Re Corbyn and the discussion on the previous thread about whether he was the worst Labour leader ever (but also relevant to this one).
He is the worst not because of his electoral failures or the votes he lost - though these are very good reasons for criticising him - but because under his leadership the Labour Party became morally degraded. That is his legacy and it is infinitely worse than that of other losing Labour leaders because it goes to the heart of the sort of party Labour claims to be.
And Starmer - if he wins - will have this as his most important party task, clearing out Labour’s Augean stables.
Agree entirely - while Labour leaders in my lifetime have all had failings - as we all do - I never doubted that their world view was sincerely held and the result of careful thought and analysis - even if I disagreed with their conclusions. Corbyn is in a league apart. Corbyn's world view is so warped by reflexive anti-Western prejudice (and goodness knows there's plenty to criticise the West for) he supports odious regimes - orders of magnitude worse than those he criticises and gave a free pass to anti-semites because "their heart was in the right place" (i.e. anti-Western).
May this nightmare for the Labour Party and country be over soon.
Individual groups of clinicians provided accurate data from studies within their hospitals describing the symptoms, CFR, the hospitalisations %, the severe-mild mix, etc. This data was published in the Lancet, NEJM and JAMA early doors and I read it contemporaneously. The results have been borne out by what we have seen in Western Europe and the US. So the evidence provided by individual groups of Chinese on the relative impact was true.
What was undoubtedly not true, in my view, was the scale of the problem in China. The 3000 deaths is nonsensical.
So it's a bit like completing a picture in great detail in one corner (the hospital publications) whilst leaving the rest of the picture blank (the macro statistics managed by the Chinese state). I imagine that was a calculated decision the Chinese took to release information which was easily verifiable, whilst not telling the truth on a macro scale on information which is much harder to verify, without being there.
Also, it enables them to say they warned the world of this.
The problem is that it is clear that basically every Western government and their advisers looked at the absolute scale and said 90,000 infected and 3,000 dead after 3 months unrestricted spread we can cope with something on that scale if we dampen this down a bit (and probably a load of western "exceptionalism" i.e. better healthcare, less pollution, lower smoking rates).
A bit of that and bit of them just not trusting the data *at all*. Only when the data started coming out of Italy did things change. Too late in my view but there we are.
To me it's a case of: Do I trust data generated by a bunch of medics working in a hospital? Yes Do I trust data generated by the Chinese state? No. Do I observe, through social media, evidence of the Chinese state welding people into their flats? Yes.
Our first confirmed CV death was 5 March, so not sure if it tells us anything interesting.
What do you make of the Diamond Princess study?
I think it is a study of how coronavirus progresses with proper first world first class medical interventions in a health system working well within its design limits. What I fear is not CV itself but CV in an entirely overwhelmed health system. Given the age profile of DP patients it is possible that a large majority of them would have been triaged out of any sort of care except palliative under rules being explicitly applied in London and Italy, giving rather different outcomes. In short, I think it is irrelevant.
It is the only study we have of a population undergoing CV and we can see its effects. You can weight stuff or hypothesise but it remains to my mind a good indicator of possible overall CFR/IFR outcomes.
Individual groups of clinicians provided accurate data from studies within their hospitals describing the symptoms, CFR, the hospitalisations %, the severe-mild mix, etc. This data was published in the Lancet, NEJM and JAMA early doors and I read it contemporaneously. The results have been borne out by what we have seen in Western Europe and the US. So the evidence provided by individual groups of Chinese on the relative impact was true.
What was undoubtedly not true, in my view, was the scale of the problem in China. The 3000 deaths is nonsensical.
So it's a bit like completing a picture in great detail in one corner (the hospital publications) whilst leaving the rest of the picture blank (the macro statistics managed by the Chinese state). I imagine that was a calculated decision the Chinese took to release information which was easily verifiable, whilst not telling the truth on a macro scale on information which is much harder to verify, without being there.
Also, it enables them to say they warned the world of this.
The problem is that it is clear that basically every Western government and their advisers looked at the absolute scale and said 90,000 infected and 3,000 dead after 3 months unrestricted spread we can cope with something on that scale if we dampen this down a bit (and probably a load of western "exceptionalism" i.e. better healthcare, less pollution, lower smoking rates).
A bit of that and bit of them just not trusting the data *at all*. Only when the data started coming out of Italy did things change. Too late in my view but there we are.
To me it's a case of: Do I trust data generated by a bunch of medics working in a hospital? Yes Do I trust data generated by the Chinese state? No. Do I observe, through social media, evidence of the Chinese state welding people into their flats? Yes.
The picture was there. It just needed filling in.
Shades of the CIA over-estimating the Soviet Union.
They were getting stolen copies of the minutes presented to the Presidium - the heart of the Kremlin.
The problem was that by the time reports got to the level of the Kremlin they were lies built on lies built on lies.
Heinlein (the SF Author) recounted asking a logistics expert about Moscow, and the food supply in the 60s - and getting an answer, based on the cold facts of what was possible. And very different to what everyone else said.
Re Corbyn and the discussion on the previous thread about whether he was the worst Labour leader ever (but also relevant to this one).
He is the worst not because of his electoral failures or the votes he lost - though these are very good reasons for criticising him - but because under his leadership the Labour Party became morally degraded. That is his legacy and it is infinitely worse than that of other losing Labour leaders because it goes to the heart of the sort of party Labour claims to be.
And Starmer - if he wins - will have this as his most important party task, clearing out Labour’s Augean stables.
Arguably, however, even as an electoral force he was Labour's worst leader. Henderson may have lost more seats in 1931, but at least he had a valid excuse - a literal split in the party, the Depression, Snowden's changes to welfare that so outraged Labour supporters, the collapse in funding, and a united opposition that seemed out to get Labour back.
Meanwhile, Corbyn faced a government that had just expelled several Cabinet ministers, after a decade of austerity and political paralysis, led by a man whose own backbenchers openly described as a charlatan and a liar.
And he still lost 60 seats. That's equal to the decline that Foot suffered (60) facing a united party led by a wartime prime minister when Foot was being outflanked to his right by the SDP.
It was a shockingly bad performance.
Yes it was. But I think the stain of anti-semitism is what will forever mark him out and the Labour Party for allowing it to happen.
As I put it in a thread header a while back:-
“ The best – and most alarming example of this – was the manner in which Labour succumbed to the virus of anti-semitism in a very short time frame, despite – or perhaps because of – its conviction that it was a moral, anti-racist and therefore “good” party. Having satisfied itself of its impeccably anti-racist position, it felt no need to ask itself any questions about the leader it elected, the people he attracted, those he made his closest advisors and why, despite his repeated claims to be doing so, he was unable to deal with the issue. The default instinct was to attack those who pointed this out, describe the concerns as smears and generally behave like an aggrieved victim. Corbyn is on his way out but his time as leader is an example of how easily apparently important and long-held principles can be abandoned, especially when hatred and defeat of some Other (the Tories, in this case) is all that matters.
This is not just a lesson for Labour. It is a lesson for voters too. Over 10 million of them rationalised away any queasiness they may have felt and voted for a party which shares the unenviable claim of being, like the neo-Nazi BNP, investigated by the EHRC for anti-semitism and institutional racism. This was not a deal-breaker.”
That is the measure of what the new leader will have to deal with. How rotten has the Labour Party - once described as a moral crusade - become that this could happen to it with the enthusiastic support of so many of its members?
The Labour Party will need rebuilding from the bottom up and not merely a fresh coat of paint on the front door.
I was in Tesco's 2 days ago (heroic, I know) and I would estimate that about half of the customers had scarves over their faces. Its really caught on.
Yes, I can see myself doing that. I would feel ridiculous in a mask but a scarf wrapped stylishly and enigmatically around my lower face appeals. Touch of the Omar Sharifs in Lawrence Of Arabia.
Individual groups of clinicians provided accurate data from studies within their hospitals describing the symptoms, CFR, the hospitalisations %, the severe-mild mix, etc. This data was published in the Lancet, NEJM and JAMA early doors and I read it contemporaneously. The results have been borne out by what we have seen in Western Europe and the US. So the evidence provided by individual groups of Chinese on the relative impact was true.
What was undoubtedly not true, in my view, was the scale of the problem in China. The 3000 deaths is nonsensical.
So it's a bit like completing a picture in great detail in one corner (the hospital publications) whilst leaving the rest of the picture blank (the macro statistics managed by the Chinese state). I imagine that was a calculated decision the Chinese took to release information which was easily verifiable, whilst not telling the truth on a macro scale on information which is much harder to verify, without being there.
Also, it enables them to say they warned the world of this.
The problem is that it is clear that basically every Western government and their advisers looked at the absolute scale and said 90,000 infected and 3,000 dead after 3 months unrestricted spread we can cope with something on that scale if we dampen this down a bit (and probably a load of western "exceptionalism" i.e. better healthcare, less pollution, lower smoking rates).
A bit of that and bit of them just not trusting the data *at all*. Only when the data started coming out of Italy did things change. Too late in my view but there we are.
To me it's a case of: Do I trust data generated by a bunch of medics working in a hospital? Yes Do I trust data generated by the Chinese state? No. Do I observe, through social media, evidence of the Chinese state welding people into their flats? Yes.
The picture was there. It just needed filling in.
I don't disagree with that. To be fair though, the WHO said they believe the Chinese figures, so then you are like erhhh yes, no, yes, no, what do I do.
The west has been caught out though, I think our experience of SARs and MERs also led to the experts thinking well it will be like that and when it gets to the West it won't be on the same scale.
Where as South Korea got hit hard by these and they take no chances.
The logarithmic charts bears this out but there is probably a bit to go to absolute peak, let alone the long decline. Horrendous.
Spain likely to overtake Italy in numbers of cases I think.
Unlike many here - I don't buy this theory that China are fiddling their numbers. Certainly they are missing cases, as other countries are also.
I'm hopeful Europe will follow a similar trajectory. The Italian growth rate looks much lower than previously - it was just 4% yesterday, it seems to be following the same pattern as China post lockdown.
Our first confirmed CV death was 5 March, so not sure if it tells us anything interesting.
I found the fact far fewer people have died this year than on average quite interesting.
We did have a very mild winter?
The mild winter didn't give a chance to kill off bugs though.
And anecdotally, so many people had a really nasty sub-Covid-19 type coughing bug. You might have expected that to carry off a good number of the vulnerable.
Our first confirmed CV death was 5 March, so not sure if it tells us anything interesting.
I found the fact far fewer people have died this year than on average quite interesting.
We did have a very mild winter?
The mild winter didn't give a chance to kill off bugs though.
And anecdotally, so many people had a really nasty sub-Covid-19 type coughing bug. You might have expected that to carry off a good number of the vulnerable.
Individual groups of clinicians provided accurate data from studies within their hospitals describing the symptoms, CFR, the hospitalisations %, the severe-mild mix, etc. This data was published in the Lancet, NEJM and JAMA early doors and I read it contemporaneously. The results have been borne out by what we have seen in Western Europe and the US. So the evidence provided by individual groups of Chinese on the relative impact was true.
