I think the much more interesting parliamentary meeting today (much more informative than PMQs) was the evidence of Neil Ferguson to the select committee. I do hope that his modelling is correct as it would suggest that while this will be bad the NHS will just about manage to cope.
I am rather concerned by the claim only 10% of Londoners will get it. I just can't see how that is possible, given most countries talk about 50-60-70% of people getting it.
Even if he is talking about this "season" and the big number is total over the course of the disease, still, 10% seems incredibly low.
I think he was talking about this cycle, which he expects to peak in the next two to three weeks. Clearly there are likely to be more cycles.
It would be good to have his exact quote. Any links?
Sorry, no. It was merely my impression, and could be wrong. Otherwise, I would agree that 10% seems a little optimistic.
I note that Ferguson said "UK deaths from the disease are now unlikely to exceed 20,000, he said, and could be much lower."
I just don't see how any of this is going to be administered. The Government will need to be paying out between £30-40 billion next month to millions of people and the website to claim is not even set up yet.
As anyone who has tried to claim benefit knows, payments are always initially very slow. Its going to need a huge workforce in offices to do this.
This is why the government should have gone for a simple system of universal basic income, paid to everyone who'd completed self-assessment, or through PAYE. Sure, they'd have ended up giving money to people who didn't need it, but instead they have a number of different systems that are slow and will end up missing lots of people.
Ys. It would have been taxed so 40% back from higher rate tax payers.
It is by some distance the biggest peacetime crisis most of us have ever known. I remember the AIDS crisis very well in the 80s but this dwarfs that in the sheer scale of its scale and the speed of its development. I think like many people I'm quite scared for myself and everyone else. Being confined to home is strangely both comforting and concerning, easy and difficult, real and unreal all at the same time. No idea how and when its gonna end.
We don't know whether it really will be the worst crisis. It may turn out to be less deadly than several flu epidemics that didn't make the news at all.
Corbyn motivated a lot of people to get involved in politics who otherwise would not. That is his signature achievement.
Beyond that he has no monopoly on promoting good causes, public service or good conduct. Indeed there are serious questions over both that we need not go into. Sadly the good causes he serves, the Labour Party and the country are weaker for his leadership.
A lost opportunity.
Certainly no monopoly but I did find that aspect of him refreshing. He was in it for the right reasons, it seemed to me. Lost opportunity? No, I don't really feel that. Labour needed to rediscover their radicalism and - although I know many disagree with this - I think Johnson was winning that GE against anybody.
It is by some distance the biggest peacetime crisis most of us have ever known. I remember the AIDS crisis very well in the 80s but this dwarfs that in the sheer scale of its scale and the speed of its development. I think like many people I'm quite scared for myself and everyone else. Being confined to home is strangely both comforting and concerning, easy and difficult, real and unreal all at the same time. No idea how and when its gonna end.
The sumptuous spring weather, all blossom and birdsong, adds to the surreal atmosphere
I watched Professor Ferguson's evidence to the Health Select Committee today. He said that, with mitigation, the peak requirement for NHS ICU beds would be about 8 times the number available.
Perhaps the government should set about increasing the capacity to this level. We may need to be able to survive and cope with a single peak epidemic if there is no other way out of the current predicament. This would depend on the results of the vaccine trials taking place which may go well or badly.
The 8 times is what he thought previously dependent on strategy...
Current strategy / modeling,
"The need for intensive care beds will get very close to capacity in some areas, but won’t breached it at a national level, said Ferguson. "
I just don't see how any of this is going to be administered. The Government will need to be paying out between £30-40 billion next month to millions of people and the website to claim is not even set up yet.
As anyone who has tried to claim benefit knows, payments are always initially very slow. Its going to need a huge workforce in offices to do this.
This is why the government should have gone for a simple system of universal basic income, paid to everyone who'd completed self-assessment, or through PAYE. Sure, they'd have ended up giving money to people who didn't need it, but instead they have a number of different systems that are slow and will end up missing lots of people.
Ys. It would have been taxed so 40% back from higher rate tax payers.
Were there really people who thought the original strategy was Johnson's idea?
The reluctance of a substantial chunk of the public to socially distance does show that the old strategy would always have been a disaster. With so many people not taking it seriously, the virus would have swept through the population *including* the vulnerable. Whatever happens now will not be as bad as that. Those who believed in the old strategy should have been arguing for brief very firm measures to focus minds first.
Worth listening to Matt Forde`s The Political Party podcast today with Thornberry.
She reveals that with only a week to go she has not received a voting form. They have gone out in batches ... and Momentum is in the background .... just sayin`
I think the much more interesting parliamentary meeting today (much more informative than PMQs) was the evidence of Neil Ferguson to the select committee. I do hope that his modelling is correct as it would suggest that while this will be bad the NHS will just about manage to cope.
I am rather concerned by the claim only 10% of Londoners will get it. I just can't see how that is possible, given most countries talk about 50-60-70% of people getting it.
Even if he is talking about this "season" and the big number is total over the course of the disease, still, 10% seems incredibly low.
I think he was talking about this cycle, which he expects to peak in the next two to three weeks. Clearly there are likely to be more cycles.
It would be good to have his exact quote. Any links?
Sorry, no. It was merely my impression, and could be wrong. Otherwise, I would agree that 10% seems a little optimistic.
I note that Ferguson said "UK deaths from the disease are now unlikely to exceed 20,000, he said, and could be much lower."
Lets hope he is right. I wonder what has caused him to revise this this downwards, especially as he said outbreak is running faster and R0 is higher.
The higher R0, the more widespread is the outbreak, and the lower the fatality rate given the current number of deaths. It's good news if he is right.
This is where I am somewhat confused though. If he thought that was the case, and it is actually much more widespread with lots of asymptotic / mild cases, surely he would think more than 10% in London would get it? Unless he was talking about 10% over the next 3 months.
There still seems to be confusion over "tests". The current one detects part of the viral genome and shows you have the virus. The one to come (soon hopefully) will detects antibodies to the virus and shows you've had it already and should be immune in future (hopefully).
I think the much more interesting parliamentary meeting today (much more informative than PMQs) was the evidence of Neil Ferguson to the select committee. I do hope that his modelling is correct as it would suggest that while this will be bad the NHS will just about manage to cope.
I am rather concerned by the claim only 10% of Londoners will get it. I just can't see how that is possible, given most countries talk about 50-60-70% of people getting it.
Even if he is talking about this "season" and the big number is total over the course of the disease, still, 10% seems incredibly low.
I think he was talking about this cycle, which he expects to peak in the next two to three weeks. Clearly there are likely to be more cycles.
It would be good to have his exact quote. Any links?
Sorry, no. It was merely my impression, and could be wrong. Otherwise, I would agree that 10% seems a little optimistic.
I note that Ferguson said "UK deaths from the disease are now unlikely to exceed 20,000, he said, and could be much lower."
Lets hope he is right. I wonder what has caused him to revise this this downwards, especially as he said outbreak is running faster and R0 is higher.
The lack of people in hospital with Covid 19 at the moment ?
They obviously think it's going to go up, otherwise why would they be building field hospitals?
Obviously it's going to carry on going up for a while. Deaths could go up 20-fold and still be under 20,000. I think Ferguson was saying it is a stretch for the NHS but doable. I think they are getting this right in spite of all the uncertainty. Good for them including Boris.
Worth listening to Matt Forde`s The Political Party podcast today with Thornberry.
She reveals that with only a week to go she has not received a voting form. They have gone out in batches ... and Momentum is in the background .... just sayin`
Have you ever been to one of those shows? I went to a few in 2015, pre GE. Jim Murphy, David Lammy & Tommy Robinson. A Good night out. Lammy came in the pub with Forde after for a pint and we had a natter.
It is by some distance the biggest peacetime crisis most of us have ever known. I remember the AIDS crisis very well in the 80s but this dwarfs that in the sheer scale of its scale and the speed of its development. I think like many people I'm quite scared for myself and everyone else. Being confined to home is strangely both comforting and concerning, easy and difficult, real and unreal all at the same time. No idea how and when its gonna end.
We don't know whether it really will be the worst crisis. It may turn out to be less deadly than several flu epidemics that didn't make the news at all.
I think you'd struggle to find a major flu epidemic that didn't make the news. This current pandemic will go down as a major crisis regardless of how successfully we manage to thwart it simply because of the unprecedented measures we are using to stop its spread.
I don’t think it’s too bad of Jezza to say this really?
It was great to hear. Indeed I wish to post my own little tribute on this the last day (effectively) of Jeremy Corbyn. It’s a moment which IMO should be marked with generosity of spirit towards a man who, whilst not everybody’s cup of tea, has made a notable contribution to the political drama of recent years.
