Talking of food supplies, I think we must be heading for a quite serious shortage of fresh fruit and veg over the next few weeks. The lockdowns in Spain and Italy must be having a serious disruptive effect on supplies and transport, and it's going to be made worse by effect of the awful weather in the UK on our agriculture.
And 30 minutes after the government recommends that vulnerable groups take a supplement, the shelves will have been emptied by selfish morons.
Officials said 44,105 people have been tested in the UK, of which 42,562 were confirmed negative and 1,543 were confirmed as positive.
So that's 4000 more tests since yesterday and only rise of 171 cases.
Every small lucky victory like this buys us time.
22% increase in cases.
Its 12%.....lowest % day on day increase for 2 weeks, but that doesn't mean much.
I think it does, it shows we are not on the same trajectory as Italy.
I think the response to Covid 19 could be seen as the biggest overreaction in human history
Lets not forget that thousands of people die each day of hunger. The world did not close down for them, yet it is closing down to try and prolong the lives of mainly very old and ill people. The average age of the people who have died with Vovid 19 in Italy is 81.
If these closedowns continue the world economy could be finished for a generation.
While your points may be valid in the aggregate, never forget that each of these deaths of individuals with family and friends
I realise it sounds harsh, but life is harsh. Im only 51, yet 5 of my school friends are no longer with us. A chap I work with has just been diagnosed with motor neurone and has been given 2 years. Life is horrible sometimes but the world cannot stop. This pandemic looks like being far less noteworthy in the number of deaths than dozens of previous pandemics, especially the 1918 Spanish Flu outbreak which killed 50 million plus.
The world cannot close down each time something like this happens.
Talking of food supplies, I think we must be heading for a quite serious shortage of fresh fruit and veg over the next few weeks. The lockdowns in Spain and Italy must be having a serious disruptive effect on supplies and transport, and it's going to be made worse by effect of the awful weather in the UK on our agriculture.
Why not just bloody scrap usual QT format entirely and instead use it as opportunity for the public to pose questions (via email / skype) to one of the egg-head team.
The format is terrible and has been for a decade. Even without the crisis it was time to move to at least some of the shows being on a single topic, mostly with experts and fewer politicians and commentators with an extreme opinion on everything.
It was OK until it was realised in certain quarters that the producers were trying to get a 'spread' of opinion. So that if you rolled up and were asked 'which side would you have been on in WWII and answered the Nazi's you'd get in and if you didn't you might or might not. then you'd be given a funny hat or something so that when the audience participation bit came along the TV cameras could find you.
Or something like that.
I missed that one. Is it still available on catch-up?
The Salmond trial, whatever its outcome, is providing fascinating, if grisly, reading about how the Scottish Government conducted itself during the run-up to the 2014 referendum, judging by the testimony so far. The public inquiry which will surely follow will be equally interesting. This will not be going away for a long time, even if the trial is being overshadowed in the media at the moment.
A typical quote from the trial:
Woman B tells the court she never saw a single member of the Scottish Government challenge Salmond about his behaviour
It is a real hoot , like something from a bad carry on movie, script is excruciating. Be interesting to see if defence witnesses are similar.
I've lost the plot - what's your take on this @malcolmg? Is it all a unionist plot or is there a geniune case to answer. Are the SNP culpable or have they been stitched up?
The currant bun says todays numbers are 1,543 - a jump of 171 more from yesterday. And 2 more deaths.
Don't know where they got this info as not up on the official twitter account yet.
Clearly slower than Italy's curve in that case so far , and by an increasing amount.
It is hard to tell...a) we don't know how many tests and b) there is now the switch over to really only testing hospital admissions.
This spreadsheet says it was the second highest number of daily tests - which is impressive given they would have been done over the weekend. So amount of testing still seems to be trending up.
Wouldn't read too much into the lower number of positive test results today, though, as you'd expect some random variation in the numbers. Better than the alternative of course.
I am increasingly getting a sneaking suspicion that this claim that they won't test the public is more about not making a stupid Trump style announcement of everybody who wants one can get one and causing the same idiots who have been buying 1000 bog rolls to start demanding they are tested.
I know there is probably back cases, but I can't believe 4000 people have rolled into hospital on Friday or Saturday all with coronavirus symptoms and only 171 have it.
Why not?
We didn't have the hotspots of Italy. We've encouraged a bit of social distancing. There's naturally going to be a bit of randomness. And we're not picking up people from random testing.
I doubt we've seen an actual peak in numbers testing positive, but I doubt the government is lying about the numbers.
I wasn't suggesting the government were lying about the numbers, more that perhaps the testing strategy isn't quite so black and white as presented i.e. only hospital admissions with the virus symptoms.
Given how the government are very big on being data driven, to completely cut off any community sampling doesn't seem wise.
I have no information but I wouldn't be surprised if some degree of random (ish) testing is going on. You don't need to do many tests to achieve a high degree of accuracy for the infection rate of the overall population if the sampling is done well.
Test the YouGov panel - they are supposed to be a representative cross-section of the public.
That sounds like a nice cheap option - too sensible?
Ahem, FPT: Not sure if people think this wise or a waste of time but I'm putting together a few reading suggestions for those who are going to have a ton of time on their hands.
Trying to mix it up a little. Currently got: Lone Wolf gamebooks Sharpe series A few Chinese classics Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire Complete Works of Shakespeare
Any quick suggestions to add to the list, bearing in mind I'm looking for time sinks?
Edited extra bit: questions should have question marks.
On-topic: I think I've got some green on Harris and Warren, so if they're the VP picks I'll be pleased.
Are there some shades of hope in the gloomy sky? It feels like it to me.
Or maybe it is just the gorgeous spring weather. I am going for a walk in Regent's Park under a very real and very blue sky.
Peace to all.
I am not in Regent's Park. I'm holed up like a cowering dog. But funnily enough - and just seconds before you posted - I was swept with a sudden blast of positivity about this. Not euphoria, nothing like, but more a release of tension and a feeling of relief and perspective. Pulse rate has slowed, hands have steadied, armpits have stopped itching. I sense this is close to the bottom. Just a big NHS crisis to get through and then bob's your uncle. So I think I'm calling it. In a sense this is now over although it's only just begun. Phew. One to remember though.
BBC: "this ban would not apply to citizens from the handful of EU member states that are outside the Schengen area (such as Croatia, Ireland, Cyprus or the UK - which is treated as a member state during the Brexit transition period.)"
How long will it be before all these one off walk in type medical centres with private services offer COVID tests while you wait?
A few days?
Well one of the 14 companies developing tests has already sent it to pharmacies, but it is only for staff usage at the moment. Their timeline was 3 weeks before the public could buy it.
Surely once home testing is relatively easy and quick, the need for draconian measures will diminish. Feel symptoms - test - act accordingly.
Depends upon reliability and diligence of self-testing though surely?
I dunno. What's the acceptable risk of living in a Western Democracy??
Far more under 60s will die this year on the roads than will ever, ever die of Corona. Ever. Under 60 road deaths has got Corona completely totally licked.
Shall we ban driving? stopping vehicle production are we sending the world economy into a coma over those road deaths?
Our governments are insane.
You are so right, life is risky, 1700 people die each day in the UK. We cannot pretend that we can live in a risk free bubble. We haven't in the past. The problem is we now live in the internet age. If this pandemic was 30 years ago I doubt any of these lockdowns would have happened. People would just shrug that old ill people were dying.
1989 UK flu with 30,000 deaths is clearly an example where it was not a big media story let alone national emergency.
In being seen to 'do something' governments are about to do far more harm than they are good. Far more.
Maybe if people see that, something will have come from this sorry episode.
I think what the UK govt has done so far has actually been prudent and reasonable. I have more sympathy for your view than the views of the everyone needs to be locked down and isolated without daylight group. Some other governments do seem in a something needs to be done mode.
Yes, I agree.
How many people are we guessing are going to die in the UK from corona? My guess (and I stress guess, not estimate) is 1 million. But there are roughly 600,000 deaths in the UK each year. Many, or most of that 1 million will be in the category of people who were going to die this year anyway, and many of those who aren't will be in next year's 600,000 or that of the year after. On this basis (and again, I stress the earlier word 'guess') we will see a net loss in UK population this year - but give it two years and we'll be back to where we would have been.
BBC: "this ban would not apply to citizens from the handful of EU member states that are outside the Schengen area (such as Croatia, Ireland, Cyprus or the UK - which is treated as a member state during the Brexit transition period.)"
My dad's friend can still make his planned booze cruise tomorrow!
Ahem, FPT: Not sure if people think this wise or a waste of time but I'm putting together a few reading suggestions for those who are going to have a ton of time on their hands.
Trying to mix it up a little. Currently got: Lone Wolf gamebooks Sharpe series A few Chinese classics Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire Complete Works of Shakespeare
Any quick suggestions to add to the list, bearing in mind I'm looking for time sinks?
Edited extra bit: questions should have question marks.
