Another string to the 'we contrarians with our edgy uncomfortable views are constantly being gagged' bow. Scientific studies have found that there can be as many as 749 published articles espousing these views on any given day.
Quite so. And the likes of Tobes are just churning out their ubermensch "survival of the fittest" shtick for people who already lean that way in any case. It's playing to the gallery. Nietzsching to the converted.
(shoehorns in joke that I made up yesterday and have been dying to try out)
Worth it Wait for the moment and strike like a Black Mamba!
Another string to the 'we contrarians with our edgy uncomfortable views are constantly being gagged' bow. Scientific studies have found that there can be as many as 749 published articles espousing these views on any given day.
Quite so. And the likes of Tobes are just churning out their ubermensch "survival of the fittest" shtick for people who already lean that way in any case. It's playing to the gallery. Nietzsching to the converted.
(shoehorns in joke that I made up yesterday and have been dying to try out)
Worth it Wait for the moment and strike like a Black Mamba!
Probably the government's advice is different because it was issued before the herd immunity strategy was dropped, and now it can't be changed without politicians losing face.
By losing face, you mean Bozo and Hancock being locked away for another week?
Yes, actually. I'm quite optimistic that we can do this next time - especially if the consequence is more lockdown!
Technologically, solutions are being developed (see this thread: https://twitter.com/ChristoPhraser/status/1246452660397629446) and the scaling up of testing will facilitate, across the country, very rapid profiling of new cases. There will still be need for manual contact tracing but the electronic tracing should make a massive difference, especially given the preponderance of mobile phones. Also, if you read the linked paper, it suggests that you can not only contain but actually stop the spread with a decent (but not 100%) amount of compliance.
'Only' 525 fatalities in Italy today - lowest since March 19th (about 10 days into their lockdown). Still quite a lot of new cases reported (4300), but I wonder if they are picking up milder cases. But still good news overall.
4300 cases 27 days into lockdown. Does this show that lockdowns work with this virus ?
I do wonder if all the 'Nicola wants out' stuff is just wishful thinking from Unionists looking at their own dire politicians, her appetite for the fray seems undiminished. I remember a profile just after indy ref time where Sturgeon admitted to being a political obsessive, lapping up the likes of the West Wing and Borgen, and how she relished the prospect of being FM. Not sure if some Miliband Major type sinecure at the UN involving being occasionally wheeled out to spout platitudes would cut it for her.
Just as well she isn't in line for one then.
You'll have to have a word with all your Scotch pals on twitter with UJs and 1690 in their profiles, that and the lesbian love nest in Bridge of Allan seem to be their favourite fantasies.
Nice to see you've assimilated enough to absorb the Scottish cringe though.
That's all that wing of the party need, another grievance to nurture.
It sounds like complete nonsense from Guido to cover a duff tip. Lisa Nandy ran (or did run) Labour Friends of Palestine and is the new Shadow Foreign Secretary.
So if we're lucky and it turns out that - say - 75% can get it, show no symptoms and still get immunity (or are inherently immune ab initio), then your figures become 30m x 25% x 10% = 750k hospitalised, and 30m x 25% x 0.8% = 60k deaths.
That's how we manage. It only works if the "iceberg" theory turns out to be right, but the first mass antibody tests should show this one way or the other. We'll probably have a pretty good idea by the end of the month, one way or another.
That sounds about right. But I do not have much confidence in the iceberg theory.
'Only' 525 fatalities in Italy today - lowest since March 19th (about 10 days into their lockdown). Still quite a lot of new cases reported (4300), but I wonder if they are picking up milder cases. But still good news overall.
4300 cases 27 days into lockdown. Does this show that lockdowns work with this virus ?
Yes, of course the Italian numbers show that lockdowns can work.
Apparently, compared to Covid-19 4G is just like the flu.
Seriously.
Well, Swine Flu, to be accurate.
4G was linked to Swine Flu by cranks like this whilst SARS was linked with 3G. God knows what they think caused the Spanish Flu, putting the clocks forwards maybe?
Probably the government's advice is different because it was issued before the herd immunity strategy was dropped, and now it can't be changed without politicians losing face.
I had several calls with my GP the other day and listened to the standard spiel about CV 3x. It was very clear that you could return to work 7 days after you were infected, even if you still had symptoms. I thought that it was just wrong and was amazed that still seems to be the official advice in Scotland. It needs changing or we will not reduce R0 sufficiently to make this suffering worthwhile.
Rather than 2m ours should be six feet = one tall man lying down but definitely not sunbathing or two shopping trolley-lengths for those in supermarkets. Units people can understand.
Seems utterly bizarre to appoint Nandy (who has much to contribute to the domestic agenda) to a position where she is not going to be able to develop that important set of policies.
As for Dodds and Thomas-Symonds - there is nothing inspiring about either of them. They are better than the idiots they are replacing - but that isn't saying much.
I wonder though if this is an attempt at regional balance:
Dodds - Scotland NTS - Wales Nandy - North of England Reeves - London (although she sits for a seat in Leeds)
Mis-step if so - talent should matter more than tokenism.
Dodds may have been born in Scotland - but she 'represents' Oxford East... hardly close to the Lochs and the Cairns.
The only Scottish MP, or rather, MP for a Scottish seat, Labour have left is Ian Murray. And he will presumably be offered SSoS for Scotland.
LOL, like making the toilet cleaner the new CFO
Toilet cleaner? A very important job during a time of strict hygeine enforcement.
I do wonder if all the 'Nicola wants out' stuff is just wishful thinking from Unionists looking at their own dire politicians, her appetite for the fray seems undiminished. I remember a profile just after indy ref time where Sturgeon admitted to being a political obsessive, lapping up the likes of the West Wing and Borgen, and how she relished the prospect of being FM. Not sure if some Miliband Major type sinecure at the UN involving being occasionally wheeled out to spout platitudes would cut it for her.
Just as well she isn't in line for one then.
You'll have to have a word with all your Scotch pals on twitter with UJs and 1690 in their profiles, that and the lesbian love nest in Bridge of Allan seem to be their favourite fantasies.
Nice to see you've assimilated enough to absorb the Scottish cringe though.
I frequent Twitter very rarely, so I really have no idea what all that means.
Please be careful though, I don't think you're supposed to out Nicola Sturgeon on PB.
The tweet has now been deleted, but I saved it for posterity:
Dr Naomi Wolf ✔ @naomirwolf Replying to @RealAmericaSong and 14 others It was amazing to go to Belfast, which does not yet have 5G, and feel the earth, sky, air, human experience, feel the way it did in the 1970s. Calm, still, peaceful, restful, natural.
Re fake news and 5G, interesting to remember that "Dr" Naomi Wolf was an adviser to Bill Clinton (and later to Al Gore). Anyone care to comment on Belfast's "3G clear air"?
Apparently, compared to Covid-19 4G is just like the flu.
Seriously.
Well, Swine Flu, to be accurate.
4G was linked to Swine Flu crankslike this whilst SARS was linked with 3G. God knows what they think caused the Spanish Flu, putting the clocks forwards maybe?
Trouble with acting against trolls spreading misinformation on social media is that our main political parties are all at it as soon as an election hoves into view. I'm not holding my breath.
The tweet has now been deleted, but I saved it for posterity:
Dr Naomi Wolf ✔ @naomirwolf Replying to @RealAmericaSong and 14 others It was amazing to go to Belfast, which does not yet have 5G, and feel the earth, sky, air, human experience, feel the way it did in the 1970s. Calm, still, peaceful, restful, natural.
The cherry on the cake is that Belfast has got 5G
Perhaps one of the side effects of 5G is hallucinations. Checkmate, 5G conspiracy denialists.
I do wonder if all the 'Nicola wants out' stuff is just wishful thinking from Unionists looking at their own dire politicians, her appetite for the fray seems undiminished. I remember a profile just after indy ref time where Sturgeon admitted to being a political obsessive, lapping up the likes of the West Wing and Borgen, and how she relished the prospect of being FM. Not sure if some Miliband Major type sinecure at the UN involving being occasionally wheeled out to spout platitudes would cut it for her.
