There was some wasn’t there? In the bigger picture you don’t want General Melchett in the trenches or going over the top. The equivalents in this war are handshakes, testing, quarantine, leaders all over the planet just been getting on with it eschewing those things.
Personally I think this whole thing has just come in on the blind side. It’s only this week the penny has dropped those on the ventilators are in their 50s and less. It’s still not properly sunk in this lockdown is just flattening the sombrero not going to kill it, no switch on for economy in June or July. The only way to actually kill it is going to be Hunt it more than we are doing.
And it’s important for that penny to drop, because the economy can’t be kept in coma much after June or bits of it will start permanently dying, so we we need to start hunting lot more than we doing.
We are not going to kill it until a vaccine emerges, which could be years away, so in the meantime we will just have to lockdown as we near the peak, then ease off again for all but the most vulnerable and mass test, then lockdown again before the next peak
No. That is wrong. You see I am right, the penny hasn’t dropped. What happens to the Big G of this world in the herd immunity you just described. What happens to so much of the economy if state of play doesn’t allow the easing you are anticipating? We need to hunt it, track it down and isolate it. Lock down is defence, we need to go on the offence.
No, it is not wrong.
Big G can just stay indoors and read PB, he is retired and does not need to work and can get his food delivered.
For under 50s the death rate is less than 1%, as I said the state of play will allow such easing for the economy once the peak has passed until the next peak.
Mass testing can be used to track it and isolate it while still getting people back to work
It feels like current affairs have been slightly out of control for about 5 or 6 years now, ever since Cameron gave the green light to the Scottish referendum.
I think we all wish that we could get back to the press whipping themselves into a frenzy over such important issues such as the chancellor eating a burger from a slightly upmarket and overpriced establishment.
There was some wasn’t there? In the bigger picture you don’t want General Melchett in the trenches or going over the top. The equivalents in this war are handshakes, testing, quarantine, leaders all over the planet just been getting on with it eschewing those things.
Personally I think this whole thing has just come in on the blind side. It’s only this week the penny has dropped those on the ventilators are in their 50s and less. It’s still not properly sunk in this lockdown is just flattening the sombrero not going to kill it, no switch on for economy in June or July. The only way to actually kill it is going to be Hunt it more than we are doing.
And it’s important for that penny to drop, because the economy can’t be kept in coma much after June or bits of it will start permanently dying, so we we need to start hunting lot more than we doing.
We are not going to kill it until a vaccine emerges, which could be years away, so in the meantime we will just have to lockdown as we near the peak, then ease off again for all but the most vulnerable and mass test, then lockdown again before the next peak
No. That is wrong. You see I am right, the penny hasn’t dropped. What happens to the Big G of this world in the herd immunity you just described. What happens to so much of the economy if state of play doesn’t allow the easing you are anticipating? We need to hunt it, track it down and isolate it. Lock down is defence, we need to go on the offence.
No, it is not wrong.
Big G can just stay indoors and read PB, he is retired and does not need to work and can get his food delivered.
For under 50s the death rate is less than 1%, as I said the state of play will allow such easing for the economy once the peak has passed until the next peak.
Mass testing can be used to track it and isolate it while still getting people back to work
The thing about herd immunity advocates is that they expect others to die, and themselves to prosper. It doesn't always work out like that though.
For most people who get it they will not be hospitalised and hot broth is what they will most need, indeed arguably if the PM had spent more time drinking hot broth and sleeping over the last few days and less time working he might not have needed ICU admittance tonight
Really you should have been sending him a regular supply.
I know that a point like this comes up every time we have a Prime Ministerial handover between elections, but this really seems like an odd moment to bring it up.
As the UK is a parliamentary democracy, there is no need, under the UK’s unwritten constitution, for an election in order for Raab to assume prime ministerial powers. However, political pressure could eventually lead to one
I struggle to envisage a situation where there would be sufficient political pressure to have an election to endorse Raab as PM, even in a worst case scenario. It's not as though political pressure, from opponents, is enough to get one when there aren't emergency reasons why someone may have taken over.
Indeed, if the worst came to the worse Raab could be PM for 4 years without an election
It comes to something when Richard Burgon is more tasteful than some of the media this evening
Let's do a thought experiment. Let's imagine it wasn't the lovable buffoon from HIGNFY who is in peril, but instead, let's say, one Jeremy Corbin.
How tasteful would the comments on Pb.com, other social media or the established media be?
I would very much hope they would be the same.
Of course they would. I detest Corbyn’s politics and find him a querulous old narcissist as a person. And a fool.
But if he got this? He’s a father and a husband. He’s not evil, just silly.
I would wish him well, fervently, especially if he was the prime minster and the nation needed stability in a time of crisis.
Indeed and looking back at the tragic passing of John Smith I do believe people were respectful regardless of partisan politics. Hopefully he can recover but party politics doesn't matter right now.
I have never understood the belief that John Smith wouldn't have won the election - maybe not Tony Blairs massive landslide, but he would have got a solid majority for sure.
A very interesting what-if that way.....
Not easy to say. The Conservatives lost all unity because they simply did not know how to respond to Blair, and ended up resorting to an "every man (and Teresa Gorman)" to themselves. They knew they were going to lose big, and even the safest seats were at risk.