He never wanted to lead the party and even less did he wish to become PM. Like the National Lottery, he is all about Good Causes. A thirst for power and prestige is not in the DNA. Yet he answered the call from colleagues to stand in 2015, and when the membership offered him the LOTO baton, he took it and ran. Despite a reluctance to be “primus inter pares” – preferring “et generis paribus” - he offered himself up as The Man in not one general election but TWO. In the first of these he came closer than any socialist ever has to attaining power in modern Britain. This is perhaps his most enduring legacy. He showed that it was possible for a socialist to win a UK general election so long as the socialist was not him (an easy fix going forwards).
GE19? Still running but straight into a buzz-saw. “Get Brexit Done”. “Boris”. “Parliament versus The People.” Could any Opposition Leader have held up against that? Sadly not. You can do nothing with the Zeitgeist except submit to it. Ask John Major. So let us not dwell on this. The result looks poor but Labour DID win the argument (witness the Tory conversion to anti-Austerity) and they DID move the Overton Window (that radical manifesto can never be unwritten).
But the biggest Corbyn positive lies not in his impact on political debate, welcome though it has been, but in his persona and character. Good (progressive) causes, as noted, and a holding to principle, not self-aggrandizement and opportunism. In an era where the very idea of placing duty over desire is sniggered at, where the meaning of the term “public service” has been all but forgotten, we have had in Jeremy Corbyn a politician to remind us, and this is why all of us here on PB.com should wish him well as he exits the stage today. Regardless of our politics, we can award him the following epithet - the two little words which best sum up his career. He served.
He served his constituency, the Left in general, his party, and – yes – his country.
Thank you, Jeremy. Stay safe now.
Whilst I'm completely on board with offering the chap good health and happiness for the future, this eulogy really is guff from start to finish.
Firstly, he absolutely did want to do it. That's not a criticism. But if he'd not wanted to do it, he would not have stood, or would have stood aside when there was a no confidence vote, or handed over after 2017 (having secured a good result).
Secondly, it's not his 2017 result that will be remembered but his 2019 result (and indeed the fact that he lost twice). He didn't show that someone like him could win in future at all - he showed that they'd lose and set the movement back.
Thirdly, you can believe the "good character" stuff all you want, but that isn't his reputation and his legacy. The vast majority just don't accept it. He presided over a party where his office manipulated the disciplinary process to help friends and co-travellers, and where good MPs were bullied and harassed for any criticism. Maybe he was simply a blind idiot, and all that was Milne and others (who, by the way, was awarded a fat contract with no doubt generous redundancy provisions when Corbyn was halfway out of the door). Maybe, but most think not.
Fourthly, he has demonstrably set back the prospects of a progressive, left or centre-left government by years. That wasn't his intention, of course, but he has. So this "he served his party and his country" stuff is utterly fatuous.
Fair enough to say you agreed with him on a lot of stuff and don't regret rolling the dice even if it was a failure with hindsight. But this idea that he leaves with his head held high and a proud record sticks in the throat of anyone in Labour or the progressive wing more generally who has even a little sense of reality or perspective. And it makes continued failure likely.
One other question: can it distinguish between had it and have it?
I haven't seen anybody answer that. Some of the private kits that supposedly based on anti-body testing that have been launched have a limitation of you can only start to use it from about day 3-4-5 of showing symptoms up to a particular period afterwards.
Whenever the egg-heads have talked about the kit they wanted, they always talked as if it was being designed simply for had had it, rather than if you do.
Other people on this forum will know better than me, but as I understand it the tests is for a sufficient number of antibodies in the system to suggest that you had built up immunity.
Usual caveat, and paraphrasing Dr McCoy, I'm a lawyer not a doctor....Jim.
I think the much more interesting parliamentary meeting today (much more informative than PMQs) was the evidence of Neil Ferguson to the select committee. I do hope that his modelling is correct as it would suggest that while this will be bad the NHS will just about manage to cope.
I am rather concerned by the claim only 10% of Londoners will get it. I just can't see how that is possible, given most countries talk about 50-60-70% of people getting it.
Even if he is talking about this "season" and the big number is total over the course of the disease, still, 10% seems incredibly low.
I think he was talking about this cycle, which he expects to peak in the next two to three weeks. Clearly there are likely to be more cycles.
It would be good to have his exact quote. Any links?
Sorry, no. It was merely my impression, and could be wrong. Otherwise, I would agree that 10% seems a little optimistic.
I note that Ferguson said "UK deaths from the disease are now unlikely to exceed 20,000, he said, and could be much lower."
Lets hope he is right. I wonder what has caused him to revise this this downwards, especially as he said outbreak is running faster and R0 is higher.
The higher R0, the more widespread is the outbreak, and the lower the fatality rate given the current number of deaths. It's good news if he is right.
This is where I am somewhat confused though. If he thought that was the case, and it is actually much more widespread with lots of asymptotic / mild cases, surely he would think more than 10% in London would get it? Unless he was talking about 10% over the next 3 months.
I agree. I don't get the 10% point. I can't find the quote anywhere. How did it originate?
Corbyn motivated a lot of people to get involved in politics who otherwise would not. That is his signature achievement.
Beyond that he has no monopoly on promoting good causes, public service or good conduct. Indeed there are serious questions over both that we need not go into. Sadly the good causes he serves, the Labour Party and the country are weaker for his leadership.
A lost opportunity.
You are too kind to him. We shouldn't mince our words. Boris did very well to pick out the one thing which can justifiably be said in Corbyn's favour - that you can't doubt his sincerity in wanting to champion the rather selective underdogs he is concerned about - but that's the only positive. On the negative side he's a narrow-minded, inflexible, terrorist-supporting, anti-Semitism enabling, irrationally tribal, rather dim, petulant, nepotistic, impractical, anti-Western, anti-British dinosaur, who has wrecked the Labour Party, stirred up factionalism, nursed grievances, and helped not only to enable Brexit to happen against his party's principles, but pushed Brexit towards the very worst form available. His entire political career has been exclusively negative in its effects.
He has also made Boris PM with a large majority, which admittedly might be seen as positive by some, but probably not by you!
Corbyn motivated a lot of people to get involved in politics who otherwise would not. That is his signature achievement.
Beyond that he has no monopoly on promoting good causes, public service or good conduct. Indeed there are serious questions over both that we need not go into. Sadly the good causes he serves, the Labour Party and the country are weaker for his leadership.
A lost opportunity.
Certainly no monopoly but I did find that aspect of him refreshing. He was in it for the right reasons, it seemed to me. Lost opportunity? No, I don't really feel that. Labour needed to rediscover their radicalism and - although I know many disagree with this - I think Johnson was winning that GE against anybody.
I agree about Boris. where I think you are wrong is with the rediscovery of radicalism. It's great fun no doubt for the faithful but Jo Public say no. That's why they lost so badly. Their only winners in remotely recent times have been centrists.
I think the much more interesting parliamentary meeting today (much more informative than PMQs) was the evidence of Neil Ferguson to the select committee. I do hope that his modelling is correct as it would suggest that while this will be bad the NHS will just about manage to cope.
I am rather concerned by the claim only 10% of Londoners will get it. I just can't see how that is possible, given most countries talk about 50-60-70% of people getting it.
Even if he is talking about this "season" and the big number is total over the course of the disease, still, 10% seems incredibly low.
I think he was talking about this cycle, which he expects to peak in the next two to three weeks. Clearly there are likely to be more cycles.
It would be good to have his exact quote. Any links?
Sorry, no. It was merely my impression, and could be wrong. Otherwise, I would agree that 10% seems a little optimistic.
I note that Ferguson said "UK deaths from the disease are now unlikely to exceed 20,000, he said, and could be much lower."
Lets hope he is right. I wonder what has caused him to revise this this downwards, especially as he said outbreak is running faster and R0 is higher.
The lack of people in hospital with Covid 19 at the moment ?
They obviously think it's going to go up, otherwise why would they be building field hospitals?
Obviously it's going to carry on going up for a while. Deaths could go up 20-fold and still be under 20,000. I think Ferguson was saying it is a stretch for the NHS but doable. I think they are getting this right in spite of all the uncertainty. Good for them including Boris.
We do really need the government to sign off the ventilator programme today. There are a number of different options, they have to decide which to go for and fire up the quattro.
They have expanded beds and staffing, by beg, borrow, and stealing stuff. But need to get the production lines bashing out these ventilators 24/7 and from somewhere more PPE.
It is by some distance the biggest peacetime crisis most of us have ever known. I remember the AIDS crisis very well in the 80s but this dwarfs that in the sheer scale of its scale and the speed of its development. I think like many people I'm quite scared for myself and everyone else. Being confined to home is strangely both comforting and concerning, easy and difficult, real and unreal all at the same time. No idea how and when its gonna end.
The sumptuous spring weather, all blossom and birdsong, adds to the surreal atmosphere
Also, the silence. Everywhere
Yes the grey sky and rain is lovely
Best argument for Scottish Independence is that it would reduce the average rainfall for the rest of us considerably.
