lock down too tightly, too early and the economic impact will be disasterous and potentially people won't stand for it, leading to civil unrest.
Leave it too late and the health service will be overrun, leading to high fatalities and the risk of economic and civil disrpution.
Not an easy one to judge.
This is where the western take on what's happened in Asia has got all twisted. People are looking at the *Chinese* response, which was a complete lockdown in an authoritarian country, and thinking that they have to do that.
But that's not what Japan and South Korea are doing. "Please work from home if practical. Please consider cancelling public events. We're extending the school holidays." It's somewhat disruptive, but it's not a devastating shutdown of everything. And by doing it earlier, you reduce the risk that you will need to do a devastating shutdown of everything.
AND WEAR MASKS
Joey Essex has started wearing a mask today, he has 1.7 million Instagram followers. Maybe he is not as stupid as made out https://www.instagram.com/p/B9hbk2SAmlZ/
This point gets bandied about a lot, but it's utterly meaningless when you need 50-100x as many beds. Doubling it would be a drop in the ocean, and a waste of resources to have had them and not needed them for the past years.
I guess it's a view that this is 'utterly meaningless'. Adifferent view is that the existing capacities will in fact have to be multiplied, mostly not to the existing high standards, but as makeshift emergency solutions. And that this will be more easy the bigger the base that you can start from.
Having 8,000 beds vs 4,000 will make no difference if hundreds of thousands need one.
It will make a difference to 4,000 people. And the aggregate numbers will be a bit higher.
As I said, a rounding error. If there was a routine need for many more critical care beds, I could see an argument for increasing them. To double the number just for spare capacity in case something like this doesn't seem sensible, especially given that the NHS only has a finite budget.
That's the crucial point, of course. To have 4.5 times the capacity we have to pay roughly 3 times as much as you as % of GDP.
And in this current crisis the number of extra beds is insignificant compared to the number who will need it. I'm not sure that's worth paying 3x extra for (that seems awfully large, given the size of the NHS budget!)
I guess we will see how prudent that investment was.
The gap between the Johnson and Trump press conferences today is massive. Trump and Pence see it in economic terms only. The scientists with them basically said they got an email with the Australian response and just copied it. They were smiling crazily giving the impression they were delighted that they didnt have to come up with anything themselves.
So thankful we still have some talented experts in our government.
This point gets bandied about a lot, but it's utterly meaningless when you need 50-100x as many beds. Doubling it would be a drop in the ocean, and a waste of resources to have had them and not needed them for the past years.
I guess it's a view that this is 'utterly meaningless'. Adifferent view is that the existing capacities will in fact have to be multiplied, mostly not to the existing high standards, but as makeshift emergency solutions. And that this will be more easy the bigger the base that you can start from.
Having 8,000 beds vs 4,000 will make no difference if hundreds of thousands need one.
It will make a difference to 4,000 people. And the aggregate numbers will be a bit higher.
As I said, a rounding error. If there was a routine need for many more critical care beds, I could see an argument for increasing them. To double the number just for spare capacity in case something like this doesn't seem sensible, especially given that the NHS only has a finite budget.
That's the crucial point, of course. To have 4.5 times the capacity we have to pay roughly 3 times as much as you as % of GDP.
And in this current crisis the number of extra beds is insignificant compared to the number who will need it. I'm not sure that's worth paying 3x extra for (that seems awfully large, given the size of the NHS budget!)
I guess we will see how prudent that investment was.
This point gets bandied about a lot, but it's utterly meaningless when you need 50-100x as many beds. Doubling it would be a drop in the ocean, and a waste of resources to have had them and not needed them for the past years.
I guess it's a view that this is 'utterly meaningless'. Adifferent view is that the existing capacities will in fact have to be multiplied, mostly not to the existing high standards, but as makeshift emergency solutions. And that this will be more easy the bigger the base that you can start from.
Having 8,000 beds vs 4,000 will make no difference if hundreds of thousands need one.
It will make a difference to 4,000 people. And the aggregate numbers will be a bit higher.
As I said, a rounding error. If there was a routine need for many more critical care beds, I could see an argument for increasing them. To double the number just for spare capacity in case something like this doesn't seem sensible, especially given that the NHS only has a finite budget.
That's the crucial point, of course. To have 4.5 times the capacity we have to pay roughly 3 times as much as you as % of GDP.