Think it might have been very different with Smith still there.
Smith would have got a majority of 50 to 100 in 1997 but only Blair could have got a majority of near 200 and won seats like Braintree, Shrewsbury and Atcham and Wimbledon
I'm not so sure. Government lose elections etc.
Not sure what power would have done to Smith - I *think* he would have faired better than Tony Blair. Who is, frankly, weird - I met him when he was a backbencher. The personality of a chameleon.
There was some wasn’t there? In the bigger picture you don’t want General Melchett in the trenches or going over the top. The equivalents in this war are handshakes, testing, quarantine, leaders all over the planet just been getting on with it eschewing those things.
Personally I think this whole thing has just come in on the blind side. It’s only this week the penny has dropped those on the ventilators are in their 50s and less. It’s still not properly sunk in this lockdown is just flattening the sombrero not going to kill it, no switch on for economy in June or July. The only way to actually kill it is going to be Hunt it more than we are doing.
And it’s important for that penny to drop, because the economy can’t be kept in coma much after June or bits of it will start permanently dying, so we we need to start hunting lot more than we doing.
We are not going to kill it until a vaccine emerges, which could be years away, so in the meantime we will just have to lockdown as we near the peak, then ease off again for all but the most vulnerable and mass test, then lockdown again before the next peak
No. That is wrong. You see I am right, the penny hasn’t dropped. What happens to the Big G of this world in the herd immunity you just described. What happens to so much of the economy if state of play doesn’t allow the easing you are anticipating? We need to hunt it, track it down and isolate it. Lock down is defence, we need to go on the offence.
No, it is not wrong.
Big G can just stay indoors and read PB, he is retired and does not need to work and can get his food delivered.
For under 50s the death rate is less than 1%, as I said the state of play will allow such easing for the economy once the peak has passed until the next peak.
Mass testing can be used to track it and isolate it while still getting people back to work
I know that a point like this comes up every time we have a Prime Ministerial handover between elections, but this really seems like an odd moment to bring it up.
As the UK is a parliamentary democracy, there is no need, under the UK’s unwritten constitution, for an election in order for Raab to assume prime ministerial powers. However, political pressure could eventually lead to one
I struggle to envisage a situation where there would be sufficient political pressure to have an election to endorse Raab as PM, even in a worst case scenario. It's not as though political pressure, from opponents, is enough to get one when there aren't emergency reasons why someone may have taken over.
Indeed, if the worst came to the worse Raab could be PM for 4 years without an election
There was some wasn’t there? In the bigger picture you don’t want General Melchett in the trenches or going over the top. The equivalents in this war are handshakes, testing, quarantine, leaders all over the planet just been getting on with it eschewing those things.
Personally I think this whole thing has just come in on the blind side. It’s only this week the penny has dropped those on the ventilators are in their 50s and less. It’s still not properly sunk in this lockdown is just flattening the sombrero not going to kill it, no switch on for economy in June or July. The only way to actually kill it is going to be Hunt it more than we are doing.
And it’s important for that penny to drop, because the economy can’t be kept in coma much after June or bits of it will start permanently dying, so we we need to start hunting lot more than we doing.
We are not going to kill it until a vaccine emerges, which could be years away, so in the meantime we will just have to lockdown as we near the peak, then ease off again for all but the most vulnerable and mass test, then lockdown again before the next peak
No. That is wrong. You see I am right, the penny hasn’t dropped. What happens to the Big G of this world in the herd immunity you just described. What happens to so much of the economy if state of play doesn’t allow the easing you are anticipating? We need to hunt it, track it down and isolate it. Lock down is defence, we need to go on the offence.
No, it is not wrong.
Big G can just stay indoors and read PB, he is retired and does not need to work and can get his food delivered.
For under 50s the death rate is less than 1%, as I said the state of play will allow such easing for the economy once the peak has passed until the next peak.
Mass testing can be used to track it and isolate it while still getting people back to work
Your last line I totally agree with because that is part of the offensive weaponry we should now be deploying. The other bits you are saying brings all the questions of herd immunity approach, as well as possible over confidence we will have much economy off life support in June July as it needs to be. We would both agree it needs to be. The bit about the penny not dropping is I claim a lot of more of the offensive activity is needed to get us there, the defensive lock down into herd immunity not enough.
There was some wasn’t there? In the bigger picture you don’t want General Melchett in the trenches or going over the top. The equivalents in this war are handshakes, testing, quarantine, leaders all over the planet just been getting on with it eschewing those things.
Personally I think this whole thing has just come in on the blind side. It’s only this week the penny has dropped those on the ventilators are in their 50s and less. It’s still not properly sunk in this lockdown is just flattening the sombrero not going to kill it, no switch on for economy in June or July. The only way to actually kill it is going to be Hunt it more than we are doing.
And it’s important for that penny to drop, because the economy can’t be kept in coma much after June or bits of it will start permanently dying, so we we need to start hunting lot more than we doing.
We are not going to kill it until a vaccine emerges, which could be years away, so in the meantime we will just have to lockdown as we near the peak, then ease off again for all but the most vulnerable and mass test, then lockdown again before the next peak
No. That is wrong. You see I am right, the penny hasn’t dropped. What happens to the Big G of this world in the herd immunity you just described. What happens to so much of the economy if state of play doesn’t allow the easing you are anticipating? We need to hunt it, track it down and isolate it. Lock down is defence, we need to go on the offence.