What was undoubtedly not true, in my view, was the scale of the problem in China. The 3000 deaths is nonsensical.
So it's a bit like completing a picture in great detail in one corner (the hospital publications) whilst leaving the rest of the picture blank (the macro statistics managed by the Chinese state). I imagine that was a calculated decision the Chinese took to release information which was easily verifiable, whilst not telling the truth on a macro scale on information which is much harder to verify, without being there.
Also, it enables them to say they warned the world of this.
The problem is that it is clear that basically every Western government and their advisers looked at the absolute scale and said 90,000 infected and 3,000 dead after 3 months unrestricted spread we can cope with something on that scale if we dampen this down a bit (and probably a load of western "exceptionalism" i.e. better healthcare, less pollution, lower smoking rates).
A bit of that and bit of them just not trusting the data *at all*. Only when the data started coming out of Italy did things change. Too late in my view but there we are.
To me it's a case of: Do I trust data generated by a bunch of medics working in a hospital? Yes Do I trust data generated by the Chinese state? No. Do I observe, through social media, evidence of the Chinese state welding people into their flats? Yes.
The picture was there. It just needed filling in.
I don't disagree with that. To be fair though, the WHO said they believe the Chinese data, so then you are like erhhh yes, no, yes, no, what do I do.
The WHO have shown themselves to be the new "Toenails"
The most sensible thing he can do is offer to assist and support the government in any way he can through the crisis (and the government would be silly to resist, should invite him to the key COBR meetings etc.), which buys him a few months to sort out as best he can the internal party problems caused by the Corbynites.
People seem very keen that during this crisis the LABOUR opposition ceases to oppose the TORY government.
I wonder if this sentiment would apply to the same extent if the parties were reversed?
You mean as happened in 2001 with the Foot and Mouth crisis?
Yes, absolutely. Starmer should be allowed full access to the government's scientists and data, and should have a seat at the COBR meetings to bring his view to the table where the key decisions are made.
I wouldn't have said the same about Corbyn though.
You rather defeat your arguement with your final sentence though.
Not at all. I don't trust JC as far as I can throw him, and don't believe there's a pragmatic or co-operative bone in his body.
The most sensible thing he can do is offer to assist and support the government in any way he can through the crisis (and the government would be silly to resist, should invite him to the key COBR meetings etc.), which buys him a few months to sort out as best he can the internal party problems caused by the Corbynites.
People seem very keen that during this crisis the LABOUR opposition ceases to oppose the TORY government.
I wonder if this sentiment would apply to the same extent if the parties were reversed?
Yes. Oppositions dont automatically oppose anything that comes from government, it picks and chooses what to oppose, when and how eg labour did not oppose Cameron on gay marriage. By and large I think the opposition has been reasonable right now, since scrutiny should not cease. I'd also say if Corbyn showed symptoms then he should get priority for a test like the PM.
I think in fairness that Labour pushed hard on the gig worker/low paid issues and that they were right to do so. I remember Matt Hancock acknowledging in the Commons that something he was doing was an idea from Jon Ashworth for which he was grateful.
I think that indicates the job of the opposition. To be independent thinkers, to look for consequences that the government might not have thought of, to make sure that the most vulnerable are not being overlooked. An example yesterday was Emily Thornberry pressing the case of Brits stuck overseas and being ripped off by airlines taking ridiculous amounts of money for flights then cancelling them and issuing vouchers. She was right to do so (even if some of those so stuck really should never have left in the first place).
Whinging on and on about the level of testing, not so much. Its clear that if the government had the capacity to do more testing they would be doing it.
If they haven't got the capacity they should have rectified that quickly weeks ago.
Are the WHO whinging on and on for the sake of it or is it as they say the single most important action.
How do you magic up PCR machines?
Did Johnson realise he didnt have a magic PCR tree when he promised to ramp up to 25k?
Germany managed it S Korea managed it why cant we?
They had a lot more PCR machines to start with.
Also, I don't know, but I presume PCR machines are like ventilators, only a few companies in the world make them. Are we going to be shocked if we find Germany is a massive producer of them, given high tech manufacturing is a core part of their economy.
Germany testing is exceptionally high compared to rest of Europe. If this was easy, every European country would be running 100,000s of tests a day. They aren't, which suggests, shortage of crucial parts in the supply chain.
Also, the UK have been very wary of getting caught out like Spain, with dodgy tests. Hence, why these anti-body tests are taking so long to validate.
Should the UK be doing better, absolutely. I believe one thing they have been slow to do is demand that universities process these, which would add capacity. But it is clear, that because the whole world is fighting over the machinery and base chemicals, like they are ventilators, it isn't trivial to ramp up anti-gen tests.
Also Germany has around 13 nurses per 1000; we have around 8, I think.
As horse races go this one has indeed been pretty dull and of course the cancellation of the latter debates didn’t really help. RLB has been so poor that you honestly wonder whether she should even be in the shadow cabinet. And then there’s Jeremy. What on earth do you do with him?
Labour should get some sort of a bounce from the new leader but he has a tricky hand to play.
If I were Starmer I would be wanting the Corbyn left to be shouting from the rooftops about betrayal each and every day. It will be the quickest way to demsointrate that things are changing. It will also ensure that internally more and more members turn away from them.
"It will be the quickest way to demsointrate that things are changing."
Labour elect a posh white bloke who has been to Oxbridge and call it change.
I look forward to the self righteous lectures on "diversity"
I don't think Starmer went to Oxbridge, but that is by the by. Everything Starmer has achieved he has achieved through hard work and talent. He is basically a turbo-charged you.
He comes from the same clique that gave us Boris, Cameron and Blair.
It's not actually change, it's simply more establishment.
So you will be cheering from the rafters when Long Bailey gets the nod on Saturday? And not because she is not an election losing disaster, but because she is a genuinely working-class Manchester Solicitor.
Long-Bailey's background is no different to Starmer's. He got further because he is smarter.
Well he also had the opportunity to go to a grammar school, which RLB might not have, and the fortune for it to be turned into a private school while he was there.
To be fair to both Bailey and Starmer, they have achieved success through their own endeavours. I much prefer that to having life handed to one on a silver plate.
Michael Young, may forever be vilified for spawning Toby, but one of his other creations, the notion of 'meritocracy' I like very much.
Though didn't "The Rise of the Meritocracy" consider it to be a bad thing? Particularly by lacking care and attention on society's more vulnerable?
Yes it did.I am conflicted in many ways with regard to the theory, but in principle I like the idea of promotion through merit.
I have noted down thread that I dislike the idea of selective education as a result of my own experience at grammar school. However it must be said that grammar schools benefitted many clever and hardworking financially poorer children, but it also left behind those who went to secondary moderns. So although I could argue in principle for grammar schools as a tool of self improvement, I am conflicted as to those it leaves behind. But then I am further conflicted by private schools where the parents of stupid and lazy children can buy future preferences on the basis of their wealth.
The most sensible thing he can do is offer to assist and support the government in any way he can through the crisis (and the government would be silly to resist, should invite him to the key COBR meetings etc.), which buys him a few months to sort out as best he can the internal party problems caused by the Corbynites.
People seem very keen that during this crisis the LABOUR opposition ceases to oppose the TORY government.
I wonder if this sentiment would apply to the same extent if the parties were reversed?
Yes. Oppositions dont automatically oppose anything that comes from government, it picks and chooses what to oppose, when and how eg labour did not oppose Cameron on gay marriage. By and large I think the opposition has been reasonable right now, since scrutiny should not cease. I'd also say if Corbyn showed symptoms then he should get priority for a test like the PM.
I think in fairness that Labour pushed hard on the gig worker/low paid issues and that they were right to do so. I remember Matt Hancock acknowledging in the Commons that something he was doing was an idea from Jon Ashworth for which he was grateful.
I think that indicates the job of the opposition. To be independent thinkers, to look for consequences that the government might not have thought of, to make sure that the most vulnerable are not being overlooked. An example yesterday was Emily Thornberry pressing the case of Brits stuck overseas and being ripped off by airlines taking ridiculous amounts of money for flights then cancelling them and issuing vouchers. She was right to do so (even if some of those so stuck really should never have left in the first place).
Whinging on and on about the level of testing, not so much. Its clear that if the government had the capacity to do more testing they would be doing it.
If they haven't got the capacity they should have rectified that quickly weeks ago.
Are the WHO whinging on and on for the sake of it or is it as they say the single most important action.
How do you magic up PCR machines?
Did Johnson realise he didnt have a magic PCR tree when he promised to ramp up to 25k?
Germany managed it S Korea managed it why cant we?
They had a lot more PCR machines to start with.
Also, I don't know, but I presume PCR machines are like ventilators, only a few companies in the world make them. Are we going to be shocked if we find Germany is a massive producer of them, given high tech manufacturing is a core part of their economy.
Germany testing is exceptionally high compared to rest of Europe. If this was easy, every European country would be running 100,000s of tests a day. They aren't, which suggests, shortage of crucial parts in the supply chain.
Also, the UK have been very wary of getting caught out like Spain, with dodgy tests. Hence, why these anti-body tests are taking so long to validate.
Should the UK be doing better, absolutely. I believe one thing they have been slow to do is demand that universities process these, which would add capacity. But it is clear, that because the whole world is fighting over the machinery and base chemicals, like they are ventilators, it isn't trivial to ramp up anti-gen tests.
Also Germany has around 13 nurses per 1000; we have around 8, I think.
No, you have read that wrong, its the other way round....
Germany has a much worse nurse per patient ratio. They have 13 patients per nurse, Britain it is 8.6.
Individual groups of clinicians provided accurate data from studies within their hospitals describing the symptoms, CFR, the hospitalisations %, the severe-mild mix, etc. This data was published in the Lancet, NEJM and JAMA early doors and I read it contemporaneously. The results have been borne out by what we have seen in Western Europe and the US. So the evidence provided by individual groups of Chinese on the relative impact was true.
What was undoubtedly not true, in my view, was the scale of the problem in China. The 3000 deaths is nonsensical.
So it's a bit like completing a picture in great detail in one corner (the hospital publications) whilst leaving the rest of the picture blank (the macro statistics managed by the Chinese state). I imagine that was a calculated decision the Chinese took to release information which was easily verifiable, whilst not telling the truth on a macro scale on information which is much harder to verify, without being there.
It will also give a mass of ammunition to those who were already saying "You can't trust China" - Huawei being the most obvious example of working with the Chinese that will now get re-opened on the back of their lack of candour.
I was in Tesco's 2 days ago (heroic, I know) and I would estimate that about half of the customers had scarves over their faces. Its really caught on.
Yes, I can see myself doing that. I would feel ridiculous in a mask but a scarf wrapped stylishly and enigmatically around my lower face appeals. Touch of the Omar Sharifs in Lawrence Of Arabia.
You're going to appear out of the heat haze on a camel ?
In the eastern German city of Jena, shoppers and passengers on public transport will be required to wear a face mask. In the absence of a mask, people will be allowed to wear a scarf, as long as it covers the nose and mouth.
I think this is going to be commonplace law across Europe until a vaccine is found.