On-topic: I think I've got some green on Harris and Warren, so if they're the VP picks I'll be pleased.
Norman Davies: Europe, a history. Real desert island stuff.
Officials said 44,105 people have been tested in the UK, of which 42,562 were confirmed negative and 1,543 were confirmed as positive.
So that's 4000 more tests since yesterday and only rise of 171 cases.
Every small lucky victory like this buys us time.
22% increase in cases.
Its 12%.....lowest % day on day increase for 2 weeks, but that doesn't mean much.
I think it does, it shows we are not on the same trajectory as Italy.
I think the response to Covid 19 could be seen as the biggest overreaction in human history
Lets not forget that thousands of people die each day of hunger. The world did not close down for them, yet it is closing down to try and prolong the lives of mainly very old and ill people. The average age of the people who have died with Vovid 19 in Italy is 81.
If these closedowns continue the world economy could be finished for a generation.
While your points may be valid in the aggregate, never forget that each of these deaths of individuals with family and friends
I realise it sounds harsh, but life is harsh. Im only 51, yet 5 of my school friends are no longer with us. A chap I work with has just been diagnosed with motor neurone and has been given 2 years. Life is horrible sometimes but the world cannot stop. This pandemic looks like being far less noteworthy in the number of deaths than dozens of previous pandemics, especially the 1918 Spanish Flu outbreak which killed 50 million plus.
The world cannot close down each time something like this happens.
How long will it be before all these one off walk in type medical centres with private services offer COVID tests while you wait?
A few days?
Well one of the 14 companies developing tests has already sent it to pharmacies, but it is only for staff usage at the moment. Their timeline was 3 weeks before the public could buy it.
Surely once home testing is relatively easy and quick, the need for draconian measures will diminish. Feel symptoms - test - act accordingly.
Depends upon reliability and diligence of self-testing though surely?
I dunno. What's the acceptable risk of living in a Western Democracy??
Far more under 60s will die this year on the roads than will ever, ever die of Corona. Ever. Under 60 road deaths has got Corona completely totally licked.
Shall we ban driving? stopping vehicle production are we sending the world economy into a coma over those road deaths?
Our governments are insane.
You are so right, life is risky, 1700 people die each day in the UK. We cannot pretend that we can live in a risk free bubble. We haven't in the past. The problem is we now live in the internet age. If this pandemic was 30 years ago I doubt any of these lockdowns would have happened. People would just shrug that old ill people were dying.
1989 UK flu with 30,000 deaths is clearly an example where it was not a big media story let alone national emergency.
In being seen to 'do something' governments are about to do far more harm than they are good. Far more.
Maybe if people see that, something will have come from this sorry episode.
I think what the UK govt has done so far has actually been prudent and reasonable. I have more sympathy for your view than the views of the everyone needs to be locked down and isolated without daylight group. Some other governments do seem in a something needs to be done mode.
Yes, I agree.
How many people are we guessing are going to die in the UK from corona? My guess (and I stress guess, not estimate) is 1 million. But there are roughly 600,000 deaths in the UK each year. Many, or most of that 1 million will be in the category of people who were going to die this year anyway, and many of those who aren't will be in next year's 600,000 or that of the year after. On this basis (and again, I stress the earlier word 'guess') we will see a net loss in UK population this year - but give it two years and we'll be back to where we would have been.
I think that's incredibly heartless - these are real people - our parents, grandparents, friends and colleagues.
Then again I think (hope) your 1 million figure is way too high and I agree the government (or more accurately the scientists) have got it about right so far.
Ahem, FPT: Not sure if people think this wise or a waste of time but I'm putting together a few reading suggestions for those who are going to have a ton of time on their hands.
Trying to mix it up a little. Currently got: Lone Wolf gamebooks Sharpe series A few Chinese classics Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire Complete Works of Shakespeare
Any quick suggestions to add to the list, bearing in mind I'm looking for time sinks?
Edited extra bit: questions should have question marks.
On-topic: I think I've got some green on Harris and Warren, so if they're the VP picks I'll be pleased.
How long will it be before all these one off walk in type medical centres with private services offer COVID tests while you wait?
A few days?
Well one of the 14 companies developing tests has already sent it to pharmacies, but it is only for staff usage at the moment. Their timeline was 3 weeks before the public could buy it.
Surely once home testing is relatively easy and quick, the need for draconian measures will diminish. Feel symptoms - test - act accordingly.
Depends upon reliability and diligence of self-testing though surely?
I dunno. What's the acceptable risk of living in a Western Democracy??
Far more under 60s will die this year on the roads than will ever, ever die of Corona. Ever. Under 60 road deaths has got Corona completely totally licked.
Shall we ban driving? stopping vehicle production are we sending the world economy into a coma over those road deaths?
Our governments are insane.
You are so right, life is risky, 1700 people die each day in the UK. We cannot pretend that we can live in a risk free bubble. We haven't in the past. The problem is we now live in the internet age. If this pandemic was 30 years ago I doubt any of these lockdowns would have happened. People would just shrug that old ill people were dying.
1989 UK flu with 30,000 deaths is clearly an example where it was not a big media story let alone national emergency.
In being seen to 'do something' governments are about to do far more harm than they are good. Far more.
Maybe if people see that, something will have come from this sorry episode.
I think what the UK govt has done so far has actually been prudent and reasonable. I have more sympathy for your view than the views of the everyone needs to be locked down and isolated without daylight group. Some other governments do seem in a something needs to be done mode.
Yes, I agree.
How many people are we guessing are going to die in the UK from corona? My guess (and I stress guess, not estimate) is 1 million. But there are roughly 600,000 deaths in the UK each year. Many, or most of that 1 million will be in the category of people who were going to die this year anyway, and many of those who aren't will be in next year's 600,000 or that of the year after. On this basis (and again, I stress the earlier word 'guess') we will see a net loss in UK population this year - but give it two years and we'll be back to where we would have been.
OTOH, upthread, someone commented that 'far more under 60s will die on the roads this year than will ever die of corona'.
I'm not sure about that. In 2018, there were 1,770 road deaths. Now even if we assume they were all under 60, are we really expecting fewer than 1,770 deaths from corona in the under 60 age bracket? I believe data from China has deaths at about 0.2-0.4% for under 60s. But if only 5 million under 60s get it and the death rate is only 0.2%, that's still 10,000 people.
[What follows is a repost from a previous discussion a few days back of how good the "accuracy" of a quick test had to be before it gets useful, for anyone who doesn't have time/interest to watch Mr Urquhart's video. If people disapprove of my habit of reposting things I've written before let me know and I'll rein myself in more, but I try to repost only things I consider of "high value" and I think what follows is useful and informative. Also had a previous job as a med stats lecturer so I find it hard to stop myself on this kind of topic! There's been loads of discussion on PB about testing and I think we'd have a more informed debate if people understood better how to interpret test results, as they can be quite counterintuitive. I very strongly recommend anyone with either a strong opinion or curiosity about testing should make sure they understand the contents of the first link.]
The Salmond trial, whatever its outcome, is providing fascinating, if grisly, reading about how the Scottish Government conducted itself during the run-up to the 2014 referendum, judging by the testimony so far. The public inquiry which will surely follow will be equally interesting. This will not be going away for a long time, even if the trial is being overshadowed in the media at the moment.
A typical quote from the trial:
Woman B tells the court she never saw a single member of the Scottish Government challenge Salmond about his behaviour
It is a real hoot , like something from a bad carry on movie, script is excruciating. Be interesting to see if defence witnesses are similar.
I used to be quietly impressed by Salmond. His ongoing show on Russia Today - I think it's made by his own production company, too - combined with the sheer number of reports about his behaviour have made that very much a thing of the past.
What's the Nat take on his RT show? Ambivalence, defence, or dismay?
Talking of food supplies, I think we must be heading for a quite serious shortage of fresh fruit and veg over the next few weeks. The lockdowns in Spain and Italy must be having a serious disruptive effect on supplies and transport, and it's going to be made worse by effect of the awful weather in the UK on our agriculture.
I do wonder to what extent the panic-buying induced shortages may morph into actual shortages as a result of disruption to supply chains.
Ahem, FPT: Not sure if people think this wise or a waste of time but I'm putting together a few reading suggestions for those who are going to have a ton of time on their hands.
Trying to mix it up a little. Currently got: Lone Wolf gamebooks Sharpe series A few Chinese classics Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire Complete Works of Shakespeare
Any quick suggestions to add to the list, bearing in mind I'm looking for time sinks?
Edited extra bit: questions should have question marks.
On-topic: I think I've got some green on Harris and Warren, so if they're the VP picks I'll be pleased.
'A few Chinese classics'? Seems a bit of a loose recommendation.
Station Eleven by Emily St. John Mandel is very apt right now ;-)
The Patrick O'Brian's Aubrey-Maturin series are very good if you like historical fiction.