Who really knows? However Malc evidently wants her out, and that should be enough, surely...
I do wonder if all the 'Nicola wants out' stuff is just wishful thinking from Unionists looking at their own dire politicians, her appetite for the fray seems undiminished. I remember a profile just after indy ref time where Sturgeon admitted to being a political obsessive, lapping up the likes of the West Wing and Borgen, and how she relished the prospect of being FM. Not sure if some Miliband Major type sinecure at the UN involving being occasionally wheeled out to spout platitudes would cut it for her.
Just as well she isn't in line for one then.
You'll have to have a word with all your Scotch pals on twitter with UJs and 1690 in their profiles, that and the lesbian love nest in Bridge of Allan seem to be their favourite fantasies.
Nice to see you've assimilated enough to absorb the Scottish cringe though.
I frequent Twitter very rarely, so I really have no idea what all that means.
Please be careful though, I don't think you're supposed to out Nicola Sturgeon on PB.
As expected, Angela Rayner will also be party chair (Lavery's current role)
Right... that isn't exactly a vote of confidence in his new deputy. She isn't the greatest media performer (as today has already shown). She might grow into it. But this looks like a place to keep her out of actual policy development.
That's silly - if she hadn't been, you'd say it was a snub. She's just been elected by a large margin of the membership, so seems a sensible choice as party chair.
The latter seems a better bet than getting it and potentially not surviving.
By my rough estimate herd immunity without vaccine costs 3,000,000 hospital admissions and 250,000 deaths.
Therefore if we assume no vaccine the challenge is how best to manage 3,000,000 hospital admissions and 250,000 deaths over the next 18 months.
But I could be missing something. Sure I am. Hope so anyway.
Its likely that most of the 250,000 deaths over the next 18 months would have died anyway.
A bit brutal but has to be considered.
Yes, unfortunately I think that is the missing part of Kinabalu's equation.
In the absence of a vaccine, it will be a balancing act between managing hospital admissions and not crashing the economy. Triage based on age, health and expected surviability will inevitably be a part of that.
I know ther are people who find this view unfeeling, shocking and even psychopathic, but we are looking at managing a disaster situation in the least worst way now. There are no good choices, but some are less bad than others.
We need to save as many lives as we can without crashing the economy. That, unfortunately, means we will not be able to save every life and a balance will have to be struck.
'Only' 525 fatalities in Italy today - lowest since March 19th (about 10 days into their lockdown). Still quite a lot of new cases reported (4300), but I wonder if they are picking up milder cases. But still good news overall.
4300 cases 27 days into lockdown. Does this show that lockdowns work with this virus ?
Yes, of course the Italian numbers show that lockdowns can work.
Sweden doesn’t believe they’re worth it. It will be interesting to see what happens. I’m glad someone is trying something different
I do wonder if all the 'Nicola wants out' stuff is just wishful thinking from Unionists looking at their own dire politicians, her appetite for the fray seems undiminished. I remember a profile just after indy ref time where Sturgeon admitted to being a political obsessive, lapping up the likes of the West Wing and Borgen, and how she relished the prospect of being FM. Not sure if some Miliband Major type sinecure at the UN involving being occasionally wheeled out to spout platitudes would cut it for her.
TUD, she may have little choice given stuff to come.
Probably the government's advice is different because it was issued before the herd immunity strategy was dropped, and now it can't be changed without politicians losing face.
I had several calls with my GP the other day and listened to the standard spiel about CV 3x. It was very clear that you could return to work 7 days after you were infected, even if you still had symptoms. I thought that it was just wrong and was amazed that still seems to be the official advice in Scotland. It needs changing or we will not reduce R0 sufficiently to make this suffering worthwhile.
Hospital admissions seem to be rising again now, which suggests something needs to be done.
Extending the period of self-isolation for those with symptoms to the WHO recommendation would be something which surely even the awkward squad could scarcely object to.
Frankly. I think the advice not to wear masks had more to do with the scarcity of masks than the science. I don't see any reason not to tell people to cover their nose and mouth while they're out, whatever they cover them with - while emphasising that it won't make them safe, so they still need to keep their distance, but it may help to protect others.
Colchester - had a long walk with dog and very little traffic, Skate park empty, Castle park very, very quiet - no groups and no sunbathers - high street like a scene out of 28 days later.
Chelmsford - son's friend reports a big group in Central park - big group and with people jumping in river. Crowd of over a 100 - police called and they haven't showed up within 90 minutes......
'Only' 525 fatalities in Italy today - lowest since March 19th (about 10 days into their lockdown). Still quite a lot of new cases reported (4300), but I wonder if they are picking up milder cases. But still good news overall.
4300 cases 27 days into lockdown. Does this show that lockdowns work with this virus ?
Yes, of course the Italian numbers show that lockdowns can work.
Sweden doesn’t believe they’re worth it. It will be interesting to see what happens. I’m glad someone is trying something different
Whether they work and whether they're worth it are two different questions. Though I admit the distinction can be confusing if you lose concentration halfway through reading the word.
As expected, Angela Rayner will also be party chair (Lavery's current role)
Right... that isn't exactly a vote of confidence in his new deputy. She isn't the greatest media performer (as today has already shown). She might grow into it. But this looks like a place to keep her out of actual policy development.
That's silly - if she hadn't been, you'd say it was a snub. She's just been elected by a large margin of the membership, so seems a sensible choice as party chair.
It's silly to suggest that keeping someone out of a policy-based role is not a snub. Harman was deputy leader, party chair - and also had other Government/Shadow Cabinet roles at the same time.
Yes, unfortunately I think that is the missing part of Kinabalu's equation.
In the absence of a vaccine, it will be a balancing act between managing hospital admissions and not crashing the economy. Triage based on age, health and expected surviability will inevitably be a part of that.
I know ther are people who find this view unfeeling, shocking and even psychopathic, but we are looking at managing a disaster situation in the least worst way now. There are no good choices, but some are less bad than others.
We need to save as many lives as we can without crashing the economy. That, unfortunately, means we will not be able to save every life and a balance will have to be struck.
I wanted to gloss over this but seeing as you raise it. Yes, so we could find ourselves denying hospital resource to a great many elderly people who get the virus and take a turn for the worse. In which case we would surely have to offer a timely and sedated exit (at home) rather than several days of steadily increasing anguish (also at home) ending in death by major organ failure or drowning in their own lung fluid.
'Only' 525 fatalities in Italy today - lowest since March 19th (about 10 days into their lockdown). Still quite a lot of new cases reported (4300), but I wonder if they are picking up milder cases. But still good news overall.
4300 cases 27 days into lockdown. Does this show that lockdowns work with this virus ?
Yes, of course the Italian numbers show that lockdowns can work.
There is the same number of new infections today as there were 9 days ago.I really thought that 27 days into the lockdown the numbers would be much lower. Maybe this virus just runs its course and lockdowns make no difference
Probably the government's advice is different because it was issued before the herd immunity strategy was dropped, and now it can't be changed without politicians losing face.
I had several calls with my GP the other day and listened to the standard spiel about CV 3x. It was very clear that you could return to work 7 days after you were infected, even if you still had symptoms. I thought that it was just wrong and was amazed that still seems to be the official advice in Scotland. It needs changing or we will not reduce R0 sufficiently to make this suffering worthwhile.
Hospital admissions seem to be rising again now, which suggests something needs to be done.
Extending the period of self-isolation for those with symptoms to the WHO recommendation would be something which surely even the awkward squad could scarcely object to.
Frankly. I think the advice not to wear masks had more to do with the scarcity of masks than the science. I don't see any reason not to tell people to cover their nose and mouth while they're out, whatever they cover them with - while emphasising that it won't make them safe, so they still need to keep their distance, but it may help to protect others.
Hospital admissions will probably rise (albeit at fairly constant levels) for another couple of days before levelling off. Although if we are like Spain rather than Italy it might rise quite sharply and then fall faster. Let's see...
It wouldn't surprise me if Sturgeon doesn't want to get rid of her because she doesn't want to be short of her own CMO to politically grandstand with rather than just rely on the UK Government one.
