Lots of people saying its really hard to do anything equivalent for renters as the mortgage holidays.
So here is a simple policy suggestion: 3 months rent offered as interest free loan repayable over 36 months, underwritten by govt for anyone with valid tenancy agreement and utility bill. Delivered by at least Natwest/RBS which is govt majority owned so should be straightforward but hopefully all major banks can sign up.
A small bonus of this approach is it will give the govt access to vast records of tenancy agreements to cross check against tax cheats when things have calmed down in the future.
You do realise a lot of renters struggle make the money last till payday as it is now you want to tack 3000/36 = 83£ a month onto their woes.....its a non starter
I think it's the requirement for a tenancy agreement that is the most problematic, actually.
well never found a place that hasnt offered a tenancy agreement as yet but I don't doubt you. The people needing this will be however those that are already desperate however and thinking they could pay off that rent over 36 months is farcical
No, its not that farcical. Its certainly a lot better than no alternative and being expected to pay now.
I bet she's got a shelfful of Ayn Rand at home. If hypocritical dependency on the state in their time of need was good enough for Randy, you can be sure oor Laura will find ways of justifying it.
Will you be shocked to learn that she is in favour of the hardest of all Brexits?
Lots of people saying its really hard to do anything equivalent for renters as the mortgage holidays.
So here is a simple policy suggestion: 3 months rent offered as interest free loan repayable over 36 months, underwritten by govt for anyone with valid tenancy agreement and utility bill. Delivered by at least Natwest/RBS which is govt majority owned so should be straightforward but hopefully all major banks can sign up.
A small bonus of this approach is it will give the govt access to vast records of tenancy agreements to cross check against tax cheats when things have calmed down in the future.
You do realise a lot of renters struggle make the money last till payday as it is now you want to tack 3000/36 = 83£ a month onto their woes.....its a non starter
A lot less woeful than being expected to still pay their rent right now. Its a positive idea.
It defers their eviction a few months is all whereas those who can afford to buy and those who own a business get nice little handouts one rule for the haves and we will throw the plebs the chaff from our table and make life even harder for them in a few months
Agreed. This is the way we will come out of the lockdown without needing a vaccine.
A test to see if you have had the virus would be great.
But unless I've missed something it is not as yet known that getting it and recovering gives immunity for any length of time?
We need a few different types of test.
We have the gold-standard for confirmation that you are sick. This should be reserved for those on the front-line and should be close to 100% sensitive and specific. That's what we have been using so far but it only works in individuals with the virus currently. It takes up to 48 hours as the virus needs cultivating.
We need a rapid rule-out test which can be used for symptomatic sufferers. It needs to be reasonably sensitive and specific but crucially it needs to be fast. This can be used for surveillance and to ascertain incidence in the population.
We need an anti-body based test which can tell us if we have had the disease. Those patients who have had the disease can then start to function in society. Such a test can tell us about prevalence in society.
When sufficient numbers have had the lurgy using the anti-body test, we can then unlock. If it pops up again, we use the other different test modalities to isolate, contact trace and bring it under control in local populations.
It's far more feasible than a vaccine which is possible but is extremely complex to develop and hard to scale quickly.
If you have had Covid-19 and recover, and are then immume, does this also mean that you cannot carry it and pass it on to others? I think the answer to this is yes because I read somewhere that you can only pass it on if you are symptomatic and obviously you canot be symptomatic if you are immune.
Have I understood this correctly?
Almost.
You can pass it on if you are infected but asymptomatic. If you're immune you won't get infected (AFAIK).
That is correct. It is possible that future iterations of the virus will be sufficiently mutated that you will not have total immunity, but there is no sign of that currently. (And if that were to happen then symptoms would likely be less severe as your immune system would still have a headstart.)
We don't know for sure. Short-term certainly. Beyond that? We don't know. That's why banking on herd immunity with 300K deaths was a bonkers idea. It's a big gamble with an uncertain positive outcome at the end.
By contrast, locking down and testing the theory of permanent immunity would be a good idea. In the mean-time, develop a range of diagnostics so this can be quickly caught if it pops up again in the wild.
I agree with you re diagnostics, which is why South Korea has managed to control this (as has Vo in Italy). Nevertheless, the panic about reinfection is not based on any evidence. There is no evidence of either SARS or MERS (both Coronavirus) patients being susceptible to any reinfection. Given the relative similarity between these viruses, that is extremely encouraging.
I presume the UK government are going to announce school closures at 5pm, but the Welsh and Scottish governments doing their silly buggery act again by announcing a few hours before just so they can claim they are leading on this.
I presume the media will be again claiming UUUUUUUU-TURNNN....
Boris should be nonchalant about their preempting the UK govt. Last time he couldn't resist a dig at Nicola saying that he understands there is a problem with the resilience of the nhs in Scotland.
How pathetic was that given the reality, what a big jessie.
Agreed. This is the way we will come out of the lockdown without needing a vaccine.
A test to see if you have had the virus would be great.
But unless I've missed something it is not as yet known that getting it and recovering gives immunity for any length of time?
We need a few different types of test.
We have the gold-standard for confirmation that you are sick. This should be reserved for those on the front-line and should be close to 100% sensitive and specific. That's what we have been using so far but it only works in individuals with the virus currently. It takes up to 48 hours as the virus needs cultivating.
We need a rapid rule-out test which can be used for symptomatic sufferers. It needs to be reasonably sensitive and specific but crucially it needs to be fast. This can be used for surveillance and to ascertain incidence in the population.
We need an anti-body based test which can tell us if we have had the disease. Those patients who have had the disease can then start to function in society. Such a test can tell us about prevalence in society.
When sufficient numbers have had the lurgy using the anti-body test, we can then unlock. If it pops up again, we use the other different test modalities to isolate, contact trace and bring it under control in local populations.
It's far more feasible than a vaccine which is possible but is extremely complex to develop and hard to scale quickly.
If you have had Covid-19 and recover, and are then immume, does this also mean that you cannot carry it and pass it on to others? I think the answer to this is yes because I read somewhere that you can only pass it on if you are symptomatic and obviously you canot be symptomatic if you are immune.
Have I understood this correctly?
Almost.
You can pass it on if you are infected but asymptomatic. If you're immune you won't get infected (AFAIK).
That is correct. It is possible that future iterations of the virus will be sufficiently mutated that you will not have total immunity, but there is no sign of that currently. (And if that were to happen then symptoms would likely be less severe as your immune system would still have a headstart.)
I don't think it's quite so simple as that (and how effective and durable acquired immunity to this virus might be is certainly a matter of current debate amongst scientists).
(Measles, for example, can erase immune memory.)
You would not have been about to recover from this virus (or any virus), if your body's immune system did not learn to fight it. The only reason why your body's immune system would "forget" the virus would be if it had mutated sufficiently so as to be less recognisable. There is no evidence of any reinfection.
Not yet. We haven't had time yet though have we. Might be worth testing the theory over 12 months before we make any hasty assumptions and decisions.
Labour probably only needs to recover to circa 260 seats given the Anti-Tory bloc in Scotland. I also expect some Labour recovery in Scotland under Starmer.
I would say Labour actually needs to get to 280 to 290 seats if the LDs do not gain any seats as any Labour gains from the SNP make no net change in the anti Tory block. If the LDs reach 30 to 40 seats however then yes 260 seats for Labour would be enough to form a minority or coalition Labour government with LD and SNP support
I don't disagree with that really. Labour would only need 260 or so on the basis of the SNP still having circa 45 seats.Were Labour to gain at SNP to reach 270 seats, the SNP would only need circa 35.
I really don't get this idea....we will have a government allied with the snp. Surely their price will be independence referendum which they will likely win. At which point SNP are no longer part of rump uk government so labour then is no longer the majority and government becomes the tories again.....what am I missing?
You are missing the key point a Starmer premiership would take the UK back into the single market reducijg the likelihood of a Yes vote inany indyref2.