The Salmond trial, whatever its outcome, is providing fascinating, if grisly, reading about how the Scottish Government conducted itself during the run-up to the 2014 referendum, judging by the testimony so far. The public inquiry which will surely follow will be equally interesting. This will not be going away for a long time, even if the trial is being overshadowed in the media at the moment.
A typical quote from the trial:
Woman B tells the court she never saw a single member of the Scottish Government challenge Salmond about his behaviour
It is a real hoot , like something from a bad carry on movie, script is excruciating. Be interesting to see if defence witnesses are similar.
I used to be quietly impressed by Salmond. His ongoing show on Russia Today - I think it's made by his own production company, too - combined with the sheer number of reports about his behaviour have made that very much a thing of the past.
What's the Nat take on his RT show? Ambivalence, defence, or dismay?
Not seen a lot of opinion on it, I watched a couple of interviews , was not that impressed by the sidekick he had but decent interviews. Hard to reconcile the public figure and the supposed private one being detailed in court. Apart from the one ridiculous one they seem to be pretty pathetic. Hard to believe only 2% of rape cases make court when you see the stuff here, should be 99.9%
Oz Katerji has been doing a very interesting podcast series called “Corbynism: a Post-mortem”. Might be worth a listen to anyone wanting a time sink at the moment.
How long will it be before all these one off walk in type medical centres with private services offer COVID tests while you wait?
A few days?
Well one of the 14 companies developing tests has already sent it to pharmacies, but it is only for staff usage at the moment. Their timeline was 3 weeks before the public could buy it.
Surely once home testing is relatively easy and quick, the need for draconian measures will diminish. Feel symptoms - test - act accordingly.
Depends upon reliability and diligence of self-testing though surely?
I dunno. What's the acceptable risk of living in a Western Democracy??
Far more under 60s will die this year on the roads than will ever, ever die of Corona. Ever. Under 60 road deaths has got Corona completely totally licked.
Shall we ban driving? stopping vehicle production are we sending the world economy into a coma over those road deaths?
Our governments are insane.
You are so right, life is risky, 1700 people die each day in the UK. We cannot pretend that we can live in a risk free bubble. We haven't in the past. The problem is we now live in the internet age. If this pandemic was 30 years ago I doubt any of these lockdowns would have happened. People would just shrug that old ill people were dying.
1989 UK flu with 30,000 deaths is clearly an example where it was not a big media story let alone national emergency.
In being seen to 'do something' governments are about to do far more harm than they are good. Far more.
Maybe if people see that, something will have come from this sorry episode.
I think what the UK govt has done so far has actually been prudent and reasonable. I have more sympathy for your view than the views of the everyone needs to be locked down and isolated without daylight group. Some other governments do seem in a something needs to be done mode.
Yes, I agree.
How many people are we guessing are going to die in the UK from corona? My guess (and I stress guess, not estimate) is 1 million. But there are roughly 600,000 deaths in the UK each year. Many, or most of that 1 million will be in the category of people who were going to die this year anyway, and many of those who aren't will be in next year's 600,000 or that of the year after. On this basis (and again, I stress the earlier word 'guess') we will see a net loss in UK population this year - but give it two years and we'll be back to where we would have been.
OTOH, upthread, someone commented that 'far more under 60s will die on the roads this year than will ever die of corona'.
I'm not sure about that. In 2018, there were 1,770 road deaths. Now even if we assume they were all under 60, are we really expecting fewer than 1,770 deaths from corona in the under 60 age bracket? I believe data from China has deaths at about 0.2-0.4% for under 60s. But if only 5 million under 60s get it and the death rate is only 0.2%, that's still 10,000 people.
If the BBC bans the Question Time audience, it will effectively ban any open discussion of the issues and allow the BBC and the government to control the discussion. The public will not be present or able to question the basic assumptions that panellists or the presenter (Fiona Bruce) will be making.
Does the coronavirus emergency mean that freedom of speech in the UK has been shut down? Do citizens still have the right to protest and to demonstrate? It would have been wrong for Parliament to have been shut down when the first MP tested positive for the virus, and I think that it would be just as wrong at this time for the BBC to exclude the public from Question Time.
Ahem, FPT: Not sure if people think this wise or a waste of time but I'm putting together a few reading suggestions for those who are going to have a ton of time on their hands.
Trying to mix it up a little. Currently got: Lone Wolf gamebooks [snip]
Talking of food supplies, I think we must be heading for a quite serious shortage of fresh fruit and veg over the next few weeks. The lockdowns in Spain and Italy must be having a serious disruptive effect on supplies and transport, and it's going to be made worse by effect of the awful weather in the UK on our agriculture.
We get no deal Brexit benefits without having got that far. Hurrah!
If the BBC bans the Question Time audience, it will effectively ban any open discussion of the issues and allow the BBC and the government to control the discussion. The public will not be present or able to question the basic assumptions that panellists or the presenter (Fiona Bruce) will be making.
Does the coronavirus emergency mean that freedom of speech in the UK has been shut down? Do citizens still have the right to protest and to demonstrate? It would have been wrong for Parliament to have been shut down when the first MP tested positive for the virus, and I think that it is just as wrong at this time for the BBC to exclude the public from Question Time.
It is not the public protesting but a very limited subsection consisting of partisans in the political parties point scoring off each other and cheering and booing their support. Pantomime.
Mr. Pointer, I do specify what they are but didn't want to throw a slab of text at everyone.
Cheers, I'll add that.
Fair enough. Tbh I am behind on our book club reading list so I doubt I am ever going to get to read any Chinese classics. (Unless you count Wild Swans lol!)
How long will it be before all these one off walk in type medical centres with private services offer COVID tests while you wait?
A few days?
Well one of the 14 companies developing tests has already sent it to pharmacies, but it is only for staff usage at the moment. Their timeline was 3 weeks before the public could buy it.
Surely once home testing is relatively easy and quick, the need for draconian measures will diminish. Feel symptoms - test - act accordingly.
Depends upon reliability and diligence of self-testing though surely?
I dunno. What's the acceptable risk of living in a Western Democracy??
Far more under 60s will die this year on the roads than will ever, ever die of Corona. Ever. Under 60 road deaths has got Corona completely totally licked.
Shall we ban driving? stopping vehicle production are we sending the world economy into a coma over those road deaths?
Our governments are insane.
You are so right, life is risky, 1700 people die each day in the UK. We cannot pretend that we can live in a risk free bubble. We haven't in the past. The problem is we now live in the internet age. If this pandemic was 30 years ago I doubt any of these lockdowns would have happened. People would just shrug that old ill people were dying.
1989 UK flu with 30,000 deaths is clearly an example where it was not a big media story let alone national emergency.
In being seen to 'do something' governments are about to do far more harm than they are good. Far more.
Maybe if people see that, something will have come from this sorry episode.
I think what the UK govt has done so far has actually been prudent and reasonable. I have more sympathy for your view than the views of the everyone needs to be locked down and isolated without daylight group. Some other governments do seem in a something needs to be done mode.
Yes, I agree.
How many people are we guessing are going to die in the UK from corona? My guess (and I stress guess, not estimate) is 1 million. But there are roughly 600,000 deaths in the UK each year. Many, or most of that 1 million will be in the category of people who were going to die this year anyway, and many of those who aren't will be in next year's 600,000 or that of the year after. On this basis (and again, I stress the earlier word 'guess') we will see a net loss in UK population this year - but give it two years and we'll be back to where we would have been.
I think that's incredibly heartless - these are real people - our parents, grandparents, friends and colleagues.
Then again I think (hope) your 1 million figure is way too high and I agree the government (or more accurately the scientists) have got it about right so far.
Ben, apologies if that's the way it comes across. I don't mean to sound heartless: I have four family members I am worrying bitterly about (far more, it has to be said, than they are worrying about themselves). But I'm trying to see this from a wider perspective - the death of an elderly relative is of course a tragedy, but - if my understanding of the demographics of this is correct - for many of the people who die of this illness it's a tragedy that would have happened this year for one reason or another anyway. But I don't want to be flippant about this.
I am glad however that you think my 1 million figure is far too high. Any straw gratefully clutched at!
Talking of food supplies, I think we must be heading for a quite serious shortage of fresh fruit and veg over the next few weeks. The lockdowns in Spain and Italy must be having a serious disruptive effect on supplies and transport, and it's going to be made worse by effect of the awful weather in the UK on our agriculture.
We get no deal Brexit benefits without having got that far. Hurrah!
What I'm hearing is if we no-deal now, we wouldn't notice it.
If the BBC bans the Question Time audience, it will effectively ban any open discussion of the issues and allow the BBC and the government to control the discussion. The public will not be present or able to question the basic assumptions that panellists or the presenter (Fiona Bruce) will be making.
Does the coronavirus emergency mean that freedom of speech in the UK has been shut down? Do citizens still have the right to protest and to demonstrate? It would have been wrong for Parliament to have been shut down when the first MP tested positive for the virus, and I think that it is just as wrong at this time for the BBC to exclude the public from Question Time.