And in this current crisis the number of extra beds is insignificant compared to the number who will need it. I'm not sure that's worth paying 3x extra for (that seems awfully large, given the size of the NHS budget!)
I guess we will see how prudent that investment was.
The gap between the Johnson and Trump press conferences today is massive. Trump and Pence see it in economic terms only. The scientists with them basically said they got an email with the Australian response and just copied it. They were smiling crazily giving the impression they were delighted that they didnt have to come up with anything themselves.
So thankful we still have some talented experts in our government.
Do you not think that if the government is planning for massive social changes, large scale lock downs, only certain individuals to work etc, that they will perhaps want to keep the number of people who know about it to a bare minimum and let things come out when they are ready?
I highly doubt they are going to ring up the Grocer and say hey you know we had all the supermarkets in yesterday and they have all agreed come April, they will work together and the nation will live on rations.
Even the report of the supermarkets know nothing about any meetings...well the press clearly ring up their contact in the PR department of Asda, Tescos etc and say are you meeting with the government....to the answer will be no. But do we really know where the MDs were in meetings and they were asked no to say anything about it?
I really see this now as we are on a war footing (I don't think the press have grasped it yet). It isn't normal operation of government leaking to their friendly journos, flying kites etc. Noticed how nobody knows anything about the budget.
I took from the PM press conference today is we are being primed for Wednesday, then primed for another step say Friday.
I think you give too much credit to a government led by Boris "Come on, we're British, we won two world wars, etc." Johnson.
If there is any deliberate intent behind all this, I think it's 'a heads-we-win, tails-you-lose' scenario: if we contain it, they'll get praise for not over-reacting, if it blows up, it'll be largely older people who will suffer, and that solves the care situation...
What I would agree with is that we are on a war footing and rationing will come. Largely because of what the Germans call 'hamsterkaüfer' (hoarders)...
Deleted
Have you been into a supermarket in the last few days?
We grow 61% of our food (approx - NFU figures). If there is a large-scale lockdown, you will get disrupted supply chains, and people will start to hoard. Sorry. The bloke three doors down from me came home with his car boot full of toilet roll, water bottles and pasta...he's not alone.
Yes, I was in a CoOp this morning. It was fully stocked. Including lavatory rolls, kitchen rolls, wipes, pasta (crunchy for wiping I’m guessing) and Evian. That’s a fact though. I appreciate that fuckwits on Twitter are the approved information source du jour.
That's very good to know.
Ditto Sainsbury’s Cardiff. Bit short on pasta and bog roll compared to normal ( and cat food and cat litter which I thought was really sweet, if hoarding can be, that folks are thinking about their four footed friends), but nothing was not available that I could see. You could buy pasta, bog roll, and pet stuff and everything else looked totally normal.
Waitrose here was out of toilet roll, split red lentils and porridge oats. What that tells you, I don't know!
Toilet roll, lentils and oats sounds like an "interesting" culinary combination...
This point gets bandied about a lot, but it's utterly meaningless when you need 50-100x as many beds. Doubling it would be a drop in the ocean, and a waste of resources to have had them and not needed them for the past years.
I guess it's a view that this is 'utterly meaningless'. Adifferent view is that the existing capacities will in fact have to be multiplied, mostly not to the existing high standards, but as makeshift emergency solutions. And that this will be more easy the bigger the base that you can start from.
Having 8,000 beds vs 4,000 will make no difference if hundreds of thousands need one.
It will make a difference to 4,000 people. And the aggregate numbers will be a bit higher.
As I said, a rounding error. If there was a routine need for many more critical care beds, I could see an argument for increasing them. To double the number just for spare capacity in case something like this doesn't seem sensible, especially given that the NHS only has a finite budget.
That's the crucial point, of course. To have 4.5 times the capacity we have to pay roughly 3 times as much as you as % of GDP.
And in this current crisis the number of extra beds is insignificant compared to the number who will need it. I'm not sure that's worth paying 3x extra for (that seems awfully large, given the size of the NHS budget!)
I guess we will see how prudent that investment was.
The gap between the Johnson and Trump press conferences today is massive. Trump and Pence see it in economic terms only. The scientists with them basically said they got an email with the Australian response and just copied it. They were smiling crazily giving the impression they were delighted that they didnt have to come up with anything themselves.