No, it is not wrong.
Big G can just stay indoors and read PB, he is retired and does not need to work and can get his food delivered.
For under 50s the death rate is less than 1%, as I said the state of play will allow such easing for the economy once the peak has passed until the next peak.
Mass testing can be used to track it and isolate it while still getting people back to work
You’ve been listening to that Tony Blair
But he's going to be OK he has God and the Pope on his side!
Ironically, the Russian media have been a more honest and reliable source of information on Johnson's condition than the government. They've obviously got someone inside No.10.
Ironically, the Russian media have been a more honest and reliable source of information on Johnson's condition than the government. They've obviously got someone inside No.10.
The current crisis makes one wonder about the high turnover at the top of politics these days. That it has been pointed out that even a party that has been in Government for 10 years has hardly anyone of experience at the top of the party - nobody who one could confidently assert as a safe pair of hands, with the ability to lead the country through this critical time. One can excuse the opposition to some extent due to the extent of their recent defeat. Where once political careers lasted decades - from callow backbencher, to a bit of committee experience, to lowly ministerial ranks, to minor cabinet roles, to great offices of state, perhaps passing through periodic bouts of Opposition (of even time out of Parliament), individuals rise meteor like and often disappear just as quickly. We have a PM's designated successor with barely month's cabinet experience. People touting the Chancellor on the back of one populist budget that will never be implemented. And the only one people have any confidence in being, er, Michael Gove.
This must be bad for good Government, and bad for the country - and it is cruelly exposed at a time like this.
They could do worse than send out for William Hague (still only 59), Theresa May and no doubt a few others. Not necessarily to lead, but to offer some help from years of experience that is sorely missing.
Ironically, the Russian media have been a more honest and reliable source of information on Johnson's condition than the government. They've obviously got someone inside No.10.
Didn't they say he was on a ventilator? They are clearly just spreading false rumors.
The current crisis makes one wonder about the high turnover at the top of politics these days. That it has been pointed out that even a party that has been in Government for 10 years has hardly anyone of experience at the top of the party - nobody who one could confidently assert as a safe pair of hands, with the ability to lead the country through this critical time. One can excuse the opposition to some extent due to the extent of their recent defeat. Where once political careers lasted decades - from callow backbencher, to a bit of committee experience, to lowly ministerial ranks, to minor cabinet roles, to great offices of state, perhaps passing through periodic bouts of Opposition (of even time out of Parliament), individuals rise meteor like and often disappear just as quickly. We have a PM's designated successor with barely month's cabinet experience. People touting the Chancellor on the back of one populist budget that will never be implemented. And the only one people have any confidence in being, er, Michael Gove.
This must be bad for good Government, and bad for the country - and it is cruelly exposed at a time like this.
John Prescott had plenty of experience and deputised for Blair
It comes to something when Richard Burgon is more tasteful than some of the media this evening
Let's do a thought experiment. Let's imagine it wasn't the lovable buffoon from HIGNFY who is in peril, but instead, let's say, one Jeremy Corbin.
How tasteful would the comments on Pb.com, other social media or the established media be?
I would very much hope they would be the same.
Of course they would. I detest Corbyn’s politics and find him a querulous old narcissist as a person. And a fool.
But if he got this? He’s a father and a husband. He’s not evil, just silly.
I would wish him well, fervently, especially if he was the prime minster and the nation needed stability in a time of crisis.
Indeed and looking back at the tragic passing of John Smith I do believe people were respectful regardless of partisan politics. Hopefully he can recover but party politics doesn't matter right now.
I have never understood the belief that John Smith wouldn't have won the election - maybe not Tony Blairs massive landslide, but he would have got a solid majority for sure.
A very interesting what-if that way.....
Not easy to say. The Conservatives lost all unity because they simply did not know how to respond to Blair, and ended up resorting to an "every man (and Teresa Gorman)" to themselves. They knew they were going to lose big, and even the safest seats were at risk.
Think it might have been very different with Smith still there.
Smith would have got a majority of 50 to 100 in 1997 but only Blair could have got a majority of near 200 and won seats like Braintree, Shrewsbury and Atcham and Wimbledon
I'm not so sure. Government lose elections etc.
Not sure what power would have done to Smith - I *think* he would have faired better than Tony Blair. Who is, frankly, weird - I met him when he was a backbencher. The personality of a chameleon.
Being ill is not about machismo. Indeed that male idea of seeking medical advice as a weakness is a large part of why males die younger.
When you are ill, the body's got to fight though.
I have never been very happy with fight as a metaphor for illness. It implies that losing is due to lack of will or moral fibre. Struggle is a better word.
The current crisis makes one wonder about the high turnover at the top of politics these days. That it has been pointed out that even a party that has been in Government for 10 years has hardly anyone of experience at the top of the party - nobody who one could confidently assert as a safe pair of hands, with the ability to lead the country through this critical time. One can excuse the opposition to some extent due to the extent of their recent defeat. Where once political careers lasted decades - from callow backbencher, to a bit of committee experience, to lowly ministerial ranks, to minor cabinet roles, to great offices of state, perhaps passing through periodic bouts of Opposition (of even time out of Parliament), individuals rise meteor like and often disappear just as quickly. We have a PM's designated successor with barely month's cabinet experience. People touting the Chancellor on the back of one populist budget that will never be implemented. And the only one people have any confidence in being, er, Michael Gove.