I don’t think they should exclude the public but they need to take a long hard look at how the audience is selected. It has become unwatchable. Editorial judgment is not the same as stifling free speech.
One of the joys of being lectured about the death of Qaseem Soleimani was trying to guess which of the experts lecturing me about it had even heard of the guy 48 hours earlier. (I am by no means an expert in Mid East affairs but I was well aware of him and his influence in the region, so my contempt for those who didn't was pretty strong.)
Ahem, FPT: Not sure if people think this wise or a waste of time but I'm putting together a few reading suggestions for those who are going to have a ton of time on their hands.
Trying to mix it up a little. Currently got: Lone Wolf gamebooks Sharpe series A few Chinese classics Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire Complete Works of Shakespeare
Any quick suggestions to add to the list, bearing in mind I'm looking for time sinks?
Edited extra bit: questions should have question marks.
On-topic: I think I've got some green on Harris and Warren, so if they're the VP picks I'll be pleased.
'A few Chinese classics'? Seems a bit of a loose recommendation.
Station Eleven by Emily St. John Mandel is very apt right now ;-)
The Patrick O'Brian's Aubrey-Maturin series are very good if you like historical fiction.
David Drake has written a science fiction take on the Aubrey-Maturin series, starting with “With The Lightnings”. Includes the most dangerous librarian I know of in literature (the Maturin equivalent).
Government and education people to meet and discuss everything from School closures to how to run GSCEs / A-Levels. Any teachers on here who can shed light on how much flex there is in the calendar with regards to marking and getting results out before colleges and universities have to issue offers of places? It doesn't feel like they could delay by that much...
The boy needs to go to Uni in September. He already repeated a year, the notion that the entire academic year nationwide needs to repeat is absurd - what do colleges and unis do with all that empty space if no-one joins this September? Whats the impact on the nation if effectively no-one graduates from school / college / university for a year?
How long will it be before all these one off walk in type medical centres with private services offer COVID tests while you wait?
A few days?
Well one of the 14 companies developing tests has already sent it to pharmacies, but it is only for staff usage at the moment. Their timeline was 3 weeks before the public could buy it.
Surely once home testing is relatively easy and quick, the need for draconian measures will diminish. Feel symptoms - test - act accordingly.
Depends upon reliability and diligence of self-testing though surely?
I dunno. What's the acceptable risk of living in a Western Democracy??
Far more under 60s will die this year on the roads than will ever, ever die of Corona. Ever. Under 60 road deaths has got Corona completely totally licked.
Shall we ban driving? stopping vehicle production are we sending the world economy into a coma over those road deaths?
Our governments are insane.
You are so right, life is risky, 1700 people die each day in the UK. We cannot pretend that we can live in a risk free bubble. We haven't in the past. The problem is we now live in the internet age. If this pandemic was 30 years ago I doubt any of these lockdowns would have happened. People would just shrug that old ill people were dying.
1989 UK flu with 30,000 deaths is clearly an example where it was not a big media story let alone national emergency.
In being seen to 'do something' governments are about to do far more harm than they are good. Far more.
Maybe if people see that, something will have come from this sorry episode.
I think what the UK govt has done so far has actually been prudent and reasonable. I have more sympathy for your view than the views of the everyone needs to be locked down and isolated without daylight group. Some other governments do seem in a something needs to be done mode.
Yes, I agree.
How many people are we guessing are going to die in the UK from corona? My guess (and I stress guess, not estimate) is 1 million. But there are roughly 600,000 deaths in the UK each year. Many, or most of that 1 million will be in the category of people who were going to die this year anyway, and many of those who aren't will be in next year's 600,000 or that of the year after. On this basis (and again, I stress the earlier word 'guess') we will see a net loss in UK population this year - but give it two years and we'll be back to where we would have been.
I think that's incredibly heartless - these are real people - our parents, grandparents, friends and colleagues.
Then again I think (hope) your 1 million figure is way too high and I agree the government (or more accurately the scientists) have got it about right so far.
Ben, apologies if that's the way it comes across. I don't mean to sound heartless: I have four family members I am worrying bitterly about (far more, it has to be said, than they are worrying about themselves). But I'm trying to see this from a wider perspective - the death of an elderly relative is of course a tragedy, but - if my understanding of the demographics of this is correct - for many of the people who die of this illness it's a tragedy that would have happened this year for one reason or another anyway. But I don't want to be flippant about this.
I am glad however that you think my 1 million figure is far too high. Any straw gratefully clutched at!
Fair enough, no offence taken, I am in a similar place.
My close relatives who are in their 80s are pretty sanguine about this really - I guess they have accustomed themselves to the idea of a future that doesn't stretch out that far.
How long will it be before all these one off walk in type medical centres with private services offer COVID tests while you wait?
A few days?
Well one of the 14 companies developing tests has already sent it to pharmacies, but it is only for staff usage at the moment. Their timeline was 3 weeks before the public could buy it.
Surely once home testing is relatively easy and quick, the need for draconian measures will diminish. Feel symptoms - test - act accordingly.
Depends upon reliability and diligence of self-testing though surely?
I dunno. What's the acceptable risk of living in a Western Democracy??
Far more under 60s will die this year on the roads than will ever, ever die of Corona. Ever. Under 60 road deaths has got Corona completely totally licked.
Shall we ban driving? stopping vehicle production are we sending the world economy into a coma over those road deaths?
Our governments are insane.
You are so right, life is risky, 1700 people die each day in the UK. We cannot pretend that we can live in a risk free bubble. We haven't in the past. The problem is we now live in the internet age. If this pandemic was 30 years ago I doubt any of these lockdowns would have happened. People would just shrug that old ill people were dying.
1989 UK flu with 30,000 deaths is clearly an example where it was not a big media story let alone national emergency.
In being seen to 'do something' governments are about to do far more harm than they are good. Far more.
Maybe if people see that, something will have come from this sorry episode.
I think what the UK govt has done so far has actually been prudent and reasonable. I have more sympathy for your view than the views of the everyone needs to be locked down and isolated without daylight group. Some other governments do seem in a something needs to be done mode.
Yes, I agree.
How many people are we guessing are going to die in the UK from corona? My guess (and I stress guess, not estimate) is 1 million. But there are roughly 600,000 deaths in the UK each year. Many, or most of that 1 million will be in the category of people who were going to die this year anyway, and many of those who aren't will be in next year's 600,000 or that of the year after. On this basis (and again, I stress the earlier word 'guess') we will see a net loss in UK population this year - but give it two years and we'll be back to where we would have been.
I don't think it will more than 100,000. Being optimistic maybe.
Ahem, FPT: Not sure if people think this wise or a waste of time but I'm putting together a few reading suggestions for those who are going to have a ton of time on their hands.
Trying to mix it up a little. Currently got: Lone Wolf gamebooks Sharpe series A few Chinese classics Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire Complete Works of Shakespeare
Any quick suggestions to add to the list, bearing in mind I'm looking for time sinks?
Sharpe is excellent, but I'd recommend Azincourt also by Bernard Cornwall above them.
Three more books from me:
Deaths of Despair: The Future of Capitalism. Sevens Heaven: The Beautiful Chaos of Fiji’s Olympic Dream (my favourite book published last decade, amazing (factual) storytelling and escapism). The Rules of Contagion (not escapism)
The orange philosopher king is perfectly correct to point out the major moral hazard in all of CV. Those societies which succeed the least in stemming the tide will benefit the most in the long run from having the unproductive elements of society weeded out by the plague.
Sounds like Salmond has been found NOT Guilty on one of the charges already, before his defence witnesses even get started. Scotsman had story up but seem to have pulled it now. Harry the Ghost will be crying into his beer tonight.
Government and education people to meet and discuss everything from School closures to how to run GSCEs / A-Levels. Any teachers on here who can shed light on how much flex there is in the calendar with regards to marking and getting results out before colleges and universities have to issue offers of places? It doesn't feel like they could delay by that much...
The boy needs to go to Uni in September. He already repeated a year, the notion that the entire academic year nationwide needs to repeat is absurd - what do colleges and unis do with all that empty space if no-one joins this September? Whats the impact on the nation if effectively no-one graduates from school / college / university for a year?
My take, start the next academic year in January, finish this one by Christmas in both schools and universities, exams taken in October. Less school and university teaching in that year but exams adapted to reflect that and then use the next two years to catch up.
Of course, a second wave in the Winter could completely screw that idea up.
If the BBC bans the Question Time audience, it will effectively ban any open discussion of the issues and allow the BBC and the government to control the discussion. The public will not be present or able to question the basic assumptions that panellists or the presenter (Fiona Bruce) will be making.
Does the coronavirus emergency mean that freedom of speech in the UK has been shut down? Do citizens still have the right to protest and to demonstrate? It would have been wrong for Parliament to have been shut down when the first MP tested positive for the virus, and I think that it is just as wrong at this time for the BBC to exclude the public from Question Time.