The SNP thus face the problem Boris has banned indyref2 when his hard Brexit makes it winnable, while Starmer would allow indyref2 but his soft Brexit means Yes would likely lose it
You are assuming that the EU would allow him to rejoin the single market. I would suspect they won't purely on the basis they don't want the uk hopping in and out of it with each change of government
They would of course do so provided he agrees to freedom of movement which he will, they cannot refuse entry provided he agrees to EEA terms
In any case the EU have always wanted the UK to stay in the single market and within its orbit. Hence the EU also require regulatory alignment by the UK for a trade deal
Labour probably only needs to recover to circa 260 seats given the Anti-Tory bloc in Scotland. I also expect some Labour recovery in Scotland under Starmer.
I would say Labour actually needs to get to 280 to 290 seats if the LDs do not gain any seats as any Labour gains from the SNP make no net change in the anti Tory block. If the LDs reach 30 to 40 seats however then yes 260 seats for Labour would be enough to form a minority or coalition Labour government with LD and SNP support
I don't disagree with that really. Labour would only need 260 or so on the basis of the SNP still having circa 45 seats.Were Labour to gain at SNP to reach 270 seats, the SNP would only need circa 35.
I really don't get this idea....we will have a government allied with the snp. Surely their price will be independence referendum which they will likely win. At which point SNP are no longer part of rump uk government so labour then is no longer the majority and government becomes the tories again.....what am I missing?
You are missing the key point a Starmer premiership would take the UK back into the single market reducing the likelihood of a Yes vote in any indyref2.
The SNP thus face the problem Boris has banned indyref2 when his hard Brexit makes it winnable, while Starmer would allow indyref2 but his soft Brexit means Yes would likely lose it
LOL, Boris cannot ban a referendum if Scottish Government want to go ahead, you southern fanboys are deluded.
Of course he can and he already has, there can be no indyref2 without Westminster consent
What is the useless fat fuck going to do? Throw Sturgeon in prison?
I presume the UK government are going to announce school closures at 5pm, but the Welsh and Scottish governments doing their silly buggery act again by announcing a few hours before just so they can claim they are leading on this.
I presume the media will be again claiming UUUUUUUU-TURNNN....
The puerile, needle-dicked obsession by certain parties that other admins within the UK are constantly trying to upstage our wise, all seeing HMG is, well, puerile and needle-dicked.
You'd surely want to announce it before Friday if its Friday? Not the biggest issue in the scheme of things but many children leave things at school, ie my daughter leaves her PE kit at school and gets it back to be washed at half term and holidays then brought back. I can't see the schools wanting to hold on to that for months.
Lots of people saying its really hard to do anything equivalent for renters as the mortgage holidays.
So here is a simple policy suggestion: 3 months rent offered as interest free loan repayable over 36 months, underwritten by govt for anyone with valid tenancy agreement and utility bill. Delivered by at least Natwest/RBS which is govt majority owned so should be straightforward but hopefully all major banks can sign up.
A small bonus of this approach is it will give the govt access to vast records of tenancy agreements to cross check against tax cheats when things have calmed down in the future.
You do realise a lot of renters struggle make the money last till payday as it is now you want to tack 3000/36 = 83£ a month onto their woes.....its a non starter
I think it's the requirement for a tenancy agreement that is the most problematic, actually.
Out of interest why? What proportion of renters dont have written tenancy agreements? If those few are encouraged to get it documented so much the better imo - am I missing something?
Labour probably only needs to recover to circa 260 seats given the Anti-Tory bloc in Scotland. I also expect some Labour recovery in Scotland under Starmer.
I would say Labour actually needs to get to 280 to 290 seats if the LDs do not gain any seats as any Labour gains from the SNP make no net change in the anti Tory block. If the LDs reach 30 to 40 seats however then yes 260 seats for Labour would be enough to form a minority or coalition Labour government with LD and SNP support
I don't disagree with that really. Labour would only need 260 or so on the basis of the SNP still having circa 45 seats.Were Labour to gain at SNP to reach 270 seats, the SNP would only need circa 35.
I really don't get this idea....we will have a government allied with the snp. Surely their price will be independence referendum which they will likely win. At which point SNP are no longer part of rump uk government so labour then is no longer the majority and government becomes the tories again.....what am I missing?
You are missing the key point a Starmer premiership would take the UK back into the single market reducing the likelihood of a Yes vote in any indyref2.
The SNP thus face the problem Boris has banned indyref2 when his hard Brexit makes it winnable, while Starmer would allow indyref2 but his soft Brexit means Yes would likely lose it
LOL, Boris cannot ban a referendum if Scottish Government want to go ahead, you southern fanboys are deluded.
Of course he can and he already has, there can be no indyref2 without Westminster consent
What is the useless fat fuck going to do? Throw Sturgeon in prison?
Or just ignore any illegal referendum. The rest of the world will do so.
I presume the UK government are going to announce school closures at 5pm, but the Welsh and Scottish governments doing their silly buggery act again by announcing a few hours before just so they can claim they are leading on this.
I presume the media will be again claiming UUUUUUUU-TURNNN....
LOL, another Little Englander upset at being the cow's tail
It seems as though they are following the Speaker's tweet yesterday and announcing it in the Commons at 5pm. Likely the decision was made jointly at the cobra meeting.
Yes but pathetic that some cretins including Boris are so insecure that they are upset that Scotland put the news out first , it says a lot about the fragility of the English (desperate unionist ones) psyche.
The F1 teams in the UK must have all this kind of kit.
CNC machines and 3D printers are ubiquitous in manufacturing. It ranges from firms whose only job is having serried ranks of them, making items on demand, to their use a part of the repair shop in a factory.
There's an outfit in Bristol for example, who if you post them a broken part, laser scan it and send you a quote within hours to make it on their CNCs. And can have simple stuff done in 24 hours. If they have to create a complex program to make the part it takes longer. But once that is done, you simply load stock on the machine and watch.
I presume the UK government are going to announce school closures at 5pm, but the Welsh and Scottish governments doing their silly buggery act again by announcing a few hours before just so they can claim they are leading on this.
I presume the media will be again claiming UUUUUUUU-TURNNN....
Boris should be nonchalant about their preempting the UK govt. Last time he couldn't resist a dig at Nicola saying that he understands there is a problem with the resilience of the nhs in Scotland.
How pathetic was that given the reality, what a big jessie.
Labour probably only needs to recover to circa 260 seats given the Anti-Tory bloc in Scotland. I also expect some Labour recovery in Scotland under Starmer.
I would say Labour actually needs to get to 280 to 290 seats if the LDs do not gain any seats as any Labour gains from the SNP make no net change in the anti Tory block. If the LDs reach 30 to 40 seats however then yes 260 seats for Labour would be enough to form a minority or coalition Labour government with LD and SNP support
I don't disagree with that really. Labour would only need 260 or so on the basis of the SNP still having circa 45 seats.Were Labour to gain at SNP to reach 270 seats, the SNP would only need circa 35.
I really don't get this idea....we will have a government allied with the snp. Surely their price will be independence referendum which they will likely win. At which point SNP are no longer part of rump uk government so labour then is no longer the majority and government becomes the tories again.....what am I missing?
You are missing the key point a Starmer premiership would take the UK back into the single market reducijg the likelihood of a Yes vote inany indyref2.
The SNP thus face the problem Boris has banned indyref2 when his hard Brexit makes it winnable, while Starmer would allow indyref2 but his soft Brexit means Yes would likely lose it
You are assuming that the EU would allow him to rejoin the single market. I would suspect they won't purely on the basis they don't want the uk hopping in and out of it with each change of government
They would of course do so provided he agrees to freedom of movement which he will, they cannot refuse entry provided he agrees to EEA terms
In any csse the EU have slways wanted the UK to stay in the single market and within its orbit
Of course they can refuse entry and they will because they know the moment the tories get back in we will be doing the hokey cokey out again. Where you get this bizarre idea that they HAVE to allow us back in is beyond me. By that thinking if Somalia said hey we will join freedom of movement and agree to EEA terms they could join.
This chart was posted at the end of January, interesting to see that we are still "ahead of schedule", but for some reason I feel we are about to slow right down
The online wine retailer Naked Wines has stopped taking new orders, citing a “surge” in demand yesterday from customers stuck at home.
Well we all know what some people are doing with their working from home time.
Watching Netflix.
Not long until Ozark Season 3 is released.
Better call Saul, once a week is painful. I want it all now.
Any idea how they will release Ozark?