This must be bad for good Government, and bad for the country - and it is cruelly exposed at a time like this.
John Prescott had plenty of experience and deputised for Blair
A bizarre non-sequitur. Maybe i'm missing something.
Ironically, the Russian media have been a more honest and reliable source of information on Johnson's condition than the government. They've obviously got someone inside No.10.
Being ill is not about machismo. Indeed that male idea of seeking medical advice as a weakness is a large part of why males die younger.
When you are ill, the body's got to fight though.
I have never been very happy with fight as a metaphor for illness. It implies that losing is due to lack of will or moral fibre. Struggle is a better word.
I think stubbornness does count for something in some illnesses. I’m not convinced this is one of them.
There was some wasn’t there? In the bigger picture you don’t want General Melchett in the trenches or going over the top. The equivalents in this war are handshakes, testing, quarantine, leaders all over the planet just been getting on with it eschewing those things.
Personally I think this whole thing has just come in on the blind side. It’s only this week the penny has dropped those on the ventilators are in their 50s and less. It’s still not properly sunk in this lockdown is just flattening the sombrero not going to kill it, no switch on for economy in June or July. The only way to actually kill it is going to be Hunt it more than we are doing.
And it’s important for that penny to drop, because the economy can’t be kept in coma much after June or bits of it will start permanently dying, so we we need to start hunting lot more than we doing.
We are not going to kill it until a vaccine emerges, which could be years away, so in the meantime we will just have to lockdown as we near the peak, then ease off again for all but the most vulnerable and mass test, then lockdown again before the next peak
No. That is wrong. You see I am right, the penny hasn’t dropped. What happens to the Big G of this world in the herd immunity you just described. What happens to so much of the economy if state of play doesn’t allow the easing you are anticipating? We need to hunt it, track it down and isolate it. Lock down is defence, we need to go on the offence.
No, it is not wrong.
Big G can just stay indoors and read PB, he is retired and does not need to work and can get his food delivered.
For under 50s the death rate is less than 1%, as I said the state of play will allow such easing for the economy once the peak has passed until the next peak.
Mass testing can be used to track it and isolate it while still getting people back to work
Your last line I totally agree with because that is part of the offensive weaponry we should now be deploying. The other bits you are saying brings all the questions of herd immunity approach, as well as possible over confidence we will have much economy off life support in June July as it needs to be. We would both agree it needs to be. The bit about the penny not dropping is I claim a lot of more of the offensive activity is needed to get us there, the defensive lock down into herd immunity not enough.
It is not a full herd immunity approach like Sweden, that would mean no lockdowns at all.
It is adjusting the lockdowns so they are focused on when the health service most needs them without strangling the economy to death too.
The current crisis makes one wonder about the high turnover at the top of politics these days. That it has been pointed out that even a party that has been in Government for 10 years has hardly anyone of experience at the top of the party - nobody who one could confidently assert as a safe pair of hands, with the ability to lead the country through this critical time. One can excuse the opposition to some extent due to the extent of their recent defeat. Where once political careers lasted decades - from callow backbencher, to a bit of committee experience, to lowly ministerial ranks, to minor cabinet roles, to great offices of state, perhaps passing through periodic bouts of Opposition (of even time out of Parliament), individuals rise meteor like and often disappear just as quickly. We have a PM's designated successor with barely month's cabinet experience. People touting the Chancellor on the back of one populist budget that will never be implemented. And the only one people have any confidence in being, er, Michael Gove.
This must be bad for good Government, and bad for the country - and it is cruelly exposed at a time like this.
They could do worse than send out for William Hague (still only 59), Theresa May and no doubt a few others. Not necessarily to lead, but to offer some help from years of experience that is sorely missing.
Remarkably Cameron's 5 year mandate has not expired.
Being ill is not about machismo. Indeed that male idea of seeking medical advice as a weakness is a large part of why males die younger.
When you are ill, the body's got to fight though.
I have never been very happy with fight as a metaphor for illness. It implies that losing is due to lack of will or moral fibre. Struggle is a better word.
I'm not sure I see the difference? The words are practically synonomic, no?
Typical weasel words from Boris’ critics. Trying to find that way of looking dignified without having to, heaven forbid, wish him well as he struggles to stay alive.
What makes them think they’re so important that they have to say anything at all?
Worse than that - could have at least mentioned his fiancé, who's in isolation herself. But no, the kids (all 5-6+ of them of course...)
It comes to something when Richard Burgon is more tasteful than some of the media this evening
Let's do a thought experiment. Let's imagine it wasn't the lovable buffoon from HIGNFY who is in peril, but instead, let's say, one Jeremy Corbin.
How tasteful would the comments on Pb.com, other social media or the established media be?
I would very much hope they would be the same.
Of course they would. I detest Corbyn’s politics and find him a querulous old narcissist as a person. And a fool.
But if he got this? He’s a father and a husband. He’s not evil, just silly.