I think the much more interesting parliamentary meeting today (much more informative than PMQs) was the evidence of Neil Ferguson to the select committee. I do hope that his modelling is correct as it would suggest that while this will be bad the NHS will just about manage to cope.
I am rather concerned by the claim only 10% of Londoners will get it. I just can't see how that is possible, given most countries talk about 50-60-70% of people getting it.
Even if he is talking about this "season" and the big number is total over the course of the disease, still, 10% seems incredibly low.
I think he was talking about this cycle, which he expects to peak in the next two to three weeks. Clearly there are likely to be more cycles.
It would be good to have his exact quote. Any links?
Sorry, no. It was merely my impression, and could be wrong. Otherwise, I would agree that 10% seems a little optimistic.
I note that Ferguson said "UK deaths from the disease are now unlikely to exceed 20,000, he said, and could be much lower."
Lets hope he is right. I wonder what has caused him to revise this this downwards, especially as he said outbreak is running faster and R0 is higher.
The higher R0, the more widespread is the outbreak, and the lower the fatality rate given the current number of deaths. It's good news if he is right.
This is where I am somewhat confused though. If he thought that was the case, and it is actually much more widespread with lots of asymptotic / mild cases, surely he would think more than 10% in London would get it? Unless he was talking about 10% over the next 3 months.
I agree. I don't get the 10% point. I can't find the quote anywhere. How did it originate?
One other question: can it distinguish between had it and have it?
I haven't seen anybody answer that. Some of the private kits that supposedly based on anti-body testing that have been launched have a limitation of you can only start to use it from about day 3-4-5 of showing symptoms up to a particular period afterwards.
Whenever the egg-heads have talked about the kit they wanted, they always talked as if it was being designed simply for had had it, rather than if you do.
Other people on this forum will know better than me, but as I understand it the tests is for a sufficient number of antibodies in the system to suggest that you had built up immunity.
Usual caveat, and paraphrasing Dr McCoy, I'm a lawyer not a doctor....Jim.
This is correct. It takes time to build up antibodies so it will you if you've had the virus. But still critically important for NHS staff and those in essential services since it will allow them to really get back to work. I'm excited that it might be widely available early next week - that's really positive news.
I think the much more interesting parliamentary meeting today (much more informative than PMQs) was the evidence of Neil Ferguson to the select committee. I do hope that his modelling is correct as it would suggest that while this will be bad the NHS will just about manage to cope.
I am rather concerned by the claim only 10% of Londoners will get it. I just can't see how that is possible, given most countries talk about 50-60-70% of people getting it.
Even if he is talking about this "season" and the big number is total over the course of the disease, still, 10% seems incredibly low.
I think he was talking about this cycle, which he expects to peak in the next two to three weeks. Clearly there are likely to be more cycles.
It would be good to have his exact quote. Any links?
Sorry, no. It was merely my impression, and could be wrong. Otherwise, I would agree that 10% seems a little optimistic.
I note that Ferguson said "UK deaths from the disease are now unlikely to exceed 20,000, he said, and could be much lower."
Corbyn motivated a lot of people to get involved in politics who otherwise would not. That is his signature achievement.
Beyond that he has no monopoly on promoting good causes, public service or good conduct. Indeed there are serious questions over both that we need not go into. Sadly the good causes he serves, the Labour Party and the country are weaker for his leadership.
A lost opportunity.
Certainly no monopoly but I did find that aspect of him refreshing. He was in it for the right reasons, it seemed to me. Lost opportunity? No, I don't really feel that. Labour needed to rediscover their radicalism and - although I know many disagree with this - I think Johnson was winning that GE against anybody.
Fear of Corbyn was instrumental to Boris’ victory. It kept the conservative coalition together and allowed Boris to pick a side In the Brexit debate. Conservative remainers had nowhere to go. Labour didn’t have that luxury.
Corbyn leaves the party in a far weaker state that he found it. Quick frankly I don’t even think he was all that radical.
We could always lock down London completely and let it go. We'll miss the sights and one or two of the football teams (not Spurs) but it had its day. Make Hull the capital, and move the government to Liverpool to balance it out a little.
It is by some distance the biggest peacetime crisis most of us have ever known. I remember the AIDS crisis very well in the 80s but this dwarfs that in the sheer scale of its scale and the speed of its development. I think like many people I'm quite scared for myself and everyone else. Being confined to home is strangely both comforting and concerning, easy and difficult, real and unreal all at the same time. No idea how and when its gonna end.
The sumptuous spring weather, all blossom and birdsong, adds to the surreal atmosphere
Also, the silence. Everywhere
To look on the bright side — when Londoners go for their daily walk, think how much less pollution they're breathing in compared to normal.
I think the much more interesting parliamentary meeting today (much more informative than PMQs) was the evidence of Neil Ferguson to the select committee. I do hope that his modelling is correct as it would suggest that while this will be bad the NHS will just about manage to cope.
I am rather concerned by the claim only 10% of Londoners will get it. I just can't see how that is possible, given most countries talk about 50-60-70% of people getting it.
Even if he is talking about this "season" and the big number is total over the course of the disease, still, 10% seems incredibly low.
I think he was talking about this cycle, which he expects to peak in the next two to three weeks. Clearly there are likely to be more cycles.
It would be good to have his exact quote. Any links?
Sorry, no. It was merely my impression, and could be wrong. Otherwise, I would agree that 10% seems a little optimistic.
I note that Ferguson said "UK deaths from the disease are now unlikely to exceed 20,000, he said, and could be much lower."
Lets hope he is right. I wonder what has caused him to revise this this downwards, especially as he said outbreak is running faster and R0 is higher.
The lack of people in hospital with Covid 19 at the moment ?
They obviously think it's going to go up, otherwise why would they be building field hospitals?
Seems a brave thing for Ferguson to say, given what we know of the NHS and the concerns of many doctors.
He is not a politician and clearly a very smart man, I am sure he was well aware when making that statement. There is clearly some new data he has seen / stuck through his model, that has given him a more cheery outlook.
I think the much more interesting parliamentary meeting today (much more informative than PMQs) was the evidence of Neil Ferguson to the select committee. I do hope that his modelling is correct as it would suggest that while this will be bad the NHS will just about manage to cope.
I am rather concerned by the claim only 10% of Londoners will get it. I just can't see how that is possible, given most countries talk about 50-60-70% of people getting it.
Even if he is talking about this "season" and the big number is total over the course of the disease, still, 10% seems incredibly low.
I think he was talking about this cycle, which he expects to peak in the next two to three weeks. Clearly there are likely to be more cycles.
It would be good to have his exact quote. Any links?
Sorry, no. It was merely my impression, and could be wrong. Otherwise, I would agree that 10% seems a little optimistic.
I note that Ferguson said "UK deaths from the disease are now unlikely to exceed 20,000, he said, and could be much lower."
We could always lock down London completely and let it go. We'll miss the sights and one or two of the football teams (not Spurs) but it had its day. Make Hull the capital, and move the government to Liverpool to balance it out a little.
It is by some distance the biggest peacetime crisis most of us have ever known. I remember the AIDS crisis very well in the 80s but this dwarfs that in the sheer scale of its scale and the speed of its development. I think like many people I'm quite scared for myself and everyone else. Being confined to home is strangely both comforting and concerning, easy and difficult, real and unreal all at the same time. No idea how and when its gonna end.
We don't know whether it really will be the worst crisis. It may turn out to be less deadly than several flu epidemics that didn't make the news at all.
I think you'd struggle to find a major flu epidemic that didn't make the news. This current pandemic will go down as a major crisis regardless of how successfully we manage to thwart it simply because of the unprecedented measures we are using to stop its spread.
Two weeks ago it was the 2nd day of the Cheltenham Festival.
It was remiss of me not to sympathise with your loss. It's something that's never easy no matter how old or ill the person is. Best wishes at this time.
Worth listening to Matt Forde`s The Political Party podcast today with Thornberry.
She reveals that with only a week to go she has not received a voting form. They have gone out in batches ... and Momentum is in the background .... just sayin`
Inferrer, inferrer, they've all got it inferrer.
'Call for action after SNP whip gets Labour leader ballot'
I think the much more interesting parliamentary meeting today (much more informative than PMQs) was the evidence of Neil Ferguson to the select committee. I do hope that his modelling is correct as it would suggest that while this will be bad the NHS will just about manage to cope.
I am rather concerned by the claim only 10% of Londoners will get it. I just can't see how that is possible, given most countries talk about 50-60-70% of people getting it.
Even if he is talking about this "season" and the big number is total over the course of the disease, still, 10% seems incredibly low.
I think he was talking about this cycle, which he expects to peak in the next two to three weeks. Clearly there are likely to be more cycles.