BCS getting better series by series, wasnt convinced by some of the early ones but enjoying it now. Ozarks so far been released in one go if I recall correctly.
I bet she's got a shelfful of Ayn Rand at home. If hypocritical dependency on the state in their time of need was good enough for Randy, you can be sure oor Laura will find ways of justifying it.
Will you be shocked to learn that she is in favour of the hardest of all Brexits?
*Frantically fans himself in an attempt to stop fainting*
I presume the UK government are going to announce school closures at 5pm, but the Welsh and Scottish governments doing their silly buggery act again by announcing a few hours before just so they can claim they are leading on this.
I presume the media will be again claiming UUUUUUUU-TURNNN....
Boris should be nonchalant about their preempting the UK govt. Last time he couldn't resist a dig at Nicola saying that he understands there is a problem with the resilience of the nhs in Scotland.
How pathetic was that given the reality, what a big jessie.
It was unnecessary.
And he unabashedly announced the same policy 2 days later for the very same reason, namely that ambulance and police should not be wasting their time at events at this time.
The online wine retailer Naked Wines has stopped taking new orders, citing a “surge” in demand yesterday from customers stuck at home.
Well we all know what some people are doing with their working from home time.
Watching Netflix.
Not long until Ozark Season 3 is released.
Better call Saul, once a week is painful. I want it all now.
Any idea how they will release Ozark?
BCS getting better series by series, wasnt convinced by some of the early ones but enjoying it now.
Sounds like I need to watch it. I watched the first 5-6 of season one and gave up. I wasn't a big Breaking Bad fan and I thought this isn't for me. But perhaps I need to reevaluate.
The Imperial College advice on closing schools was that the wave happens later in the year, and is worse than doing nothing, in some ways.
No, it absolutely wasn't. The paper models some very specific scenarios. The green line scenario is explicitly modelling the case where:
1. There's no vaccine 2. There's no treatment found that improves recovery times 3. The government has extremely strict measures for 5 months then just lifts all of them at once
In the likely case that a vaccine is found, what we actually want is to delay cases as long as possible. From the Imperial paper, the best way to do that is the green line, which includes school closures. If it subsequently becomes clear that a vaccine won't happen in time, or won't be applicable to many people, or whatever, then we can transition to the orange-line approach of flattening the curve. We'll also be in a better position by then because we'll have had time to ramp up capacity for testing and treatment, have more data from other countries, and so on.
Scottish schools to shut from Friday. Might get told tomorrow what they are doing about exams this year. Apparently free school lunches are the priority though.
My son is desperately trying to get assessments completed and lodged but it may be pointless.
Seems a poor decision driven by producer interests. Scotland so far is barely touched. What happens when they need to flatten the curve in a month or two?
Pressure by people who will get full pay causing people who will be lucky to get ssp to stop work.
I am not sure I agree with that. Firstly, if kids are transmitting it around the playground, which they almost certainly are, schools are no longer a safe place of work for older teachers or those who have underlying heart conditions. Secondly, the reality is that this has been coming for a month. About 1/4 of the kids in my son's school are already off. Many are the children of doctors/consultants (easily the largest source of kids for the school now). If this is in any way indicative the number infected in the community is many, many times the official figures, at least 20x but possible 200x for all we know. Thirdly, I fear as a country that we are on the steep part of the curve and steps to date will not put the brakes on sufficiently. I expect our hospitals to be under severe pressure by the end of next week. We cannot have cases increasing at the same rate the week after.
200x10,000 is one in 30. If so, it does justify my doctor's surgery (on the orders of Powys Health Board) cancelling all routine appointments, although there've been no confirmed cases in ******* [small town in the back of beyond].
They told me to 'phone us to make a new appointment in April'. As there'll be more cases then than now, I think they really mean August.
The online wine retailer Naked Wines has stopped taking new orders, citing a “surge” in demand yesterday from customers stuck at home.
Well we all know what some people are doing with their working from home time.
Watching Netflix.
Not long until Ozark Season 3 is released.
Better call Saul, once a week is painful. I want it all now.
Any idea how they will release Ozark?
BCS getting better series by series, wasnt convinced by some of the early ones but enjoying it now.
Sounds like I need to watch it. I watched the first 5-6 of season one and gave up. I wasn't a big Breaking Bad fan and I thought this isn't for me. But perhaps I need to reevaluate.
Breaking Bad is still much better! And by the same writers so if you didnt like that, not sure youd like Better Call Saul either.
Labour probably only needs to recover to circa 260 seats given the Anti-Tory bloc in Scotland. I also expect some Labour recovery in Scotland under Starmer.
I would say Labour actually needs to get to 280 to 290 seats if the LDs do not gain any seats as any Labour gains from the SNP make no net change in the anti Tory block. If the LDs reach 30 to 40 seats however then yes 260 seats for Labour would be enough to form a minority or coalition Labour government with LD and SNP support
I don't disagree with that really. Labour would only need 260 or so on the basis of the SNP still having circa 45 seats.Were Labour to gain at SNP to reach 270 seats, the SNP would only need circa 35.
I really don't get this idea....we will have a government allied with the snp. Surely their price will be independence referendum which they will likely win. At which point SNP are no longer part of rump uk government so labour then is no longer the majority and government becomes the tories again.....what am I missing?
You are missing the key point a Starmer premiership would take the UK back into the single market reducijg the likelihood of a Yes vote inany indyref2.
The SNP thus face the problem Boris has banned indyref2 when his hard Brexit makes it winnable, while Starmer would allow indyref2 but his soft Brexit means Yes would likely lose it
You are assuming that the EU would allow him to rejoin the single market. I would suspect they won't purely on the basis they don't want the uk hopping in and out of it with each change of government
They would of course do so provided he agrees to freedom of movement which he will, they cannot refuse entry provided he agrees to EEA terms
In any csse the EU have slways wanted the UK to stay in the single market and within its orbit
Of course they can refuse entry and they will because they know the moment the tories get back in we will be doing the hokey cokey out again. Where you get this bizarre idea that they HAVE to allow us back in is beyond me. By that thinking if Somalia said hey we will join freedom of movement and agree to EEA terms they could join.
Wrong. The EU want the UK within its orbit hence they require regulatory alignment even for a FTA, if Starmer became PM the EU would be delighted and only too happy to let the UK back into the EEA. They are only being difficult with Boris as he was a Leaver (Starmer was a Remainer) and he is trying to move away from the EU orbit as Starmer would not be
My proposal for rental subsidies is that the government offers an interest free loan to landlords to cover the rent they don't collect. This then gets wrapped up into any mortgage the landlord holds. It means the landlord ultimately loses out, but the loss is most likely to be in the form of a slightly lower capital gain when the property is sold, and therefore not too painful. In the meantime they continue to get rental income to cover any mortgages they hold. I would definitely make this arrangement a condition of any mortgage holidays that are offered.
Possible solutions for GCSEs and A-levels if schools shut for the summer: 1). Base grades on teacher assessments. This could work if parents were not able to appeal, but would be very tricky to moderate. Might be the best solution though if it were genuinely one-off situation. 2). For A-levels at least just assume everyone would have got their first choice offer. This might cause problems in terms of numbers for some universities who rely on clearing, but students would not complain. 3). Rapidly deploy some form of online testing that students could do from home. Making that secure would be quite a challenge I think. 4). Run the exams but in a very cut down form: only one paper per subject with enough optional questions so that those who could not finish the course are not penalised. This would be very difficult for practical subjects like Art but could work as the candidates are widely separated in an exam hall. Might need to recruit invigilators who have recovered from CV-19 for that one.
I’m sure there are other solutions, and I’m sure that many students will be hard done by whichever one is picked.
The head of my daughter`s private school said that his best guess is that GCSEs are delayed to September.
Labour probably only needs to recover to circa 260 seats given the Anti-Tory bloc in Scotland. I also expect some Labour recovery in Scotland under Starmer.
I would say Labour actually needs to get to 280 to 290 seats if the LDs do not gain any seats as any Labour gains from the SNP make no net change in the anti Tory block. If the LDs reach 30 to 40 seats however then yes 260 seats for Labour would be enough to form a minority or coalition Labour government with LD and SNP support
I don't disagree with that really. Labour would only need 260 or so on the basis of the SNP still having circa 45 seats.Were Labour to gain at SNP to reach 270 seats, the SNP would only need circa 35.