I don’t think they should exclude the public but they need to take a long hard look at how the audience is selected. It has become unwatchable. Editorial judgment is not the same as stifling free speech.
Sounds like Salmond has been found NOT Guilty on one of the charges already, before his defence witnesses even get started. Scotsman had story up but seem to have pulled it now.
If the BBC bans the Question Time audience, it will effectively ban any open discussion of the issues and allow the BBC and the government to control the discussion. The public will not be present or able to question the basic assumptions that panellists or the presenter (Fiona Bruce) will be making.
Does the coronavirus emergency mean that freedom of speech in the UK has been shut down? Do citizens still have the right to protest and to demonstrate? It would have been wrong for Parliament to have been shut down when the first MP tested positive for the virus, and I think that it would be just as wrong at this time for the BBC to exclude the public from Question Time.
It is not the public protesting but a very limited subsection consisting of partisans in the political parties point scoring off each other and cheering and booing their support. Pantomime.
It may be pantomine at times but Parliament itself faces the same criticism, yet if we want to live in a democracy there must be open discussion. Without the audience Question Time loses its meaning. It is supposed to be a program in which members of the public can put their questions directly to elected politicians. If only Fiona Bruce can ask the questions she just represents the BBC, so Question Time would not be a real debate any more.
So has anyone watched the first episodes of season three of Westworld?
Was it more season one or was it more like season two?
Yes...it wasn't like either really. Think Jason Bourne or actually more like the Cyberpunk game that is coming out soon. All action, very little intrigue, and certainly no sign of 27 different timelines all co-existing leaving you to have to rewatch the episode 3 times to ensure you don't miss all the clues.
I reserve judgement to see if it is going to be a total shitshow like season 2, but it is definitely dumbed down.
How long will it be before all these one off walk in type medical centres with private services offer COVID tests while you wait?
A few days?
Well one of the 14 companies developing tests has already sent it to pharmacies, but it is only for staff usage at the moment. Their timeline was 3 weeks before the public could buy it.
Surely once home testing is relatively easy and quick, the need for draconian measures will diminish. Feel symptoms - test - act accordingly.
Depends upon reliability and diligence of self-testing though surely?
I dunno. What's the acceptable risk of living in a Western Democracy??
Far more under 60s will die this year on the roads than will ever, ever die of Corona. Ever. Under 60 road deaths has got Corona completely totally licked.
Shall we ban driving? stopping vehicle production are we sending the world economy into a coma over those road deaths?
Our governments are insane.
You are so right, life is risky, 1700 people die each day in the UK. We cannot pretend that we can live in a risk free bubble. We haven't in the past. The problem is we now live in the internet age. If this pandemic was 30 years ago I doubt any of these lockdowns would have happened. People would just shrug that old ill people were dying.
1989 UK flu with 30,000 deaths is clearly an example where it was not a big media story let alone national emergency.
In being seen to 'do something' governments are about to do far more harm than they are good. Far more.
Maybe if people see that, something will have come from this sorry episode.
I think what the UK govt has done so far has actually been prudent and reasonable. I have more sympathy for your view than the views of the everyone needs to be locked down and isolated without daylight group. Some other governments do seem in a something needs to be done mode.
Yes, I agree.
How many people are we guessing are going to die in the UK from corona? My guess (and I stress guess, not estimate) is 1 million. But there are roughly 600,000 deaths in the UK each year. Many, or most of that 1 million will be in the category of people who were going to die this year anyway, and many of those who aren't will be in next year's 600,000 or that of the year after. On this basis (and again, I stress the earlier word 'guess') we will see a net loss in UK population this year - but give it two years and we'll be back to where we would have been.
I think that's incredibly heartless - these are real people - our parents, grandparents, friends and colleagues.
Then again I think (hope) your 1 million figure is way too high and I agree the government (or more accurately the scientists) have got it about right so far.
Ben, apologies if that's the way it comes across. I don't mean to sound heartless: I have four family members I am worrying bitterly about (far more, it has to be said, than they are worrying about themselves). But I'm trying to see this from a wider perspective - the death of an elderly relative is of course a tragedy, but - if my understanding of the demographics of this is correct - for many of the people who die of this illness it's a tragedy that would have happened this year for one reason or another anyway. But I don't want to be flippant about this.
I am glad however that you think my 1 million figure is far too high. Any straw gratefully clutched at!
The real blow is when a younger relative dies. I'm not referring to the loss of a young child, but when an adult one dies. My wife, having given maternal support to our three children through their young adult years (as well of course as childhood) now finds herself giving the same sort of support to our eldest granddaughter, consequent upon the loss of her mother, our daughter.
The orange philosopher king is perfectly correct to point out the major moral hazard in all of CV. Those societies which succeed the least in stemming the tide will benefit the most in the long run from having the unproductive elements of society weeded out by the plague.
Lol! Maybe he could lead by example and weed himself out?
Government and education people to meet and discuss everything from School closures to how to run GSCEs / A-Levels. Any teachers on here who can shed light on how much flex there is in the calendar with regards to marking and getting results out before colleges and universities have to issue offers of places? It doesn't feel like they could delay by that much...
The boy needs to go to Uni in September. He already repeated a year, the notion that the entire academic year nationwide needs to repeat is absurd - what do colleges and unis do with all that empty space if no-one joins this September? Whats the impact on the nation if effectively no-one graduates from school / college / university for a year?
Given how bad the marking often is, I’m not sure that rushing it is a great idea. On a practical level, in most schools the exam cohorts will still be learning new stuff: I’ve had first hand experience today of trying to teach over the internet and it will never be as easy as it is in front of a class (assuming they are paying attention in the first place of course). In the sciences while there is no longer any coursework as such there are practicals they need to have done and that is recorded on the certificate: not sure what will happen to those suddenly denied the opportunity to finish those off. Redoing the whole year would mean that we couldn’t accept any new Year 7s (there would physically not be enough room) which would have serious knock on effects for Primary schools. On the other hand, in an exam hall the distance between candidates is probably large enough to reduce the risks a bit.
Something will have to give and I’m glad I’m not going to be the one making that level of decision.
Sounds like Salmond has been found NOT Guilty on one of the charges already, before his defence witnesses even get started. Scotsman had story up but seem to have pulled it now.
The Salmond trial, whatever its outcome, is providing fascinating, if grisly, reading about how the Scottish Government conducted itself during the run-up to the 2014 referendum, judging by the testimony so far. The public inquiry which will surely follow will be equally interesting. This will not be going away for a long time, even if the trial is being overshadowed in the media at the moment.
A typical quote from the trial:
Woman B tells the court she never saw a single member of the Scottish Government challenge Salmond about his behaviour
It is a real hoot , like something from a bad carry on movie, script is excruciating. Be interesting to see if defence witnesses are similar.
It is exactly like a Carry On film if Syd James's unwelcome attentions were being pressed exclusively on women who were entirely dependent on him for their career prospects, and who desperately wanted to avoid betraying their shared cause.
How long will it be before all these one off walk in type medical centres with private services offer COVID tests while you wait?
A few days?
Well one of the 14 companies developing tests has already sent it to pharmacies, but it is only for staff usage at the moment. Their timeline was 3 weeks before the public could buy it.
Surely once home testing is relatively easy and quick, the need for draconian measures will diminish. Feel symptoms - test - act accordingly.
Depends upon reliability and diligence of self-testing though surely?
I dunno. What's the acceptable risk of living in a Western Democracy??
Far more under 60s will die this year on the roads than will ever, ever die of Corona. Ever. Under 60 road deaths has got Corona completely totally licked.
Shall we ban driving? stopping vehicle production are we sending the world economy into a coma over those road deaths?
Our governments are insane.
You are so right, life is risky, 1700 people die each day in the UK. We cannot pretend that we can live in a risk free bubble. We haven't in the past. The problem is we now live in the internet age. If this pandemic was 30 years ago I doubt any of these lockdowns would have happened. People would just shrug that old ill people were dying.
1989 UK flu with 30,000 deaths is clearly an example where it was not a big media story let alone national emergency.
In being seen to 'do something' governments are about to do far more harm than they are good. Far more.
Maybe if people see that, something will have come from this sorry episode.
I think what the UK govt has done so far has actually been prudent and reasonable. I have more sympathy for your view than the views of the everyone needs to be locked down and isolated without daylight group. Some other governments do seem in a something needs to be done mode.
Yes, I agree.
How many people are we guessing are going to die in the UK from corona? My guess (and I stress guess, not estimate) is 1 million. But there are roughly 600,000 deaths in the UK each year. Many, or most of that 1 million will be in the category of people who were going to die this year anyway, and many of those who aren't will be in next year's 600,000 or that of the year after. On this basis (and again, I stress the earlier word 'guess') we will see a net loss in UK population this year - but give it two years and we'll be back to where we would have been.
I think that's incredibly heartless - these are real people - our parents, grandparents, friends and colleagues.