It wouldn't surprise me if Sturgeon doesn't want to get rid of her because she doesn't want to be short of her own CMO to politically grandstand with rather than just rely on the UK Government one.
Scotland has lots of doctors but a new civil service appointment could take weeks unless they just bump the deputies and assistants up a grade.
The latter seems a better bet than getting it and potentially not surviving.
By my rough estimate herd immunity without vaccine costs 3,000,000 hospital admissions and 250,000 deaths.
Therefore if we assume no vaccine the challenge is how best to manage 3,000,000 hospital admissions and 250,000 deaths over the next 18 months.
But I could be missing something. Sure I am. Hope so anyway.
Its likely that most of the 250,000 deaths over the next 18 months would have died anyway.
A bit brutal but has to be considered.
Yes, unfortunately I think that is the missing part of Kinabalu's equation.
In the absence of a vaccine, it will be a balancing act between managing hospital admissions and not crashing the economy. Triage based on age, health and expected surviability will inevitably be a part of that.
I know ther are people who find this view unfeeling, shocking and even psychopathic, but we are looking at managing a disaster situation in the least worst way now. There are no good choices, but some are less bad than others.
We need to save as many lives as we can without crashing the economy. That, unfortunately, means we will not be able to save every life and a balance will have to be struck.
Its not a revolutionary concept - we could reduce road traffic deaths by over 1500 each year if vehicles were unable to go above 20mph.
But the socioeconomic costs of so doing are deemed to be higher than accepting the extra road traffic casualties.
Apparently, compared to Covid-19 4G is just like the flu.
Seriously.
Well, Swine Flu, to be accurate.
4G was linked to Swine Flu by cranks like this whilst SARS was linked with 3G. God knows what they think caused the Spanish Flu, putting the clocks forwards maybe?
copied from a debunking of it all
"wireless telegraphy in WWI, RADAR in WWII, satellites and Hong Kong Flu in the 60s and now 5G"
now I don't think its the development of wireless telegraphy but the post WW1 industrialisation/spread of it. The invention was mid-late 1890s (oh, wait a second … https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1889–1890_flu_pandemic))
"On Saturday 4 April, the total number of deaths reported at University Hospitals Birmingham Foundation Trust in the West Midlands almost doubled, from 102 to 203. Today it reported an additional 11 deaths."
I suspect that this was catch up data rather than a true doubling, but should make for a touch of caution in those closely following the numbers.
I noted AndyJS giving up his modelling because of the numbers....
We are all just making it up as we go along.... basically
I'm sure the CMO and his advisors aren't. Just because data is difficult to interpret, doesn't mean it can't be interpreted.
I thin AndyJS can speak for himself - but what he was trying to do was plot a different dataset - a complete one.
The CMO and the medical system in the UK are using a number of measures to *try* and understand what is going on.
In this particular sub-case, case they are reading the number of hospital admissions to try and see if we are "bending the curve" - this number has several virtues. It is easy to measure, a hard* measure of what is happening and a lead indicator if things are about to go wrong.
*a hard measure in the sense of being a number that is probably consistent as a measure, and accurate in what it means.
I have been told that double blind trials are racist - in the context of this issue:
1) People of colour are alegedly more at rick of Electro-Sensitivity (ES). 2) Double bind trials have repeatedly proved that there is not such thing as ES 3) Because of the negative history of Western Science vs POC, Western Science needs to respect the word of POC.
The latter seems a better bet than getting it and potentially not surviving.
By my rough estimate herd immunity without vaccine costs 3,000,000 hospital admissions and 250,000 deaths.
Therefore if we assume no vaccine the challenge is how best to manage 3,000,000 hospital admissions and 250,000 deaths over the next 18 months.
But I could be missing something. Sure I am. Hope so anyway.
Its likely that most of the 250,000 deaths over the next 18 months would have died anyway.
A bit brutal but has to be considered.
Yes, unfortunately I think that is the missing part of Kinabalu's equation.
In the absence of a vaccine, it will be a balancing act between managing hospital admissions and not crashing the economy. Triage based on age, health and expected surviability will inevitably be a part of that.
I know ther are people who find this view unfeeling, shocking and even psychopathic, but we are looking at managing a disaster situation in the least worst way now. There are no good choices, but some are less bad than others.
We need to save as many lives as we can without crashing the economy. That, unfortunately, means we will not be able to save every life and a balance will have to be struck.
Its not a revolutionary concept - we could reduce road traffic deaths by over 1500 each year if vehicles were unable to go above 20mph.
But the socioeconomic costs of so doing are deemed to be higher than accepting the extra road traffic casualties.
The classic for basic stats is "Why don't airliners have ejection seats?"
Colchester - had a long walk with dog and very little traffic, Skate park empty, Castle park very, very quiet - no groups and no sunbathers - high street like a scene out of 28 days later.
Chelmsford - son's friend reports a big group in Central park - big group and with people jumping in river. Crowd of over a 100 - police called and they haven't showed up within 90 minutes......
Godalming - strolled along suburban roads which would normally have lots of people around in front gardens, washing cars etc. Almost deserted - I could hear some kids in a back garden (and why not) but otherwise a single car in 30 minutes and one family group with a dog.
The latter seems a better bet than getting it and potentially not surviving.
By my rough estimate herd immunity without vaccine costs 3,000,000 hospital admissions and 250,000 deaths.
Therefore if we assume no vaccine the challenge is how best to manage 3,000,000 hospital admissions and 250,000 deaths over the next 18 months.
But I could be missing something. Sure I am. Hope so anyway.
Its likely that most of the 250,000 deaths over the next 18 months would have died anyway.
A bit brutal but has to be considered.
Yes, unfortunately I think that is the missing part of Kinabalu's equation.
In the absence of a vaccine, it will be a balancing act between managing hospital admissions and not crashing the economy. Triage based on age, health and expected surviability will inevitably be a part of that.
I know ther are people who find this view unfeeling, shocking and even psychopathic, but we are looking at managing a disaster situation in the least worst way now. There are no good choices, but some are less bad than others.
We need to save as many lives as we can without crashing the economy. That, unfortunately, means we will not be able to save every life and a balance will have to be struck.
Its not a revolutionary concept - we could reduce road traffic deaths by over 1500 each year if vehicles were unable to go above 20mph.
But the socioeconomic costs of so doing are deemed to be higher than accepting the extra road traffic casualties.
And if the public were banned from using motor vehicles altogether than road traffic accidents would be all but eliminated as a cause of death. I've been using the same example for weeks.
Therefore, logically, we are willing to accept a certain number of children being catapulted into the air and landing dead on the tarmac every year, just to allow people to continue to drive. Does this mean that society doesn't care for the dead children, or has it simply judged that the consequences of forcibly abolishing motorized road transport would be worse?
Similarly, the NHS would be much better able to cope with situations like this if the Government stopped spending money on anything other than healthcare. Does that mean that this would be a wise idea?
In actual fact, Governments have *always* put an economic value on human lives, and they will always have to do so. It is a core part of their function.
Indeed, one would've thought that, in the case of this pandemic, the key calculation that has to be made is when the cost in terms of casualties of economic implosion - through increased poverty, the suicide of the jobless and destroyed business owners, reduction in the tax base meaning that there is less to spend on health, and so on - is going to outstrip the number of casualties caused by Covid itself. Once this tipping point is reached, not only can the Government justify relaxing the social distancing measures, it *MUST* do so.
Making that particular judgment will be agony for ministers, and none of us should envy them for it, but it's just the sort of thing that they have been put there to do.
Its not a revolutionary concept - we could reduce road traffic deaths by over 1500 each year if vehicles were unable to go above 20mph.
But the socioeconomic costs of so doing are deemed to be higher than accepting the extra road traffic casualties.
Yes it's not the concept - which is straightforward - it's the actual trade off. For example and sticking with road deaths. If banning cars saved 500,000 deaths a year we would ban cars.
The latter seems a better bet than getting it and potentially not surviving.
By my rough estimate herd immunity without vaccine costs 3,000,000 hospital admissions and 250,000 deaths.