I was in Tesco's 2 days ago (heroic, I know) and I would estimate that about half of the customers had scarves over their faces. Its really caught on.
I saw 4 people only with masks on in the supermarket at the weekend. All 4 were young men (30 or younger i;d guess.
Individual groups of clinicians provided accurate data from studies within their hospitals describing the symptoms, CFR, the hospitalisations %, the severe-mild mix, etc. This data was published in the Lancet, NEJM and JAMA early doors and I read it contemporaneously. The results have been borne out by what we have seen in Western Europe and the US. So the evidence provided by individual groups of Chinese on the relative impact was true.
What was undoubtedly not true, in my view, was the scale of the problem in China. The 3000 deaths is nonsensical.
So it's a bit like completing a picture in great detail in one corner (the hospital publications) whilst leaving the rest of the picture blank (the macro statistics managed by the Chinese state). I imagine that was a calculated decision the Chinese took to release information which was easily verifiable, whilst not telling the truth on a macro scale on information which is much harder to verify, without being there.
Also, it enables them to say they warned the world of this.
The problem is that it is clear that basically every Western government and their advisers looked at the absolute scale and said 90,000 infected and 3,000 dead after 3 months unrestricted spread we can cope with something on that scale if we dampen this down a bit (and probably a load of western "exceptionalism" i.e. better healthcare, less pollution, lower smoking rates).
A bit of that and bit of them just not trusting the data *at all*. Only when the data started coming out of Italy did things change. Too late in my view but there we are.
To me it's a case of: Do I trust data generated by a bunch of medics working in a hospital? Yes Do I trust data generated by the Chinese state? No. Do I observe, through social media, evidence of the Chinese state welding people into their flats? Yes.
The picture was there. It just needed filling in.
I don't disagree with that. To be fair though, the WHO said they believe the Chinese figures, so then you are like erhhh yes, no, yes, no, what do I do.
The west has been caught out though, I think our experience of SARs and MERs also led to the experts thinking well it will be like that and when it gets to the West it won't be on the same scale.
Where as South Korea got hit hard by these and they take no chances.
Yes agree. So the question is what do we make of the WHO who sent a delegation in and tried to verify the statistics? Hoodwinked on the macro-evidence or something worse?
The early response from the WHO doesn't look great to me.
Perhaps those countries who are experienced with epidemics in that part of the world are better at reading the runes than the naive West.
Our first confirmed CV death was 5 March, so not sure if it tells us anything interesting.
What do you make of the Diamond Princess study?
I think it is a study of how coronavirus progresses with proper first world first class medical interventions in a health system working well within its design limits. What I fear is not CV itself but CV in an entirely overwhelmed health system. Given the age profile of DP patients it is possible that a large majority of them would have been triaged out of any sort of care except palliative under rules being explicitly applied in London and Italy, giving rather different outcomes. In short, I think it is irrelevant.
It is the only study we have of a population undergoing CV and we can see its effects. You can weight stuff or hypothesise but it remains to my mind a good indicator of possible overall CFR/IFR outcomes.
The hypothesis in applying the study to the UK is "Assume a perfectly functioning medical system," and we know for certain that that is counterfactual.
As horse races go this one has indeed been pretty dull and of course the cancellation of the latter debates didn’t really help. RLB has been so poor that you honestly wonder whether she should even be in the shadow cabinet. And then there’s Jeremy. What on earth do you do with him?
Labour should get some sort of a bounce from the new leader but he has a tricky hand to play.
If I were Starmer I would be wanting the Corbyn left to be shouting from the rooftops about betrayal each and every day. It will be the quickest way to demsointrate that things are changing. It will also ensure that internally more and more members turn away from them.
"It will be the quickest way to demsointrate that things are changing."
Labour elect a posh white bloke who has been to Oxbridge and call it change.
I look forward to the self righteous lectures on "diversity"
I don't think Starmer went to Oxbridge, but that is by the by. Everything Starmer has achieved he has achieved through hard work and talent. He is basically a turbo-charged you.
He comes from the same clique that gave us Boris, Cameron and Blair.
It's not actually change, it's simply more establishment.
So you will be cheering from the rafters when Long Bailey gets the nod on Saturday? And not because she is not an election losing disaster, but because she is a genuinely working-class Manchester Solicitor.
Long-Bailey's background is no different to Starmer's. He got further because he is smarter.
Well he also had the opportunity to go to a grammar school, which RLB might not have, and the fortune for it to be turned into a private school while he was there.
To be fair to both Bailey and Starmer, they have achieved success through their own endeavours. I much prefer that to having life handed to one on a silver plate.
Michael Young, may forever be vilified for spawning Toby, but one of his other creations, the notion of 'meritocracy' I like very much.
Though didn't "The Rise of the Meritocracy" consider it to be a bad thing? Particularly by lacking care and attention on society's more vulnerable?
Yes it did.I am conflicted in many ways with regard to the theory, but in principle I like the idea of promotion through merit.
I have noted down thread that I dislike the idea of selective education as a result of my own experience at grammar school. However it must be said that grammar schools benefitted many clever and hardworking financially poorer children, but it also left behind those who went to secondary moderns. So although I could argue in principle for grammar schools as a tool of self improvement, I am conflicted as to those it leaves behind. But then I am further conflicted by private schools where the parents of stupid and lazy children can buy future preferences on the basis of their wealth.
The Rise of the Meritocracy is quite dystopian in its view of a society transformed from being unjustly unequal to one justly unequal.
It is a vision where the "left behind" deserve their fate. Perhaps not compatible with what Brexit voters in Hartlepool and Stoke wanted. The book ends with a mutinous rising of the lower orders too.
As horse races go this one has indeed been pretty dull and of course the cancellation of the latter debates didn’t really help. RLB has been so poor that you honestly wonder whether she should even be in the shadow cabinet. And then there’s Jeremy. What on earth do you do with him?
Labour should get some sort of a bounce from the new leader but he has a tricky hand to play.
If I were Starmer I would be wanting the Corbyn left to be shouting from the rooftops about betrayal each and every day. It will be the quickest way to demsointrate that things are changing. It will also ensure that internally more and more members turn away from them.
"It will be the quickest way to demsointrate that things are changing."
Labour elect a posh white bloke who has been to Oxbridge and call it change.
I look forward to the self righteous lectures on "diversity"
I don't think Starmer went to Oxbridge, but that is by the by. Everything Starmer has achieved he has achieved through hard work and talent. He is basically a turbo-charged you.
He comes from the same clique that gave us Boris, Cameron and Blair.
It's not actually change, it's simply more establishment.
So you will be cheering from the rafters when Long Bailey gets the nod on Saturday? And not because she is not an election losing disaster, but because she is a genuinely working-class Manchester Solicitor.
Long-Bailey's background is no different to Starmer's. He got further because he is smarter.
Well he also had the opportunity to go to a grammar school, which RLB might not have, and the fortune for it to be turned into a private school while he was there.
Of course. But they both went to law school and they both qualified to practise law.
Sounds like she did it with less help
How do you figure that out?
Edit: must be v frustrating for your dad and the whole family.
Well I thought going to a grammar/private school would generally be considered more helpful than going to what I believe to be a non grammar/private school.
I’d like my kids to go to a grammar or private school rather than an academy or comp anyway
Yes that can be true. It appears that Starmer took the 11-plus and LB either didn't or took it and failed. Everything seemed to flow from that. She then went to a co-ed, and Manchester Metropolitan Uni, he to Leeds Uni. He studied law, she didn't but did a conversion. They both then became lawyers.
So where does that leave them?
Pre-11yrs old = exactly the same background. Then, he had the opportunity at 11, took it and passed it; she we don't know. Then they both ended up as lawyers. Of the two paths, I would say that RLB worked harder to get to that point. But is Keir smarter? Case not proven (we can ask @DougSeal for the actual answer).
I find it difficult to grade lawyers by intelligence. Sure, there are some brilliant barristers whose intelligence would knock anyone here out of the park, like Jonathan Sumption, who really does have a brain the size of a planet. Then there’s Fiona Shackleton, 3rd from Exeter, who is far more successful than I’ll ever be and clearly gets results. It’s a difference between barristers and solicitors. Your typical barrister is brilliant in court but couldn’t find a practical solution to a problem if you tattooed it on his hand. Smart solicitors are never as book smart but can resolve an issue in a practical way barristers wouldn’t think of. But barristers are considered the brainy end of the profession.
If pushed, I think RLB would have had to have worked harder to get where she is simply by doing a conversion course, going to a less well regarded Uni and, dare I say it, because she’s a woman and there remains an inherent sexism in the profession. Whether KS is more intelligent - I can’t say - even though I would support him politically if I were still on the Red team. Let’s say I would be happier having him defend me on a criminal charge than negotiating a commercial settlement.
Re Corbyn and the discussion on the previous thread about whether he was the worst Labour leader ever (but also relevant to this one).
He is the worst not because of his electoral failures or the votes he lost - though these are very good reasons for criticising him - but because under his leadership the Labour Party became morally degraded. That is his legacy and it is infinitely worse than that of other losing Labour leaders because it goes to the heart of the sort of party Labour claims to be.
And Starmer - if he wins - will have this as his most important party task, clearing out Labour’s Augean stables.
Arguably, however, even as an electoral force he was Labour's worst leader. Henderson may have lost more seats in 1931, but at least he had a valid excuse - a literal split in the party, the Depression, Snowden's changes to welfare that so outraged Labour supporters, the collapse in funding, and a united opposition that seemed out to get Labour back.
Meanwhile, Corbyn faced a government that had just expelled several Cabinet ministers, after a decade of austerity and political paralysis, led by a man whose own backbenchers openly described as a charlatan and a liar.
And he still lost 60 seats. That's equal to the decline that Foot suffered (60) facing a united party led by a wartime prime minister when Foot was being outflanked to his right by the SDP.
It was a shockingly bad performance.
Yes it was. It came as no surprise to anyone who had even the most limited knowledge of Corbyn's backstory. Which I suppose is why the £3 Tories though it such a good idea to vote for him.
The most sensible thing he can do is offer to assist and support the government in any way he can through the crisis (and the government would be silly to resist, should invite him to the key COBR meetings etc.), which buys him a few months to sort out as best he can the internal party problems caused by the Corbynites.
People seem very keen that during this crisis the LABOUR opposition ceases to oppose the TORY government.
I wonder if this sentiment would apply to the same extent if the parties were reversed?
Yes. Oppositions dont automatically oppose anything that comes from government, it picks and chooses what to oppose, when and how eg labour did not oppose Cameron on gay marriage. By and large I think the opposition has been reasonable right now, since scrutiny should not cease. I'd also say if Corbyn showed symptoms then he should get priority for a test like the PM.
I think in fairness that Labour pushed hard on the gig worker/low paid issues and that they were right to do so. I remember Matt Hancock acknowledging in the Commons that something he was doing was an idea from Jon Ashworth for which he was grateful.
I think that indicates the job of the opposition. To be independent thinkers, to look for consequences that the government might not have thought of, to make sure that the most vulnerable are not being overlooked. An example yesterday was Emily Thornberry pressing the case of Brits stuck overseas and being ripped off by airlines taking ridiculous amounts of money for flights then cancelling them and issuing vouchers. She was right to do so (even if some of those so stuck really should never have left in the first place).