Then again I think (hope) your 1 million figure is way too high and I agree the government (or more accurately the scientists) have got it about right so far.
Ben, apologies if that's the way it comes across. I don't mean to sound heartless: I have four family members I am worrying bitterly about (far more, it has to be said, than they are worrying about themselves). But I'm trying to see this from a wider perspective - the death of an elderly relative is of course a tragedy, but - if my understanding of the demographics of this is correct - for many of the people who die of this illness it's a tragedy that would have happened this year for one reason or another anyway. But I don't want to be flippant about this.
I am glad however that you think my 1 million figure is far too high. Any straw gratefully clutched at!
The real blow is when a younger relative dies. I'm not referring to the loss of a young child, but when an adult one dies. My wife, having given maternal support to our three children through their young adult years (as well of course as childhood) now finds herself giving the same sort of support to our eldest granddaughter, consequent upon the loss of her mother, our daughter.
Very sorry to hear that @OldKingCole - I can't imagine how hard that must be.
So has anyone watched the first episodes of season three of Westworld?
Was it more season one or was it more like season two?
Yes...it wasn't like either really. Think Jason Bourne or actually more like the Cyberpunk game that is coming out soon. All action, very little intrigue, and certainly no sign of 27 different timelines all co-existing leaving you to have to rewatch the episode 3 times to ensure you don't miss all the clues.
I reserve judgement to see if it is going to be a total shitshow like season 2, but it is definitely dumbed down.
Ta, I think I might wait until most of the episodes have aired, and see what the consensus is before I commit.
I struggle to think of a show that had a bigger drop off in quality between seasons that Westworld had between season 1 and 2.
How long will it be before all these one off walk in type medical centres with private services offer COVID tests while you wait?
A few days?
Well one of the 14 companies developing tests has already sent it to pharmacies, but it is only for staff usage at the moment. Their timeline was 3 weeks before the public could buy it.
Surely once home testing is relatively easy and quick, the need for draconian measures will diminish. Feel symptoms - test - act accordingly.
Depends upon reliability and diligence of self-testing though surely?
I dunno. What's the acceptable risk of living in a Western Democracy??
Far more under 60s will die this year on the roads than will ever, ever die of Corona. Ever. Under 60 road deaths has got Corona completely totally licked.
Shall we ban driving? stopping vehicle production are we sending the world economy into a coma over those road deaths?
Our governments are insane.
You are so right, life is risky, 1700 people die each day in the UK. We cannot pretend that we can live in a risk free bubble. We haven't in the past. The problem is we now live in the internet age. If this pandemic was 30 years ago I doubt any of these lockdowns would have happened. People would just shrug that old ill people were dying.
1989 UK flu with 30,000 deaths is clearly an example where it was not a big media story let alone national emergency.
In being seen to 'do something' governments are about to do far more harm than they are good. Far more.
Maybe if people see that, something will have come from this sorry episode.
I think what the UK govt has done so far has actually been prudent and reasonable. I have more sympathy for your view than the views of the everyone needs to be locked down and isolated without daylight group. Some other governments do seem in a something needs to be done mode.
Yes, I agree.
How many people are we guessing are going to die in the UK from corona? My guess (and I stress guess, not estimate) is 1 million. But there are roughly 600,000 deaths in the UK each year. Many, or most of that 1 million will be in the category of people who were going to die this year anyway, and many of those who aren't will be in next year's 600,000 or that of the year after. On this basis (and again, I stress the earlier word 'guess') we will see a net loss in UK population this year - but give it two years and we'll be back to where we would have been.
I think that's incredibly heartless - these are real people - our parents, grandparents, friends and colleagues.
Then again I think (hope) your 1 million figure is way too high and I agree the government (or more accurately the scientists) have got it about right so far.
Ben, apologies if that's the way it comes across. I don't mean to sound heartless: I have four family members I am worrying bitterly about (far more, it has to be said, than they are worrying about themselves). But I'm trying to see this from a wider perspective - the death of an elderly relative is of course a tragedy, but - if my understanding of the demographics of this is correct - for many of the people who die of this illness it's a tragedy that would have happened this year for one reason or another anyway. But I don't want to be flippant about this.
I am glad however that you think my 1 million figure is far too high. Any straw gratefully clutched at!
The real blow is when a younger relative dies. I'm not referring to the loss of a young child, but when an adult one dies. My wife, having given maternal support to our three children through their young adult years (as well of course as childhood) now finds herself giving the same sort of support to our eldest granddaughter, consequent upon the loss of her mother, our daughter.
Very sorry to hear that @OldKingCole - I can't imagine how hard that must be.
. Thank you very much. It was a while ago, Mr P, now, but it still hurts, and I expect always will.
Talking of food supplies, I think we must be heading for a quite serious shortage of fresh fruit and veg over the next few weeks. The lockdowns in Spain and Italy must be having a serious disruptive effect on supplies and transport, and it's going to be made worse by effect of the awful weather in the UK on our agriculture.
I live near the main motorway which takes fruit and veg from SE Spain north. Despite the lockdown the lorries are still heading north in full force.
How long will it be before all these one off walk in type medical centres with private services offer COVID tests while you wait?
A few days?
Well one of the 14 companies developing tests has already sent it to pharmacies, but it is only for staff usage at the moment. Their timeline was 3 weeks before the public could buy it.
Surely once home testing is relatively easy and quick, the need for draconian measures will diminish. Feel symptoms - test - act accordingly.
Depends upon reliability and diligence of self-testing though surely?
I dunno. What's the acceptable risk of living in a Western Democracy??
Far more under 60s will die this year on the roads than will ever, ever die of Corona. Ever. Under 60 road deaths has got Corona completely totally licked.
Shall we ban driving? stopping vehicle production are we sending the world economy into a coma over those road deaths?
Our governments are insane.
You are so right, life is risky, 1700 people die each day in the UK. We cannot pretend that we can live in a risk free bubble. We haven't in the past. The problem is we now live in the internet age. If this pandemic was 30 years ago I doubt any of these lockdowns would have happened. People would just shrug that old ill people were dying.
1989 UK flu with 30,000 deaths is clearly an example where it was not a big media story let alone national emergency.
In being seen to 'do something' governments are about to do far more harm than they are good. Far more.
Maybe if people see that, something will have come from this sorry episode.
I think what the UK govt has done so far has actually been prudent and reasonable. I have more sympathy for your view than the views of the everyone needs to be locked down and isolated without daylight group. Some other governments do seem in a something needs to be done mode.
Yes, I agree.
How many people are we guessing are going to die in the UK from corona? My guess (and I stress guess, not estimate) is 1 million. But there are roughly 600,000 deaths in the UK each year. Many, or most of that 1 million will be in the category of people who were going to die this year anyway, and many of those who aren't will be in next year's 600,000 or that of the year after. On this basis (and again, I stress the earlier word 'guess') we will see a net loss in UK population this year - but give it two years and we'll be back to where we would have been.
I think that's incredibly heartless - these are real people - our parents, grandparents, friends and colleagues.
Then again I think (hope) your 1 million figure is way too high and I agree the government (or more accurately the scientists) have got it about right so far.
Ben, apologies if that's the way it comes across. I don't mean to sound heartless: I have four family members I am worrying bitterly about (far more, it has to be said, than they are worrying about themselves). But I'm trying to see this from a wider perspective - the death of an elderly relative is of course a tragedy, but - if my understanding of the demographics of this is correct - for many of the people who die of this illness it's a tragedy that would have happened this year for one reason or another anyway. But I don't want to be flippant about this.
I am glad however that you think my 1 million figure is far too high. Any straw gratefully clutched at!
The real blow is when a younger relative dies. I'm not referring to the loss of a young child, but when an adult one dies. My wife, having given maternal support to our three children through their young adult years (as well of course as childhood) now finds herself giving the same sort of support to our eldest granddaughter, consequent upon the loss of her mother, our daughter.
Very sorry to hear that @OldKingCole - I can't imagine how hard that must be.
And so am I. The lost of a child at any age is just devastating and my best wishes and understanding to OKC and family
Sounds like Salmond has been found NOT Guilty on one of the charges already, before his defence witnesses even get started. Scotsman had story up but seem to have pulled it now.
How long will it be before all these one off walk in type medical centres with private services offer COVID tests while you wait?
A few days?
Well one of the 14 companies developing tests has already sent it to pharmacies, but it is only for staff usage at the moment. Their timeline was 3 weeks before the public could buy it.
Surely once home testing is relatively easy and quick, the need for draconian measures will diminish. Feel symptoms - test - act accordingly.
Depends upon reliability and diligence of self-testing though surely?
I dunno. What's the acceptable risk of living in a Western Democracy??
Far more under 60s will die this year on the roads than will ever, ever die of Corona. Ever. Under 60 road deaths has got Corona completely totally licked.
Shall we ban driving? stopping vehicle production are we sending the world economy into a coma over those road deaths?
Our governments are insane.