It would be good to have his exact quote. Any links?
Sorry, no. It was merely my impression, and could be wrong. Otherwise, I would agree that 10% seems a little optimistic.
I note that Ferguson said "UK deaths from the disease are now unlikely to exceed 20,000, he said, and could be much lower."
Lets hope he is right. I wonder what has caused him to revise this this downwards, especially as he said outbreak is running faster and R0 is higher.
The lack of people in hospital with Covid 19 at the moment ?
They obviously think it's going to go up, otherwise why would they be building field hospitals?
Seems a brave thing for Ferguson to say, given what we know of the NHS and the concerns of many doctors.
Ferguson also said: "The government is aiming to relax restrictions on movements only when the UK had the ability to test more people for the virus,"
So we are in lockdown until the test situation is sorted.
Well as its coming next week, and by mid April they will be able to do 25k gold standard "currently infected" tests a day, I don't think that in itself is an issue.
I doubt we are coming out of lockdown in 3 week though.
Hopefully among all the firefighting of those with the disease, there is lots of work done on how we manage the situation after we pass the peak and go forward towards another wave.
It is by some distance the biggest peacetime crisis most of us have ever known. I remember the AIDS crisis very well in the 80s but this dwarfs that in the sheer scale of its scale and the speed of its development. I think like many people I'm quite scared for myself and everyone else. Being confined to home is strangely both comforting and concerning, easy and difficult, real and unreal all at the same time. No idea how and when its gonna end.
We don't know whether it really will be the worst crisis. It may turn out to be less deadly than several flu epidemics that didn't make the news at all.
I think you'd struggle to find a major flu epidemic that didn't make the news. This current pandemic will go down as a major crisis regardless of how successfully we manage to thwart it simply because of the unprecedented measures we are using to stop its spread.
Two weeks ago it was the 2nd day of the Cheltenham Festival.
I don’t think it’s too bad of Jezza to say this really?
It was great to hear. Indeed I wish to post my own little tribute on this the last day (effectively) of Jeremy Corbyn. It’s a moment which IMO should be marked with generosity of spirit towards a man who, whilst not everybody’s cup of tea, has made a notable contribution to the political drama of recent years.
He never wanted to lead the party and even less did he wish to become PM. Like the National Lottery, he is all about Good Causes. A thirst for power and prestige is not in the DNA. Yet he answered the call from colleagues to stand in 2015, and when the membership offered him the LOTO baton, he took it and ran. Despite a reluctance to be “primus inter pares” – preferring “et generis paribus” - he offered himself up as The Man in not one general election but TWO. In the first of these he came closer than any socialist ever has to attaining power in modern Britain. This is perhaps his most enduring legacy. He showed that it was possible for a socialist to win a UK general election so long as the socialist was not him (an easy fix going forwards).
GE19? Still running but straight into a buzz-saw. “Get Brexit Done”. “Boris”. “Parliament versus The People.” Could any Opposition Leader have held up against that? Sadly not. You can do nothing with the Zeitgeist except submit to it. Ask John Major. So let us not dwell on this. The result looks poor but Labour DID win the argument (witness the Tory conversion to anti-Austerity) and they DID move the Overton Window (that radical manifesto can never be unwritten).
But the biggest Corbyn positive lies not in his impact on political debate, welcome though it has been, but in his persona and character. Good (progressive) causes, as noted, and a holding to principle, not self-aggrandizement and opportunism. In an era where the very idea of placing duty over desire is sniggered at, where the meaning of the term “public service” has been all but forgotten, we have had in Jeremy Corbyn a politician to remind us, and this is why all of us here on PB.com should wish him well as he exits the stage today. Regardless of our politics, we can award him the following epithet - the two little words which best sum up his career. He served.
He served his constituency, the Left in general, his party, and – yes – his country.
Thank you, Jeremy. Stay safe now.
Good piece, though the "Good Causes" he supported were not a lottery. Any group of people (immediately labelled by him and his like as a "community") which he could define as being "victims" (in his head) of western liberal democracies (esp USA, but also UK) counted. This led to him being regarded as being unfit for office, particularly PM.
He has left a Labour Party tainted by more than whiff of "not patriotic" and also a party whose values have been revealed as being at odds with the working class conservatives whose votes the party have relied on forever.
These voters (which you disparagingly call WWC) saw the light at the last GE and held their noses and voted for the Conservatives. Now the spell is broken and these voters will not need to hold their noses next time.
We are seeing some return to community spirit (even if there a load of dickheads), companies I think will embrace a lot more WFH which is really good for families, and I think there may well be a refocus away from the absolute rock bottom price for everything is best.
Certainly very impressive that the NHS got its requested 250,000 volunteers within the first 24 hours
Wow - I knew they got 150000+ - but that is extraordinary. Very uplifting. I went out for my weeklt shop today and got stopped by several burly Guardia patrols at a roundabout. Made me so nervous I stalled the car - but as soon as I said what I was doing there was a pleasant smile and I was waved on. Relieved albeit with my ego punctured a little.
Yes - they've been patrolling in our area to stop wealthy Spaniards from the cities holeing up in their second homes and also supporting the Guardia. They also are pretty friendly to be fair. I expect they're as scared as the rest of us underneath the machismo.
Those are the Spanish Legion, Spain's knock-off of the French Foreign Legion. They call themselves "the bridegrooms of death". Machismo barely begins to describe them!
It is by some distance the biggest peacetime crisis most of us have ever known. I remember the AIDS crisis very well in the 80s but this dwarfs that in the sheer scale of its scale and the speed of its development. I think like many people I'm quite scared for myself and everyone else. Being confined to home is strangely both comforting and concerning, easy and difficult, real and unreal all at the same time. No idea how and when its gonna end.
We don't know whether it really will be the worst crisis. It may turn out to be less deadly than several flu epidemics that didn't make the news at all.
I think you'd struggle to find a major flu epidemic that didn't make the news. This current pandemic will go down as a major crisis regardless of how successfully we manage to thwart it simply because of the unprecedented measures we are using to stop its spread.
Two weeks ago it was the 2nd day of the Cheltenham Festival.
The only way it could have been a 'good idea' would be if you could limit the number of people getting it at any one time to that which the NHS could handle. How could that be done with a very infectious virus growing exponentially with hardly any testing?
Corbyn motivated a lot of people to get involved in politics who otherwise would not. That is his signature achievement.
Beyond that he has no monopoly on promoting good causes, public service or good conduct. Indeed there are serious questions over both that we need not go into. Sadly the good causes he serves, the Labour Party and the country are weaker for his leadership.
A lost opportunity.
You are too kind to him. We shouldn't mince our words. Boris did very well to pick out the one thing which can justifiably be said in Corbyn's favour - that you can't doubt his sincerity in wanting to champion the rather selective underdogs he is concerned about - but that's the only positive. On the negative side he's a narrow-minded, inflexible, terrorist-supporting, anti-Semitism enabling, irrationally tribal, rather dim, petulant, nepotistic, impractical, anti-Western, anti-British dinosaur, who has wrecked the Labour Party, stirred up factionalism, nursed grievances, and helped not only to enable Brexit to happen against his party's principles, but pushed Brexit towards the very worst form available. His entire political career has been exclusively negative in its effects.
He has also made Boris PM with a large majority, which admittedly might be seen as positive by some, but probably not by you!
He also, particularly but not exclusively with his 2017 manifesto, shifted the Conservative party a long way leftwards economically, to the point that they disowned austerity and planned large-scale infrastructure spending.
From the perspective of Corbyn's part of the political spectrum, the tone of the current government may be far more unpleasant than the 2015 government, but (approach to the EU apart) its actions are far better. Corbyn has been a major factor in that.
I am generally quite hopeful that we are going to hit the milder ends of all the estimates about this pandemic, but I still don't understand how the sophisticated expert modelling initially said let's get everyone infected by the end of summer.
Even assuming everyone meant 60% of the population, the end of summer meant the end of autumn, that people got the virus at an incredibly even rate, and assuming a miniscule hospitalisation rate you still had at least a thousand extra hospitalizations a week being admitted.
How could the NHS possibly have been predicted to cope?
The only way it could have been a 'good idea' would be if you could limit the number of people getting it at any one time to that which the NHS could handle. How could that be done with a very infectious virus growing exponentially with hardly any testing?
It's not about limiting the number of people getting it, it's about ensuring that critical care capacity is not exceeded. What changed was the understanding of how bad the infection could be for some people.
The 3% who find it ‘easier to be positive about the future’ are clearly XR
XR are a bunch of tossers. They've alienated people by blocking ambulances, stopping people getting to work, damaging old historic buildings (such as in my town) and vandalising public property. And they're almost all highly-privileged, well-off and very middle-class self-entitled faux-dreadlocked hippie twats.
There was a sensible message to be given about the need for urgent action on climate change.