I would wish him well, fervently, especially if he was the prime minster and the nation needed stability in a time of crisis.
Indeed and looking back at the tragic passing of John Smith I do believe people were respectful regardless of partisan politics. Hopefully he can recover but party politics doesn't matter right now.
I have never understood the belief that John Smith wouldn't have won the election - maybe not Tony Blairs massive landslide, but he would have got a solid majority for sure.
A very interesting what-if that way.....
Not easy to say. The Conservatives lost all unity because they simply did not know how to respond to Blair, and ended up resorting to an "every man (and Teresa Gorman)" to themselves. They knew they were going to lose big, and even the safest seats were at risk.
Think it might have been very different with Smith still there.
Smith would have got a majority of 50 to 100 in 1997 but only Blair could have got a majority of near 200 and won seats like Braintree, Shrewsbury and Atcham and Wimbledon
I'm not so sure. Government lose elections etc.
Not sure what power would have done to Smith - I *think* he would have faired better than Tony Blair. Who is, frankly, weird - I met him when he was a backbencher. The personality of a chameleon.
I think the 2001 general election would certainly have been a lot closer with Smith leading Labour having pursued a more leftwing, tax raising economic policy from 1997 to 2001 than Blair did.
I expect he would still narrowly have won it though
Being ill is not about machismo. Indeed that male idea of seeking medical advice as a weakness is a large part of why males die younger.
When you are ill, the body's got to fight though.
I have never been very happy with fight as a metaphor for illness. It implies that losing is due to lack of will or moral fibre. Struggle is a better word.
I'm not sure I see the difference? The words are practically synonomic, no?
I see a nuance of difference. You wouldn't describe someone inarticulate as fighting with English, but to say they struggle with English is fine.
The current crisis makes one wonder about the high turnover at the top of politics these days. That it has been pointed out that even a party that has been in Government for 10 years has hardly anyone of experience at the top of the party - nobody who one could confidently assert as a safe pair of hands, with the ability to lead the country through this critical time. One can excuse the opposition to some extent due to the extent of their recent defeat. Where once political careers lasted decades - from callow backbencher, to a bit of committee experience, to lowly ministerial ranks, to minor cabinet roles, to great offices of state, perhaps passing through periodic bouts of Opposition (of even time out of Parliament), individuals rise meteor like and often disappear just as quickly. We have a PM's designated successor with barely month's cabinet experience. People touting the Chancellor on the back of one populist budget that will never be implemented. And the only one people have any confidence in being, er, Michael Gove.
This must be bad for good Government, and bad for the country - and it is cruelly exposed at a time like this.
They could do worse than send out for William Hague (still only 59), Theresa May and no doubt a few others. Not necessarily to lead, but to offer some help from years of experience that is sorely missing.
Remarkably Cameron's 5 year mandate has not expired.
Leaks often come via family and friends as much as from politicos.
Probably not likely here though? If anything the problem was likely that Johnson was keeping the situation to himself and genuinely rationalising that it wasn't so bad. I wonder how well he was briefed on the negative symptoms to look out for as the illness developed.
The current crisis makes one wonder about the high turnover at the top of politics these days. That it has been pointed out that even a party that has been in Government for 10 years has hardly anyone of experience at the top of the party - nobody who one could confidently assert as a safe pair of hands, with the ability to lead the country through this critical time. One can excuse the opposition to some extent due to the extent of their recent defeat. Where once political careers lasted decades - from callow backbencher, to a bit of committee experience, to lowly ministerial ranks, to minor cabinet roles, to great offices of state, perhaps passing through periodic bouts of Opposition (of even time out of Parliament), individuals rise meteor like and often disappear just as quickly. We have a PM's designated successor with barely month's cabinet experience. People touting the Chancellor on the back of one populist budget that will never be implemented. And the only one people have any confidence in being, er, Michael Gove.
This must be bad for good Government, and bad for the country - and it is cruelly exposed at a time like this.
They could do worse than send out for William Hague (still only 59), Theresa May and no doubt a few others. Not necessarily to lead, but to offer some help from years of experience that is sorely missing.
Remarkably Cameron's 5 year mandate has not expired.
The current crisis makes one wonder about the high turnover at the top of politics these days. That it has been pointed out that even a party that has been in Government for 10 years has hardly anyone of experience at the top of the party - nobody who one could confidently assert as a safe pair of hands, with the ability to lead the country through this critical time. One can excuse the opposition to some extent due to the extent of their recent defeat. Where once political careers lasted decades - from callow backbencher, to a bit of committee experience, to lowly ministerial ranks, to minor cabinet roles, to great offices of state, perhaps passing through periodic bouts of Opposition (of even time out of Parliament), individuals rise meteor like and often disappear just as quickly. We have a PM's designated successor with barely month's cabinet experience. People touting the Chancellor on the back of one populist budget that will never be implemented. And the only one people have any confidence in being, er, Michael Gove.
This must be bad for good Government, and bad for the country - and it is cruelly exposed at a time like this.
They could do worse than send out for William Hague (still only 59), Theresa May and no doubt a few others. Not necessarily to lead, but to offer some help from years of experience that is sorely missing.
Remarkably Cameron's 5 year mandate has not expired.