So thankful we still have some talented experts in our government.
I love our bloody experts!
Hopefully the Tory party will start to listen to them again after this and we avoid going full on Trumpian.
The gap between the Johnson and Trump press conferences today is massive. Trump and Pence see it in economic terms only. The scientists with them basically said they got an email with the Australian response and just copied it. They were smiling crazily giving the impression they were delighted that they didnt have to come up with anything themselves.
So thankful we still have some talented experts in our government.
Politician playing at being a populist. Populist playing at being a politician.
There's a world of difference, not that the press know.
On topic, for the first time I've started thinking that maybe Trump won't run for another term. Psychologically he's a weird case and I don't know what the impact of people around him dying would be, but that combined with terrible polling might give him pause?
Trump has nearly all the GOP delegates, so he can effectively hand-pick his successor, and make sure it's someone he can rely on to shut down any investigations into his crimes, and if necessary pardon him. He's got until the end of August.
This point gets bandied about a lot, but it's utterly meaningless when you need 50-100x as many beds. Doubling it would be a drop in the ocean, and a waste of resources to have had them and not needed them for the past years.
I guess it's a view that this is 'utterly meaningless'. Adifferent view is that the existing capacities will in fact have to be multiplied, mostly not to the existing high standards, but as makeshift emergency solutions. And that this will be more easy the bigger the base that you can start from.
Having 8,000 beds vs 4,000 will make no difference if hundreds of thousands need one.
It will make a difference to 4,000 people. And the aggregate numbers will be a bit higher.
As I said, a rounding error. If there was a routine need for many more critical care beds, I could see an argument for increasing them. To double the number just for spare capacity in case something like this doesn't seem sensible, especially given that the NHS only has a finite budget.
That's the crucial point, of course. To have 4.5 times the capacity we have to pay roughly 3 times as much as you as % of GDP.
And in this current crisis the number of extra beds is insignificant compared to the number who will need it. I'm not sure that's worth paying 3x extra for (that seems awfully large, given the size of the NHS budget!)
I guess we will see how prudent that investment was.
I'm unsure what metrics have been used there. I would be somewhat astonished if it were possible to deliver more than 4 times as many hospital beds for basically the same money.
They really need to get the f***ing talking heads off the news, and replace them with scientists and the government message, repeated on a loop.
Literally killing people by wasting time scoring political points. There will be time for reflection, analysis and blame, but this is not the moment.
Are they then going to spend 20 mins having people argue about the Trans-Rights Pledge card?
Exactly. It’s not “Boris” or “Tories” leading this, it’s the Chief Scientist, the Chief Medical Officer and a team of civil servants who have been doing emergency planning for decades.
Everyone needs to drop the base politics and opposing things for the hell of it.
(I think, if Starmer was LOTO today, he’d have been on the stage with the PM repeating the same messages).
This point gets bandied about a lot, but it's utterly meaningless when you need 50-100x as many beds. Doubling it would be a drop in the ocean, and a waste of resources to have had them and not needed them for the past years.
I guess it's a view that this is 'utterly meaningless'. Adifferent view is that the existing capacities will in fact have to be multiplied, mostly not to the existing high standards, but as makeshift emergency solutions. And that this will be more easy the bigger the base that you can start from.
Having 8,000 beds vs 4,000 will make no difference if hundreds of thousands need one.
It will make a difference to 4,000 people. And the aggregate numbers will be a bit higher.
As I said, a rounding error. If there was a routine need for many more critical care beds, I could see an argument for increasing them. To double the number just for spare capacity in case something like this doesn't seem sensible, especially given that the NHS only has a finite budget.
That's the crucial point, of course. To have 4.5 times the capacity we have to pay roughly 3 times as much as you as % of GDP.
And in this current crisis the number of extra beds is insignificant compared to the number who will need it. I'm not sure that's worth paying 3x extra for (that seems awfully large, given the size of the NHS budget!)
I guess we will see how prudent that investment was.
I'm unsure what metrics have been used. I would be somewhat astonished if it were possible to deliver more than 4 times as many hospital beds for basically the same money.
On topic, for the first time I've started thinking that maybe Trump won't run for another term. Psychologically he's a weird case and I don't know what the impact of people around him dying would be, but that combined with terrible polling might give him pause?