Therefore if we assume no vaccine the challenge is how best to manage 3,000,000 hospital admissions and 250,000 deaths over the next 18 months.
But I could be missing something. Sure I am. Hope so anyway.
Its likely that most of the 250,000 deaths over the next 18 months would have died anyway.
A bit brutal but has to be considered.
Yes, unfortunately I think that is the missing part of Kinabalu's equation.
In the absence of a vaccine, it will be a balancing act between managing hospital admissions and not crashing the economy. Triage based on age, health and expected surviability will inevitably be a part of that.
I know ther are people who find this view unfeeling, shocking and even psychopathic, but we are looking at managing a disaster situation in the least worst way now. There are no good choices, but some are less bad than others.
We need to save as many lives as we can without crashing the economy. That, unfortunately, means we will not be able to save every life and a balance will have to be struck.
Its not a revolutionary concept - we could reduce road traffic deaths by over 1500 each year if vehicles were unable to go above 20mph.
But the socioeconomic costs of so doing are deemed to be higher than accepting the extra road traffic casualties.
And if the public were banned from using motor vehicles altogether than road traffic accidents would be all but eliminated as a cause of death. I've been using the same example for weeks.
Therefore, logically, we are willing to accept a certain number of children being catapulted into the air and landing dead on the tarmac every year, just to allow people to continue to drive. Does this mean that society doesn't care for the dead children, or has it simply judged that the consequences of forcibly abolishing motorized road transport would be worse?
Similarly, the NHS would be much better able to cope with situations like this if the Government stopped spending money on anything other than healthcare. Does that mean that this would be a wise idea?
In actual fact, Governments have *always* put an economic value on human lives, and they will always have to do so. It is a core part of their function.
Indeed, one would've thought that, in the case of this pandemic, the key calculation that has to be made is when the cost in terms of casualties of economic implosion - through increased poverty, the suicide of the jobless and destroyed business owners, reduction in the tax base meaning that there is less to spend on health, and so on - is going to outstrip the number of casualties caused by Covid itself. Once this tipping point is reached, not only can the Government justify relaxing the social distancing measures, it *MUST* do so.
Making that particular judgment will be agony for ministers, and none of us should envy them for it, but it's just the sort of thing that they have been put there to do.
The NHS proved utterly useless at preventing terrorism - therefore it needs to be abolished and all the funding moved to MI5.
The Labour party is absolutely useless at fixing the problem inside Dr N. Wolf's head. Therefore the Labour party should be abolished and the funding used for... no, it fails me....
Godalming - strolled along suburban roads which would normally have lots of people around in front gardens, washing cars etc. Almost deserted - I could hear some kids in a back garden (and why not) but otherwise a single car in 30 minutes and one family group with a dog.
Colchester - had a long walk with dog and very little traffic, Skate park empty, Castle park very, very quiet - no groups and no sunbathers - high street like a scene out of 28 days later.
Chelmsford - son's friend reports a big group in Central park - big group and with people jumping in river. Crowd of over a 100 - police called and they haven't showed up within 90 minutes......
Godalming - strolled along suburban roads which would normally have lots of people around in front gardens, washing cars etc. Almost deserted - I could hear some kids in a back garden (and why not) but otherwise a single car in 30 minutes and one family group with a dog.
On my normal walk this afternoon I passed just one couple. Perhaps all the others have gone to the Peak District.
Colchester - had a long walk with dog and very little traffic, Skate park empty, Castle park very, very quiet - no groups and no sunbathers - high street like a scene out of 28 days later.
Chelmsford - son's friend reports a big group in Central park - big group and with people jumping in river. Crowd of over a 100 - police called and they haven't showed up within 90 minutes......
Godalming - strolled along suburban roads which would normally have lots of people around in front gardens, washing cars etc. Almost deserted - I could hear some kids in a back garden (and why not) but otherwise a single car in 30 minutes and one family group with a dog.
Went for my usual 90 minute walk around the farm roads at the back of the village. Met maybe a dozen people, all passed on the opposite side of the road. Didn't actually touch anything other than my wife. There seemed to be more cars than a few days ago but you are still talking much less than 20.
Its not a revolutionary concept - we could reduce road traffic deaths by over 1500 each year if vehicles were unable to go above 20mph.
But the socioeconomic costs of so doing are deemed to be higher than accepting the extra road traffic casualties.
Yes it's not the concept - which is straightforward - it's the actual trade off. For example and sticking with road deaths. If banning cars saved 500,000 deaths a year we would ban cars.
I think we would stop short of banning them. We would introduce new sped limits etc. to bring the figure down.
On a positive note notice how we've stopped talking about what's in the shops.
The supermarkets seem to have everything available if sometimes not in a full range or in the same quantities.
I'm impressed with their performance.
Delivery from Asda today was missing many of the important items we wanted (eggs for instance) . And, given we had ordered potatoes subbing in more potatoes for sweet potato was a real eye roller of a moment.
The latter seems a better bet than getting it and potentially not surviving.
By my rough estimate herd immunity without vaccine costs 3,000,000 hospital admissions and 250,000 deaths.
Therefore if we assume no vaccine the challenge is how best to manage 3,000,000 hospital admissions and 250,000 deaths over the next 18 months.
But I could be missing something. Sure I am. Hope so anyway.
Its likely that most of the 250,000 deaths over the next 18 months would have died anyway.
A bit brutal but has to be considered.
Yes, unfortunately I think that is the missing part of Kinabalu's equation.
In the absence of a vaccine, it will be a balancing act between managing hospital admissions and not crashing the economy. Triage based on age, health and expected surviability will inevitably be a part of that.
I know ther are people who find this view unfeeling, shocking and even psychopathic, but we are looking at managing a disaster situation in the least worst way now. There are no good choices, but some are less bad than others.
We need to save as many lives as we can without crashing the economy. That, unfortunately, means we will not be able to save every life and a balance will have to be struck.
Its not a revolutionary concept - we could reduce road traffic deaths by over 1500 each year if vehicles were unable to go above 20mph.
But the socioeconomic costs of so doing are deemed to be higher than accepting the extra road traffic casualties.
And if the public were banned from using motor vehicles altogether than road traffic accidents would be all but eliminated as a cause of death. I've been using the same example for weeks.
Therefore, logically, we are willing to accept a certain number of children being catapulted into the air and landing dead on the tarmac every year, just to allow people to continue to drive. Does this mean that society doesn't care for the dead children, or has it simply judged that the consequences of forcibly abolishing motorized road transport would be worse?
Similarly, the NHS would be much better able to cope with situations like this if the Government stopped spending money on anything other than healthcare. Does that mean that this would be a wise idea?
In actual fact, Governments have *always* put an economic value on human lives, and they will always have to do so. It is a core part of their function.
Indeed, one would've thought that, in the case of this pandemic, the key calculation that has to be made is when the cost in terms of casualties of economic implosion - through increased poverty, the suicide of the jobless and destroyed business owners, reduction in the tax base meaning that there is less to spend on health, and so on - is going to outstrip the number of casualties caused by Covid itself. Once this tipping point is reached, not only can the Government justify relaxing the social distancing measures, it *MUST* do so.
Making that particular judgment will be agony for ministers, and none of us should envy them for it, but it's just the sort of thing that they have been put there to do.
The question is when do we reach this tipping point, when the economy implodes and the tax base shrinks... I think it is sooner rather than later.
One thing that is absolutely killing businesses right now is the uncertainty. They do not know when they will be able to reopen, which means that they are operating under the assumption they may be closed for six months or more.
The government needs to make it clear when the lockdown will end, now, so businesses are able to make better contingency plans. Because otherwise, it will be wall to wall redundancies before furloughing even ends.
As expected, Angela Rayner will also be party chair (Lavery's current role)
Right... that isn't exactly a vote of confidence in his new deputy. She isn't the greatest media performer (as today has already shown). She might grow into it. But this looks like a place to keep her out of actual policy development.
That's silly - if she hadn't been, you'd say it was a snub. She's just been elected by a large margin of the membership, so seems a sensible choice as party chair.