They blew it.
Not blown, but they need to get a grip on their more out there elements, to avoid all of them being seen that way. At present they've avoided that, but it is no certainty.
I'm afraid they haven't.
A lot of moderate people have already written them off as hippy moonbats.
I think they're borderline at present. Many more incidents and it will be set, and more reasonable movements will get the useful attention, but they can prevent that. But that will mean taking a bit more control over their loonier elements, which theymight not do.
The other thing is that they've made it clear that they don't mind if they're despised, so long as they bring about meaningful change, which is laudable.
As an expert in the field, I get very frustrated with some of the nonsense that gets spouted under the banner of XR. It's not all of them by any means, but certainly there are hypocrites and loons in the movement. And I do worry about the risk of alienating people from the issue, which so far has happened surprisingly little.
But I can't argue with their results so far. They've achieved far more than people like me have by calmly talking about the evidence. Sad but true. They are in credit at the moment.
So, I take it you're a big fan of Jem Bendell and the Deep Adaptation crowd then?
Recent research suggests that human societies will experience disruptions to their basic functioning within less than ten years due to climate stress. Such disruptions include increased levels of malnutrition, starvation, disease, civil conflict and war – and will not avoid affluent nations.
In a sense, at least XR are "optimists" enough that they think something can still be done to prevent catastrophic climate change and we just need to get cracking with it...
What I liked about it was the spirit - the egalitarianism, the rejection of business as usual and of being relaxed about inequality - not necessarily all of the actual polices.
I hope that under Starmer we keep the spirit and modernise the offering.
I think the much more interesting parliamentary meeting today (much more informative than PMQs) was the evidence of Neil Ferguson to the select committee. I do hope that his modelling is correct as it would suggest that while this will be bad the NHS will just about manage to cope.
I am rather concerned by the claim only 10% of Londoners will get it. I just can't see how that is possible, given most countries talk about 50-60-70% of people getting it.
Even if he is talking about this "season" and the big number is total over the course of the disease, still, 10% seems incredibly low.
I think he was talking about this cycle, which he expects to peak in the next two to three weeks. Clearly there are likely to be more cycles.
It would be good to have his exact quote. Any links?
Sorry, no. It was merely my impression, and could be wrong. Otherwise, I would agree that 10% seems a little optimistic.
I note that Ferguson said "UK deaths from the disease are now unlikely to exceed 20,000, he said, and could be much lower."
Lets hope he is right. I wonder what has caused him to revise this this downwards, especially as he said outbreak is running faster and R0 is higher.
The lack of people in hospital with Covid 19 at the moment ?
They obviously think it's going to go up, otherwise why would they be building field hospitals?
Seems a brave thing for Ferguson to say, given what we know of the NHS and the concerns of many doctors.
Ferguson also said: "The government is aiming to relax restrictions on movements only when the UK had the ability to test more people for the virus,"
So we are in lockdown until the test situation is sorted.
Well as its coming next week, and by mid April they will be able to do 25k gold standard "currently infected" tests a day, I don't think that in itself is an issue.
I doubt we are coming out of lockdown in 3 week though.
Hopefully among all the firefighting of those with the disease, there is lots of work done on how we manage the situation after we pass the peak and go forward towards another wave.
We don't even need a huge number of antibody tests (if reasonably accurate) to get a sufficiently precise measure of how many people have had this to decide on whether restrictions can be lifted and re-model the worst case scenarios (i.e. the what happens if all restrictions lifted scenarios). 3.5 million is way more than needed for that if distributed representatively.
If it was found that relatively few in the population had been infected, then larger numbers of tests would of course be needed to determine exactly who could go back to work/perform essential caring duties for vulnerable etc without causing further spread.
(All assuming immunity after confirmed past infection)
I watched Professor Ferguson's evidence to the Health Select Committee today. He said that, with mitigation, the peak requirement for NHS ICU beds would be about 8 times the number available.
Perhaps the government should set about increasing the capacity to this level. We may need to be able to survive and cope with a single peak epidemic if there is no other way out of the current predicament. This would depend on the results of the vaccine trials taking place which may go well or badly.
The 8 times is what he thought previously dependent on strategy...
Current strategy / modeling,
"The need for intensive care beds will get very close to capacity in some areas, but won’t breached it at a national level, said Ferguson. "
I suggest that intensive care bed capacity should be increased until it can cope with the current wave, which is being suppressed, and any future waves. The more intensive care beds we have the more options we have to deal with the crisis, and the fewer people will die who could have been saved.
He also, particularly but not exclusively with his 2017 manifesto, shifted the Conservative party a long way leftwards economically, to the point that they disowned austerity and planned large-scale infrastructure spending.
From the perspective of Corbyn's part of the political spectrum, the tone of the current government may be far more unpleasant than the 2015 government, but (approach to the EU apart) its actions are far better. Corbyn has been a major factor in that.
Nonsense. Firstly 'austerity' (i.e living vaguely with the bounds of what is affordable) hasn't been disowned, it has been rebranded. The economic facts don't change because of Corbyn. The infrastructure spending promises are mainly because Boris likes big projects, but most of it will never happen (and never would have happened even without Covid-19).
Of course, Covid-19 has blown a bloody great bazooka through the public finances, but that has zero to do with Corbyn and is not exactly anything to celebrate; it simply means more austerity for years to come, or more inflation, or probably both.
I don't think this is correct. Prof Ferguson produced the paper that convinced the government to change its policy. Ferguson does appear to have been sceptical earlier that containment policies would actually reduce the infection rate and that may have influenced government policy. He seems to have revised his mortality estimates downwards. I doubt know whether that's because the containment methods are effective or due to a better understanding of the epidemic after a couple of weeks.
He also, particularly but not exclusively with his 2017 manifesto, shifted the Conservative party a long way leftwards economically, to the point that they disowned austerity and planned large-scale infrastructure spending.
From the perspective of Corbyn's part of the political spectrum, the tone of the current government may be far more unpleasant than the 2015 government, but (approach to the EU apart) its actions are far better. Corbyn has been a major factor in that.
Nonsense. Firstly 'austerity' (i.e living vaguely with the bounds of what is affordable) hasn't been disowned, it has been rebranded. The economic facts don't change because of Corbyn. The infrastructure spending promises are mainly because Boris likes big projects, but most of it will never happen (and never would have happened even within Covid-19).
Of course, Covid-19 has blown a bloody great bazooka through the public finances, but that has zero to do with Corbyn and is not exactly anything to celebrate; it simply means more austerity for years to come, or more inflation, or probably both.
Okay, you're simply incapable of seeing that the world is a more complicated place than you want it to be, and people you don't like can also do good things, so I'll move on.
A nursing student from Birmingham City University has set up a 1,000-strong volunteering group to help vulnerable members of her south Birmingham community during the Covid-19 outbreak.
Katie Dixon, who is studying adult nursing at Birmingham City University, created the group to help in the Kings Heath community, with another 250 kind-hearted residents awaiting approval to join the ranks.
He also, particularly but not exclusively with his 2017 manifesto, shifted the Conservative party a long way leftwards economically, to the point that they disowned austerity and planned large-scale infrastructure spending.
From the perspective of Corbyn's part of the political spectrum, the tone of the current government may be far more unpleasant than the 2015 government, but (approach to the EU apart) its actions are far better. Corbyn has been a major factor in that.
Nonsense. Firstly 'austerity' (i.e living vaguely with the bounds of what is affordable) hasn't been disowned, it has been rebranded. The economic facts don't change because of Corbyn. The infrastructure spending promises are mainly because Boris likes big projects, but most of it will never happen (and never would have happened even within Covid-19).
Of course, Covid-19 has blown a bloody great bazooka through the public finances, but that has zero to do with Corbyn and is not exactly anything to celebrate; it simply means more austerity for years to come, or more inflation, or probably both.
Okay, you're simply incapable of seeing that the world is a more complicated place than you want it to be, and people you don't like can also do good things, so I'll move on.
No, the exact opposite. It is precisely because the world is a complicated place that people like Corbyn and Trump, who view things in extremely narrow and simplistic ways, are so disastrous.
Were there really people who thought the original strategy was Johnson's idea?
You clearly missed all the tw@tterati calling him Boris the Butcher...
I do my best to miss the tw@tterati whenever I can!
But that label, however obnoxious, correctly holds him responsible for the policy. It doesn't make it his idea.
No, the label was used in conjunction with accusations that he was explicitly trying to kill off the old and infirm as a matter of policy. There was no 'misinterpretation' possible. It is an accusation that is still being made regularly on social media.
I don't think this is correct. Prof Ferguson produced the paper that convinced the government to change its policy. Ferguson does appear to have been sceptical earlier that containment policies would actually reduce the infection rate and that may have influenced government policy. He seems to have revised his mortality estimates downwards. I doubt know whether that's because the containment methods are effective or due to a better understanding of the epidemic after a couple of weeks.