Trump has nearly all the GOP delegates, so he can effectively hand-pick his successor, and make sure it's someone he can rely on to shut down any investigations into his crimes, and if necessary pardon him. He's got until the end of August.
Lock down too tightly, too early and the economic impact will be disasterous and potentially people won't stand for it, leading to civil unrest.
Leave it too late and the health service will be overrun, leading to high fatalities and the risk of economic and civil disrpution.
Not an easy one to judge.
This is where the western take on what's happened in Asia has got all twisted. People are looking at the *Chinese* response, which was a complete lockdown in an authoritarian country, and thinking that they have to do that.
But that's not what Japan and South Korea are doing. "Please work from home if practical. Please consider cancelling public events. We're extending the school holidays." It's somewhat disruptive, but it's not a devastating shutdown of everything. And by doing it earlier, you reduce the risk that you will need to do a devastating shutdown of everything.
And it's almost entirely voluntary. People don't want to get sick, and they don't want other people to get sick. The government doesn't need to coerce. It needs to lead.
This point gets bandied about a lot, but it's utterly meaningless when you need 50-100x as many beds. Doubling it would be a drop in the ocean, and a waste of resources to have had them and not needed them for the past years.
I guess it's a view that this is 'utterly meaningless'. Adifferent view is that the existing capacities will in fact have to be multiplied, mostly not to the existing high standards, but as makeshift emergency solutions. And that this will be more easy the bigger the base that you can start from.
Having 8,000 beds vs 4,000 will make no difference if hundreds of thousands need one.
It will make a difference to 4,000 people. And the aggregate numbers will be a bit higher.
As I said, a rounding error. If there was a routine need for many more critical care beds, I could see an argument for increasing them. To double the number just for spare capacity in case something like this doesn't seem sensible, especially given that the NHS only has a finite budget.
That's the crucial point, of course. To have 4.5 times the capacity we have to pay roughly 3 times as much as you as % of GDP.
And in this current crisis the number of extra beds is insignificant compared to the number who will need it. I'm not sure that's worth paying 3x extra for (that seems awfully large, given the size of the NHS budget!)
I guess we will see how prudent that investment was.
I'm unsure what metrics have been used. I would be somewhat astonished if it were possible to deliver more than 4 times as many hospital beds for basically the same money.
This point gets bandied about a lot, but it's utterly meaningless when you need 50-100x as many beds. Doubling it would be a drop in the ocean, and a waste of resources to have had them and not needed them for the past years.
I guess it's a view that this is 'utterly meaningless'. Adifferent view is that the existing capacities will in fact have to be multiplied, mostly not to the existing high standards, but as makeshift emergency solutions. And that this will be more easy the bigger the base that you can start from.
Having 8,000 beds vs 4,000 will make no difference if hundreds of thousands need one.
It will make a difference to 4,000 people. And the aggregate numbers will be a bit higher.
As I said, a rounding error. If there was a routine need for many more critical care beds, I could see an argument for increasing them. To double the number just for spare capacity in case something like this doesn't seem sensible, especially given that the NHS only has a finite budget.
That's the crucial point, of course. To have 4.5 times the capacity we have to pay roughly 3 times as much as you as % of GDP.
And in this current crisis the number of extra beds is insignificant compared to the number who will need it. I'm not sure that's worth paying 3x extra for (that seems awfully large, given the size of the NHS budget!)
I guess we will see how prudent that investment was.
I'm unsure what metrics have been used there. I would be somewhat astonished if it were possible to deliver more than 4 times as many hospital beds for basically the same money.
The metric is health spending as a fraction of GDP. Where is your 20% estimate, or 3x bigger than the UK, from?
These aren't bog standard hospital beds, these are critical care beds.
The gap between the Johnson and Trump press conferences today is massive. Trump and Pence see it in economic terms only. The scientists with them basically said they got an email with the Australian response and just copied it. They were smiling crazily giving the impression they were delighted that they didnt have to come up with anything themselves.
So thankful we still have some talented experts in our government.
Agreed. And thankfully too, the science experts are non-partisan.
I know one who served under both Labour & Tory Govts, as he believed it was his responsibility & duty. (He was probably left-of-centre politically, but he happily worked as an advisor to a Tory Govt).
As long as Boris is guided by his scientific experts, then I am content.