Oxfordsimon is going to try put a negative spin on whoever Starmer appoints. It's totally predictable and therefore of very limited value.
Its not a revolutionary concept - we could reduce road traffic deaths by over 1500 each year if vehicles were unable to go above 20mph.
But the socioeconomic costs of so doing are deemed to be higher than accepting the extra road traffic casualties.
Yes it's not the concept - which is straightforward - it's the actual trade off. For example and sticking with road deaths. If banning cars saved 500,000 deaths a year we would ban cars.
And that's the decision those in charge will have to make.
Colchester - had a long walk with dog and very little traffic, Skate park empty, Castle park very, very quiet - no groups and no sunbathers - high street like a scene out of 28 days later.
Chelmsford - son's friend reports a big group in Central park - big group and with people jumping in river. Crowd of over a 100 - police called and they haven't showed up within 90 minutes......
Godalming - strolled along suburban roads which would normally have lots of people around in front gardens, washing cars etc. Almost deserted - I could hear some kids in a back garden (and why not) but otherwise a single car in 30 minutes and one family group with a dog.
Up here in Royston it was very, very quiet as well. Other than a small queue of shoppers waiting patiently outside Morrisons when I ran by (on the other side of the road) on Saturday, everybody else other than the drivers (and there were very few of those) were people running, cycling, walking dogs, doing family walks with young kiddies, or carrying home groceries. The park in the town centre was deserted. In fact, observance of the lockdown rules has been so thorough that nearly every restaurant business I passed that was still offering takeaway food a couple of weeks ago has given up and shut for the duration, and it looks like the wine shop has done likewise.
I hope that the Government doesn't give in to the small minority of rule breakers and attempt to cage the entire population. There are no shortage of us who will seriously contemplate going out anyway, because there is no public health benefit to be gained from not exercising, the police will be too stretched trying to implement a regulation that the public are liable to treat with contempt, and I don't think that Boris will dare turn armed troops out on the streets to enforce it in their place.
Colchester - had a long walk with dog and very little traffic, Skate park empty, Castle park very, very quiet - no groups and no sunbathers - high street like a scene out of 28 days later.
Chelmsford - son's friend reports a big group in Central park - big group and with people jumping in river. Crowd of over a 100 - police called and they haven't showed up within 90 minutes......
Godalming - strolled along suburban roads which would normally have lots of people around in front gardens, washing cars etc. Almost deserted - I could hear some kids in a back garden (and why not) but otherwise a single car in 30 minutes and one family group with a dog.
On my normal walk this afternoon I passed just one couple. Perhaps all the others have gone to the Peak District.
They have hired by an agency to star in pictures of "mass gatherings" - pictures to appear in the next tweet by a police force.
It is far hard to manufacture outrage if not enough people are doing outrageous things.
Went for my usual 90 minute walk around the farm roads at the back of the village. Met maybe a dozen people, all passed on the opposite side of the road. Didn't actually touch anything other than my wife. There seemed to be more cars than a few days ago but you are still talking much less than 20.
Touching your wife on the farm road at the back of the village? Nice one.
I'm pleased Lisa Nandy got shadow foreign secretary. A big and meaningful job.
I've never heard of the new shadow Chancellor.
About 10-12 years ago Dodds was standing for Labour in Reading East (she didn’t win) and BBC Question Time came to Reading. Dodds sat in the audience and got to ask a question. Unsurprisingly she agreed with whatever the Labour Party spokesman said!
As expected, Angela Rayner will also be party chair (Lavery's current role)
Right... that isn't exactly a vote of confidence in his new deputy. She isn't the greatest media performer (as today has already shown). She might grow into it. But this looks like a place to keep her out of actual policy development.
That's silly - if she hadn't been, you'd say it was a snub. She's just been elected by a large margin of the membership, so seems a sensible choice as party chair.
Oxfordsimon is going to try put a negative spin on whoever Starmer appoints. It's totally predictable and therefore of very limited value.
Always nice to being on the receiving end of an ad hominem attack.
But my point still stands - whether or not you agree with it (or anything else I say) - Rayner should have been in line for a more substantial role given the mandate she received. Party Chair is something that Harriet Harman had as Deputy Leader - and she also had government/shadow cabinet roles at the same time.
Colchester - had a long walk with dog and very little traffic, Skate park empty, Castle park very, very quiet - no groups and no sunbathers - high street like a scene out of 28 days later.
Chelmsford - son's friend reports a big group in Central park - big group and with people jumping in river. Crowd of over a 100 - police called and they haven't showed up within 90 minutes......
Godalming - strolled along suburban roads which would normally have lots of people around in front gardens, washing cars etc. Almost deserted - I could hear some kids in a back garden (and why not) but otherwise a single car in 30 minutes and one family group with a dog.
Up here in Royston it was very, very quiet as well. Other than a small queue of shoppers waiting patiently outside Morrisons when I ran by (on the other side of the road) on Saturday, everybody else other than the drivers (and there were very few of those) were people running, cycling, walking dogs, doing family walks with young kiddies, or carrying home groceries. The park in the town centre was deserted. In fact, observance of the lockdown rules has been so thorough that nearly every restaurant business I passed that was still offering takeaway food a couple of weeks ago has given up and shut for the duration, and it looks like the wine shop has done likewise.
I hope that the Government doesn't give in to the small minority of rule breakers and attempt to cage the entire population. There are no shortage of us who will seriously contemplate going out anyway, because there is no public health benefit to be gained from not exercising, the police will be too stretched trying to implement a regulation that the public are liable to treat with contempt, and I don't think that Boris will dare turn armed troops out on the streets to enforce it in their place.
On topic, Labour face a daunting task. They need to focus on what matters to them and to their prospective target voters. They can’t do anything if they are not in power. So the first priority must be working out the compromises they are ready to make with that part of the electorate that is not wowed by purist Labour.
And if the public were banned from using motor vehicles altogether than road traffic accidents would be all but eliminated as a cause of death. I've been using the same example for weeks.
Therefore, logically, we are willing to accept a certain number of children being catapulted into the air and landing dead on the tarmac every year, just to allow people to continue to drive. Does this mean that society doesn't care for the dead children, or has it simply judged that the consequences of forcibly abolishing motorized road transport would be worse?
Similarly, the NHS would be much better able to cope with situations like this if the Government stopped spending money on anything other than healthcare. Does that mean that this would be a wise idea?
In actual fact, Governments have *always* put an economic value on human lives, and they will always have to do so. It is a core part of their function.
Indeed, one would've thought that, in the case of this pandemic, the key calculation that has to be made is when the cost in terms of casualties of economic implosion - through increased poverty, the suicide of the jobless and destroyed business owners, reduction in the tax base meaning that there is less to spend on health, and so on - is going to outstrip the number of casualties caused by Covid itself. Once this tipping point is reached, not only can the Government justify relaxing the social distancing measures, it *MUST* do so.
Making that particular judgment will be agony for ministers, and none of us should envy them for it, but it's just the sort of thing that they have been put there to do.
They will be doing this assessment. I don't know why people doubt it.
And if the public were banned from using motor vehicles altogether than road traffic accidents would be all but eliminated as a cause of death. I've been using the same example for weeks.
Therefore, logically, we are willing to accept a certain number of children being catapulted into the air and landing dead on the tarmac every year, just to allow people to continue to drive. Does this mean that society doesn't care for the dead children, or has it simply judged that the consequences of forcibly abolishing motorized road transport would be worse?
Similarly, the NHS would be much better able to cope with situations like this if the Government stopped spending money on anything other than healthcare. Does that mean that this would be a wise idea?
In actual fact, Governments have *always* put an economic value on human lives, and they will always have to do so. It is a core part of their function.
Indeed, one would've thought that, in the case of this pandemic, the key calculation that has to be made is when the cost in terms of casualties of economic implosion - through increased poverty, the suicide of the jobless and destroyed business owners, reduction in the tax base meaning that there is less to spend on health, and so on - is going to outstrip the number of casualties caused by Covid itself. Once this tipping point is reached, not only can the Government justify relaxing the social distancing measures, it *MUST* do so.