Holy shit
We had this the other day. I think technically his mandate has expired - we'd currently be in the middle of the 2020 General Election campaign. George Osborne, perhaps, versus a Jeremy Corbyn facing his first election campaign as Labour leader....
Being ill is not about machismo. Indeed that male idea of seeking medical advice as a weakness is a large part of why males die younger.
When you are ill, the body's got to fight though.
I have never been very happy with fight as a metaphor for illness. It implies that losing is due to lack of will or moral fibre. Struggle is a better word.
I'm not sure I see the difference? The words are practically synonomic, no?
I see a nuance of difference. You wouldn't describe someone inarticulate as fighting with English, but to say they struggle with English is fine.
Ah, that's different though. The English language doesn't fight back.
From my experience with serious illness, I like the idea of fight. It's at least some proportion mental, and viewing it as a fight helps focus the mind. I guess it's a similar idea to yours, but flipped slightly, so you view it as something you can win if you're strong enough.
To each their own, though. I'm sure that approach is worse than useless for many.
The current crisis makes one wonder about the high turnover at the top of politics these days. That it has been pointed out that even a party that has been in Government for 10 years has hardly anyone of experience at the top of the party - nobody who one could confidently assert as a safe pair of hands, with the ability to lead the country through this critical time. One can excuse the opposition to some extent due to the extent of their recent defeat. Where once political careers lasted decades - from callow backbencher, to a bit of committee experience, to lowly ministerial ranks, to minor cabinet roles, to great offices of state, perhaps passing through periodic bouts of Opposition (of even time out of Parliament), individuals rise meteor like and often disappear just as quickly. We have a PM's designated successor with barely month's cabinet experience. People touting the Chancellor on the back of one populist budget that will never be implemented. And the only one people have any confidence in being, er, Michael Gove.
This must be bad for good Government, and bad for the country - and it is cruelly exposed at a time like this.
They could do worse than send out for William Hague (still only 59), Theresa May and no doubt a few others. Not necessarily to lead, but to offer some help from years of experience that is sorely missing.
Remarkably Cameron's 5 year mandate has not expired.
Holy shit
We had this the other day. I think technically his mandate has expired - we'd currently be in the middle of the 2020 General Election campaign. George Osbourne, perhaps, versus a Jeremy Corbyn facing his first election as Labour leader....
Nigel Farage would be leader of the party in second place, or maybe even first, in the polls
The current crisis makes one wonder about the high turnover at the top of politics these days. That it has been pointed out that even a party that has been in Government for 10 years has hardly anyone of experience at the top of the party - nobody who one could confidently assert as a safe pair of hands, with the ability to lead the country through this critical time. One can excuse the opposition to some extent due to the extent of their recent defeat. Where once political careers lasted decades - from callow backbencher, to a bit of committee experience, to lowly ministerial ranks, to minor cabinet roles, to great offices of state, perhaps passing through periodic bouts of Opposition (of even time out of Parliament), individuals rise meteor like and often disappear just as quickly. We have a PM's designated successor with barely month's cabinet experience. People touting the Chancellor on the back of one populist budget that will never be implemented. And the only one people have any confidence in being, er, Michael Gove.
This must be bad for good Government, and bad for the country - and it is cruelly exposed at a time like this.
They could do worse than send out for William Hague (still only 59), Theresa May and no doubt a few others. Not necessarily to lead, but to offer some help from years of experience that is sorely missing.
Remarkably Cameron's 5 year mandate has not expired.
Holy shit
We had this the other day. I think technically his mandate has expired - we'd currently be in the middle of the 2020 General Election campaign. George Osbourne, perhaps, versus a Jeremy Corbyn facing his first election as Labour leader....
Osborne? Only if we are in some parallel universe where either Cameron won the referendum, or he didn't call it.
The current crisis makes one wonder about the high turnover at the top of politics these days. That it has been pointed out that even a party that has been in Government for 10 years has hardly anyone of experience at the top of the party - nobody who one could confidently assert as a safe pair of hands, with the ability to lead the country through this critical time. One can excuse the opposition to some extent due to the extent of their recent defeat. Where once political careers lasted decades - from callow backbencher, to a bit of committee experience, to lowly ministerial ranks, to minor cabinet roles, to great offices of state, perhaps passing through periodic bouts of Opposition (of even time out of Parliament), individuals rise meteor like and often disappear just as quickly. We have a PM's designated successor with barely month's cabinet experience. People touting the Chancellor on the back of one populist budget that will never be implemented. And the only one people have any confidence in being, er, Michael Gove.
This must be bad for good Government, and bad for the country - and it is cruelly exposed at a time like this.
They could do worse than send out for William Hague (still only 59), Theresa May and no doubt a few others. Not necessarily to lead, but to offer some help from years of experience that is sorely missing.
Remarkably Cameron's 5 year mandate has not expired.
Holy shit
We had this the other day. I think technically his mandate has expired - we'd currently be in the middle of the 2020 General Election campaign. George Osbourne, perhaps, versus a Jeremy Corbyn facing his first election as Labour leader....
Nigel Farage would be leader of the party in second place, or maybe even first, in the polls
Can I please have a pint of whatever you're drinking.