Many complex simulations will have been run on the spread of the epidemic, estimating fatalities and economic consequences (which could also have fatalities) -- the sims may not be right, but there are much more likely to be right than some random nutter spouting nonsense on the web/pb.com.
This point gets bandied about a lot, but it's utterly meaningless when you need 50-100x as many beds. Doubling it would be a drop in the ocean, and a waste of resources to have had them and not needed them for the past years.
I guess it's a view that this is 'utterly meaningless'. Adifferent view is that the existing capacities will in fact have to be multiplied, mostly not to the existing high standards, but as makeshift emergency solutions. And that this will be more easy the bigger the base that you can start from.
Having 8,000 beds vs 4,000 will make no difference if hundreds of thousands need one.
It will make a difference to 4,000 people. And the aggregate numbers will be a bit higher.
As I said, a rounding error. If there was a routine need for many more critical care beds, I could see an argument for increasing them. To double the number just for spare capacity in case something like this doesn't seem sensible, especially given that the NHS only has a finite budget.
That's the crucial point, of course. To have 4.5 times the capacity we have to pay roughly 3 times as much as you as % of GDP.
And in this current crisis the number of extra beds is insignificant compared to the number who will need it. I'm not sure that's worth paying 3x extra for (that seems awfully large, given the size of the NHS budget!)
I guess we will see how prudent that investment was.
I'm unsure what metrics have been used there. I would be somewhat astonished if it were possible to deliver more than 4 times as many hospital beds for basically the same money.
There will be other areas where the UK has proportionally higher health spending.
On topic, for the first time I've started thinking that maybe Trump won't run for another term. Psychologically he's a weird case and I don't know what the impact of people around him dying would be, but that combined with terrible polling might give him pause?
Trump has nearly all the GOP delegates, so he can effectively hand-pick his successor, and make sure it's someone he can rely on to shut down any investigations into his crimes, and if necessary pardon him. He's got until the end of August.
Who do we think he'd choose?
Bloomberg. Obviously.
In all seriousness, it's surely Pence's if he wants it, under those circumstances?
In all seriousness, it's surely Pence's if he wants it, under those circumstances?
I don't think so, it's up to the delegates. They're Trump delegates, and they'll almost all follow Trump.
If Trump stood down earlier then yes, Pence would be president, and it would be hard not to give him the nomination as well. But he only has to hang on until the end of August.
On topic, for the first time I've started thinking that maybe Trump won't run for another term. Psychologically he's a weird case and I don't know what the impact of people around him dying would be, but that combined with terrible polling might give him pause?
Trump has nearly all the GOP delegates, so he can effectively hand-pick his successor, and make sure it's someone he can rely on to shut down any investigations into his crimes, and if necessary pardon him. He's got until the end of August.
Who do we think he'd choose?
I tend to agree. In that last presser he looked scared, for the first time.
As a proud alpha male, that will hurt him. He won't be sure of winning, indeed he's likely to lose. Better to retire with some excuse and save face?
Time to roll out a hitherto undisclosed medical issue?
This point gets bandied about a lot, but it's utterly meaningless when you need 50-100x as many beds. Doubling it would be a drop in the ocean, and a waste of resources to have had them and not needed them for the past years.
I guess it's a view that this is 'utterly meaningless'. Adifferent view is that the existing capacities will in fact have to be multiplied, mostly not to the existing high standards, but as makeshift emergency solutions. And that this will be more easy the bigger the base that you can start from.
Having 8,000 beds vs 4,000 will make no difference if hundreds of thousands need one.
It will make a difference to 4,000 people. And the aggregate numbers will be a bit higher.
As I said, a rounding error. If there was a routine need for many more critical care beds, I could see an argument for increasing them. To double the number just for spare capacity in case something like this doesn't seem sensible, especially given that the NHS only has a finite budget.
That's the crucial point, of course. To have 4.5 times the capacity we have to pay roughly 3 times as much as you as % of GDP.
And in this current crisis the number of extra beds is insignificant compared to the number who will need it. I'm not sure that's worth paying 3x extra for (that seems awfully large, given the size of the NHS budget!)
I guess we will see how prudent that investment was.
Woods 100 Navy Rum is strong enough to be toxic to Coronavirus, but you would have to snort and gargle with it neat, which would be an interesting experience!
On topic, for the first time I've started thinking that maybe Trump won't run for another term. Psychologically he's a weird case and I don't know what the impact of people around him dying would be, but that combined with terrible polling might give him pause?