Making that particular judgment will be agony for ministers, and none of us should envy them for it, but it's just the sort of thing that they have been put there to do.
They will be doing this assessment. I don't know why people doubt it.
Exactly.
All government decisions cost lives. When you are dealing with the lives of 65 million people, the slightest change will find the outliers.... This is why government can be said, like fire, to be a powerful servant and a terrible master.
Probably the government's advice is different because it was issued before the herd immunity strategy was dropped, and now it can't be changed without politicians losing face.
I had several calls with my GP the other day and listened to the standard spiel about CV 3x. It was very clear that you could return to work 7 days after you were infected, even if you still had symptoms. I thought that it was just wrong and was amazed that still seems to be the official advice in Scotland. It needs changing or we will not reduce R0 sufficiently to make this suffering worthwhile.
Hospital admissions seem to be rising again now, which suggests something needs to be done.
Extending the period of self-isolation for those with symptoms to the WHO recommendation would be something which surely even the awkward squad could scarcely object to.
Frankly. I think the advice not to wear masks had more to do with the scarcity of masks than the science. I don't see any reason not to tell people to cover their nose and mouth while they're out, whatever they cover them with - while emphasising that it won't make them safe, so they still need to keep their distance, but it may help to protect others.
Hospital admissions will probably rise (albeit at fairly constant levels) for another couple of days before levelling off. Although if we are like Spain rather than Italy it might rise quite sharply and then fall faster. Let's see...
Why would you expect hospital admissions to continue to rise for four weeks after the lockdown? Given that - for example - the peak number of daily deaths in Italy came only 19 days after the lockdown.
The latter seems a better bet than getting it and potentially not surviving.
By my rough estimate herd immunity without vaccine costs 3,000,000 hospital admissions and 250,000 deaths.
Therefore if we assume no vaccine the challenge is how best to manage 3,000,000 hospital admissions and 250,000 deaths over the next 18 months.
But I could be missing something. Sure I am. Hope so anyway.
Its likely that most of the 250,000 deaths over the next 18 months would have died anyway.
A bit brutal but has to be considered.
Yes, unfortunately I think that is the missing part of Kinabalu's equation.
In the absence of a vaccine, it will be a balancing act between managing hospital admissions and not crashing the economy. Triage based on age, health and expected surviability will inevitably be a part of that.
I know ther are people who find this view unfeeling, shocking and even psychopathic, but we are looking at managing a disaster situation in the least worst way now. There are no good choices, but some are less bad than others.
We need to save as many lives as we can without crashing the economy. That, unfortunately, means we will not be able to save every life and a balance will have to be struck.
Its not a revolutionary concept - we could reduce road traffic deaths by over 1500 each year if vehicles were unable to go above 20mph.
But the socioeconomic costs of so doing are deemed to be higher than accepting the extra road traffic casualties.
And if the public were banned from using motor vehicles altogether than road traffic accidents would be all but eliminated as a cause of death. I've been using the same example for weeks.
Therefore, logically, we are willing to accept a certain number of children being catapulted into the air and landing dead on the tarmac every year, just to allow people to continue to drive. Does this mean that society doesn't care for the dead children, or has it simply judged that the consequences of forcibly abolishing motorized road transport would be worse?
Similarly, the NHS would be much better able to cope with situations like this if the Government stopped spending money on anything other than healthcare. Does that mean that this would be a wise idea?
In actual fact, Governments have *always* put an economic value on human lives, and they will always have to do so. It is a core part of their function.
Indeed, one would've thought that, in the case of this pandemic, the key calculation that has to be made is when the cost in terms of casualties of economic implosion - through increased poverty, the suicide of the jobless and destroyed business owners, reduction in the tax base meaning that there is less to spend on health, and so on - is going to outstrip the number of casualties caused by Covid itself. Once this tipping point is reached, not only can the Government justify relaxing the social distancing measures, it *MUST* do so.
Making that particular judgment will be agony for ministers, and none of us should envy them for it, but it's just the sort of thing that they have been put there to do.
The question is when do we reach this tipping point, when the economy implodes and the tax base shrinks... I think it is sooner rather than later.
One thing that is absolutely killing businesses right now is the uncertainty. They do not know when they will be able to reopen, which means that they are operating under the assumption they may be closed for six months or more.
The government needs to make it clear when the lockdown will end, now, so businesses are able to make better contingency plans. Because otherwise, it will be wall to wall redundancies before furloughing even ends.
How can they know, though? It’s the Beth Rigby style question - will it end, when can I do x, y & z? Just today, Ferguson said that if lockdown compliance degenerates then there will be a longer lockdown. Who knows yet at what point the plateau of new cases is reached, how long it will remain at that plateau and how quickly it will decrease?
All the government activity has suggested three months or so, so mid May to mid June could be what they are aiming at to start and complete the exit? As a plan, though, it isn’t capable of being definite.
Colchester - had a long walk with dog and very little traffic, Skate park empty, Castle park very, very quiet - no groups and no sunbathers - high street like a scene out of 28 days later.
Chelmsford - son's friend reports a big group in Central park - big group and with people jumping in river. Crowd of over a 100 - police called and they haven't showed up within 90 minutes......
Godalming - strolled along suburban roads which would normally have lots of people around in front gardens, washing cars etc. Almost deserted - I could hear some kids in a back garden (and why not) but otherwise a single car in 30 minutes and one family group with a dog.
Went for my usual 90 minute walk around the farm roads at the back of the village. Met maybe a dozen people, all passed on the opposite side of the road. Didn't actually touch anything other than my wife. There seemed to be more cars than a few days ago but you are still talking much less than 20.
I looked out my front gate and saw nobody, during the day I heard several people take their rubbish to the bin.
All these comparisons are well and good, but Road traffic accidents don't grow exponentially. Had my first non household (distanced) contact today for a while, people talking about universal credit at the livery yard.
Went for my usual 90 minute walk around the farm roads at the back of the village. Met maybe a dozen people, all passed on the opposite side of the road. Didn't actually touch anything other than my wife. There seemed to be more cars than a few days ago but you are still talking much less than 20.
Touching your wife on the farm road at the back of the village? Nice one.
'Only' 525 fatalities in Italy today - lowest since March 19th (about 10 days into their lockdown). Still quite a lot of new cases reported (4300), but I wonder if they are picking up milder cases. But still good news overall.
4300 cases 27 days into lockdown. Does this show that lockdowns work with this virus ?
Yes, of course the Italian numbers show that lockdowns can work.
There is the same number of new infections today as there were 9 days ago.
I have 4300 today compared with 5959 nine days ago. And compared with a peak of 6557 on 22 March, just under two weeks after the lockdown.
As expected, Angela Rayner will also be party chair (Lavery's current role)
Right... that isn't exactly a vote of confidence in his new deputy. She isn't the greatest media performer (as today has already shown). She might grow into it. But this looks like a place to keep her out of actual policy development.
That's silly - if she hadn't been, you'd say it was a snub. She's just been elected by a large margin of the membership, so seems a sensible choice as party chair.
Oxfordsimon is going to try put a negative spin on whoever Starmer appoints. It's totally predictable and therefore of very limited value.
Always nice to being on the receiving end of an ad hominem attack.
But my point still stands - whether or not you agree with it (or anything else I say) - Rayner should have been in line for a more substantial role given the mandate she received. Party Chair is something that Harriet Harman had as Deputy Leader - and she also had government/shadow cabinet roles at the same time.
This looks like a snub to me.
The alternative might be that Starmer believes the role of Party Chair to be crucial in overhauling the party machinery and policy offering without causing splits. Achieving that will be fundamental to the thing he has identified as his main priority - winning the next election. So maybe he wants to leave her, as the person best places to do it, free to concentrate on that.
Not saying that *is* the case, just that it’s another interpretation that fits the facts we have.
On a positive note notice how we've stopped talking about what's in the shops.
The supermarkets seem to have everything available if sometimes not in a full range or in the same quantities.
I'm impressed with their performance.
They're getting back on balance after having to adjust to all the extra demand - not just the hoarding wave, but all the extra food people need to cover the cessation of supply from school and work canteens, and virtually the entire restaurant trade.