I really don't get this idea....we will have a government allied with the snp. Surely their price will be independence referendum which they will likely win. At which point SNP are no longer part of rump uk government so labour then is no longer the majority and government becomes the tories again.....what am I missing?
You are missing the key point a Starmer premiership would take the UK back into the single market reducing the likelihood of a Yes vote in any indyref2.
The SNP thus face the problem Boris has banned indyref2 when his hard Brexit makes it winnable, while Starmer would allow indyref2 but his soft Brexit means Yes would likely lose it
LOL, Boris cannot ban a referendum if Scottish Government want to go ahead, you southern fanboys are deluded.
Of course he can and he already has, there can be no indyref2 without Westminster consent
What is the useless fat fuck going to do? Throw Sturgeon in prison?
As a last resort if she held an illegal referendum and tried to declare UDI, Boris controls the army and most of the police, as I said there can be no indyref2 without his consent and any held would be ignored by Westminster while Boris is PM
Labour probably only needs to recover to circa 260 seats given the Anti-Tory bloc in Scotland. I also expect some Labour recovery in Scotland under Starmer.
I would say Labour actually needs to get to 280 to 290 seats if the LDs do not gain any seats as any Labour gains from the SNP make no net change in the anti Tory block. If the LDs reach 30 to 40 seats however then yes 260 seats for Labour would be enough to form a minority or coalition Labour government with LD and SNP support
I don't disagree with that really. Labour would only need 260 or so on the basis of the SNP still having circa 45 seats.Were Labour to gain at SNP to reach 270 seats, the SNP would only need circa 35.
I really don't get this idea....we will have a government allied with the snp. Surely their price will be independence referendum which they will likely win. At which point SNP are no longer part of rump uk government so labour then is no longer the majority and government becomes the tories again.....what am I missing?
You are missing the key point a Starmer premiership would take the UK back into the single market reducijg the likelihood of a Yes vote inany indyref2.
The SNP thus face the problem Boris has banned indyref2 when his hard Brexit makes it winnable, while Starmer would allow indyref2 but his soft Brexit means Yes would likely lose it
You are assuming that the EU would allow him to rejoin the single market. I would suspect they won't purely on the basis they don't want the uk hopping in and out of it with each change of government
They would of course do so provided he agrees to freedom of movement which he will, they cannot refuse entry provided he agrees to EEA terms
In any csse the EU have slways wanted the UK to stay in the single market and within its orbit
Of course they can refuse entry and they will because they know the moment the tories get back in we will be doing the hokey cokey out again. Where you get this bizarre idea that they HAVE to allow us back in is beyond me. By that thinking if Somalia said hey we will join freedom of movement and agree to EEA terms they could join.
Wrong. The EU want the UK within its orbit hence they require regulatory alignment even for a FTA, if Starmer became PM the EU would be delighted and only too happy to let the UK back into the EEA. They are only being difficult with Boris as he was a Leaver (Starmer was a Remainer) and he is trying to move away from the EU orbit as Starmer would not be
Wrong yourself sorry
The eu wants us in permanent regulatory alignement and Starmer cannot deliver that which is the entire point I am making. They sure as hell don't want us ripping up the rules every 5 years then 5 years later coming back in. If Starmer could deliver permanent alignment then yes probably they would agree. He can't so they won't
My proposal for rental subsidies is that the government offers an interest free loan to landlords to cover the rent they don't collect. This then gets wrapped up into any mortgage the landlord holds. It means the landlord ultimately loses out, but the loss is most likely to be in the form of a slightly lower capital gain when the property is sold, and therefore not too painful. In the meantime they continue to get rental income to cover any mortgages they hold. I would definitely make this arrangement a condition of any mortgage holidays that are offered.
Which would be much better however I suspect would be passed onto a tenant as a rent increase in any case but it does at least have the merit of not foisting a loan that would be impossible to repay for many
Labour probably only needs to recover to circa 260 seats given the Anti-Tory bloc in Scotland. I also expect some Labour recovery in Scotland under Starmer.
I would say Labour actually needs to get to 280 to 290 seats if the LDs do not gain any seats as any Labour gains from the SNP make no net change in the anti Tory block. If the LDs reach 30 to 40 seats however then yes 260 seats for Labour would be enough to form a minority or coalition Labour government with LD and SNP support
I don't disagree with that really. Labour would only need 260 or so on the basis of the SNP still having circa 45 seats.Were Labour to gain at SNP to reach 270 seats, the SNP would only need circa 35.
I really don't get this idea....we will have a government allied with the snp. Surely their price will be independence referendum which they will likely win. At which point SNP are no longer part of rump uk government so labour then is no longer the majority and government becomes the tories again.....what am I missing?
You are missing the key point a Starmer premiership would take the UK back into the single market reducijg the likelihood of a Yes vote inany indyref2.
The SNP thus face the problem Boris has banned indyref2 when his hard Brexit makes it winnable, while Starmer would allow indyref2 but his soft Brexit means Yes would likely lose it
You are assuming that the EU would allow him to rejoin the single market. I would suspect they won't purely on the basis they don't want the uk hopping in and out of it with each change of government
They would of course do so provided he agrees to freedom of movement which he will, they cannot refuse entry provided he agrees to EEA terms
In any csse the EU have slways wanted the UK to stay in the single market and within its orbit
Of course they can refuse entry and they will because they know the moment the tories get back in we will be doing the hokey cokey out again. Where you get this bizarre idea that they HAVE to allow us back in is beyond me. By that thinking if Somalia said hey we will join freedom of movement and agree to EEA terms they could join.
Wrong. The EU want the UK within its orbit hence they require regulatory alignment even for a FTA, if Starmer became PM the EU would be delighted and only too happy to let the UK back into the EEA. They are only being difficult with Boris as he was a Leaver (Starmer was a Remainer) and he is trying to move away from the EU orbit as Starmer would not be
Wrong yourself sorry
The eu wants us in permanent regulatory alignement and Starmer cannot deliver that which is the entire point I am making. They sure as hell don't want us ripping up the rules every 5 years then 5 years later coming back in. If Starmer could deliver permanent alignment then yes probably they would agree. He can't so they won't
Of course he could if he was the UK PM, in any case if he got in the Tories would likely be out of power for a decade or more after and by the time they got back might accept single market membership anyway
Gosh - the Italian sports minister has stated that he thinks Serie A can re-start on 3 May. That feels very soon to me but is perhaps a slightly promising sign...
Behind closed doors, if they implement twice weekly testing of all players, is possible. Optimistic. But possible.
It's perfectly possible to screen five football matches a day if we need to concentrate major games. Games that make no possible difference to promotion/relegation/CL places/title should be cancelled as and when the mathematics render them dead rubbers.
Labour probably only needs to recover to circa 260 seats given the Anti-Tory bloc in Scotland. I also expect some Labour recovery in Scotland under Starmer.
I would say Labour actually needs to get to 280 to 290 seats if the LDs do not gain any seats as any Labour gains from the SNP make no net change in the anti Tory block. If the LDs reach 30 to 40 seats however then yes 260 seats for Labour would be enough to form a minority or coalition Labour government with LD and SNP support
I don't disagree with that really. Labour would only need 260 or so on the basis of the SNP still having circa 45 seats.Were Labour to gain at SNP to reach 270 seats, the SNP would only need circa 35.
I really don't get this idea....we will have a government allied with the snp. Surely their price will be independence referendum which they will likely win. At which point SNP are no longer part of rump uk government so labour then is no longer the majority and government becomes the tories again.....what am I missing?
You are missing the key point a Starmer premiership would take the UK back into the single market reducijg the likelihood of a Yes vote inany indyref2.
The SNP thus face the problem Boris has banned indyref2 when his hard Brexit makes it winnable, while Starmer would allow indyref2 but his soft Brexit means Yes would likely lose it
You are assuming that the EU would allow him to rejoin the single market. I would suspect they won't purely on the basis they don't want the uk hopping in and out of it with each change of government
They would of course do so provided he agrees to freedom of movement which he will, they cannot refuse entry provided he agrees to EEA terms
In any csse the EU have slways wanted the UK to stay in the single market and within its orbit
Of course they can refuse entry and they will because they know the moment the tories get back in we will be doing the hokey cokey out again. Where you get this bizarre idea that they HAVE to allow us back in is beyond me. By that thinking if Somalia said hey we will join freedom of movement and agree to EEA terms they could join.