Trump has nearly all the GOP delegates, so he can effectively hand-pick his successor, and make sure it's someone he can rely on to shut down any investigations into his crimes, and if necessary pardon him. He's got until the end of August.
Who do we think he'd choose?
I tend to agree. In that last presser he looked scared, for the first time.
As a proud alpha male, that will hurt him. He won't be sure of winning, indeed he's likely to lose. Better to retire with some excuse and save face?
Yet Trump's approval rating with CNN today was 45% with registered voters, little different to the 46% he got in 2016
This point gets bandied about a lot, but it's utterly meaningless when you need 50-100x as many beds. Doubling it would be a drop in the ocean, and a waste of resources to have had them and not needed them for the past years.
I guess it's a view that this is 'utterly meaningless'. Adifferent view is that the existing capacities will in fact have to be multiplied, mostly not to the existing high standards, but as makeshift emergency solutions. And that this will be more easy the bigger the base that you can start from.
Having 8,000 beds vs 4,000 will make no difference if hundreds of thousands need one.
It will make a difference to 4,000 people. And the aggregate numbers will be a bit higher.
As I said, a rounding error. If there was a routine need for many more critical care beds, I could see an argument for increasing them. To double the number just for spare capacity in case something like this doesn't seem sensible, especially given that the NHS only has a finite budget.
That's the crucial point, of course. To have 4.5 times the capacity we have to pay roughly 3 times as much as you as % of GDP.
And in this current crisis the number of extra beds is insignificant compared to the number who will need it. I'm not sure that's worth paying 3x extra for (that seems awfully large, given the size of the NHS budget!)
I guess we will see how prudent that investment was.
Everyone knows that if you get shot or stabbed, you pour whisky into the wound and then you're good to go. You don't see Liam Neeson getting a bottle of tea tree soap out if he's had to go 10 rounds with some hell crazed Albanian traffickers do you?
On topic, for the first time I've started thinking that maybe Trump won't run for another term. Psychologically he's a weird case and I don't know what the impact of people around him dying would be, but that combined with terrible polling might give him pause?
Trump has nearly all the GOP delegates, so he can effectively hand-pick his successor, and make sure it's someone he can rely on to shut down any investigations into his crimes, and if necessary pardon him. He's got until the end of August.
Who do we think he'd choose?
I tend to agree. In that last presser he looked scared, for the first time.
As a proud alpha male, that will hurt him. He won't be sure of winning, indeed he's likely to lose. Better to retire with some excuse and save face?
I don't see how he could make a sufficient excuse to himself. Sure he could boast how he would have won if he'd wanted to, that he'll dominate things by just speaking to the mass of the party of something (Corbyn would no doubt approve of such as the pinnacle of political achievement), but there'd be no getting away from the fact that he did not take the chance he might lose.
He'd need to convince himself not running was an act of strength. He'd manage it somehow no doubt, but he's so easy to goad.
Everyone knows that if you get shot or stabbed, you pour whisky into the wound and then you're good to go. You don't see Liam Neeson getting a bottle of tea tree soap out if he's had to go 10 rounds with some hell crazed Albanian traffickers do you?
In all seriousness, it's surely Pence's if he wants it, under those circumstances?
I don't think so, it's up to the delegates. They're Trump delegates, and they'll almost all follow Trump.
If Trump stood down earlier then yes, Pence would be president, and it would be hard not to give him the nomination as well. But he only has to hang on until the end of August.
Mayhap. If he wants presidential pardon to be a thing, he needs his successor to be able to win. Which immediately rules out all his family members, which presumably he knows.
Woods 100 Navy Rum is strong enough to be toxic to Coronavirus, but you would have to snort and gargle with it neat, which would be an interesting experience!
Damn, well there’s a medical research project that won’t be short of volunteers!
On topic, for the first time I've started thinking that maybe Trump won't run for another term. Psychologically he's a weird case and I don't know what the impact of people around him dying would be, but that combined with terrible polling might give him pause?
Trump has nearly all the GOP delegates, so he can effectively hand-pick his successor, and make sure it's someone he can rely on to shut down any investigations into his crimes, and if necessary pardon him. He's got until the end of August.
Who do we think he'd choose?
I tend to agree. In that last presser he looked scared, for the first time.