Whinging on and on about the level of testing, not so much. Its clear that if the government had the capacity to do more testing they would be doing it.
Absolutely they are still there to hold government to account. How they do so will be slightly different as indeed the government will be acting differently.
You mean as happened in 2001 with the Foot and Mouth crisis?
Yes, absolutely. Starmer should be allowed full access to the government's scientists and data, and should have a seat at the COBR meetings to bring his view to the table where the key decisions are made.
I wouldn't have said the same about Corbyn though.
I don't recall much of the Foot & Mouth crisis, I must confess. But why on earth would you not want Jeremy on board for the national effort on this one? Are you worried that he would leak confidential plans to the virus?
Because the belief - which I share - is that as an individual he would be unable to resist making mischief over this. Releasing data or playing politics. Something that Sturgeon and the other leaders have worked very hard not to do. Something I believe Starmer would resist as well. I just don't trust Corbyn, not as a Labour Leader but as an individual.
Edit: I should add that he is the only Labour leader in my lifetime that I would say this about. All of the rest I would trust implicitly to do the right thing rather than play politics.
Loving the theory that the BCG vaccine for TB given to everybody in the UK born up to about 1990 has a protective effect. Spain and italy didn't give it, Japan did.
If that is true then I may be OK as I have had dozens of doses of BCG as a form of immunotherapy. They were not injected though...
The most sensible thing he can do is offer to assist and support the government in any way he can through the crisis (and the government would be silly to resist, should invite him to the key COBR meetings etc.), which buys him a few months to sort out as best he can the internal party problems caused by the Corbynites.
People seem very keen that during this crisis the LABOUR opposition ceases to oppose the TORY government.
I wonder if this sentiment would apply to the same extent if the parties were reversed?
Yes. Oppositions dont automatically oppose anything that comes from government, it picks and chooses what to oppose, when and how eg labour did not oppose Cameron on gay marriage. By and large I think the opposition has been reasonable right now, since scrutiny should not cease. I'd also say if Corbyn showed symptoms then he should get priority for a test like the PM.
I think in fairness that Labour pushed hard on the gig worker/low paid issues and that they were right to do so. I remember Matt Hancock acknowledging in the Commons that something he was doing was an idea from Jon Ashworth for which he was grateful.
I think that indicates the job of the opposition. To be independent thinkers, to look for consequences that the government might not have thought of, to make sure that the most vulnerable are not being overlooked. An example yesterday was Emily Thornberry pressing the case of Brits stuck overseas and being ripped off by airlines taking ridiculous amounts of money for flights then cancelling them and issuing vouchers. She was right to do so (even if some of those so stuck really should never have left in the first place).
Whinging on and on about the level of testing, not so much. Its clear that if the government had the capacity to do more testing they would be doing it.
If they haven't got the capacity they should have rectified that quickly weeks ago.
Are the WHO whinging on and on for the sake of it or is it as they say the single most important action.
How do you magic up PCR machines?
Did Johnson realise he didnt have a magic PCR tree when he promised to ramp up to 25k?
Germany managed it S Korea managed it why cant we?
Installed capacity, I think. It takes time to add what you don't have.
Individual groups of clinicians provided accurate data from studies within their hospitals describing the symptoms, CFR, the hospitalisations %, the severe-mild mix, etc. This data was published in the Lancet, NEJM and JAMA early doors and I read it contemporaneously. The results have been borne out by what we have seen in Western Europe and the US. So the evidence provided by individual groups of Chinese on the relative impact was true.
What was undoubtedly not true, in my view, was the scale of the problem in China. The 3000 deaths is nonsensical.
So it's a bit like completing a picture in great detail in one corner (the hospital publications) whilst leaving the rest of the picture blank (the macro statistics managed by the Chinese state). I imagine that was a calculated decision the Chinese took to release information which was easily verifiable, whilst not telling the truth on a macro scale on information which is much harder to verify, without being there.
Also, it enables them to say they warned the world of this.
The problem is that it is clear that basically every Western government and their advisers looked at the absolute scale and said 90,000 infected and 3,000 dead after 3 months unrestricted spread we can cope with something on that scale if we dampen this down a bit (and probably a load of western "exceptionalism" i.e. better healthcare, less pollution, lower smoking rates).
A bit of that and bit of them just not trusting the data *at all*. Only when the data started coming out of Italy did things change. Too late in my view but there we are.
To me it's a case of: Do I trust data generated by a bunch of medics working in a hospital? Yes Do I trust data generated by the Chinese state? No. Do I observe, through social media, evidence of the Chinese state welding people into their flats? Yes.
The picture was there. It just needed filling in.
I don't disagree with that. To be fair though, the WHO said they believe the Chinese figures, so then you are like erhhh yes, no, yes, no, what do I do.
The west has been caught out though, I think our experience of SARs and MERs also led to the experts thinking well it will be like that and when it gets to the West it won't be on the same scale.
Where as South Korea got hit hard by these and they take no chances.
Yes agree. So the question is what do we make of the WHO who sent a delegation in and tried to verify the statistics? Hoodwinked on the macro-evidence or something worse?
The early response from the WHO doesn't look great to me.
Perhaps those countries who are experienced with epidemics in that part of the world are better at reading the runes than the naive West.
Well South Korea don't exactly trust China at the best of times...also, it is much easier for South Korea to get up and running. Given their previous experiences, they already has laws in place to turn on the likes of the spy system and of course testing capacity. Also, the public don't need educating, they know if the government tells them this is serious, there is no messing about.
Where I heard a South Korean expert say SK are bad, developing treatment and vaccines. He said the government have given the likes of Green Cross loads of money and they have never produced anything.
I was quite relieved my Dad didn’t get the ‘vulnerable’ text. His best mate, who has leukaemia, did. I have to skip the song ‘Old Friends’ on my Simon & Garfunkel playlist now, as it brings a tear to my eye.
Our first confirmed CV death was 5 March, so not sure if it tells us anything interesting.
What do you make of the Diamond Princess study?
To my mind the one great flaw with using the Diamond Princess is that it is not necessarily representative of the population as a whole. I suspect - although admittedly I have no evidence - that there would be a much higher proportion of the 'at risk' categories on board compared to the general population and that this would therefore skew the CFR,
As horse races go this one has indeed been pretty dull and of course the cancellation of the latter debates didn’t really help. RLB has been so poor that you honestly wonder whether she should even be in the shadow cabinet. And then there’s Jeremy. What on earth do you do with him?
Labour should get some sort of a bounce from the new leader but he has a tricky hand to play.
If I were Starmer I would be wanting the Corbyn left to be shouting from the rooftops about betrayal each and every day. It will be the quickest way to demsointrate that things are changing. It will also ensure that internally more and more members turn away from them.
"It will be the quickest way to demsointrate that things are changing."
Labour elect a posh white bloke who has been to Oxbridge and call it change.
I look forward to the self righteous lectures on "diversity"
I don't think Starmer went to Oxbridge, but that is by the by. Everything Starmer has achieved he has achieved through hard work and talent. He is basically a turbo-charged you.
He comes from the same clique that gave us Boris, Cameron and Blair.
It's not actually change, it's simply more establishment.
So you will be cheering from the rafters when Long Bailey gets the nod on Saturday? And not because she is not an election losing disaster, but because she is a genuinely working-class Manchester Solicitor.
Long-Bailey's background is no different to Starmer's. He got further because he is smarter.
Well he also had the opportunity to go to a grammar school, which RLB might not have, and the fortune for it to be turned into a private school while he was there.
To be fair to both Bailey and Starmer, they have achieved success through their own endeavours. I much prefer that to having life handed to one on a silver plate.
Michael Young, may forever be vilified for spawning Toby, but one of his other creations, the notion of 'meritocracy' I like very much.
Though didn't "The Rise of the Meritocracy" consider it to be a bad thing? Particularly by lacking care and attention on society's more vulnerable?
Yes it did.I am conflicted in many ways with regard to the theory, but in principle I like the idea of promotion through merit.
I have noted down thread that I dislike the idea of selective education as a result of my own experience at grammar school. However it must be said that grammar schools benefitted many clever and hardworking financially poorer children, but it also left behind those who went to secondary moderns. So although I could argue in principle for grammar schools as a tool of self improvement, I am conflicted as to those it leaves behind. But then I am further conflicted by private schools where the parents of stupid and lazy children can buy future preferences on the basis of their wealth.
The Rise of the Meritocracy is quite dystopian in its view of a society transformed from being unjustly unequal to one justly unequal.
It is a vision where the "left behind" deserve their fate. Perhaps not compatible with what Brexit voters in Hartlepool and Stoke wanted. The book ends with a mutinous rising of the lower orders too.
My father in law passed the 11 plus and went to grammar school, only to realise that, in the school, he was "one of the dumb kids" (his words), while still obviously fairly high on a population level. Demotivated him and it took him some years after leaving secondary school to regain his confidence, go back to education, get himself on teacher training course. He ultimately made headmaster and school inspector, but he's convinced he would have done better sooner as one of the smart kids in a comp than as one of he dumb kids in a grammar.
The most sensible thing he can do is offer to assist and support the government in any way he can through the crisis (and the government would be silly to resist, should invite him to the key COBR meetings etc.), which buys him a few months to sort out as best he can the internal party problems caused by the Corbynites.
People seem very keen that during this crisis the LABOUR opposition ceases to oppose the TORY government.
I wonder if this sentiment would apply to the same extent if the parties were reversed?
Yes. Oppositions dont automatically oppose anything that comes from government, it picks and chooses what to oppose, when and how eg labour did not oppose Cameron on gay marriage. By and large I think the opposition has been reasonable right now, since scrutiny should not cease. I'd also say if Corbyn showed symptoms then he should get priority for a test like the PM.
I think in fairness that Labour pushed hard on the gig worker/low paid issues and that they were right to do so. I remember Matt Hancock acknowledging in the Commons that something he was doing was an idea from Jon Ashworth for which he was grateful.
I think that indicates the job of the opposition. To be independent thinkers, to look for consequences that the government might not have thought of, to make sure that the most vulnerable are not being overlooked. An example yesterday was Emily Thornberry pressing the case of Brits stuck overseas and being ripped off by airlines taking ridiculous amounts of money for flights then cancelling them and issuing vouchers. She was right to do so (even if some of those so stuck really should never have left in the first place).
Whinging on and on about the level of testing, not so much. Its clear that if the government had the capacity to do more testing they would be doing it.
If they haven't got the capacity they should have rectified that quickly weeks ago.
Are the WHO whinging on and on for the sake of it or is it as they say the single most important action.
How do you magic up PCR machines?
Did Johnson realise he didnt have a magic PCR tree when he promised to ramp up to 25k?
Germany managed it S Korea managed it why cant we?
They had a lot more PCR machines to start with.
Also, I don't know, but I presume PCR machines are like ventilators, only a few companies in the world make them. Are we going to be shocked if we find Germany is a massive producer of them, given high tech manufacturing is a core part of their economy.