Incidentally the information about the Italian mortality and serious illness rates that informed Ferguson's paper was available earlier to the UK government at the EU COVID19 information sharing meeting, but the government wasn't aware of it due to it boycotting that meeting for reasons of Brexit ideology.
It is by some distance the biggest peacetime crisis most of us have ever known. I remember the AIDS crisis very well in the 80s but this dwarfs that in the sheer scale of its scale and the speed of its development. I think like many people I'm quite scared for myself and everyone else. Being confined to home is strangely both comforting and concerning, easy and difficult, real and unreal all at the same time. No idea how and when its gonna end.
We don't know whether it really will be the worst crisis. It may turn out to be less deadly than several flu epidemics that didn't make the news at all.
I think you'd struggle to find a major flu epidemic that didn't make the news. This current pandemic will go down as a major crisis regardless of how successfully we manage to thwart it simply because of the unprecedented measures we are using to stop its spread.
Two weeks ago it was the 2nd day of the Cheltenham Festival.
I don't think this is correct. Prof Ferguson produced the paper that convinced the government to change its policy. Ferguson does appear to have been sceptical earlier that containment policies would actually reduce the infection rate and that may have influenced government policy. He seems to have revised his mortality estimates downwards. I doubt know whether that's because the containment methods are effective or due to a better understanding of the epidemic after a couple of weeks.
Until it had been done, it was difficult for anyone to imagine that such widespread social distancing could be implemented in a society like ours. The shutdown in Italy shifted the Overton window.
No, the label was used in conjunction with accusations that he was explicitly trying to kill off the old and infirm as a matter of policy. There was no 'misinterpretation' possible. It is an accusation that is still being made regularly on social media.
It's a tribute to the leftist twitterati that they credit Boris with selflessly wanting to kill off his own core voters.
Cooperativas Agro-Alimentatrias de España sees problems in securing the necessary workforce in the field due to the closing of borders due to the coronavirus pandemic, with special incidence in the fruit and vegetable campaigns, which run the risk of a part of their harvest being left without gather. The head of Affairs of the European Union (EU) and International Cooperatives, Gabriel Trenzado, has indicated to EFE that it is already being noticed in the strawberry campaign in Huelva, where only 7,000 of the 15,000 Moroccan workers expected by the closure of borders.
I don’t think it’s too bad of Jezza to say this really?
It was great to hear. Indeed I wish to post my own little tribute on this the last day (effectively) of Jeremy Corbyn. It’s a moment which IMO should be marked with generosity of spirit towards a man who, whilst not everybody’s cup of tea, has made a notable contribution to the political drama of recent years.
He never wanted to lead the party and even less did he wish to become PM. Like the National Lottery, he is all about Good Causes. A thirst for power and prestige is not in the DNA. Yet he answered the call from colleagues to stand in 2015, and when the membership offered him the LOTO baton, he took it and ran. Despite a reluctance to be “primus inter pares” – preferring “et generis paribus” - he offered himself up as The Man in not one general election but TWO. In the first of these he came closer than any socialist ever has to attaining power in modern Britain. This is perhaps his most enduring legacy. He showed that it was possible for a socialist to win a UK general election so long as the socialist was not him (an easy fix going forwards).
GE19? Still running but straight into a buzz-saw. “Get Brexit Done”. “Boris”. “Parliament versus The People.” Could any Opposition Leader have held up against that? Sadly not. You can do nothing with the Zeitgeist except submit to it. Ask John Major. So let us not dwell on this. The result looks poor but Labour DID win the argument (witness the Tory conversion to anti-Austerity) and they DID move the Overton Window (that radical manifesto can never be unwritten).
But the biggest Corbyn positive lies not in his impact on political debate, welcome though it has been, but in his persona and character. Good (progressive) causes, as noted, and a holding to principle, not self-aggrandizement and opportunism. In an era where the very idea of placing duty over desire is sniggered at, where the meaning of the term “public service” has been all but forgotten, we have had in Jeremy Corbyn a politician to remind us, and this is why all of us here on PB.com should wish him well as he exits the stage today. Regardless of our politics, we can award him the following epithet - the two little words which best sum up his career. He served.
He served his constituency, the Left in general, his party, and – yes – his country.
Thank you, Jeremy. Stay safe now.
Whilst I'm completely on board with offering the chap good health and happiness for the future, this eulogy really is guff from start to finish.
Firstly, he absolutely did want to do it. That's not a criticism. But if he'd not wanted to do it, he would not have stood, or would have stood aside when there was a no confidence vote, or handed over after 2017 (having secured a good result).
Secondly, it's not his 2017 result that will be remembered but his 2019 result (and indeed the fact that he lost twice). He didn't show that someone like him could win in future at all - he showed that they'd lose and set the movement back.
Thirdly, you can believe the "good character" stuff all you want, but that isn't his reputation and his legacy. The vast majority just don't accept it. He presided over a party where his office manipulated the disciplinary process to help friends and co-travellers, and where good MPs were bullied and harassed for any criticism. Maybe he was simply a blind idiot, and all that was Milne and others (who, by the way, was awarded a fat contract with no doubt generous redundancy provisions when Corbyn was halfway out of the door). Maybe, but most think not.
Fourthly, he has demonstrably set back the prospects of a progressive, left or centre-left government by years. That wasn't his intention, of course, but he has. So this "he served his party and his country" stuff is utterly fatuous.
Fair enough to say you agreed with him on a lot of stuff and don't regret rolling the dice even if it was a failure with hindsight. But this idea that he leaves with his head held high and a proud record sticks in the throat of anyone in Labour or the progressive wing more generally who has even a little sense of reality or perspective. And it makes continued failure likely.
He also, particularly but not exclusively with his 2017 manifesto, shifted the Conservative party a long way leftwards economically, to the point that they disowned austerity and planned large-scale infrastructure spending.
From the perspective of Corbyn's part of the political spectrum, the tone of the current government may be far more unpleasant than the 2015 government, but (approach to the EU apart) its actions are far better. Corbyn has been a major factor in that.
Nonsense. Firstly 'austerity' (i.e living vaguely with the bounds of what is affordable) hasn't been disowned, it has been rebranded. The economic facts don't change because of Corbyn. The infrastructure spending promises are mainly because Boris likes big projects, but most of it will never happen (and never would have happened even without Covid-19).
Of course, Covid-19 has blown a bloody great bazooka through the public finances, but that has zero to do with Corbyn and is not exactly anything to celebrate; it simply means more austerity for years to come, or more inflation, or probably both.
Pols from across the political spectrum promise things that are probably not going to happen. And good money gets spent on Boris's grands projets even if they never happen (see the garden bridge et al)
So how much discount do we give pols on this? Or is it just for those we agree with?
The 3% who find it ‘easier to be positive about the future’ are clearly XR
XR are a bunch of tossers. They've alienated people by blocking ambulances, stopping people getting to work, damaging old historic buildings (such as in my town) and vandalising public property. And they're almost all highly-privileged, well-off and very middle-class self-entitled faux-dreadlocked hippie twats.
There was a sensible message to be given about the need for urgent action on climate change.
They blew it.
Not blown, but they need to get a grip on their more out there elements, to avoid all of them being seen that way. At present they've avoided that, but it is no certainty.
I'm afraid they haven't.
A lot of moderate people have already written them off as hippy moonbats.
I think they're borderline at present. Many more incidents and it will be set, and more reasonable movements will get the useful attention, but they can prevent that. But that will mean taking a bit more control over their loonier elements, which theymight not do.
The other thing is that they've made it clear that they don't mind if they're despised, so long as they bring about meaningful change, which is laudable.
As an expert in the field, I get very frustrated with some of the nonsense that gets spouted under the banner of XR. It's not all of them by any means, but certainly there are hypocrites and loons in the movement. And I do worry about the risk of alienating people from the issue, which so far has happened surprisingly little.
But I can't argue with their results so far. They've achieved far more than people like me have by calmly talking about the evidence. Sad but true. They are in credit at the moment.
So, I take it you're a big fan of Jem Bendell and the Deep Adaptation crowd then?
Recent research suggests that human societies will experience disruptions to their basic functioning within less than ten years due to climate stress. Such disruptions include increased levels of malnutrition, starvation, disease, civil conflict and war – and will not avoid affluent nations.
In a sense, at least XR are "optimists" enough that they think something can still be done to prevent catastrophic climate change and we just need to get cracking with it...
Presumably if you encountered someone offering qualified praise for the Muslim Council for Britain, you would reply "So, I take it you're a big fan of Islamic State".
I think the much more interesting parliamentary meeting today (much more informative than PMQs) was the evidence of Neil Ferguson to the select committee. I do hope that his modelling is correct as it would suggest that while this will be bad the NHS will just about manage to cope.