Being ill is not about machismo. Indeed that male idea of seeking medical advice as a weakness is a large part of why males die younger.
When you are ill, the body's got to fight though.
I have never been very happy with fight as a metaphor for illness. It implies that losing is due to lack of will or moral fibre. Struggle is a better word.
I'm not sure I see the difference? The words are practically synonomic, no?
I see a nuance of difference. You wouldn't describe someone inarticulate as fighting with English, but to say they struggle with English is fine.
Ah, that's different though. The English language doesn't fight back.
The current crisis makes one wonder about the high turnover at the top of politics these days. That it has been pointed out that even a party that has been in Government for 10 years has hardly anyone of experience at the top of the party - nobody who one could confidently assert as a safe pair of hands, with the ability to lead the country through this critical time. One can excuse the opposition to some extent due to the extent of their recent defeat. Where once political careers lasted decades - from callow backbencher, to a bit of committee experience, to lowly ministerial ranks, to minor cabinet roles, to great offices of state, perhaps passing through periodic bouts of Opposition (of even time out of Parliament), individuals rise meteor like and often disappear just as quickly. We have a PM's designated successor with barely month's cabinet experience. People touting the Chancellor on the back of one populist budget that will never be implemented. And the only one people have any confidence in being, er, Michael Gove.
This must be bad for good Government, and bad for the country - and it is cruelly exposed at a time like this.
They could do worse than send out for William Hague (still only 59), Theresa May and no doubt a few others. Not necessarily to lead, but to offer some help from years of experience that is sorely missing.
Remarkably Cameron's 5 year mandate has not expired.
Holy shit
Yes, Dave and George could still be running the country if they hadn't decided to hold an EU referendum.
The current crisis makes one wonder about the high turnover at the top of politics these days. That it has been pointed out that even a party that has been in Government for 10 years has hardly anyone of experience at the top of the party - nobody who one could confidently assert as a safe pair of hands, with the ability to lead the country through this critical time. One can excuse the opposition to some extent due to the extent of their recent defeat. Where once political careers lasted decades - from callow backbencher, to a bit of committee experience, to lowly ministerial ranks, to minor cabinet roles, to great offices of state, perhaps passing through periodic bouts of Opposition (of even time out of Parliament), individuals rise meteor like and often disappear just as quickly. We have a PM's designated successor with barely month's cabinet experience. People touting the Chancellor on the back of one populist budget that will never be implemented. And the only one people have any confidence in being, er, Michael Gove.
This must be bad for good Government, and bad for the country - and it is cruelly exposed at a time like this.
They could do worse than send out for William Hague (still only 59), Theresa May and no doubt a few others. Not necessarily to lead, but to offer some help from years of experience that is sorely missing.
Remarkably Cameron's 5 year mandate has not expired.
Holy shit
We had this the other day. I think technically his mandate has expired - we'd currently be in the middle of the 2020 General Election campaign. George Osbourne, perhaps, versus a Jeremy Corbyn facing his first election as Labour leader....
Nigel Farage would be leader of the party in second place, or maybe even first, in the polls
Can I please have a pint of whatever you're drinking.
I’m drinking a glass of Prosecco, feel free to have a pint of it if you so wish.
You think I’d Remain had won, UKIP wouldnt be second in the polls? Why?
The current crisis makes one wonder about the high turnover at the top of politics these days. That it has been pointed out that even a party that has been in Government for 10 years has hardly anyone of experience at the top of the party - nobody who one could confidently assert as a safe pair of hands, with the ability to lead the country through this critical time. One can excuse the opposition to some extent due to the extent of their recent defeat. Where once political careers lasted decades - from callow backbencher, to a bit of committee experience, to lowly ministerial ranks, to minor cabinet roles, to great offices of state, perhaps passing through periodic bouts of Opposition (of even time out of Parliament), individuals rise meteor like and often disappear just as quickly. We have a PM's designated successor with barely month's cabinet experience. People touting the Chancellor on the back of one populist budget that will never be implemented. And the only one people have any confidence in being, er, Michael Gove.
This must be bad for good Government, and bad for the country - and it is cruelly exposed at a time like this.
They could do worse than send out for William Hague (still only 59), Theresa May and no doubt a few others. Not necessarily to lead, but to offer some help from years of experience that is sorely missing.
Remarkably Cameron's 5 year mandate has not expired.
Holy shit
We had this the other day. I think technically his mandate has expired - we'd currently be in the middle of the 2020 General Election campaign. George Osbourne, perhaps, versus a Jeremy Corbyn facing his first election as Labour leader....
Osborne? Only if we are in some parallel universe where either Cameron won the referendum, or he didn't call it.
Err, that was the whole point of the post! Roads taken and not taken.
One thing the utter shambles that home grocery shopping with the likes of Sainsbury's, Tesco and Ocado has become during this crisis proves there's a huge additional market for a home shopping company that actually know what it's doing and has the capacity to do it such as Amazon...
Being ill is not about machismo. Indeed that male idea of seeking medical advice as a weakness is a large part of why males die younger.
When you are ill, the body's got to fight though.
I have never been very happy with fight as a metaphor for illness. It implies that losing is due to lack of will or moral fibre. Struggle is a better word.
I'm not sure I see the difference? The words are practically synonomic, no?