Germany testing is exceptionally high compared to rest of Europe. If this was easy, every European country would be running 100,000s of tests a day. They aren't, which suggests, shortage of crucial parts in the supply chain.
Also, the UK have been very wary of getting caught out like Spain, with dodgy tests. Hence, why these anti-body tests are taking so long to validate.
Should the UK be doing better, absolutely. I believe one thing they have been slow to do is demand that universities process these, which would add capacity. But it is clear, that because the whole world is fighting over the machinery and base chemicals, like they are ventilators, it isn't trivial to ramp up anti-gen tests.
Also Germany has around 13 nurses per 1000; we have around 8, I think.
No, you have read that wrong, its the other way round....
Germany has a much worse nurse per patient ratio. They have 13 patients per nurse, Britain it is 8.6.
As horse races go this one has indeed been pretty dull and of course the cancellation of the latter debates didn’t really help. RLB has been so poor that you honestly wonder whether she should even be in the shadow cabinet. And then there’s Jeremy. What on earth do you do with him?
Labour should get some sort of a bounce from the new leader but he has a tricky hand to play.
If I were Starmer I would be wanting the Corbyn left to be shouting from the rooftops about betrayal each and every day. It will be the quickest way to demsointrate that things are changing. It will also ensure that internally more and more members turn away from them.
"It will be the quickest way to demsointrate that things are changing."
Labour elect a posh white bloke who has been to Oxbridge and call it change.
I look forward to the self righteous lectures on "diversity"
I don't think Starmer went to Oxbridge, but that is by the by. Everything Starmer has achieved he has achieved through hard work and talent. He is basically a turbo-charged you.
He comes from the same clique that gave us Boris, Cameron and Blair.
It's not actually change, it's simply more establishment.
So you will be cheering from the rafters when Long Bailey gets the nod on Saturday? And not because she is not an election losing disaster, but because she is a genuinely working-class Manchester Solicitor.
Long-Bailey's background is no different to Starmer's. He got further because he is smarter.
Well he also had the opportunity to go to a grammar school, which RLB might not have, and the fortune for it to be turned into a private school while he was there.
To be fair to both Bailey and Starmer, they have achieved success through their own endeavours. I much prefer that to having life handed to one on a silver plate.
Michael Young, may forever be vilified for spawning Toby, but one of his other creations, the notion of 'meritocracy' I like very much.
Though didn't "The Rise of the Meritocracy" consider it to be a bad thing? Particularly by lacking care and attention on society's more vulnerable?
Yes it did.I am conflicted in many ways with regard to the theory, but in principle I like the idea of promotion through merit.
I have noted down thread that I dislike the idea of selective education as a result of my own experience at grammar school. However it must be said that grammar schools benefitted many clever and hardworking financially poorer children, but it also left behind those who went to secondary moderns. So although I could argue in principle for grammar schools as a tool of self improvement, I am conflicted as to those it leaves behind. But then I am further conflicted by private schools where the parents of stupid and lazy children can buy future preferences on the basis of their wealth.
The Rise of the Meritocracy is quite dystopian in its view of a society transformed from being unjustly unequal to one justly unequal.
It is a vision where the "left behind" deserve their fate. Perhaps not compatible with what Brexit voters in Hartlepool and Stoke wanted. The book ends with a mutinous rising of the lower orders too.
I have frequently observed that we have a new upper 10,000.
Their manners are far worse than the old upper 10,000 - and there are in fact several hundred thousand of them and they seem quite expensive to keep.
For self entitled arrogance, they appear to emulate the Marquis de Maynes in Scaramouche.
As horse races go this one has indeed been pretty dull and of course the cancellation of the latter debates didn’t really help. RLB has been so poor that you honestly wonder whether she should even be in the shadow cabinet. And then there’s Jeremy. What on earth do you do with him?
Labour should get some sort of a bounce from the new leader but he has a tricky hand to play.
If I were Starmer I would be wanting the Corbyn left to be shouting from the rooftops about betrayal each and every day. It will be the quickest way to demsointrate that things are changing. It will also ensure that internally more and more members turn away from them.
"It will be the quickest way to demsointrate that things are changing."
Labour elect a posh white bloke who has been to Oxbridge and call it change.
I look forward to the self righteous lectures on "diversity"
I don't think Starmer went to Oxbridge, but that is by the by. Everything Starmer has achieved he has achieved through hard work and talent. He is basically a turbo-charged you.
He comes from the same clique that gave us Boris, Cameron and Blair.
It's not actually change, it's simply more establishment.
So you will be cheering from the rafters when Long Bailey gets the nod on Saturday? And not because she is not an election losing disaster, but because she is a genuinely working-class Manchester Solicitor.
Long-Bailey's background is no different to Starmer's. He got further because he is smarter.
Well he also had the opportunity to go to a grammar school, which RLB might not have, and the fortune for it to be turned into a private school while he was there.
To be fair to both Bailey and Starmer, they have achieved success through their own endeavours. I much prefer that to having life handed to one on a silver plate.
Michael Young, may forever be vilified for spawning Toby, but one of his other creations, the notion of 'meritocracy' I like very much.
Though didn't "The Rise of the Meritocracy" consider it to be a bad thing? Particularly by lacking care and attention on society's more vulnerable?
Yes it did.I am conflicted in many ways with regard to the theory, but in principle I like the idea of promotion through merit.
I have noted down thread that I dislike the idea of selective education as a result of my own experience at grammar school. However it must be said that grammar schools benefitted many clever and hardworking financially poorer children, but it also left behind those who went to secondary moderns. So although I could argue in principle for grammar schools as a tool of self improvement, I am conflicted as to those it leaves behind. But then I am further conflicted by private schools where the parents of stupid and lazy children can buy future preferences on the basis of their wealth.
The Rise of the Meritocracy is quite dystopian in its view of a society transformed from being unjustly unequal to one justly unequal.
It is a vision where the "left behind" deserve their fate. Perhaps not compatible with what Brexit voters in Hartlepool and Stoke wanted. The book ends with a mutinous rising of the lower orders too.
What were Brexit or Trump if they were not in part at least the mutinous rising of the lower orders?
You mean as happened in 2001 with the Foot and Mouth crisis?
Yes, absolutely. Starmer should be allowed full access to the government's scientists and data, and should have a seat at the COBR meetings to bring his view to the table where the key decisions are made.
I wouldn't have said the same about Corbyn though.
I don't recall much of the Foot & Mouth crisis, I must confess. But why on earth would you not want Jeremy on board for the national effort on this one? Are you worried that he would leak confidential plans to the virus?
Because the belief - which I share - is that as an individual he would be unable to resist making mischief over this. Releasing data or playing politics. Something that Sturgeon and the other leaders have worked very hard not to do. Something I believe Starmer would resist as well. I just don't trust Corbyn, not as a Labour Leader but as an individual.
Edit: I should add that he is the only Labour leader in my lifetime that I would say this about. All of the rest I would trust implicitly to do the right thing rather than play politics.
Quite - MIchael Foot (who he seems to think he is) would be utterly trustworthy in that respect. Tony Benn I wouldn't have trusted if you paid me.
The most sensible thing he can do is offer to assist and support the government in any way he can through the crisis (and the government would be silly to resist, should invite him to the key COBR meetings etc.), which buys him a few months to sort out as best he can the internal party problems caused by the Corbynites.
People seem very keen that during this crisis the LABOUR opposition ceases to oppose the TORY government.
I wonder if this sentiment would apply to the same extent if the parties were reversed?
Yes. Oppositions dont automatically oppose anything that comes from government, it picks and chooses what to oppose, when and how eg labour did not oppose Cameron on gay marriage. By and large I think the opposition has been reasonable right now, since scrutiny should not cease. I'd also say if Corbyn showed symptoms then he should get priority for a test like the PM.
I think in fairness that Labour pushed hard on the gig worker/low paid issues and that they were right to do so. I remember Matt Hancock acknowledging in the Commons that something he was doing was an idea from Jon Ashworth for which he was grateful.
I think that indicates the job of the opposition. To be independent thinkers, to look for consequences that the government might not have thought of, to make sure that the most vulnerable are not being overlooked. An example yesterday was Emily Thornberry pressing the case of Brits stuck overseas and being ripped off by airlines taking ridiculous amounts of money for flights then cancelling them and issuing vouchers. She was right to do so (even if some of those so stuck really should never have left in the first place).
Whinging on and on about the level of testing, not so much. Its clear that if the government had the capacity to do more testing they would be doing it.
If they haven't got the capacity they should have rectified that quickly weeks ago.
Are the WHO whinging on and on for the sake of it or is it as they say the single most important action.
How do you magic up PCR machines?
Did Johnson realise he didnt have a magic PCR tree when he promised to ramp up to 25k?
Germany managed it S Korea managed it why cant we?
They had a lot more PCR machines to start with.
Also, I don't know, but I presume PCR machines are like ventilators, only a few companies in the world make them. Are we going to be shocked if we find Germany is a massive producer of them, given high tech manufacturing is a core part of their economy.
Germany testing is exceptionally high compared to rest of Europe. If this was easy, every European country would be running 100,000s of tests a day. They aren't, which suggests, shortage of crucial parts in the supply chain.
Also, the UK have been very wary of getting caught out like Spain, with dodgy tests. Hence, why these anti-body tests are taking so long to validate.
Should the UK be doing better, absolutely. I believe one thing they have been slow to do is demand that universities process these, which would add capacity. But it is clear, that because the whole world is fighting over the machinery and base chemicals, like they are ventilators, it isn't trivial to ramp up anti-gen tests.
Also Germany has around 13 nurses per 1000; we have around 8, I think.
No, you have read that wrong, its the other way round....
Germany has a much worse nurse per patient ratio. They have 13 patients per nurse, Britain it is 8.6.
Overall, I don't think anybody will be surprised that Germany has very good systems in place. It is a bit why I get very annoyed at any debate over healthcare being either you have to have the NHS or the crazy American system. Germany has neither.
But, in this extreme case, we are seeing France, Spain and Italy healthcare system either crash or absolutely on the edge, and nobody thinks for instance France's system is really crap and Northern Italy is on par with anywhere in Europe.
I have to say I was very surprised to find that Sweden, that model that so many people hold up as what we should aim for, has much lower ICU capacity etc. But, it is very easy to pick out something in hindsight, when a different once in a 100 year extreme incident could have hit and we find different resources in different countries lacking.
Putting testing aside, the rest, I think overall the UK organisational response has been good. Adding capacity to our system, and supporting people and businesses.
I kind of think it is a good idea, what gives me pause for thought is that we don’t know what effect having it has on people in a year or two. Kids are supposedly ok with having it, but how do we know if a baby gets it now, and shows no symptoms, they aren’t going to be affected as they grow?