You are so right, life is risky, 1700 people die each day in the UK. We cannot pretend that we can live in a risk free bubble. We haven't in the past. The problem is we now live in the internet age. If this pandemic was 30 years ago I doubt any of these lockdowns would have happened. People would just shrug that old ill people were dying.
1989 UK flu with 30,000 deaths is clearly an example where it was not a big media story let alone national emergency.
In being seen to 'do something' governments are about to do far more harm than they are good. Far more.
Maybe if people see that, something will have come from this sorry episode.
I think what the UK govt has done so far has actually been prudent and reasonable. I have more sympathy for your view than the views of the everyone needs to be locked down and isolated without daylight group. Some other governments do seem in a something needs to be done mode.
Yes, I agree.
How many people are we guessing are going to die in the UK from corona? My guess (and I stress guess, not estimate) is 1 million. But there are roughly 600,000 deaths in the UK each year. Many, or most of that 1 million will be in the category of people who were going to die this year anyway, and many of those who aren't will be in next year's 600,000 or that of the year after. On this basis (and again, I stress the earlier word 'guess') we will see a net loss in UK population this year - but give it two years and we'll be back to where we would have been.
I think that's incredibly heartless - these are real people - our parents, grandparents, friends and colleagues.
Then again I think (hope) your 1 million figure is way too high and I agree the government (or more accurately the scientists) have got it about right so far.
Ben, apologies if that's the way it comes across. I don't mean to sound heartless: I have four family members I am worrying bitterly about (far more, it has to be said, than they are worrying about themselves). But I'm trying to see this from a wider perspective - the death of an elderly relative is of course a tragedy, but - if my understanding of the demographics of this is correct - for many of the people who die of this illness it's a tragedy that would have happened this year for one reason or another anyway. But I don't want to be flippant about this.
I am glad however that you think my 1 million figure is far too high. Any straw gratefully clutched at!
The real blow is when a younger relative dies. I'm not referring to the loss of a young child, but when an adult one dies. My wife, having given maternal support to our three children through their young adult years (as well of course as childhood) now finds herself giving the same sort of support to our eldest granddaughter, consequent upon the loss of her mother, our daughter.
Very sorry to hear that @OldKingCole - I can't imagine how hard that must be.
And so am I. The lost of a child at any age is just devastating and my best wishes and understanding to OKC and family
Thanks. As I replied to Mr P, it was a while ago, but still, and always will, hurt.
Ahem, FPT: Not sure if people think this wise or a waste of time but I'm putting together a few reading suggestions for those who are going to have a ton of time on their hands.
Trying to mix it up a little. Currently got: Lone Wolf gamebooks [snip]
Fighting Fantasy gamebooks, surely, Mr Dancer!
They are still published - I saw them in travelling man a few weeks ago. Unfortunately I've lost the signed first editions I had years ago...
So has anyone watched the first episodes of season three of Westworld?
Was it more season one or was it more like season two?
Yes...it wasn't like either really. Think Jason Bourne or actually more like the Cyberpunk game that is coming out soon. All action, very little intrigue, and certainly no sign of 27 different timelines all co-existing leaving you to have to rewatch the episode 3 times to ensure you don't miss all the clues.
I reserve judgement to see if it is going to be a total shitshow like season 2, but it is definitely dumbed down.
Ta, I think I might wait until most of the episodes have aired, and see what the consensus is before I commit.
I struggle to think of a show that had a bigger drop off in quality between seasons that Westworld had between season 1 and 2.
It is definitely very high budget and flashy, and if this was a new IP, you would say they are definitely trying to attract an audience that wants excitement and sci-fi, definitely those that can't wait to play the Cyberpunk game.
Those that loved Season 1, I think will find it all a bit shooty shooty bang bang. Are they really then going to attract in a new audience for Season 3 that have stuck through 2 seasons of complex story lines?
How long will it be before all these one off walk in type medical centres with private services offer COVID tests while you wait?
A few days?
Well one of the 14 companies developing tests has already sent it to pharmacies, but it is only for staff usage at the moment. Their timeline was 3 weeks before the public could buy it.
Surely once home testing is relatively easy and quick, the need for draconian measures will diminish. Feel symptoms - test - act accordingly.
Depends upon reliability and diligence of self-testing though surely?
I dunno. What's the acceptable risk of living in a Western Democracy??
Far more under 60s will die this year on the roads than will ever, ever die of Corona. Ever. Under 60 road deaths has got Corona completely totally licked.
Shall we ban driving? stopping vehicle production are we sending the world economy into a coma over those road deaths?
Our governments are insane.
You are so right, life is risky, 1700 people die each day in the UK. We cannot pretend that we can live in a risk free bubble. We haven't in the past. The problem is we now live in the internet age. If this pandemic was 30 years ago I doubt any of these lockdowns would have happened. People would just shrug that old ill people were dying.
1989 UK flu with 30,000 deaths is clearly an example where it was not a big media story let alone national emergency.
In being seen to 'do something' governments are about to do far more harm than they are good. Far more.
Maybe if people see that, something will have come from this sorry episode.
I think what the UK govt has done so far has actually been prudent and reasonable. I have more sympathy for your view than the views of the everyone needs to be locked down and isolated without daylight group. Some other governments do seem in a something needs to be done mode.
Yes, I agree.
How many people are we guessing are going to die in the UK from corona? My guess (and I stress guess, not estimate) is 1 million. But there are roughly 600,000 deaths in the UK each year. Many, or most of that 1 million will be in the category of people who were going to die this year anyway, and many of those who aren't will be in next year's 600,000 or that of the year after. On this basis (and again, I stress the earlier word 'guess') we will see a net loss in UK population this year - but give it two years and we'll be back to where we would have been.
I think that's incredibly heartless - these are real people - our parents, grandparents, friends and colleagues.
Then again I think (hope) your 1 million figure is way too high and I agree the government (or more accurately the scientists) have got it about right so far.
Ben, apologies if that's the way it comes across. I don't mean to sound heartless: I have four family members I am worrying bitterly about (far more, it has to be said, than they are worrying about themselves). But I'm trying to see this from a wider perspective - the death of an elderly relative is of course a tragedy, but - if my understanding of the demographics of this is correct - for many of the people who die of this illness it's a tragedy that would have happened this year for one reason or another anyway. But I don't want to be flippant about this.
I am glad however that you think my 1 million figure is far too high. Any straw gratefully clutched at!
Fair enough, no offence taken, I am in a similar place.
My close relatives who are in their 80s are pretty sanguine about this really - I guess they have accustomed themselves to the idea of a future that doesn't stretch out that far.
Yes, that must be a factor. I wonder whether being of that age also makes it possible to view it with rather more detachment - no longer having dependents etc. My elderly relatives are all remarkably bullish about their own chances, for various reasons: - my Dad thinks many people will die but appears to believe he is indestructible - my Mum thinks it is a lot of media fuss - my mother-in-law values quality if life more than quantity and if that adds to her risk of death she doesn't much care - my father-in-law seems to believe he has already had it. (He hasn't.)
Talking of food supplies, I think we must be heading for a quite serious shortage of fresh fruit and veg over the next few weeks. The lockdowns in Spain and Italy must be having a serious disruptive effect on supplies and transport, and it's going to be made worse by effect of the awful weather in the UK on our agriculture.
I live near the main motorway which takes fruit and veg from SE Spain north. Despite the lockdown the lorries are still heading north in full force.
Handpicked by people guaranteed to have had no exposure to Covid-19, presumably.....
How long will it be before all these one off walk in type medical centres with private services offer COVID tests while you wait?
A few days?
Well one of the 14 companies developing tests has already sent it to pharmacies, but it is only for staff usage at the moment. Their timeline was 3 weeks before the public could buy it.
Surely once home testing is relatively easy and quick, the need for draconian measures will diminish. Feel symptoms - test - act accordingly.
Depends upon reliability and diligence of self-testing though surely?
I dunno. What's the acceptable risk of living in a Western Democracy??
Far more under 60s will die this year on the roads than will ever, ever die of Corona. Ever. Under 60 road deaths has got Corona completely totally licked.
Shall we ban driving? stopping vehicle production are we sending the world economy into a coma over those road deaths?
Our governments are insane.
You are so right, life is risky, 1700 people die each day in the UK. We cannot pretend that we can live in a risk free bubble. We haven't in the past. The problem is we now live in the internet age. If this pandemic was 30 years ago I doubt any of these lockdowns would have happened. People would just shrug that old ill people were dying.
1989 UK flu with 30,000 deaths is clearly an example where it was not a big media story let alone national emergency.
In being seen to 'do something' governments are about to do far more harm than they are good. Far more.
Maybe if people see that, something will have come from this sorry episode.
I think what the UK govt has done so far has actually been prudent and reasonable. I have more sympathy for your view than the views of the everyone needs to be locked down and isolated without daylight group. Some other governments do seem in a something needs to be done mode.
Yes, I agree.