Wrong. The EU want the UK within its orbit hence they require regulatory alignment even for a FTA, if Starmer became PM the EU would be delighted and only too happy to let the UK back into the EEA. They are only being difficult with Boris as he was a Leaver (Starmer was a Remainer) and he is trying to move away from the EU orbit as Starmer would not be
Wrong yourself sorry
The eu wants us in permanent regulatory alignement and Starmer cannot deliver that which is the entire point I am making. They sure as hell don't want us ripping up the rules every 5 years then 5 years later coming back in. If Starmer could deliver permanent alignment then yes probably they would agree. He can't so they won't
Of course he could if he was the UK PM, in any case if he got in the Tories eo8uld likely be out of power for a decade or more after
Sigh first rule of parliament....no government may bind its successor. Being in the single market would be easy to walk away from
Agreed. This is the way we will come out of the lockdown without needing a vaccine.
A test to see if you have had the virus would be great.
But unless I've missed something it is not as yet known that getting it and recovering gives immunity for any length of time?
We need a few different types of test.
We have the gold-standard for confirmation that you are sick. This should be reserved for those on the front-line and should be close to 100% sensitive and specific. That's what we have been using so far but it only works in individuals with the virus currently. It takes up to 48 hours as the virus needs cultivating.
We need a rapid rule-out test which can be used for symptomatic sufferers. It needs to be reasonably sensitive and specific but crucially it needs to be fast. This can be used for surveillance and to ascertain incidence in the population.
We need an anti-body based test which can tell us if we have had the disease. Those patients who have had the disease can then start to function in society. Such a test can tell us about prevalence in society.
When sufficient numbers have had the lurgy using the anti-body test, we can then unlock. If it pops up again, we use the other different test modalities to isolate, contact trace and bring it under control in local populations.
It's far more feasible than a vaccine which is possible but is extremely complex to develop and hard to scale quickly.
If you have had Covid-19 and recover, and are then immume, does this also mean that you cannot carry it and pass it on to others? I think the answer to this is yes because I read somewhere that you can only pass it on if you are symptomatic and obviously you canot be symptomatic if you are immune.
Have I understood this correctly?
Almost.
You can pass it on if you are infected but asymptomatic. If you're immune you won't get infected (AFAIK).
If you are immune, and so won`t get affected, the virus could still be on your hands etc surely - even though you yourself are not affected by it? That`s the bit I don`t get.
Scottish schools to shut from Friday. Might get told tomorrow what they are doing about exams this year. Apparently free school lunches are the priority though.
My son is desperately trying to get assessments completed and lodged but it may be pointless.
Seems a poor decision driven by producer interests. Scotland so far is barely touched. What happens when they need to flatten the curve in a month or two?
Pressure by people who will get full pay causing people who will be lucky to get ssp to stop work.
I am not sure I agree with that. Firstly, if kids are transmitting it around the playground, which they almost certainly are, schools are no longer a safe place of work for older teachers or those who have underlying heart conditions. Secondly, the reality is that this has been coming for a month. About 1/4 of the kids in my son's school are already off. Many are the children of doctors/consultants (easily the largest source of kids for the school now). If this is in any way indicative the number infected in the community is many, many times the official figures, at least 20x but possible 200x for all we know. Thirdly, I fear as a country that we are on the steep part of the curve and steps to date will not put the brakes on sufficiently. I expect our hospitals to be under severe pressure by the end of next week. We cannot have cases increasing at the same rate the week after.
200x10,000 is one in 30. If so, it does justify my doctor's surgery (on the orders of Powys Health Board) cancelling all routine appointments, although there've been no confirmed cases in ******* [small town in the back of beyond].
They told me to 'phone us to make a new appointment in April'. As there'll be more cases then than now, I think they really mean August.
We've got the same. All conventional appointments cancelled.
Agreed. This is the way we will come out of the lockdown without needing a vaccine.
A test to see if you have had the virus would be great.
But unless I've missed something it is not as yet known that getting it and recovering gives immunity for any length of time?
We need a few different types of test.
We have the gold-standard for confirmation that you are sick. This should be reserved for those on the front-line and should be close to 100% sensitive and specific. That's what we have been using so far but it only works in individuals with the virus currently. It takes up to 48 hours as the virus needs cultivating.
We need a rapid rule-out test which can be used for symptomatic sufferers. It needs to be reasonably sensitive and specific but crucially it needs to be fast. This can be used for surveillance and to ascertain incidence in the population.
We need an anti-body based test which can tell us if we have had the disease. Those patients who have had the disease can then start to function in society. Such a test can tell us about prevalence in society.
When sufficient numbers have had the lurgy using the anti-body test, we can then unlock. If it pops up again, we use the other different test modalities to isolate, contact trace and bring it under control in local populations.
It's far more feasible than a vaccine which is possible but is extremely complex to develop and hard to scale quickly.
If you have had Covid-19 and recover, and are then immume, does this also mean that you cannot carry it and pass it on to others? I think the answer to this is yes because I read somewhere that you can only pass it on if you are symptomatic and obviously you canot be symptomatic if you are immune.
Have I understood this correctly?
Almost.
You can pass it on if you are infected but asymptomatic. If you're immune you won't get infected (AFAIK).
If you are immune, and so won`t get affected, the virus could still be on your hands etc surely - even though you yourself are not affected by it? That`s the bit I don`t get.
Presumably like a bee spreads pollen....picks it up from here, drops it off over there
I bet she's got a shelfful of Ayn Rand at home. If hypocritical dependency on the state in their time of need was good enough for Randy, you can be sure oor Laura will find ways of justifying it.
Will you be shocked to learn that she is in favour of the hardest of all Brexits?
There does seem to be a correlation. The link is apparently "people who have had enough of experts", and haven't worked out that not all experts are created equal.
In particular, medical experts and those in related fields are a whole lot less worth ignoring than economists.
Labour probably only needs to recover to circa 260 seats given the Anti-Tory bloc in Scotland. I also expect some Labour recovery in Scotland under Starmer.
I would say Labour actually needs to get to 280 to 290 seats if the LDs do not gain any seats as any Labour gains from the SNP make no net change in the anti Tory block. If the LDs reach 30 to 40 seats however then yes 260 seats for Labour would be enough to form a minority or coalition Labour government with LD and SNP support
I don't disagree with that really. Labour would only need 260 or so on the basis of the SNP still having circa 45 seats.Were Labour to gain at SNP to reach 270 seats, the SNP would only need circa 35.
I really don't get this idea....we will have a government allied with the snp. Surely their price will be independence referendum which they will likely win. At which point SNP are no longer part of rump uk government so labour then is no longer the majority and government becomes the tories again.....what am I missing?
You are missing the key point a Starmer premiership would take the UK back into the single market reducijg the likelihood of a Yes vote inany indyref2.
The SNP thus face the problem Boris has banned indyref2 when his hard Brexit makes it winnable, while Starmer would allow indyref2 but his soft Brexit means Yes would likely lose it
You are assuming that the EU would allow him to rejoin the single market. I would suspect they won't purely on the basis they don't want the uk hopping in and out of it with each change of government
They would of course do so provided he agrees to freedom of movement which he will, they cannot refuse entry provided he agrees to EEA terms
In any csse the EU have slways wanted the UK to stay in the single market and within its orbit
Of course they can refuse entry and they will because they know the moment the tories get back in we will be doing the hokey cokey out again. Where you get this bizarre idea that they HAVE to allow us back in is beyond me. By that thinking if Somalia said hey we will join freedom of movement and agree to EEA terms they could join.