I am rather concerned by the claim only 10% of Londoners will get it. I just can't see how that is possible, given most countries talk about 50-60-70% of people getting it.
Even if he is talking about this "season" and the big number is total over the course of the disease, still, 10% seems incredibly low.
I think he was talking about this cycle, which he expects to peak in the next two to three weeks. Clearly there are likely to be more cycles.
It would be good to have his exact quote. Any links?
Sorry, no. It was merely my impression, and could be wrong. Otherwise, I would agree that 10% seems a little optimistic.
I note that Ferguson said "UK deaths from the disease are now unlikely to exceed 20,000, he said, and could be much lower."
Lets hope he is right. I wonder what has caused him to revise this this downwards, especially as he said outbreak is running faster and R0 is higher.
The lack of people in hospital with Covid 19 at the moment ?
They obviously think it's going to go up, otherwise why would they be building field hospitals?
Seems a brave thing for Ferguson to say, given what we know of the NHS and the concerns of many doctors.
Ferguson also said: "The government is aiming to relax restrictions on movements only when the UK had the ability to test more people for the virus,"
So we are in lockdown until the test situation is sorted.
Well as its coming next week, and by mid April they will be able to do 25k gold standard "currently infected" tests a day, I don't think that in itself is an issue.
I doubt we are coming out of lockdown in 3 week though.
Hopefully among all the firefighting of those with the disease, there is lots of work done on how we manage the situation after we pass the peak and go forward towards another wave.
The lockdowns are not sustainable practically for an extended period but I expect little change before May at best.
He also, particularly but not exclusively with his 2017 manifesto, shifted the Conservative party a long way leftwards economically, to the point that they disowned austerity and planned large-scale infrastructure spending.
From the perspective of Corbyn's part of the political spectrum, the tone of the current government may be far more unpleasant than the 2015 government, but (approach to the EU apart) its actions are far better. Corbyn has been a major factor in that.
Nonsense. Firstly 'austerity' (i.e living vaguely with the bounds of what is affordable) hasn't been disowned, it has been rebranded. The economic facts don't change because of Corbyn. The infrastructure spending promises are mainly because Boris likes big projects, but most of it will never happen (and never would have happened even without Covid-19).
Of course, Covid-19 has blown a bloody great bazooka through the public finances, but that has zero to do with Corbyn and is not exactly anything to celebrate; it simply means more austerity for years to come, or more inflation, or probably both.
Before the crisis and aside from infrastructure projects for the most deindustrialisation-affected areas, Johnson had shifted position on several key areas, including benefits levels, health spending and police numbers. This was because of a stronger shift against austerity and greater worry about public services in the public mood.
The crisis will now solidify this. Corbyn's role in this process isn't yet clear or decided by history , but it has happened.
We are seeing some return to community spirit (even if there a load of dickheads), companies I think will embrace a lot more WFH which is really good for families, and I think there may well be a refocus away from the absolute rock bottom price for everything is best.
Certainly very impressive that the NHS got its requested 250,000 volunteers within the first 24 hours
Wow - I knew they got 150000+ - but that is extraordinary. Very uplifting. I went out for my weeklt shop today and got stopped by several burly Guardia patrols at a roundabout. Made me so nervous I stalled the car - but as soon as I said what I was doing there was a pleasant smile and I was waved on. Relieved albeit with my ego punctured a little.
Yes - they've been patrolling in our area to stop wealthy Spaniards from the cities holeing up in their second homes and also supporting the Guardia. They also are pretty friendly to be fair. I expect they're as scared as the rest of us underneath the machismo.
Those are the Spanish Legion, Spain's knock-off of the French Foreign Legion. They call themselves "the bridegrooms of death". Machismo barely begins to describe them!
You can imagine the Sergeant Major on the parade ground
'Call yourself a legionnaire!!!! Get that top button undone you 'orrible little man!'
Pols from across the political spectrum promise things that are probably not going to happen. And good money gets spent on Boris's grands projets even if they never happen (see the garden bridge et al)
So how much discount do we give pols on this? Or is it just for those we agree with?
We should give Boris credit if he successfully initiates infrastructure schemes which actually happen and are worthwhile. I don't personally think that there will be much to praise on that score, but we won't know for sure for some years to come.
What we definitely shouldn't do is give him credit today for bandying big numbers about. Any fool can do that.
Were there really people who thought the original strategy was Johnson's idea?
You clearly missed all the tw@tterati calling him Boris the Butcher...
I do my best to miss the tw@tterati whenever I can!
But that label, however obnoxious, correctly holds him responsible for the policy. It doesn't make it his idea.
No, the label was used in conjunction with accusations that he was explicitly trying to kill off the old and infirm as a matter of policy. There was no 'misinterpretation' possible. It is an accusation that is still being made regularly on social media.
Its about whether the Economy or the Health of vulnerable people was priority. Trump is certainly appearing to have the wrong priority. Herd immunity was too close to the line for comfort especially when Cummings callous words get leaked
I don't think this is correct. Prof Ferguson produced the paper that convinced the government to change its policy. Ferguson does appear to have been sceptical earlier that containment policies would actually reduce the infection rate and that may have influenced government policy. He seems to have revised his mortality estimates downwards. I doubt know whether that's because the containment methods are effective or due to a better understanding of the epidemic after a couple of weeks.
Incidentally the information about the Italian mortality and serious illness rates that informed Ferguson's paper was available earlier to the UK government at the EU COVID19 information sharing meeting, but the government wasn't aware of it due to it boycotting that meeting for reasons of Brexit ideology.
Is there a source for the claim that this information was only shared at this meeting, and not more widely? Seems a bit strange to keep information like this secret.
No, the label was used in conjunction with accusations that he was explicitly trying to kill off the old and infirm as a matter of policy. There was no 'misinterpretation' possible. It is an accusation that is still being made regularly on social media.
It's a tribute to the leftist twitterati that they credit Boris with selflessly wanting to kill off his own core voters.
TBF its Tory voting Oldies i have spoken to that seem to think that.
I don’t think it’s too bad of Jezza to say this really?
It was great to hear. Indeed I wish to post my own little tribute on this the last day (effectively) of Jeremy Corbyn. It’s a moment which IMO should be marked with generosity of spirit towards a man who, whilst not everybody’s cup of tea, has made a notable contribution to the political drama of recent years.
He never wanted to lead the party and even less did he wish to become PM. Like the National Lottery, he is all about Good Causes. A thirst for power and prestige is not in the DNA. Yet he answered the call from colleagues to stand in 2015, and when the membership offered him the LOTO baton, he took it and ran. Despite a reluctance to be “primus inter pares” – preferring “et generis paribus” - he offered himself up as The Man in not one general election but TWO. In the first of these he came closer than any socialist ever has to attaining power in modern Britain. This is perhaps his most enduring legacy. He showed that it was possible for a socialist to win a UK general election so long as the socialist was not him (an easy fix going forwards).
GE19? Still running but straight into a buzz-saw. “Get Brexit Done”. “Boris”. “Parliament versus The People.” Could any Opposition Leader have held up against that? Sadly not. You can do nothing with the Zeitgeist except submit to it. Ask John Major. So let us not dwell on this. The result looks poor but Labour DID win the argument (witness the Tory conversion to anti-Austerity) and they DID move the Overton Window (that radical manifesto can never be unwritten).
But the biggest Corbyn positive lies not in his impact on political debate, welcome though it has been, but in his persona and character. Good (progressive) causes, as noted, and a holding to principle, not self-aggrandizement and opportunism. In an era where the very idea of placing duty over desire is sniggered at, where the meaning of the term “public service” has been all but forgotten, we have had in Jeremy Corbyn a politician to remind us, and this is why all of us here on PB.com should wish him well as he exits the stage today. Regardless of our politics, we can award him the following epithet - the two little words which best sum up his career. He served.
He served his constituency, the Left in general, his party, and – yes – his country.
Thank you, Jeremy. Stay safe now.
Good piece, though the "Good Causes" he supported were not a lottery. Any group of people (immediately labelled by him and his like as a "community") which he could define as being "victims" (in his head) of western liberal democracies (esp USA, but also UK) counted. This led to him being regarded as being unfit for office, particularly PM.
He has left a Labour Party tainted by more than whiff of "not patriotic" and also a party whose values have been revealed as being at odds with the working class conservatives whose votes the party have relied on forever.
These voters (which you disparagingly call WWC) saw the light at the last GE and held their noses and voted for the Conservatives. Now the spell is broken and these voters will not need to hold their noses next time.
This is the legacy he leaves. Sorry.
It has not been one way traffic though - even in 2019 Labour won a significant number of seats in London and the wider South which were Tory in 2015, 2010 and even 2005. Indeed Canterbury remained Tory in 1997!