So yes, there are still hiccups and certain goods are in intermittently short supply - and I would also keep an eye on the weather, because having to wait in a queue outside of a supermarket for half-an-hour to be let in, as I did yesterday, is going to become a much more serious problem if and when we have to endure a prolonged period of rain. But things are a lot better than they were; even the bog roll aisle was more or less full in Tesco yesterday.
The main potential cloud on the horizon now is further disruption if a lot of British farmers find themselves short of labour to bring in the fruit and veg harvest.
'Only' 525 fatalities in Italy today - lowest since March 19th (about 10 days into their lockdown). Still quite a lot of new cases reported (4300), but I wonder if they are picking up milder cases. But still good news overall.
4300 cases 27 days into lockdown. Does this show that lockdowns work with this virus ?
Yes, of course the Italian numbers show that lockdowns can work.
There is the same number of new infections today as there were 9 days ago.
I have 4300 today compared with 5959 nine days ago. And compared with a peak of 6557 on 22 March, just under two weeks after the lockdown.
And I would guess they are testing more now than they were previously?
All government decisions cost lives. When you are dealing with the lives of 65 million people, the slightest change will find the outliers.... This is why government can be said, like fire, to be a powerful servant and a terrible master.
So who lives? Who dies?
A tough time to be in power. The saving grace (and it is) is that although they must answer your dreadful question they do not need to put names to it.
On a positive note notice how we've stopped talking about what's in the shops.
The supermarkets seem to have everything available if sometimes not in a full range or in the same quantities.
I'm impressed with their performance.
They're getting back on balance after having to adjust to all the extra demand - not just the hoarding wave, but all the extra food people need to cover the cessation of supply from school and work canteens, and virtually the entire restaurant trade.
So yes, there are still hiccups and certain goods are in intermittently short supply - and I would also keep an eye on the weather, because having to wait in a queue outside of a supermarket for half-an-hour to be let in, as I did yesterday, is going to become a much more serious problem if and when we have to endure a prolonged period of rain. But things are a lot better than they were; even the bog roll aisle was more or less full in Tesco yesterday.
The main potential cloud on the horizon now is further disruption if a lot of British farmers find themselves short of labour to bring in the fruit and veg harvest.
I don't think there should be a shortage of labour, lots of fit young workers being laid off. Will they be as productive as the eastern europeans who are now experienced at this sort of thing ? Probably not. So the price of fruit and veg may go up. So be it.
On the 5G front: Did you know that virtually all modern houses are routinely built with emitters of electromagnetic radiation of staggeringly higher frequency than even 5G? Obviously the Government are getting ready for an even more frightning rollout of yet higher frequencies in the future, but the facts are that these emitters - which are already regularly turned on and off - give off electromagnetic radiation in a frequency band a hundred thousand times higher than the standard 5G and ten thousand times higher than the highest frequency of 5G ever planned?
And that even mainstream science ADMITS that this frequency band can, at the very least, cause sleep deprivation issues when constantly emitted.
(Of course, it’s not just new houses that have them - even older houses routinely have light bulbs...)
The latter seems a better bet than getting it and potentially not surviving.
By my rough estimate herd immunity without vaccine costs 3,000,000 hospital admissions and 250,000 deaths.
Therefore if we assume no vaccine the challenge is how best to manage 3,000,000 hospital admissions and 250,000 deaths over the next 18 months.
But I could be missing something. Sure I am. Hope so anyway.
Its likely that most of the 250,000 deaths over the next 18 months would have died anyway.
A bit brutal but has to be considered.
Yes, unfortunately I think that is the missing part of Kinabalu's equation.
In the absence of a vaccine, it will be a balancing act between managing hospital admissions and not crashing the economy. Triage based on age, health and expected surviability will inevitably be a part of that.
I know ther are people who find this view unfeeling, shocking and even psychopathic, but we are looking at managing a disaster situation in the least worst way now. There are no good choices, but some are less bad than others.
We need to save as many lives as we can without crashing the economy. That, unfortunately, means we will not be able to save every life and a balance will have to be struck.
Its not a revolutionary concept - we could reduce road traffic deaths by over 1500 each year if vehicles were unable to go above 20mph.
But the socioeconomic costs of so doing are deemed to be higher than accepting the extra road traffic casualties.
And if the public were banned from using motor vehicles altogether than road traffic accidents would be all but eliminated as a cause of death. I've been using the same example for weeks.
Therefore, logically, we are willing to accept a certain number of children being catapulted into the air and landing dead on the tarmac every year, just to allow people to continue to drive. Does this mean that society doesn't care for the dead children, or has it simply judged that the consequences of forcibly abolishing motorized road transport would be worse?
Similarly, the NHS would be much better able to cope with situations like this if the Government stopped spending money on anything other than healthcare. Does that mean that this would be a wise idea?
In actual fact, Governments have *always* put an economic value on human lives, and they will always have to do so. It is a core part of their function.
Indeed, one would've thought that, in the case of this pandemic, the key calculation that has to be made is when the cost in terms of casualties of economic implosion - through increased poverty, the suicide of the jobless and destroyed business owners, reduction in the tax base meaning that there is less to spend on health, and so on - is going to outstrip the number of casualties caused by Covid itself. Once this tipping point is reached, not only can the Government justify relaxing the social distancing measures, it *MUST* do so.
Making that particular judgment will be agony for ministers, and none of us should envy them for it, but it's just the sort of thing that they have been put there to do.
The question is when do we reach this tipping point, when the economy implodes and the tax base shrinks... I think it is sooner rather than later.
One thing that is absolutely killing businesses right now is the uncertainty. They do not know when they will be able to reopen, which means that they are operating under the assumption they may be closed for six months or more.
The government needs to make it clear when the lockdown will end, now, so businesses are able to make better contingency plans. Because otherwise, it will be wall to wall redundancies before furloughing even ends.
How can they know, though? It’s the Beth Rigby style question - will it end, when can I do x, y & z? Just today, Ferguson said that if lockdown compliance degenerates then there will be a longer lockdown. Who knows yet at what point the plateau of new cases is reached, how long it will remain at that plateau and how quickly it will decrease?
All the government activity has suggested three months or so, so mid May to mid June could be what they are aiming at to start and complete the exit? As a plan, though, it isn’t capable of being definite.
Possibly what they could do is give a better idea about what lifting the lockdown would mean (stages) without going into timing.
Eg. expanding the range of shops/businesses able to trade. Circumstances in which they are allowed to do so (eg. continuing social distancing, max no of x people per sq ft). What businesses? (Pubs/restaurants probably well down the list). I don't know.
On a positive note notice how we've stopped talking about what's in the shops.
The supermarkets seem to have everything available if sometimes not in a full range or in the same quantities.
I'm impressed with their performance.
They're getting back on balance after having to adjust to all the extra demand - not just the hoarding wave, but all the extra food people need to cover the cessation of supply from school and work canteens, and virtually the entire restaurant trade.
So yes, there are still hiccups and certain goods are in intermittently short supply - and I would also keep an eye on the weather, because having to wait in a queue outside of a supermarket for half-an-hour to be let in, as I did yesterday, is going to become a much more serious problem if and when we have to endure a prolonged period of rain. But things are a lot better than they were; even the bog roll aisle was more or less full in Tesco yesterday.
The main potential cloud on the horizon now is further disruption if a lot of British farmers find themselves short of labour to bring in the fruit and veg harvest.
In Los Angeles, the stores are full, except for toilet paper.
Rather than 2m ours should be six feet = one tall man lying down but definitely not sunbathing or two shopping trolley-lengths for those in supermarkets. Units people can understand.
What instuctions can be given beyomd wherever we have got to. What is the lcd???
Godalming - strolled along suburban roads which would normally have lots of people around in front gardens, washing cars etc. Almost deserted - I could hear some kids in a back garden (and why not) but otherwise a single car in 30 minutes and one family group with a dog.
It's the Marie Celeste round here - London NW3.
I live on the village green. Normally I could expect to see very few people on a Sunday, unless the village cricket team are playing at home. No leather on willow obviously, yet it was like Picadilly Circus here today.