FPT This is a post from my wife's cousin's daughter (58) living in Toronto This is a fearful illness
I am a presumptive case of Covid-19 waiting for Toronto Public Health to confirm (that seems like it is taking forever). I was wondering when I typed this post if there is actually a stigma to having Covid-19 but who cares. I am stuck at home, isolated, sick as hell and wondering when this is going to end. I have been hospitalized to get oxygen, my fever hit 40.1(104+). I now get winded going from the living room to the bathroom, my chest is tight, I feel like I have glass shards in my lungs, I have lost my sense of smell and taste. This has been hell and I am 10 days in. Nobody wants this! It is not a hoax, no one is immune, this is killing people! Be scared. People need to take this seriously and stay the fuck home. You do not want to be responsible for giving this to someone you love. People please start listening!!
How horrible. I hope she recovers soon. Although technically, Nadine Dorries mum was pretty much immune.
It is a graphic description of suffering. Thank you for your kind wishes
Her mother is in dementia care and she has only just lost her sister to breast cancer
Life is unbelievably difficult for so many
Acutely aware life is precious and fragile, especially having lost mum to to Leukaemia at Xmas. Goodness knows what we would be doing with her now. The ITU experience is live in my imagination. Meanwhile I am dreading the call from Dads care home and pondering breaking law to extract him and care for him if necessary. Also figuring out how to shield wife on MS immunosuppressive therapy whilst juggling two very bored teenage boys. All the while worrying what happens to them if I were to draw the short straw.
FPT This is a post from my wife's cousin's daughter (58) living in Toronto This is a fearful illness
I am a presumptive case of Covid-19 waiting for Toronto Public Health to confirm (that seems like it is taking forever). I was wondering when I typed this post if there is actually a stigma to having Covid-19 but who cares. I am stuck at home, isolated, sick as hell and wondering when this is going to end. I have been hospitalized to get oxygen, my fever hit 40.1(104+). I now get winded going from the living room to the bathroom, my chest is tight, I feel like I have glass shards in my lungs, I have lost my sense of smell and taste. This has been hell and I am 10 days in. Nobody wants this! It is not a hoax, no one is immune, this is killing people! Be scared. People need to take this seriously and stay the fuck home. You do not want to be responsible for giving this to someone you love. People please start listening!!
How horrible. I hope she recovers soon. Although technically, Nadine Dorries mum was pretty much immune.
It is a graphic description of suffering. Thank you for your kind wishes
Her mother is in dementia care and she has only just lost her sister to breast cancer
Life is unbelievably difficult for so many
Acutely aware life is precious and fragile, especially having lost mum to to Leukaemia at Xmas. Goodness knows what we would be doing with her now. The ITU experience is live in my imagination. Meanwhile I am dreading the call from Dads care home and pondering breaking law to extract him and care for him if necessary. Also figuring out how to shield wife on MS immunosuppressive therapy whilst juggling two very bored teenage boys. All the while worrying what happens to them if I were to draw the short straw.
That all sounds pretty stressful. Stay strong bud. We're all rooting for you.
@jonathan, Hope things go well for you Jonathan, your are having a tough time, keep your chin up.
You mean as happened in 2001 with the Foot and Mouth crisis?
Yes, absolutely. Starmer should be allowed full access to the government's scientists and data, and should have a seat at the COBR meetings to bring his view to the table where the key decisions are made.
I wouldn't have said the same about Corbyn though.
I don't recall much of the Foot & Mouth crisis, I must confess. But why on earth would you not want Jeremy on board for the national effort on this one? Are you worried that he would leak confidential plans to the virus?
Because the belief - which I share - is that as an individual he would be unable to resist making mischief over this. Releasing data or playing politics. Something that Sturgeon and the other leaders have worked very hard not to do. Something I believe Starmer would resist as well. I just don't trust Corbyn, not as a Labour Leader but as an individual.
Edit: I should add that he is the only Labour leader in my lifetime that I would say this about. All of the rest I would trust implicitly to do the right thing rather than play politics.
Estimates of the real mortality rate of the virus range widely from ~0.1% (implied by the Chief Medical Officer for Scotland yesterday) to 5+% (from articles in The Lancet). Professor Neil Ferguson, an advisor to the government, has also said that up to 5-10% of London may become infected in the next few weeks, implying a lower mortality rate.
However, news on the economic front is also grim and getting worse. There is a risk that the government could leave it too late to restart the economy. I cannot visualise where the UK economy will be in a year or two, especially if no vaccine is found. Fortunately, there is a reasonable chance that a vaccine can be developed.
The situation in countries which are implementing a less effective lockdown than the UK will be very informative. I would include in these Sweden, Iran and India. Right now the government is gathering information. Then later, before the end of this year, the government will have to make some very difficult decisions.
Some key questions have not been answered. What is the mortality rate of the virus? What will be the effectiveness of a safe vaccine that can be developed? What is the lessor of two evils: a coronavirus epidemic and economic devastation caused by a lockdown?
The best (to date) controlled experiment - The Diamond Princess, with free association, then lockdown - gives the mortality rate at 0.5% which seems imo (what do I know) to be the most likely eventual outcome.
Wasn't a controlled experiment though. Just a mass observation.
As horse races go this one has indeed been pretty dull and of course the cancellation of the latter debates didn’t really help. RLB has been so poor that you honestly wonder whether she should even be in the shadow cabinet. And then there’s Jeremy. What on earth do you do with him?
Labour should get some sort of a bounce from the new leader but he has a tricky hand to play.
If I were Starmer I would be wanting the Corbyn left to be shouting from the rooftops about betrayal each and every day. It will be the quickest way to demsointrate that things are changing. It will also ensure that internally more and more members turn away from them.
"It will be the quickest way to demsointrate that things are changing."
Labour elect a posh white bloke who has been to Oxbridge and call it change.
I look forward to the self righteous lectures on "diversity"
I don't think Starmer went to Oxbridge, but that is by the by. Everything Starmer has achieved he has achieved through hard work and talent. He is basically a turbo-charged you.
He comes from the same clique that gave us Boris, Cameron and Blair.
It's not actually change, it's simply more establishment.
So you will be cheering from the rafters when Long Bailey gets the nod on Saturday? And not because she is not an election losing disaster, but because she is a genuinely working-class Manchester Solicitor.
Long-Bailey's background is no different to Starmer's. He got further because he is smarter.
Well he also had the opportunity to go to a grammar school, which RLB might not have, and the fortune for it to be turned into a private school while he was there.
Of course. But they both went to law school and they both qualified to practise law.
Sounds like she did it with less help
How do you figure that out?
Edit: must be v frustrating for your dad and the whole family.
Well I thought going to a grammar/private school would generally be considered more helpful than going to what I believe to be a non grammar/private school.
I’d like my kids to go to a grammar or private school rather than an academy or comp anyway
Yes that can be true. It appears that Starmer took the 11-plus and LB either didn't or took it and failed. Everything seemed to flow from that. She then went to a co-ed, and Manchester Metropolitan Uni, he to Leeds Uni. He studied law, she didn't but did a conversion. They both then became lawyers.
So where does that leave them?
Pre-11yrs old = exactly the same background. Then, he had the opportunity at 11, took it and passed it; she we don't know. Then they both ended up as lawyers. Of the two paths, I would say that RLB worked harder to get to that point. But is Keir smarter? Case not proven (we can ask @DougSeal for the actual answer).
I find it difficult to grade lawyers by intelligence. Sure, there are some brilliant barristers whose intelligence would knock anyone here out of the park, like Jonathan Sumption, who really does have a brain the size of a planet. Then there’s Fiona Shackleton, 3rd from Exeter, who is far more successful than I’ll ever be and clearly gets results. It’s a difference between barristers and solicitors. Your typical barrister is brilliant in court but couldn’t find a practical solution to a problem if you tattooed it on his hand. Smart solicitors are never as book smart but can resolve an issue in a practical way barristers wouldn’t think of. But barristers are considered the brainy end of the profession.
If pushed, I think RLB would have had to have worked harder to get where she is simply by doing a conversion course, going to a less well regarded Uni and, dare I say it, because she’s a woman and there remains an inherent sexism in the profession. Whether KS is more intelligent - I can’t say - even though I would support him politically if I were still on the Red team. Let’s say I would be happier having him defend me on a criminal charge than negotiating a commercial settlement.
I kind of think it is a good idea, what gives me pause for thought is that we don’t know what effect having it has on people in a year or two. Kids are supposedly ok with having it, but how do we know if a baby gets it now, and shows no symptoms, they aren’t going to be affected as they grow?
Herd immunity is what we are going to get, in the long run. No matter what you do, in the end it will leak through. The only question is can it be slowed enough that we get a vaccine to fill out the herd immunity, or will it be all by infection.
You mean as happened in 2001 with the Foot and Mouth crisis?
Yes, absolutely. Starmer should be allowed full access to the government's scientists and data, and should have a seat at the COBR meetings to bring his view to the table where the key decisions are made.
I wouldn't have said the same about Corbyn though.
I don't recall much of the Foot & Mouth crisis, I must confess. But why on earth would you not want Jeremy on board for the national effort on this one? Are you worried that he would leak confidential plans to the virus?
Because the belief - which I share - is that as an individual he would be unable to resist making mischief over this. Releasing data or playing politics. Something that Sturgeon and the other leaders have worked very hard not to do. Something I believe Starmer would resist as well. I just don't trust Corbyn, not as a Labour Leader but as an individual.
Edit: I should add that he is the only Labour leader in my lifetime that I would say this about. All of the rest I would trust implicitly to do the right thing rather than play politics.
Corbyn is also extremely stupid, so what could he have added?
This paper predicts around 200,000 deaths in the UK if 50% of the population get the virus.
I have heard of some of the authors of this article. It is quite reputable but it is based on statistical modelling and a lot of assumptions. It is not a substitute for actual testing of people in the community to see how many have had the virus.
The health consequences of coronavirus have been felt very quickly. The economic and social effects of the lockdown will develop more slowly, but progressively. The lockdown may control the spread of CV within a few weeks in that it stops exponential growth and keeps the number of cases with the limits that the NHS can handle. That is when the crisis will move into a new phase as the economic effects begin to take hold.
Our first confirmed CV death was 5 March, so not sure if it tells us anything interesting.
What do you make of the Diamond Princess study?
To my mind the one great flaw with using the Diamond Princess is that it is not necessarily representative of the population as a whole. I suspect - although admittedly I have no evidence - that there would be a much higher proportion of the 'at risk' categories on board compared to the general population and that this would therefore skew the CFR,
I think that's true and what the authors are saying in any case is that the CFR and IFR on the ship are in any case lower than numbers bandied around for the general population. Although I do take @Ishmael_Z's point that there is no assumption of a health system failure.
No idea how far we are away from that point. Did I hear on the radio that 1 in 12 beds are CV-occupied. But that was a week ago...
Too late. It already means whatever people want, as seem with very posh professionals deemed not part of the establishment rather than a faction if it.
Yes. "The Establishment" as a term is overused to the point of becoming meaningless. It is also used purely in a negative sense, which when you think about it is ludicrous. "The Mafia", yes, that is organized crime and therefore wholly malign. But the Establishment? How can that be wholly malign? OK, in 1930s Germany, fair enough, but certainly not in Britain in 2020. I would quite like to ban the word in political discourse. Force people to say what they mean instead. For example - it is unhealthy that in this day and age so many of the leading figures in high status occupations still come a narrow and privileged social background.