As a proud alpha male, that will hurt him. He won't be sure of winning, indeed he's likely to lose. Better to retire with some excuse and save face?
Time to roll out a hitherto undisclosed medical issue?
Woods 100 Navy Rum is strong enough to be toxic to Coronavirus, but you would have to snort and gargle with it neat, which would be an interesting experience!
Sounds like a relatively inviting countermeasure in the scheme of things
On topic, for the first time I've started thinking that maybe Trump won't run for another term. Psychologically he's a weird case and I don't know what the impact of people around him dying would be, but that combined with terrible polling might give him pause?
Trump has nearly all the GOP delegates, so he can effectively hand-pick his successor, and make sure it's someone he can rely on to shut down any investigations into his crimes, and if necessary pardon him. He's got until the end of August.
Who do we think he'd choose?
Bloomberg. Obviously.
In all seriousness, it's surely Pence's if he wants it, under those circumstances?
Everyone knows that if you get shot or stabbed, you pour whisky into the wound and then you're good to go. You don't see Liam Neeson getting a bottle of tea tree soap out if he's had to go 10 rounds with some hell crazed Albanian traffickers do you?
That’s apparently true(ish). If you have no antiseptic to clean the wound, whisky is better than nothing,
On topic, for the first time I've started thinking that maybe Trump won't run for another term. Psychologically he's a weird case and I don't know what the impact of people around him dying would be, but that combined with terrible polling might give him pause?
Trump has nearly all the GOP delegates, so he can effectively hand-pick his successor, and make sure it's someone he can rely on to shut down any investigations into his crimes, and if necessary pardon him. He's got until the end of August.
Who do we think he'd choose?
I tend to agree. In that last presser he looked scared, for the first time.
As a proud alpha male, that will hurt him. He won't be sure of winning, indeed he's likely to lose. Better to retire with some excuse and save face?
Time to roll out a hitherto undisclosed medical issue?
I don't see it. He'll announce ever-more grandiose schemes to tackle the issue. Impose a quarantine on California, offer £10 billion to the first com,pany to come up with a vaccine, set up isolation camps in Nevada. Whatever. His SOP is to keep moving on, so you're still arguing about the practicality of his last crazy idea when he comes up with another.
If a lot of people die, he'll say it dishonors them and is unpatriotic to question the strategy.
"Most Presidents say they need 8 years to get things done. I'm so awesome I've done everything that needs doing in just 4 years. And as our greatest president, George Washington Carver proved his awesomeness by standing down after 2 terms, I prove I am even greater standing down after 1"
Mayhap. If he wants presidential pardon to be a thing, he needs his successor to be able to win. Which immediately rules out all his family members, which presumably he knows.
Lock down too tightly, too early and the economic impact will be disasterous and potentially people won't stand for it, leading to civil unrest.
Leave it too late and the health service will be overrun, leading to high fatalities and the risk of economic and civil disrpution.
Not an easy one to judge.
This is where the western take on what's happened in Asia has got all twisted. People are looking at the *Chinese* response, which was a complete lockdown in an authoritarian country, and thinking that they have to do that.
But that's not what Japan and South Korea are doing. "Please work from home if practical. Please consider cancelling public events. We're extending the school holidays." It's somewhat disruptive, but it's not a devastating shutdown of everything. And by doing it earlier, you reduce the risk that you will need to do a devastating shutdown of everything.
And it's almost entirely voluntary. People don't want to get sick, and they don't want other people to get sick. The government doesn't need to coerce. It needs to lead.
On topic, for the first time I've started thinking that maybe Trump won't run for another term. Psychologically he's a weird case and I don't know what the impact of people around him dying would be, but that combined with terrible polling might give him pause?
Trump has nearly all the GOP delegates, so he can effectively hand-pick his successor, and make sure it's someone he can rely on to shut down any investigations into his crimes, and if necessary pardon him. He's got until the end of August.
Who do we think he'd choose?
I tend to agree. In that last presser he looked scared, for the first time.
As a proud alpha male, that will hurt him. He won't be sure of winning, indeed he's likely to lose. Better to retire with some excuse and save face?
Time to roll out a hitherto undisclosed medical issue?
I don't see it. He'll announce ever-more grandiose schemes to tackle the issue. Impose a quarantine on California, offer £10 billion to the first com,pany to come up with a vaccine, set up isolation camps in Nevada. Whatever. His SOP is to keep moving on, so you're still arguing about the practicality of his last crazy idea when he comes up with another.