I don't think this is correct. Prof Ferguson produced the paper that convinced the government to change its policy. Ferguson does appear to have been sceptical earlier that containment policies would actually reduce the infection rate and that may have influenced government policy. He seems to have revised his mortality estimates downwards. I doubt know whether that's because the containment methods are effective or due to a better understanding of the epidemic after a couple of weeks.
Incidentally the information about the Italian mortality and serious illness rates that informed Ferguson's paper was available earlier to the UK government at the EU COVID19 information sharing meeting, but the government wasn't aware of it due to it boycotting that meeting for reasons of Brexit ideology.
Is there a source for the claim that this information was only shared at this meeting, and not more widely? Seems a bit strange to keep information like this secret.
The UK apparently refused to join this series of meetings although it could have done under transition rules, because it has a policy of boycotting all EU meetings during the transition. It wasn't EU secrecy; it was simply a question of UK government ideology. Other member states asset that detailed information on the Italian situation was available at that meeting.
Were there really people who thought the original strategy was Johnson's idea?
You clearly missed all the tw@tterati calling him Boris the Butcher...
I do my best to miss the tw@tterati whenever I can!
But that label, however obnoxious, correctly holds him responsible for the policy. It doesn't make it his idea.
No, the label was used in conjunction with accusations that he was explicitly trying to kill off the old and infirm as a matter of policy. There was no 'misinterpretation' possible. It is an accusation that is still being made regularly on social media.
Its about whether the Economy or the Health of vulnerable people was priority. Trump is certainly appearing to have the wrong priority. Herd immunity was too close to the line for comfort especially when Cummings callous words get leaked
I don't think this is correct. Prof Ferguson produced the paper that convinced the government to change its policy. Ferguson does appear to have been sceptical earlier that containment policies would actually reduce the infection rate and that may have influenced government policy. He seems to have revised his mortality estimates downwards. I doubt know whether that's because the containment methods are effective or due to a better understanding of the epidemic after a couple of weeks.
Incidentally the information about the Italian mortality and serious illness rates that informed Ferguson's paper was available earlier to the UK government at the EU COVID19 information sharing meeting, but the government wasn't aware of it due to it boycotting that meeting for reasons of Brexit ideology.
Is there a source for the claim that this information was only shared at this meeting, and not more widely? Seems a bit strange to keep information like this secret.
The UK apparently refused to join this series of meetings although it could have done under transition rules, because it has a policy of boycotting all EU meetings during the transition. It wasn't EU secrecy; it was simply a question of UK government ideology. Other member states asset that detailed information on the Italian situation was available at that meeting.
Comments
Current strategy / modeling,
"The need for intensive care beds will get very close to capacity in some areas, but won’t breached it at a national level, said Ferguson. "
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2238578-uk-has-enough-intensive-care-units-for-coronavirus-expert-predicts/#ixzz6Hi5sFgte
I think everybody is praying this is correct.
The reluctance of a substantial chunk of the public to socially distance does show that the old strategy would always have been a disaster. With so many people not taking it seriously, the virus would have swept through the population *including* the vulnerable. Whatever happens now will not be as bad as that. Those who believed in the old strategy should have been arguing for brief very firm measures to focus minds first.
She reveals that with only a week to go she has not received a voting form. They have gone out in batches ... and Momentum is in the background .... just sayin`
Firstly, he absolutely did want to do it. That's not a criticism. But if he'd not wanted to do it, he would not have stood, or would have stood aside when there was a no confidence vote, or handed over after 2017 (having secured a good result).
Secondly, it's not his 2017 result that will be remembered but his 2019 result (and indeed the fact that he lost twice). He didn't show that someone like him could win in future at all - he showed that they'd lose and set the movement back.
Thirdly, you can believe the "good character" stuff all you want, but that isn't his reputation and his legacy. The vast majority just don't accept it. He presided over a party where his office manipulated the disciplinary process to help friends and co-travellers, and where good MPs were bullied and harassed for any criticism. Maybe he was simply a blind idiot, and all that was Milne and others (who, by the way, was awarded a fat contract with no doubt generous redundancy provisions when Corbyn was halfway out of the door). Maybe, but most think not.
Fourthly, he has demonstrably set back the prospects of a progressive, left or centre-left government by years. That wasn't his intention, of course, but he has. So this "he served his party and his country" stuff is utterly fatuous.
Fair enough to say you agreed with him on a lot of stuff and don't regret rolling the dice even if it was a failure with hindsight. But this idea that he leaves with his head held high and a proud record sticks in the throat of anyone in Labour or the progressive wing more generally who has even a little sense of reality or perspective. And it makes continued failure likely.
Usual caveat, and paraphrasing Dr McCoy, I'm a lawyer not a doctor....Jim.
He has also made Boris PM with a large majority, which admittedly might be seen as positive by some, but probably not by you!
They have expanded beds and staffing, by beg, borrow, and stealing stuff. But need to get the production lines bashing out these ventilators 24/7 and from somewhere more PPE.
Corbyn leaves the party in a far weaker state that he found it. Quick frankly I don’t even think he was all that radical.
Five wasted years is the best I can say for him.
So we are in lockdown until the test situation is sorted.
It was remiss of me not to sympathise with your loss. It's something that's never easy no matter how old or ill the person is. Best wishes at this time.
'Call for action after SNP whip gets Labour leader ballot'
https://tinyurl.com/t55ojqz
I doubt we are coming out of lockdown in 3 week though.
Hopefully among all the firefighting of those with the disease, there is lots of work done on how we manage the situation after we pass the peak and go forward towards another wave.
He has left a Labour Party tainted by more than whiff of "not patriotic" and also a party whose values have been revealed as being at odds with the working class conservatives whose votes the party have relied on forever.
These voters (which you disparagingly call WWC) saw the light at the last GE and held their noses and voted for the Conservatives. Now the spell is broken and these voters will not need to hold their noses next time.
This is the legacy he leaves. Sorry.
I heard a stat that only 33% of patients come back to their GP for the results of STD tests, how much fibbing will their be about results ?
How could that be done with a very infectious virus growing exponentially with hardly any testing?
https://twitter.com/mrianleslie/status/1242826190861340673
https://youtu.be/Wmo2mkezSJ0
From the perspective of Corbyn's part of the political spectrum, the tone of the current government may be far more unpleasant than the 2015 government, but (approach to the EU apart) its actions are far better. Corbyn has been a major factor in that.
Even assuming everyone meant 60% of the population, the end of summer meant the end of autumn, that people got the virus at an incredibly even rate, and assuming a miniscule hospitalisation rate you still had at least a thousand extra hospitalizations a week being admitted.
How could the NHS possibly have been predicted to cope?
With the power down, soon you wouldn’t have water coming out of your tap. You will depend on your neighbours for food and some warmth. You will become malnourished. You won’t know whether to stay or go. You will fear being violently killed before starving to death. ...
Recent research suggests that human societies will experience disruptions to their basic functioning within less than ten years due to climate stress. Such disruptions include increased levels of malnutrition, starvation, disease, civil conflict and war – and will not avoid affluent nations.
In a sense, at least XR are "optimists" enough that they think something can still be done to prevent catastrophic climate change and we just need to get cracking with it...
One point I want to clarify, the "radicalism" -
What I liked about it was the spirit - the egalitarianism, the rejection of business as usual and of being relaxed about inequality - not necessarily all of the actual polices.
I hope that under Starmer we keep the spirit and modernise the offering.
See that "s" there @Stocky ?
If it was found that relatively few in the population had been infected, then larger numbers of tests would of course be needed to determine exactly who could go back to work/perform essential caring duties for vulnerable etc without causing further spread.
(All assuming immunity after confirmed past infection)
But that label, however obnoxious, correctly holds him responsible for the policy. It doesn't make it his idea.
Of course, Covid-19 has blown a bloody great bazooka through the public finances, but that has zero to do with Corbyn and is not exactly anything to celebrate; it simply means more austerity for years to come, or more inflation, or probably both.
Katie Dixon, who is studying adult nursing at Birmingham City University, created the group to help in the Kings Heath community, with another 250 kind-hearted residents awaiting approval to join the ranks.
So how much discount do we give pols on this? Or is it just for those we agree with?
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/watch-jacob-rees-mogg-s-unlikely-tribute-to-jeremy-corbyn
The crisis will now solidify this. Corbyn's role in this process isn't yet clear or decided by history , but it has happened.
'Call yourself a legionnaire!!!! Get that top button undone you 'orrible little man!'
What we definitely shouldn't do is give him credit today for bandying big numbers about. Any fool can do that.
Venezuela’s embattled president Nicolás Maduro has suggested a novel solution for the coronavirus crisis: drink more tea
Need 140,000 beds - have 53,000
40,000 ICU cases - 3,000 ICU beds
@HYUFD you’ll be hearing from my lawyers.
This latest figures bring the total to 6,412 cases and 356 deaths in the country of 17 million.