Does Beth think that any of her ramblings are in any way useful?
The lack of action based on the pandemic exercise are certainly worth examining.
Of course, but the time for reflection is several months away.
What's the point of distracting people who are trying their best to sort a crisis out now, with questions about historical actions of their predecessors?
I would be all in favour of a Royal Commission or Public Enquiry that discussed in detail preparations made and actions taken up to and during the crisis, as no doubt there will be plenty of useful recommendations for dealing with future crises.
I kind of think it is a good idea, what gives me pause for thought is that we don’t know what effect having it has on people in a year or two. Kids are supposedly ok with having it, but how do we know if a baby gets it now, and shows no symptoms, they aren’t going to be affected as they grow?
Well there is that. Also dying can ruin your whole year. Once it was known that the rate of transfer was high and the death rate was significant, it should have been obvious to anybody that the infected number and deaths would go up exponentially. The UK policy was only changed when it was realised that the number of available ventilators was woefully inadequate for what would be required.
Our first confirmed CV death was 5 March, so not sure if it tells us anything interesting.
What do you make of the Diamond Princess study?
To my mind the one great flaw with using the Diamond Princess is that it is not necessarily representative of the population as a whole. I suspect - although admittedly I have no evidence - that there would be a much higher proportion of the 'at risk' categories on board compared to the general population and that this would therefore skew the CFR,
It's not just the starting population, it's the interventions. If you dumped that lot in Lombardy or London today the treatment they would receive would not be usefully comparable with what they have actually had.
Does Beth think that any of her ramblings are in any way useful?
Yes - in choosing to highlight Philip Lee she omits some interesting features of his backstory - the ex Tory MP who crossed the floor - humiliated in the GE, hates Boris....
FPT This is a post from my wife's cousin's daughter (58) living in Toronto This is a fearful illness
I am a presumptive case of Covid-19 waiting for Toronto Public Health to confirm (that seems like it is taking forever). I was wondering when I typed this post if there is actually a stigma to having Covid-19 but who cares. I am stuck at home, isolated, sick as hell and wondering when this is going to end. I have been hospitalized to get oxygen, my fever hit 40.1(104+). I now get winded going from the living room to the bathroom, my chest is tight, I feel like I have glass shards in my lungs, I have lost my sense of smell and taste. This has been hell and I am 10 days in. Nobody wants this! It is not a hoax, no one is immune, this is killing people! Be scared. People need to take this seriously and stay the fuck home. You do not want to be responsible for giving this to someone you love. People please start listening!!
How horrible. I hope she recovers soon. Although technically, Nadine Dorries mum was pretty much immune.
It is a graphic description of suffering. Thank you for your kind wishes
Her mother is in dementia care and she has only just lost her sister to breast cancer
Life is unbelievably difficult for so many
Acutely aware life is precious and fragile, especially having lost mum to to Leukaemia at Xmas. Goodness knows what we would be doing with her now. The ITU experience is live in my imagination. Meanwhile I am dreading the call from Dads care home and pondering breaking law to extract him and care for him if necessary. Also figuring out how to shield wife on MS immunosuppressive therapy whilst juggling two very bored teenage boys. All the while worrying what happens to them if I were to draw the short straw.
That all sounds pretty stressful. Stay strong bud. We're all rooting for you.
@jonathan, Hope things go well for you Jonathan, your are having a tough time, keep your chin up.
That was Johnson's srgument for not starting too early. He may have been right.
We have had a week and the media already crying its too hard....we won't be able to cope with this for months.
To be exact - this was the argument that social scientists made to the scientific advisory committee. At which point a number of people decided that social psychology din't work/exist.
Mr. Urquhart, the media will be unable to cope with either the lockdown continuing or the lockdown ending.
If it ends in 11 weeks it'll take them six minutes to go from relief to complaints. Be intriguing to see if any of the dingbats describe it as a u-turn.
I live in Almeria in south-east Spain. Found out today that all of the Mayors agreed not to release local statistics of Covid 19 cases because 'it is not needed'. WTF. The UK has lousy weather but is not the worst place when it comes to transparency of information.
Too late. It already means whatever people want, as seem with very posh professionals deemed not part of the establishment rather than a faction if it.
Yes. "The Establishment" as a term is overused to the point of becoming meaningless. It is also used purely in a negative sense, which when you think about it is ludicrous. "The Mafia", yes, that is organized crime and therefore wholly malign. But the Establishment? How can that be wholly malign? OK, in 1930s Germany, fair enough, but certainly not in Britain in 2020. I would quite like to ban the word in political discourse. Force people to say what they mean instead. For example - it is unhealthy that in this day and age so many of the leading figures in high status occupations still come a narrow and privileged social background.
Agreed. Any PM is by definition a member of The Establishment; as a means of distinguishing between them it is absolutely useless.
FPT This is a post from my wife's cousin's daughter (58) living in Toronto This is a fearful illness
I am a presumptive case of Covid-19 waiting for Toronto Public Health to confirm (that seems like it is taking forever). I was wondering when I typed this post if there is actually a stigma to having Covid-19 but who cares. I am stuck at home, isolated, sick as hell and wondering when this is going to end. I have been hospitalized to get oxygen, my fever hit 40.1(104+). I now get winded going from the living room to the bathroom, my chest is tight, I feel like I have glass shards in my lungs, I have lost my sense of smell and taste. This has been hell and I am 10 days in. Nobody wants this! It is not a hoax, no one is immune, this is killing people! Be scared. People need to take this seriously and stay the fuck home. You do not want to be responsible for giving this to someone you love. People please start listening!!
How horrible. I hope she recovers soon. Although technically, Nadine Dorries mum was pretty much immune.
It is a graphic description of suffering. Thank you for your kind wishes
Her mother is in dementia care and she has only just lost her sister to breast cancer
Life is unbelievably difficult for so many
Acutely aware life is precious and fragile, especially having lost mum to to Leukaemia at Xmas. Goodness knows what we would be doing with her now. The ITU experience is live in my imagination. Meanwhile I am dreading the call from Dads care home and pondering breaking law to extract him and care for him if necessary. Also figuring out how to shield wife on MS immunosuppressive therapy whilst juggling two very bored teenage boys. All the while worrying what happens to them if I were to draw the short straw.
That all sounds pretty stressful. Stay strong bud. We're all rooting for you.
@jonathan, Hope things go well for you Jonathan, your are having a tough time, keep your chin up.
One thing you can be sure of is that if you see someone wearing the one on right then they did not go to Oxford except perhaps on a visit. I’m sure the Cambridge ones are the same.
Mr. Urquhart, the media will be unable to cope with either the lockdown continuing or the lockdown ending.
If it ends in 11 weeks it'll take them six minutes to go from relief to complaints. Be intriguing to see if any of the dingbats describe it as a u-turn.
I wondered once if a government should use a parody attack on the media.
Press conference - "We are here to announce the daily u-turn, based on scaremongering on twitter..... now for stupid questions..."
One thing you can be sure of is that if you see someone wearing the one on left then they did not go to Oxford except perhaps on a visit. I’m sure the Cambridge ones are the same.
American students at Oxford wear them - usually only for the first term.
Our first confirmed CV death was 5 March, so not sure if it tells us anything interesting.
I found the fact far fewer people have died this year than on average quite interesting.
The Central England Temperature has been on average 2C warmer so far this year, so I think you would expect deaths to be lower than average for that reason.
Does Beth think that any of her ramblings are in any way useful?
Yes - in choosing to highlight Philip Lee she omits some interesting features of his backstory - the ex Tory MP who crossed the floor - humiliated in the GE, hates Boris....
The Tory party are much better off with folk like Lee. Not exactly a Dr you'd trust.
20% seems like a small increase. Anyway, it depends if they drink it over the same time period. A part of stockpiling is buying more so you have to go shopping less.
I've put a fair amount of booze away since mid last week - demob happy. I also clocked over 90 miles in a week on my Tomtom.
I'm still officially working as 'normal' but it's probably 80% quieter than usual. My two hobbies and walking and drinking so lockdown hasn't made a dramatic difference to me, particularly as I'm in such a rural area.
Suggest we wait until cases do actually fall. I'm equally certain most people don't want to be gasping for breath with no ventilator or any effective medical care because the hospital system is overwhelmed. We're in lockdown to avoid grisly death. People will give this precisely one second's thought before deciding they will take lockdown.
20% seems like a small increase. Anyway, it depends if they drink it over the same time period. A part of stockpiling is buying more so you have to go shopping less.
Everyone I know wants to do a shop for everything non-perishable for 3 months, if they have the space for it (or not!!!!)
Estimates of the real mortality rate of the virus range widely from ~0.1% (implied by the Chief Medical Officer for Scotland yesterday) to 5+% (from articles in The Lancet). Professor Neil Ferguson, an advisor to the government, has also said that up to 5-10% of London may become infected in the next few weeks, implying a lower mortality rate.
However, news on the economic front is also grim and getting worse. There is a risk that the government could leave it too late to restart the economy. I cannot visualise where the UK economy will be in a year or two, especially if no vaccine is found. Fortunately, there is a reasonable chance that a vaccine can be developed.
The situation in countries which are implementing a less effective lockdown than the UK will be very informative. I would include in these Sweden, Iran and India. Right now the government is gathering information. Then later, before the end of this year, the government will have to make some very difficult decisions.
Some key questions have not been answered. What is the mortality rate of the virus? What will be the effectiveness of a safe vaccine that can be developed? What is the lessor of two evils: a coronavirus epidemic and economic devastation caused by a lockdown?
The best (to date) controlled experiment - The Diamond Princess, with free association, then lockdown - gives the mortality rate at 0.5% which seems imo (what do I know) to be the most likely eventual outcome.
Wasn't a controlled experiment though. Just a mass observation.
That is true but it was observation of a perfectly set up experiment.
Does Beth think that any of her ramblings are in any way useful?
Yes - in choosing to highlight Philip Lee she omits some interesting features of his backstory - the ex Tory MP who crossed the floor - humiliated in the GE, hates Boris....
The Tory party are much better off with folk like Lee. Not exactly a Dr you'd trust.
I presume you mean 'without'. Of course that is waht attracts him to a 'gotcha' hack like Rigby.
Mr. Urquhart, the media will be unable to cope with either the lockdown continuing or the lockdown ending.
If it ends in 11 weeks it'll take them six minutes to go from relief to complaints. Be intriguing to see if any of the dingbats describe it as a u-turn.
I wondered once if a government should use a parody attack on the media.
Press conference - "We are here to announce the daily u-turn, based on scaremongering on twitter..... now for stupid questions..."
Or just listen to the question and say "Way too stupid. Next..."
Apropos nothing, I wonder if those people that got a payout on PPI and cancelled the policy are feeling a bit annoyed right now?
Isn't it that most of the policies had ended years ago anyway?
And I doubt they'd have paid out now anyway. They'd simply point to clause 17.9 excluding a payout in the event of them not wanting to, and that be that.
Does Beth think that any of her ramblings are in any way useful?
The lack of action based on the pandemic exercise are certainly worth examining.