Comments
Wait for the moment and strike like a Black Mamba!
Nice to see you've assimilated enough to absorb the Scottish cringe though.
Seriously.
Well, Swine Flu, to be accurate.
4G was linked to Swine Flu by cranks like this whilst SARS was linked with 3G. God knows what they think caused the Spanish Flu, putting the clocks forwards maybe?
Rather than 2m ours should be six feet = one tall man lying down but definitely not sunbathing or two shopping trolley-lengths for those in supermarkets. Units people can understand.
Please be careful though, I don't think you're supposed to out Nicola Sturgeon on PB.
https://twitter.com/thymetikon/status/1131702577878503425
You otoh...
In the absence of a vaccine, it will be a balancing act between managing hospital admissions and not crashing the economy. Triage based on age, health and expected surviability will inevitably be a part of that.
I know ther are people who find this view unfeeling, shocking and even psychopathic, but we are looking at managing a disaster situation in the least worst way now. There are no good choices, but some are less bad than others.
We need to save as many lives as we can without crashing the economy. That, unfortunately, means we will not be able to save every life and a balance will have to be struck.
https://twitter.com/nw19061253/status/1246774848526876677?s=21
Extending the period of self-isolation for those with symptoms to the WHO recommendation would be something which surely even the awkward squad could scarcely object to.
Frankly. I think the advice not to wear masks had more to do with the scarcity of masks than the science. I don't see any reason not to tell people to cover their nose and mouth while they're out, whatever they cover them with - while emphasising that it won't make them safe, so they still need to keep their distance, but it may help to protect others.
Colchester - had a long walk with dog and very little traffic, Skate park empty, Castle park very, very quiet - no groups and no sunbathers - high street like a scene out of 28 days later.
Chelmsford - son's friend reports a big group in Central park - big group and with people jumping in river. Crowd of over a 100 - police called and they haven't showed up within 90 minutes......
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1246835910706171910?s=20
Above St Kitts and Nevis but behind Belarus
Germany only 24th S Korea 29th
So is Rayner not as able to multi-task as Harman?
It wouldn't surprise me if Sturgeon doesn't want to get rid of her because she doesn't want to be short of her own CMO to politically grandstand with rather than just rely on the UK Government one.
She'll have quit by tomorrow night.
But the socioeconomic costs of so doing are deemed to be higher than accepting the extra road traffic casualties.
"wireless telegraphy in WWI, RADAR in WWII, satellites and Hong Kong Flu in the 60s and now 5G"
now I don't think its the development of wireless telegraphy but the post WW1 industrialisation/spread of it. The invention was mid-late 1890s (oh, wait a second … https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1889–1890_flu_pandemic))
Not saying we doing well, but that metric chucks up some weird results
The CMO and the medical system in the UK are using a number of measures to *try* and understand what is going on.
In this particular sub-case, case they are reading the number of hospital admissions to try and see if we are "bending the curve" - this number has several virtues. It is easy to measure, a hard* measure of what is happening and a lead indicator if things are about to go wrong.
*a hard measure in the sense of being a number that is probably consistent as a measure, and accurate in what it means.
And given how vulnerable the old and sick are then 125,000 doesn't seem unlikely.
1) People of colour are alegedly more at rick of Electro-Sensitivity (ES).
2) Double bind trials have repeatedly proved that there is not such thing as ES
3) Because of the negative history of Western Science vs POC, Western Science needs to respect the word of POC.
Therefore, logically, we are willing to accept a certain number of children being catapulted into the air and landing dead on the tarmac every year, just to allow people to continue to drive. Does this mean that society doesn't care for the dead children, or has it simply judged that the consequences of forcibly abolishing motorized road transport would be worse?
Similarly, the NHS would be much better able to cope with situations like this if the Government stopped spending money on anything other than healthcare. Does that mean that this would be a wise idea?
In actual fact, Governments have *always* put an economic value on human lives, and they will always have to do so. It is a core part of their function.
Indeed, one would've thought that, in the case of this pandemic, the key calculation that has to be made is when the cost in terms of casualties of economic implosion - through increased poverty, the suicide of the jobless and destroyed business owners, reduction in the tax base meaning that there is less to spend on health, and so on - is going to outstrip the number of casualties caused by Covid itself. Once this tipping point is reached, not only can the Government justify relaxing the social distancing measures, it *MUST* do so.
Making that particular judgment will be agony for ministers, and none of us should envy them for it, but it's just the sort of thing that they have been put there to do.
I've never heard of the new shadow Chancellor.
The Labour party is absolutely useless at fixing the problem inside Dr N. Wolf's head. Therefore the Labour party should be abolished and the funding used for... no, it fails me....
The supermarkets seem to have everything available if sometimes not in a full range or in the same quantities.
I'm impressed with their performance.
One thing that is absolutely killing businesses right now is the uncertainty. They do not know when they will be able to reopen, which means that they are operating under the assumption they may be closed for six months or more.
The government needs to make it clear when the lockdown will end, now, so businesses are able to make better contingency plans. Because otherwise, it will be wall to wall redundancies before furloughing even ends.
I would have thought £2-3 million a very good deal for renting that place for several months....
I hope that the Government doesn't give in to the small minority of rule breakers and attempt to cage the entire population. There are no shortage of us who will seriously contemplate going out anyway, because there is no public health benefit to be gained from not exercising, the police will be too stretched trying to implement a regulation that the public are liable to treat with contempt, and I don't think that Boris will dare turn armed troops out on the streets to enforce it in their place.
It is far hard to manufacture outrage if not enough people are doing outrageous things.
But my point still stands - whether or not you agree with it (or anything else I say) - Rayner should have been in line for a more substantial role given the mandate she received. Party Chair is something that Harriet Harman had as Deputy Leader - and she also had government/shadow cabinet roles at the same time.
This looks like a snub to me.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/fauci-and-birx-worked-together-at-the-dawn-of-the-aids-crisis-thirty-seven-years-later-they-are-partners-in-fighting-the-coronavirus/2020/04/03/d10980d8-7425-11ea-ae50-7148009252e3_story.html
All government decisions cost lives. When you are dealing with the lives of 65 million people, the slightest change will find the outliers.... This is why government can be said, like fire, to be a powerful servant and a terrible master.
So who lives? Who dies?
All the government activity has suggested three months or so, so mid May to mid June could be what they are aiming at to start and complete the exit? As a plan, though, it isn’t capable of being definite.
Had my first non household (distanced) contact today for a while, people talking about universal credit at the livery yard.
It's performed spectacularly well.
Not saying that *is* the case, just that it’s another interpretation that fits the facts we have.
So yes, there are still hiccups and certain goods are in intermittently short supply - and I would also keep an eye on the weather, because having to wait in a queue outside of a supermarket for half-an-hour to be let in, as I did yesterday, is going to become a much more serious problem if and when we have to endure a prolonged period of rain. But things are a lot better than they were; even the bog roll aisle was more or less full in Tesco yesterday.
The main potential cloud on the horizon now is further disruption if a lot of British farmers find themselves short of labour to bring in the fruit and veg harvest.
Obviously the Government are getting ready for an even more frightning rollout of yet higher frequencies in the future, but the facts are that these emitters - which are already regularly turned on and off - give off electromagnetic radiation in a frequency band a hundred thousand times higher than the standard 5G and ten thousand times higher than the highest frequency of 5G ever planned?
And that even mainstream science ADMITS that this frequency band can, at the very least, cause sleep deprivation issues when constantly emitted.
(Of course, it’s not just new houses that have them - even older houses routinely have light bulbs...)
Eg. expanding the range of shops/businesses able to trade. Circumstances in which they are allowed to do so (eg. continuing social distancing, max no of x people per sq ft). What businesses? (Pubs/restaurants probably well down the list). I don't know.
https://twitter.com/GretchenKoch/status/1246830890719772674?s=19
Quiet now though.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2020/04/03/coronavirus-forces-dairy-farmers-dump-milk-wisconsin-covid-19/2939959001/
https://twitter.com/davidfrum/status/1246560488378548226?s=19