Wrong. The EU want the UK within its orbit hence they require regulatory alignment even for a FTA, if Starmer became PM the EU would be delighted and only too happy to let the UK back into the EEA. They are only being difficult with Boris as he was a Leaver (Starmer was a Remainer) and he is trying to move away from the EU orbit as Starmer would not be
Wrong yourself sorry
The eu wants us in permanent regulatory alignement and Starmer cannot deliver that which is the entire point I am making. They sure as hell don't want us ripping up the rules every 5 years then 5 years later coming back in. If Starmer could deliver permanent alignment then yes probably they would agree. He can't so they won't
Of course he could if he was the UK PM, in any case if he got in the Tories eo8uld likely be out of power for a decade or more after
Sigh first rule of parliament....no government may bind its successor. Being in the single market would be easy to walk away from
If the Tories were out for a decade or more a generation would have passed and the Tories would by then likely have to accept single market membership anyway to get back to power as the demographics had changed
Brothels are officially under lockdown in Germany now, alongside Gyms and Synagogues.
"Merkel said gatherings at churches, mosques and synagogues, including prayer services, would be banned . The same applied to operas, cinemas, zoos, gambling halls, casinos, brothels, gyms and public swimming pools. "
Labour probably only needs to recover to circa 260 seats given the Anti-Tory bloc in Scotland. I also expect some Labour recovery in Scotland under Starmer.
I would say Labour actually needs to get to 280 to 290 seats if the LDs do not gain any seats as any Labour gains from the SNP make no net change in the anti Tory block. If the LDs reach 30 to 40 seats however then yes 260 seats for Labour would be enough to form a minority or coalition Labour government with LD and SNP support
I don't disagree with that really. Labour would only need 260 or so on the basis of the SNP still having circa 45 seats.Were Labour to gain at SNP to reach 270 seats, the SNP would only need circa 35.
I really don't get this idea....we will have a government allied with the snp. Surely their price will be independence referendum which they will likely win. At which point SNP are no longer part of rump uk government so labour then is no longer the majority and government becomes the tories again.....what am I missing?
You are missing the key point a Starmer premiership would take the UK back into the single market reducijg the likelihood of a Yes vote inany indyref2.
The SNP thus face the problem Boris has banned indyref2 when his hard Brexit makes it winnable, while Starmer would allow indyref2 but his soft Brexit means Yes would likely lose it
You are assuming that the EU would allow him to rejoin the single market. I would suspect they won't purely on the basis they don't want the uk hopping in and out of it with each change of government
They would of course do so provided he agrees to freedom of movement which he will, they cannot refuse entry provided he agrees to EEA terms
In any csse the EU have slways wanted the UK to stay in the single market and within its orbit
Of course they can refuse entry and they will because they know the moment the tories get back in we will be doing the hokey cokey out again. Where you get this bizarre idea that they HAVE to allow us back in is beyond me. By that thinking if Somalia said hey we will join freedom of movement and agree to EEA terms they could join.
Wrong. The EU want the UK within its orbit hence they require regulatory alignment even for a FTA, if Starmer became PM the EU would be delighted and only too happy to let the UK back into the EEA. They are only being difficult with Boris as he was a Leaver (Starmer was a Remainer) and he is trying to move away from the EU orbit as Starmer would not be
Wrong yourself sorry
The eu wants us in permanent regulatory alignement and Starmer cannot deliver that which is the entire point I am making. They sure as hell don't want us ripping up the rules every 5 years then 5 years later coming back in. If Starmer could deliver permanent alignment then yes probably they would agree. He can't so they won't
Of course he could if he was the UK PM, in any case if he got in the Tories eo8uld likely be out of power for a decade or more after
Sigh first rule of parliament....no government may bind its successor. Being in the single market would be easy to walk away from
If the Tories were out for a decade or more a generation would have passed and the Tories would by then likely accept single market membership anyway as the demographics had changed
Well neither of us can prove it either way so instead of going back and forth I am going to leave this conversation and merely reserve the right that if Starmer becomes pm and if the eu turns him down that I can pop in and thumb my nose at you.
Brothels are officially under lockdown in Germany now, alongside Gyms and Synagogues.
"Merkel said gatherings at churches, mosques and synagogues, including prayer services, would be banned . The same applied to operas, cinemas, zoos, gambling halls, casinos, brothels, gyms and public swimming pools. "
Ah! I did wonder whether prostitutes would be lowering their rates.
That's 7% on a quarterly basis, I think. Would be surprised if it's less than 10%.
Well... do remember that in most of the Eurozone, the government accounts for half of GDP. It's likely that government spending will be rising 10% or even more, so you need to think about the likely drops in private sector activity. (Especially as certain sectors will be largely unaffected - or even, like toilet paper manufacture, see growth... Indeed, according to GDP calculations, you being in your home is a benefit included in calculations.)
Also worth remembering that some restrictions will be lifted by June. (Yes, really). So March and April will be the worst, but things will likely be improving by the end of the quarter.
(If you don't believe me, and many of you won't, China's exports are up markedly in the last week, and the Baltic Dry Index - which is probably the most sensitive index to most minute movements in trade - is now up about 20% from its lows.)
Still, the Deutsche Bank numbers look abour right.
Positive test rate above 10% today. Doubtful that it's because triage is more accurate. Not good.
And we know London is a hot spot. I can't see how some sort of lockdown isn't coming shortly.
It would require Sadiq Khan to give the order. The order would be unpopular, so he wouldn't do it. Especially not in the run up to his re-election (albeit it's now over a year away), and considering all the people most likely to be adversely affected won't vote for him anyway.
I am not impressed with the only help to renters being preventing them being evicted. I don't want to fall out with my landlord by not paying him.
£330bn is about £5k each, I will be a bit annoyed if business gets most of that and individuals get nothing. Especially since it will be people like me that will be paying for it all with higher taxes and worse public services for decades.
The Imperial College advice on closing schools was that the wave happens later in the year, and is worse than doing nothing, in some ways.
No, it absolutely wasn't. The paper models some very specific scenarios. The green line scenario is explicitly modelling the case where:
1. There's no vaccine 2. There's no treatment found that improves recovery times 3. The government has extremely strict measures for 5 months then just lifts all of them at once
In the likely case that a vaccine is found, what we actually want is to delay cases as long as possible. From the Imperial paper, the best way to do that is the green line, which includes school closures. If it subsequently becomes clear that a vaccine won't happen in time, or won't be applicable to many people, or whatever, then we can transition to the orange-line approach of flattening the curve. We'll also be in a better position by then because we'll have had time to ramp up capacity for testing and treatment, have more data from other countries, and so on.
Yes, it's remarkable how few people commenting on the Imperial paper seem to have actually... you know... read it.
I am not impressed with the only help to renters being preventing them being evicted. I don't want to fall out with my landlord by not paying him.
£330bn is about £5k each, I will be a bit annoyed if business gets most of that and individuals get nothing. Especially since it will be people like me that will be paying for it all with higher taxes and worse public services for decades.
I think it's so businesses can continue to pay individuals, and we expect more announcements on individuals soon, right?
I am not impressed with the only help to renters being preventing them being evicted. I don't want to fall out with my landlord by not paying him.
£330bn is about £5k each, I will be a bit annoyed if business gets most of that and individuals get nothing. Especially since it will be people like me that will be paying for it all with higher taxes and worse public services for decades.
Yesterday was all about providing business with confidence and reassurance. Mr Yorkshire Tea made it clear that was just the start and more measures will be forthcoming.
The Imperial College advice on closing schools was that the wave happens later in the year, and is worse than doing nothing, in some ways.
No, it absolutely wasn't. The paper models some very specific scenarios. The green line scenario is explicitly modelling the case where:
1. There's no vaccine 2. There's no treatment found that improves recovery times 3. The government has extremely strict measures for 5 months then just lifts all of them at once
In the likely case that a vaccine is found, what we actually want is to delay cases as long as possible. From the Imperial paper, the best way to do that is the green line, which includes school closures. If it subsequently becomes clear that a vaccine won't happen in time, or won't be applicable to many people, or whatever, then we can transition to the orange-line approach of flattening the curve. We'll also be in a better position by then because we'll have had time to ramp up capacity for testing and treatment, have more data from other countries, and so on.
Yes this is correct. They also do some exploratory work showing how the lock-down can be opened and closed over many months. That was very basic analysis though.
The idea that you just open up a society and then close it down again repeatedly is fanciful. We are going to have to be a lot more careful than that.
Agreed. This is the way we will come out of the lockdown without needing a vaccine.