Of course, but the time for reflection is several months away.
What's the point of distracting people who are trying their best to sort a crisis out now, with questions about historical actions of their predecessors?
I would be all in favour of a Royal Commission or Public Enquiry that discussed in detail preparations made and actions taken up to and during the crisis, as no doubt there will be plenty of useful recommendations for dealing with future crises.
There is going to be the mother of all Public Inquiries after all this is over.
Estimates of the real mortality rate of the virus range widely from ~0.1% (implied by the Chief Medical Officer for Scotland yesterday) to 5+% (from articles in The Lancet). Professor Neil Ferguson, an advisor to the government, has also said that up to 5-10% of London may become infected in the next few weeks, implying a lower mortality rate.
However, news on the economic front is also grim and getting worse. There is a risk that the government could leave it too late to restart the economy. I cannot visualise where the UK economy will be in a year or two, especially if no vaccine is found. Fortunately, there is a reasonable chance that a vaccine can be developed.
The situation in countries which are implementing a less effective lockdown than the UK will be very informative. I would include in these Sweden, Iran and India. Right now the government is gathering information. Then later, before the end of this year, the government will have to make some very difficult decisions.
Some key questions have not been answered. What is the mortality rate of the virus? What will be the effectiveness of a safe vaccine that can be developed? What is the lessor of two evils: a coronavirus epidemic and economic devastation caused by a lockdown?
The best (to date) controlled experiment - The Diamond Princess, with free association, then lockdown - gives the mortality rate at 0.5% which seems imo (what do I know) to be the most likely eventual outcome.
Wasn't a controlled experiment though. Just a mass observation.
That is true but it was observation of a perfectly set up experiment.
I assume the 0.5% is controlled for the age distribution of the passengers? I expect it might skew quite old on a cruise ship.
That’s just ridiculous, a prime example of manufacturing outrage from yoking together a couple of things that someone doesn’t like. For me, personally, I think the lockdown was a week too late and I’m prepared to carry on for much, much longer. As I had to self isolate before I’ve already coped with 19 days and I’ve only felt the need to step out of the house once. I appreciate that this sort of self sacrifice is anathema to many but, and it’s not a term that I would normally use, the snowflakes who can’t cope with this need to get a grip. Yes, there are a minority who do have a real issue with it but the vast majority of people moaning, are those who didn’t want to do it in the first place and are trying to claim that it won’t work now that it exists.
This idea that people can’t behave the way that is needed is missing one key thing, in times of crisis people behaviour need to change. Enough of the commentariat moaning about how terrible it is that they have had to change their behaviour.
Comments
May this nightmare for the Labour Party and country be over soon.
To me it's a case of:
Do I trust data generated by a bunch of medics working in a hospital? Yes
Do I trust data generated by the Chinese state? No.
Do I observe, through social media, evidence of the Chinese state welding people into their flats? Yes.
The picture was there. It just needed filling in.
They were getting stolen copies of the minutes presented to the Presidium - the heart of the Kremlin.
The problem was that by the time reports got to the level of the Kremlin they were lies built on lies built on lies.
Heinlein (the SF Author) recounted asking a logistics expert about Moscow, and the food supply in the 60s - and getting an answer, based on the cold facts of what was possible. And very different to what everyone else said.
As I put it in a thread header a while back:-
“ The best – and most alarming example of this – was the manner in which Labour succumbed to the virus of anti-semitism in a very short time frame, despite – or perhaps because of – its conviction that it was a moral, anti-racist and therefore “good” party. Having satisfied itself of its impeccably anti-racist position, it felt no need to ask itself any questions about the leader it elected, the people he attracted, those he made his closest advisors and why, despite his repeated claims to be doing so, he was unable to deal with the issue. The default instinct was to attack those who pointed this out, describe the concerns as smears and generally behave like an aggrieved victim. Corbyn is on his way out but his time as leader is an example of how easily apparently important and long-held principles can be abandoned, especially when hatred and defeat of some Other (the Tories, in this case) is all that matters.
This is not just a lesson for Labour. It is a lesson for voters too. Over 10 million of them rationalised away any queasiness they may have felt and voted for a party which shares the unenviable claim of being, like the neo-Nazi BNP, investigated by the EHRC for anti-semitism and institutional racism. This was not a deal-breaker.”
That is the measure of what the new leader will have to deal with. How rotten has the Labour Party - once described as a moral crusade - become that this could happen to it with the enthusiastic support of so many of its members?
The Labour Party will need rebuilding from the bottom up and not merely a fresh coat of paint on the front door.
The west has been caught out though, I think our experience of SARs and MERs also led to the experts thinking well it will be like that and when it gets to the West it won't be on the same scale.
Where as South Korea got hit hard by these and they take no chances.
Unlike many here - I don't buy this theory that China are fiddling their numbers. Certainly they are missing cases, as other countries are also.
I'm hopeful Europe will follow a similar trajectory. The Italian growth rate looks much lower than previously - it was just 4% yesterday, it seems to be following the same pattern as China post lockdown.
And anecdotally, so many people had a really nasty sub-Covid-19 type coughing bug. You might have expected that to carry off a good number of the vulnerable.
I have noted down thread that I dislike the idea of selective education as a result of my own experience at grammar school. However it must be said that grammar schools benefitted many clever and hardworking financially poorer children, but it also left behind those who went to secondary moderns. So although I could argue in principle for grammar schools as a tool of self improvement, I am conflicted as to those it leaves behind. But then I am further conflicted by private schools where the parents of stupid and lazy children can buy future preferences on the basis of their wealth.
Germany has a much worse nurse per patient ratio. They have 13 patients per nurse, Britain it is 8.6.
https://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/the-big-wave-of-corona-cases-will-hit-german-hospitals-in-10-to-14-days-a-45cd754c-e179-4dbb-8caf-8f6074e641cf
I could almost hear on the phone the revelation...
No idea if that is representative
https://twitter.com/actuarybyday/status/1244922350816112640?s=21
https://twitter.com/actuarybyday/status/1244935078125412352?s=21
The early response from the WHO doesn't look great to me.
Perhaps those countries who are experienced with epidemics in that part of the world are better at reading the runes than the naive West.
It is a vision where the "left behind" deserve their fate. Perhaps not compatible with what Brexit voters in Hartlepool and Stoke wanted. The book ends with a mutinous rising of the lower orders too.
https://www.rawstory.com/2020/03/the-herd-immunity-route-to-fighting-coronavirus-is-unethical-and-potentially-dangerous-scientist/
If pushed, I think RLB would have had to have worked harder to get where she is simply by doing a conversion course, going to a less well regarded Uni and, dare I say it, because she’s a woman and there remains an inherent sexism in the profession. Whether KS is more intelligent - I can’t say - even though I would support him politically if I were still on the Red team. Let’s say I would be happier having him defend me on a criminal charge than negotiating a commercial settlement.
Edit: I should add that he is the only Labour leader in my lifetime that I would say this about. All of the rest I would trust implicitly to do the right thing rather than play politics.
It takes time to add what you don't have.
Where I heard a South Korean expert say SK are bad, developing treatment and vaccines. He said the government have given the likes of Green Cross loads of money and they have never produced anything.
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1244898310105763841
https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/latest/currentlevels
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Healthcare_personnel_statistics_-_nursing_and_caring_professionals#Healthcare_personnel_.E2.80.94_nursing_professionals
But I note we have significantly more "health care assistants", which might explain the disparity ?
Their manners are far worse than the old upper 10,000 - and there are in fact several hundred thousand of them and they seem quite expensive to keep.
For self entitled arrogance, they appear to emulate the Marquis de Maynes in Scaramouche.
Maybe I am an advocate for the justly unequal.
But, in this extreme case, we are seeing France, Spain and Italy healthcare system either crash or absolutely on the edge, and nobody thinks for instance France's system is really crap and Northern Italy is on par with anywhere in Europe.
I have to say I was very surprised to find that Sweden, that model that so many people hold up as what we should aim for, has much lower ICU capacity etc. But, it is very easy to pick out something in hindsight, when a different once in a 100 year extreme incident could have hit and we find different resources in different countries lacking.
Putting testing aside, the rest, I think overall the UK organisational response has been good. Adding capacity to our system, and supporting people and businesses.
Though to would be silly to think we can treat China as we did Cold War Russia, which was never of massive economic significance.
I couldn't comment on the TV series thread then other day because I can't comment here from my phone...
But have you seen the Detectorists?
I have heard of some of the authors of this article. It is quite reputable but it is based on statistical modelling and a lot of assumptions. It is not a substitute for actual testing of people in the community to see how many have had the virus.
The health consequences of coronavirus have been felt very quickly. The economic and social effects of the lockdown will develop more slowly, but progressively. The lockdown may control the spread of CV within a few weeks in that it stops exponential growth and keeps the number of cases with the limits that the NHS can handle. That is when the crisis will move into a new phase as the economic effects begin to take hold.
No idea how far we are away from that point. Did I hear on the radio that 1 in 12 beds are CV-occupied. But that was a week ago...
What's the point of distracting people who are trying their best to sort a crisis out now, with questions about historical actions of their predecessors?
I would be all in favour of a Royal Commission or Public Enquiry that discussed in detail preparations made and actions taken up to and during the crisis, as no doubt there will be plenty of useful recommendations for dealing with future crises.
https://www.dw.com/en/madrid-air-pollution-reaches-alarming-levels/a-16739363
(gratuitous gag)
Also dying can ruin your whole year.
Once it was known that the rate of transfer was high and the death rate was significant, it should have been obvious to anybody that the infected number and deaths would go up exponentially.
The UK policy was only changed when it was realised that the number of available ventilators was woefully inadequate for what would be required.
If it ends in 11 weeks it'll take them six minutes to go from relief to complaints. Be intriguing to see if any of the dingbats describe it as a u-turn.
Any PM is by definition a member of The Establishment; as a means of distinguishing between them it is absolutely useless.
"Bingeing Britons buy 20 per cent more alcohol for lockdown"
(£)
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/coronavirus-bingeing-britons-buy-20-per-cent-more-alcohol-for-lockdown-njh6jn55q
Edit: got my left and right confused...
Press conference - "We are here to announce the daily u-turn, based on scaremongering on twitter..... now for stupid questions..."
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/cet_info_mean.html
I'm still officially working as 'normal' but it's probably 80% quieter than usual. My two hobbies and walking and drinking so lockdown hasn't made a dramatic difference to me, particularly as I'm in such a rural area.
Suggest we wait until cases do actually fall. I'm equally certain most people don't want to be gasping for breath with no ventilator or any effective medical care because the hospital system is overwhelmed. We're in lockdown to avoid grisly death. People will give this precisely one second's thought before deciding they will take lockdown.
I do not think that is particularly crazy...
https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1244319661123973122
And I doubt they'd have paid out now anyway. They'd simply point to clause 17.9 excluding a payout in the event of them not wanting to, and that be that.
This idea that people can’t behave the way that is needed is missing one key thing, in times of crisis people behaviour need to change. Enough of the commentariat moaning about how terrible it is that they have had to change their behaviour.