How many people are we guessing are going to die in the UK from corona? My guess (and I stress guess, not estimate) is 1 million. But there are roughly 600,000 deaths in the UK each year. Many, or most of that 1 million will be in the category of people who were going to die this year anyway, and many of those who aren't will be in next year's 600,000 or that of the year after. On this basis (and again, I stress the earlier word 'guess') we will see a net loss in UK population this year - but give it two years and we'll be back to where we would have been.
I think that's incredibly heartless - these are real people - our parents, grandparents, friends and colleagues.
Then again I think (hope) your 1 million figure is way too high and I agree the government (or more accurately the scientists) have got it about right so far.
Ben, apologies if that's the way it comes across. I don't mean to sound heartless: I have four family members I am worrying bitterly about (far more, it has to be said, than they are worrying about themselves). But I'm trying to see this from a wider perspective - the death of an elderly relative is of course a tragedy, but - if my understanding of the demographics of this is correct - for many of the people who die of this illness it's a tragedy that would have happened this year for one reason or another anyway. But I don't want to be flippant about this.
I am glad however that you think my 1 million figure is far too high. Any straw gratefully clutched at!
Fair enough, no offence taken, I am in a similar place.
My close relatives who are in their 80s are pretty sanguine about this really - I guess they have accustomed themselves to the idea of a future that doesn't stretch out that far.
Yes, that must be a factor. I wonder whether being of that age also makes it possible to view it with rather more detachment - no longer having dependents etc. My elderly relatives are all remarkably bullish about their own chances, for various reasons: - my Dad thinks many people will die but appears to believe he is indestructible - my Mum thinks it is a lot of media fuss - my mother-in-law values quality if life more than quantity and if that adds to her risk of death she doesn't much care - my father-in-law seems to believe he has already had it. (He hasn't.)
Government needs to say they risk losing their free TV licence if they don't comply. That seems to be the issue that my elderly relatives are most concerned about.
Isn't it just a statement of fact? Can facts be handsome?
Clearly, given that all sorts of temprary border restrictions are being put in place the EU could have excluded the UK from its Schengen exceptions.
I agree with @AlastairMeeks - the fact that it didn't is a handsome gesture.
I beg to differ. No surprise there. That's not to say that the EU could not have bent the rules in today's circumstances, but failing to do so hardly qualifies labelling such failure as handsome.
Comments
From them!
The world cannot close down each time something like this happens.
Not sure if people think this wise or a waste of time but I'm putting together a few reading suggestions for those who are going to have a ton of time on their hands.
Trying to mix it up a little. Currently got:
Lone Wolf gamebooks
Sharpe series
A few Chinese classics
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire
Complete Works of Shakespeare
Any quick suggestions to add to the list, bearing in mind I'm looking for time sinks?
Edited extra bit: questions should have question marks.
On-topic: I think I've got some green on Harris and Warren, so if they're the VP picks I'll be pleased.
How many people are we guessing are going to die in the UK from corona? My guess (and I stress guess, not estimate) is 1 million. But there are roughly 600,000 deaths in the UK each year. Many, or most of that 1 million will be in the category of people who were going to die this year anyway, and many of those who aren't will be in next year's 600,000 or that of the year after. On this basis (and again, I stress the earlier word 'guess') we will see a net loss in UK population this year - but give it two years and we'll be back to where we would have been.
Then again I think (hope) your 1 million figure is way too high and I agree the government (or more accurately the scientists) have got it about right so far.
I'm not sure about that. In 2018, there were 1,770 road deaths. Now even if we assume they were all under 60, are we really expecting fewer than 1,770 deaths from corona in the under 60 age bracket? I believe data from China has deaths at about 0.2-0.4% for under 60s. But if only 5 million under 60s get it and the death rate is only 0.2%, that's still 10,000 people.
Quick note for anybody who isn't up on their medical stats, the usefulness of a positive/negative result depends not only the characteristics of the test itself (sensitivity = how good it is at picking up people who have the disease, specificity = how good it is at giving negative results to people who don't) but also on the characteristics of the patients sent for testing. If the vast majority of people you test don't actually have the disease, then you can have a situation where most people who get a positive result actually have a false positive ie do not actually have the disease, even if the sensitivity and specificity figures are in the high 90%+ range (highly recommended link). This is a reason for not just testing everyone who demands a test, separate from the issues of availability and cost, but rather to restrict testing to those who already exhibit a certain level of symptoms, or who've been "funnelled" through a pathway of more basic tests first.
(This is a useful fact to remember after the pandemic too! There's a lot of controversy about e.g. screening programmes and which risk groups should enter into them. The lower risk you are, the greater the chance that if you do get a positive result, then it's a false one and will lead to unnecessary stress and potentially harmful interventions. It's part of the reason why eg a BMJ panel concluded that only high-risk men, like those with a family history of the disease, benefit from prostrate cancer screening.)
What's the Nat take on his RT show? Ambivalence, defence, or dismay?
https://twitter.com/OzKaterji/status/1239568706105159683
However, it's also possible this will burn itself out.
Station Eleven by Emily St. John Mandel is very apt right now ;-)
The Patrick O'Brian's Aubrey-Maturin series are very good if you like historical fiction.
Hard to reconcile the public figure and the supposed private one being detailed in court. Apart from the one ridiculous one they seem to be pretty pathetic. Hard to believe only 2% of rape cases make court when you see the stuff here, should be 99.9%
Cheers, I'll add that.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/834585/reported-road-casualties-annual-report-2018.pdf
Does the coronavirus emergency mean that freedom of speech in the UK has been shut down? Do citizens still have the right to protest and to demonstrate? It would have been wrong for Parliament to have been shut down when the first MP tested positive for the virus, and I think that it would be just as wrong at this time for the BBC to exclude the public from Question Time.
But I don't want to be flippant about this.
I am glad however that you think my 1 million figure is far too high. Any straw gratefully clutched at!
Mr. Pointer, I've read Wild Swans. Rather liked it.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1239567267312152576?s=20
Now we're getting lectured on testing, I wonder how many of those doing so have a level of basic knowledge at least equivalent to this rather nice introductory article I linked earlier.
The boy needs to go to Uni in September. He already repeated a year, the notion that the entire academic year nationwide needs to repeat is absurd - what do colleges and unis do with all that empty space if no-one joins this September? Whats the impact on the nation if effectively no-one graduates from school / college / university for a year?
My close relatives who are in their 80s are pretty sanguine about this really - I guess they have accustomed themselves to the idea of a future that doesn't stretch out that far.
https://twitter.com/nick_gutteridge/status/1239574504701079552
Three more books from me:
Deaths of Despair: The Future of Capitalism.
Sevens Heaven: The Beautiful Chaos of Fiji’s Olympic Dream (my favourite book published last decade, amazing (factual) storytelling and escapism).
The Rules of Contagion (not escapism)
Those societies which succeed the least in stemming the tide will benefit the most in the long run from having the unproductive elements of society weeded out by the plague.
Harry the Ghost will be crying into his beer tonight.
Of course, a second wave in the Winter could completely screw that idea up.
Was it more season one or was it more like season two?
I reserve judgement to see if it is going to be a total shitshow like season 2, but it is definitely dumbed down.
On a practical level, in most schools the exam cohorts will still be learning new stuff: I’ve had first hand experience today of trying to teach over the internet and it will never be as easy as it is in front of a class (assuming they are paying attention in the first place of course). In the sciences while there is no longer any coursework as such there are practicals they need to have done and that is recorded on the certificate: not sure what will happen to those suddenly denied the opportunity to finish those off.
Redoing the whole year would mean that we couldn’t accept any new Year 7s (there would physically not be enough room) which would have serious knock on effects for Primary schools.
On the other hand, in an exam hall the distance between candidates is probably large enough to reduce the risks a bit.
Something will have to give and I’m glad I’m not going to be the one making that level of decision.
Personally I was a bit less taken by the Agincourt books but that might be because I'd just read so much Cornwell stuff that I wanted something else.
I struggle to think of a show that had a bigger drop off in quality between seasons that Westworld had between season 1 and 2.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
Thank you very much.
It was a while ago, Mr P, now, but it still hurts, and I expect always will.
Radioed to the pilot we were there and he asked where we were and to put up smoke. He couldn't see us.
We were amazed that the DPM actually worked.
I agree with @AlastairMeeks - the fact that it didn't is a handsome gesture.
Those that loved Season 1, I think will find it all a bit shooty shooty bang bang. Are they really then going to attract in a new audience for Season 3 that have stuck through 2 seasons of complex story lines?
My elderly relatives are all remarkably bullish about their own chances, for various reasons:
- my Dad thinks many people will die but appears to believe he is indestructible
- my Mum thinks it is a lot of media fuss
- my mother-in-law values quality if life more than quantity and if that adds to her risk of death she doesn't much care
- my father-in-law seems to believe he has already had it. (He hasn't.)
is extreme imho. And unenforceable?