A test to see if you have had the virus would be great.
But unless I've missed something it is not as yet known that getting it and recovering gives immunity for any length of time?
We need a few different types of test.
We have the gold-standard for confirmation that you are sick. This should be reserved for those on the front-line and should be close to 100% sensitive and specific. That's what we have been using so far but it only works in individuals with the virus currently. It takes up to 48 hours as the virus needs cultivating.
We need a rapid rule-out test which can be used for symptomatic sufferers. It needs to be reasonably sensitive and specific but crucially it needs to be fast. This can be used for surveillance and to ascertain incidence in the population.
We need an anti-body based test which can tell us if we have had the disease. Those patients who have had the disease can then start to function in society. Such a test can tell us about prevalence in society.
When sufficient numbers have had the lurgy using the anti-body test, we can then unlock. If it pops up again, we use the other different test modalities to isolate, contact trace and bring it under control in local populations.
It's far more feasible than a vaccine which is possible but is extremely complex to develop and hard to scale quickly.
If you have had Covid-19 and recover, and are then immume, does this also mean that you cannot carry it and pass it on to others? I think the answer to this is yes because I read somewhere that you can only pass it on if you are symptomatic and obviously you canot be symptomatic if you are immune.
Have I understood this correctly?
Almost.
You can pass it on if you are infected but asymptomatic. If you're immune you won't get infected (AFAIK).
That is correct. It is possible that future iterations of the virus will be sufficiently mutated that you will not have total immunity, but there is no sign of that currently. (And if that were to happen then symptoms would likely be less severe as your immune system would still have a headstart.)
I don't think it's quite so simple as that (and how effective and durable acquired immunity to this virus might be is certainly a matter of current debate amongst scientists).
(Measles, for example, can erase immune memory.)
You would not have been about to recover from this virus (or any virus), if your body's immune system did not learn to fight it. The only reason why your body's immune system would "forget" the virus would be if it had mutated sufficiently so as to be less recognisable. There is no evidence of any reinfection.
Not yet. We haven't had time yet though have we. Might be worth testing the theory over 12 months before we make any hasty assumptions and decisions.
Could you give me one example of any virus where - without mutations - the body becomes susceptible to reinfection based on normal viral loads?
Labour probably only needs to recover to circa 260 seats given the Anti-Tory bloc in Scotland. I also expect some Labour recovery in Scotland under Starmer.
I would say Labour actually needs to get to 280 to 290 seats if the LDs do not gain any seats as any Labour gains from the SNP make no net change in the anti Tory block. If the LDs reach 30 to 40 seats however then yes 260 seats for Labour would be enough to form a minority or coalition Labour government with LD and SNP support
I don't disagree with that really. Labour would only need 260 or so on the basis of the SNP still having circa 45 seats.Were Labour to gain at SNP to reach 270 seats, the SNP would only need circa 35.
I really don't get this idea....we will have a government allied with the snp. Surely their price will be independence referendum which they will likely win. At which point SNP are no longer part of rump uk government so labour then is no longer the majority and government becomes the tories again.....what am I missing?
You are missing the key point a Starmer premiership would take the UK back into the single market reducing the likelihood of a Yes vote in any indyref2.
The SNP thus face the problem Boris has banned indyref2 when his hard Brexit makes it winnable, while Starmer would allow indyref2 but his soft Brexit means Yes would likely lose it
LOL, Boris cannot ban a referendum if Scottish Government want to go ahead, you southern fanboys are deluded.
Of course he can and he already has, there can be no indyref2 without Westminster consent
What is the useless fat fuck going to do? Throw Sturgeon in prison?
Or just ignore any illegal referendum. The rest of the world will do so.
Who said have an illegal one then , UK had a referendum on EU treaty without asking permission , why would Scotland doing same on our treaty be any different or illegal. If the people want to be independent as a sovereign nation we can decide to do so without permission under international law, certainly not at the behest of some snivelling English Nationalists.
I am not impressed with the only help to renters being preventing them being evicted. I don't want to fall out with my landlord by not paying him.
£330bn is about £5k each, I will be a bit annoyed if business gets most of that and individuals get nothing. Especially since it will be people like me that will be paying for it all with higher taxes and worse public services for decades.
I think it's so businesses can continue to pay individuals, and we expect more announcements on individuals soon, right?
That works if a business continues to employ people, Will they though. The firm my friend works for laid off everyone. It is now just a warehouse full of stock with an empty office. That business however will have no rates for a year and get a 25k grant which will help pay the rent. In 6 months time it can just come out of hibernation saved by tax payers while all 30 employees have been thrown on the largess of the state for food and rent.
I am not impressed with the only help to renters being preventing them being evicted. I don't want to fall out with my landlord by not paying him.
£330bn is about £5k each, I will be a bit annoyed if business gets most of that and individuals get nothing. Especially since it will be people like me that will be paying for it all with higher taxes and worse public services for decades.
I think it's so businesses can continue to pay individuals, and we expect more announcements on individuals soon, right?
Yes, some people can't help carping. As you know, I'm not a supporter of this government politically but I think it's doing its best. Let's wait and see what the Chancellor comes up with.
That's 7% on a quarterly basis, I think. Would be surprised if it's less than 10%.
I made it 5.5% based on the formula above.
Your formula works for annualized growth of 24%, but not for a contraction of 24%, I think. 0.9337^4 = 0.76 So a quarterly contraction of 6.6%
It works with x = -0.24
Note that dividing by four is an increasingly poor approximation as x gets further away from zero. 24% contraction is, as demonstrated on this thread, large enough that using the accurate formula gives a materially different answer.
Agreed. This is the way we will come out of the lockdown without needing a vaccine.
A test to see if you have had the virus would be great.
But unless I've missed something it is not as yet known that getting it and recovering gives immunity for any length of time?
We need a few different types of test.
We have the gold-standard for confirmation that you are sick. This should be reserved for those on the front-line and should be close to 100% sensitive and specific. That's what we have been using so far but it only works in individuals with the virus currently. It takes up to 48 hours as the virus needs cultivating.
We need a rapid rule-out test which can be used for symptomatic sufferers. It needs to be reasonably sensitive and specific but crucially it needs to be fast. This can be used for surveillance and to ascertain incidence in the population.
We need an anti-body based test which can tell us if we have had the disease. Those patients who have had the disease can then start to function in society. Such a test can tell us about prevalence in society.
When sufficient numbers have had the lurgy using the anti-body test, we can then unlock. If it pops up again, we use the other different test modalities to isolate, contact trace and bring it under control in local populations.
It's far more feasible than a vaccine which is possible but is extremely complex to develop and hard to scale quickly.
If you have had Covid-19 and recover, and are then immume, does this also mean that you cannot carry it and pass it on to others? I think the answer to this is yes because I read somewhere that you can only pass it on if you are symptomatic and obviously you canot be symptomatic if you are immune.
Have I understood this correctly?
Almost.
You can pass it on if you are infected but asymptomatic. If you're immune you won't get infected (AFAIK).
That is correct. It is possible that future iterations of the virus will be sufficiently mutated that you will not have total immunity, but there is no sign of that currently. (And if that were to happen then symptoms would likely be less severe as your immune system would still have a headstart.)
I don't think it's quite so simple as that (and how effective and durable acquired immunity to this virus might be is certainly a matter of current debate amongst scientists).
(Measles, for example, can erase immune memory.)
You would not have been about to recover from this virus (or any virus), if your body's immune system did not learn to fight it. The only reason why your body's immune system would "forget" the virus would be if it had mutated sufficiently so as to be less recognisable. There is no evidence of any reinfection.
Not yet. We haven't had time yet though have we. Might be worth testing the theory over 12 months before we make any hasty assumptions and decisions.
Could you give me one example of any virus where - without mutations - the body becomes susceptible to reinfection based on normal viral loads?
Just one. Any virus at all.
I have no expertise at all in immuno response to viruses. That's why I defer to the experts in that specialty on that. The experts are not sure.
Why are you so sure about something which is presumably outside of your expertise?
>12k UK tests over the last two days, so at least that's gradually rising. Positives 8.9% of those.
That is good news.