If a lot of people die, he'll say it dishonors them and is unpatriotic to question the strategy.
Only Mexicans are dying. If anyone tells you otherwise it is fake news.
A red card, a yellow card & two more players cited by the independent citing commissioner.
Dirty, dirty.
The red card was utter bollocks. The grabbing of the bollocks was just average rugby.
How are they going to prove Marler's alleged grope - is there video footage?
It is on the site I linked to. It is pretty explicit.
I am sure it make you proud to be English.
Just looked - honestly looked like nothing much to me.
I guess we can wait for the independent commissioner to report.
Let's see if they agree with the two Jolly Englishman, eadric & Benpointer.
The famously partial BBC seem to have given up hope,
"Marler could be in for a long lay-off, with four levels of punishment length under World Rugby rules. The shortest ban for "grabbing, twisting or squeezing the genitals" is 12 weeks, with a top-end level of 24 weeks or more, up to a maximum of 208."
208 weeks sounds right to me, that is 4 years (or a BBC typo).
Comments
https://www.instagram.com/p/B9hbk2SAmlZ/
So thankful we still have some talented experts in our government.
Are they then going to spend 20 mins having people argue about the Trans-Rights Pledge card?
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/healthcaresystem/articles/howdoesukhealthcarespendingcomparewithothercountries/2019-08-29
Populist playing at being a politician.
There's a world of difference, not that the press know.
Trump has nearly all the GOP delegates, so he can effectively hand-pick his successor, and make sure it's someone he can rely on to shut down any investigations into his crimes, and if necessary pardon him. He's got until the end of August.
Who do we think he'd choose?
Everyone needs to drop the base politics and opposing things for the hell of it.
(I think, if Starmer was LOTO today, he’d have been on the stage with the PM repeating the same messages).
These aren't bog standard hospital beds, these are critical care beds.
I know one who served under both Labour & Tory Govts, as he believed it was his responsibility & duty. (He was probably left-of-centre politically, but he happily worked as an advisor to a Tory Govt).
As long as Boris is guided by his scientific experts, then I am content.
Many complex simulations will have been run on the spread of the epidemic, estimating fatalities and economic consequences (which could also have fatalities) -- the sims may not be right, but there are much more likely to be right than some random nutter spouting nonsense on the web/pb.com.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/live/bbctwo
- Ivanka Trump
- Jared Kushner
- Bill Barr
- Rudy Giuliani
In all seriousness, it's surely Pence's if he wants it, under those circumstances?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/51806678
A red card, a yellow card & two more players cited by the independent citing commissioner.
Dirty, dirty.
If Trump stood down earlier then yes, Pence would be president, and it would be hard not to give him the nomination as well. But he only has to hang on until the end of August.
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1237153064362139649?s=20
Don’t run with “Why Britain Could Be Weeks Away From Italian-Style Lockdown” on your front page.
Right now, you need to understand that your role is to inform and calm the public, not to generate clicks and hysteria.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/coronavirus-britain-will-need-do-avoid-lockdown-fate-italy/
I am sure it make you proud to be English.
He'd need to convince himself not running was an act of strength. He'd manage it somehow no doubt, but he's so easy to goad.
Nikki Haley. Anyone except Mitt Romney.
I was at Twickenham, it was a great match, played in a good spirit.
Face it, you just weren't good enough on the day.
I just realised it’s been nine years since I was there, the famous autumn 2011 win against the Aussies.
If a lot of people die, he'll say it dishonors them and is unpatriotic to question the strategy.
You can get 50 for 'female'
I have bunged a pint on that given the world of uncertainty we are in.
Been a few years since I was there but I intend to not leave it as long next time.
Btw the Welsh fans were, as ever, great!
Let's see if they agree with the two Jolly Englishman, eadric & Benpointer.
The famously partial BBC seem to have given up hope,
"Marler could be in for a long lay-off, with four levels of punishment length under World Rugby rules. The shortest ban for "grabbing, twisting or squeezing the genitals" is 12 weeks, with a top-end level of 24 weeks or more, up to a maximum of 208."
208 weeks sounds right to me, that is 4 years (or a BBC typo).
https://twitter.com/JasonGroves1/status/1237104887235837952