Hopefully, as the actual case numbers comes down with lockdowns, we can follow the examples of Korea and Vo of extremely aggressive testing of possibly infected individuals.
I am not impressed with the only help to renters being preventing them being evicted. I don't want to fall out with my landlord by not paying him.
£330bn is about £5k each, I will be a bit annoyed if business gets most of that and individuals get nothing. Especially since it will be people like me that will be paying for it all with higher taxes and worse public services for decades.
I think it's so businesses can continue to pay individuals, and we expect more announcements on individuals soon, right?
That works if a business continues to employ people, Will they though. The firm my friend works for laid off everyone. It is now just a warehouse full of stock with an empty office. That business however will have no rates for a year and get a 25k grant which will help pay the rent. In 6 months time it can just come out of hibernation saved by tax payers while all 30 employees have been thrown on the largess of the state for food and rent.
Labour probably only needs to recover to circa 260 seats given the Anti-Tory bloc in Scotland. I also expect some Labour recovery in Scotland under Starmer.
I would say Labour actually needs to get to 280 to 290 seats if the LDs do not gain any seats as any Labour gains from the SNP make no net change in the anti Tory block. If the LDs reach 30 to 40 seats however then yes 260 seats for Labour would be enough to form a minority or coalition Labour government with LD and SNP support
I don't disagree with that really. Labour would only need 260 or so on the basis of the SNP still having circa 45 seats.Were Labour to gain at SNP to reach 270 seats, the SNP would only need circa 35.
I really don't get this idea....we will have a government allied with the snp. Surely their price will be independence referendum which they will likely win. At which point SNP are no longer part of rump uk government so labour then is no longer the majority and government becomes the tories again.....what am I missing?
You are missing the key point a Starmer premiership would take the UK back into the single market reducijg the likelihood of a Yes vote inany indyref2.
The SNP thus face the problem Boris has banned indyref2 when his hard Brexit makes it winnable, while Starmer would allow indyref2 but his soft Brexit means Yes would likely lose it
You are assuming that the EU would allow him to rejoin the single market. I would suspect they won't purely on the basis they don't want the uk hopping in and out of it with each change of government
They would of course do so provided he agrees to freedom of movement which he will, they cannot refuse entry provided he agrees to EEA terms
In any csse the EU have slways wanted the UK to stay in the single market and within its orbit
Of course they can refuse entry and they will because they know the moment the tories get back in we will be doing the hokey cokey out again. Where you get this bizarre idea that they HAVE to allow us back in is beyond me. By that thinking if Somalia said hey we will join freedom of movement and agree to EEA terms they could join.
Wrong. The EU want the UK within its orbit hence they require regulatory alignment even for a FTA, if Starmer became PM the EU would be delighted and only too happy to let the UK back into the EEA. They are only being difficult with Boris as he was a Leaver (Starmer was a Remainer) and he is trying to move away from the EU orbit as Starmer would not be
Wrong yourself sorry
The eu wants us in permanent regulatory alignement and Starmer cannot deliver that which is the entire point I am making. They sure as hell don't want us ripping up the rules every 5 years then 5 years later coming back in. If Starmer could deliver permanent alignment then yes probably they would agree. He can't so they won't
Of course he could if he was the UK PM, in any case if he got in the Tories eo8uld likely be out of power for a decade or more after
Sigh first rule of parliament....no government may bind its successor. Being in the single market would be easy to walk away from
If the Tories were out for a decade or more a generation would have passed and the Tories would by then likely accept single market membership anyway as the demographics had changed
Well neither of us can prove it either way so instead of going back and forth I am going to leave this conversation and merely reserve the right that if Starmer becomes pm and if the eu turns him down that I can pop in and thumb my nose at you.
Of course you can 55% of Scots and 54% of British voters as a whole see single market membership as acceptable. Even Tory voters do by 46% to 41% though Leavers don't by 43% to 42%.
The divide is based on age with only 14% of 18 to 24s seeing single market membership as unacceptable but 36% of over 65s seeing single market membership as unacceptable so if we rejoined the EEA demographics mean we would likely never leave
Comments
Well we all know what some people are doing with their working from home time.
A lot of people who rent take out loans.
Nevertheless, the panic about reinfection is not based on any evidence. There is no evidence of either SARS or MERS (both Coronavirus) patients being susceptible to any reinfection. Given the relative similarity between these viruses, that is extremely encouraging.
In any case the EU have always wanted the UK to stay in the single market and within its orbit. Hence the EU also require regulatory alignment by the UK for a trade deal
Any idea how they will release Ozark?
There's an outfit in Bristol for example, who if you post them a broken part, laser scan it and send you a quote within hours to make it on their CNCs. And can have simple stuff done in 24 hours. If they have to create a complex program to make the part it takes longer. But once that is done, you simply load stock on the machine and watch.
REALLY?!!
1. There's no vaccine
2. There's no treatment found that improves recovery times
3. The government has extremely strict measures for 5 months then just lifts all of them at once
In the likely case that a vaccine is found, what we actually want is to delay cases as long as possible. From the Imperial paper, the best way to do that is the green line, which includes school closures. If it subsequently becomes clear that a vaccine won't happen in time, or won't be applicable to many people, or whatever, then we can transition to the orange-line approach of flattening the curve. We'll also be in a better position by then because we'll have had time to ramp up capacity for testing and treatment, have more data from other countries, and so on.
They told me to 'phone us to make a new appointment in April'. As there'll be more cases then than now, I think they really mean August.
https://www.ukpreppersguide.co.uk
The EU want the UK within its orbit hence they require regulatory alignment even for a FTA, if Starmer became PM the EU would be delighted and only too happy to let the UK back into the EEA.
They are only being difficult with Boris as he was a Leaver (Starmer was a Remainer) and he is trying to move away from the EU orbit as Starmer would not be
The eu wants us in permanent regulatory alignement and Starmer cannot deliver that which is the entire point I am making. They sure as hell don't want us ripping up the rules every 5 years then 5 years later coming back in. If Starmer could deliver permanent alignment then yes probably they would agree. He can't so they won't
Yes BCS is a slow burner, by design, but really starts to take off in Series 3.
But if you don't like Breaking Bad I wonder whether you'd like Better Call Saul.
In particular, medical experts and those in related fields are a whole lot less worth ignoring than economists.
"Merkel said gatherings at churches, mosques and synagogues, including prayer services, would be banned . The same applied to operas, cinemas, zoos, gambling halls, casinos, brothels, gyms and public swimming pools. "
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/covid-19-all-time-high-of-47-new-cases-in-singapore-14-day-stay-home-notice-will-now-apply
(I`m asking for a friend.)
Also worth remembering that some restrictions will be lifted by June. (Yes, really). So March and April will be the worst, but things will likely be improving by the end of the quarter.
(If you don't believe me, and many of you won't, China's exports are up markedly in the last week, and the Baltic Dry Index - which is probably the most sensitive index to most minute movements in trade - is now up about 20% from its lows.)
Still, the Deutsche Bank numbers look abour right.
£330bn is about £5k each, I will be a bit annoyed if business gets most of that and individuals get nothing. Especially since it will be people like me that will be paying for it all with higher taxes and worse public services for decades.
0.9337^4 = 0.76
So a quarterly contraction of 6.6%
This is why an instant screening test is required.
I know it sounds crazy, but we are now in a totally new world until a vaccine is available.
The idea that you just open up a society and then close it down again repeatedly is fanciful. We are going to have to be a lot more careful than that.
Just one. Any virus at all.
P.S. He is in Select Ctte on BBC News 24.
Note that dividing by four is an increasingly poor approximation as x gets further away from zero. 24% contraction is, as demonstrated on this thread, large enough that using the accurate formula gives a materially different answer.
Why are you so sure about something which is presumably outside of your expertise?
Hopefully, as the actual case numbers comes down with lockdowns, we can follow the examples of Korea and Vo of extremely aggressive testing of possibly infected individuals.
Indeed, the evidence from East Asia and Italy is indeed that today's tests are a lagging indicator of around a fortnight.
The divide is based on age with only 14% of 18 to 24s seeing single market membership as unacceptable but 36% of over 65s seeing single market membership as unacceptable so if we rejoined the EEA demographics mean we would likely never leave
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/08/29/search-median-voter-brexit