I see a nuance of difference. You wouldn't describe someone inarticulate as fighting with English, but to say they struggle with English is fine.
Ah, that's different though. The English language doesn't fight back.
From my experience with serious illness, I like the idea of fight. It's at least some proportion mental, and viewing it as a fight helps focus the mind. I guess it's a similar idea to yours, but flipped slightly, so you view it as something you can win if you're strong enough.
To each their own, though. I'm sure that approach is worse than useless for many.
There is quite a literature on war as a metaphor for illness.
Perhaps though illness is a good metaphor for war though.
What's the big Republican interest in this? Trying to kill off Democrat supporters?
I suspect suspending elections is not viewed too favourably in the US.
Yes, but isn't the running of the Democrat primaries a matter for the Democratic party? If the Governor orders a delay and they don't agree then I would understand the court cases, but what is the Republican interest? In some states the Republicans aren't even bothering to run Primaries at all.
What's the big Republican interest in this? Trying to kill off Democrat supporters?
I suspect suspending elections is not viewed too favourably in the US.
Yes, but isn't the running of the Democrat primaries a matter for the Democratic party? If the Governor orders a delay and they don't agree then I would understand the court cases, but what is the Republican interest? In some states the Republicans aren't even bothering to run Primaries at all.
It's not just the primary:
Evers and Republicans initially agreed that it was imperative for the election to proceed because thousands of local offices are on the ballot Tuesday for terms that begin in two weeks. There is also a state Supreme Court election.
What's the big Republican interest in this? Trying to kill off Democrat supporters?
I suspect suspending elections is not viewed too favourably in the US.
Yes, but isn't the running of the Democrat primaries a matter for the Democratic party? If the Governor orders a delay and they don't agree then I would understand the court cases, but what is the Republican interest? In some states the Republicans aren't even bothering to run Primaries at all.
I don't think so, IIUC primaries are run by the state according to state laws. If it was a caucus then yes, it would be up to the local Democratic Party.
What's the big Republican interest in this? Trying to kill off Democrat supporters?
I suspect suspending elections is not viewed too favourably in the US.
Yes, but isn't the running of the Democrat primaries a matter for the Democratic party? If the Governor orders a delay and they don't agree then I would understand the court cases, but what is the Republican interest? In some states the Republicans aren't even bothering to run Primaries at all.
It's not just the primary:
Evers and Republicans initially agreed that it was imperative for the election to proceed because thousands of local offices are on the ballot Tuesday for terms that begin in two weeks. There is also a state Supreme Court election.
OK fair enough. And is that seen as a genuine objection?
What's the big Republican interest in this? Trying to kill off Democrat supporters?
I suspect suspending elections is not viewed too favourably in the US.
Yes, but isn't the running of the Democrat primaries a matter for the Democratic party? If the Governor orders a delay and they don't agree then I would understand the court cases, but what is the Republican interest? In some states the Republicans aren't even bothering to run Primaries at all.
I don't think so, IIUC primaries are run by the state according to state laws. If it was a caucus then yes, it would be up to the local Democratic Party.
I know it's run by the state - but does that apply to the timing? Was all the super Tuesday stuff instigated by state governors or local Democratic Parties?
What's the big Republican interest in this? Trying to kill off Democrat supporters?
I suspect suspending elections is not viewed too favourably in the US.
Yes, but isn't the running of the Democrat primaries a matter for the Democratic party? If the Governor orders a delay and they don't agree then I would understand the court cases, but what is the Republican interest? In some states the Republicans aren't even bothering to run Primaries at all.
It's not just the primary:
Evers and Republicans initially agreed that it was imperative for the election to proceed because thousands of local offices are on the ballot Tuesday for terms that begin in two weeks. There is also a state Supreme Court election.
OK fair enough. And is that seen as a genuine objection?
Perhaps the date of the elections can only be changed by the legislature and not the governor? I'm not too familiar with it to be honest.
What's the big Republican interest in this? Trying to kill off Democrat supporters?
I suspect suspending elections is not viewed too favourably in the US.
Yes, but isn't the running of the Democrat primaries a matter for the Democratic party? If the Governor orders a delay and they don't agree then I would understand the court cases, but what is the Republican interest? In some states the Republicans aren't even bothering to run Primaries at all.
I don't think so, IIUC primaries are run by the state according to state laws. If it was a caucus then yes, it would be up to the local Democratic Party.
I know it's run by the state - but does that apply to the timing? Was all the super Tuesday stuff instigated by state governors or local Democratic Parties?
Yes, IIUC it's all legislated for, including the timing. I remember during the Obama-Clinton cycle there was this funny conversation in one of the state legislatures - I think it was Florida - where the Dems were trying to get the GOP to legislate to bring the primary forward, but in a way that allowed them to claim to the national Democratic Party that it wasn't their fault.
There was some wasn’t there? In the bigger picture you don’t want General Melchett in the trenches or going over the top. The equivalents in this war are handshakes, testing, quarantine, leaders all over the planet just been getting on with it eschewing those things.
Personally I think this whole thing has just come in on the blind side. It’s only this week the penny has dropped those on the ventilators are in their 50s and less. It’s still not properly sunk in this lockdown is just flattening the sombrero not going to kill it, no switch on for economy in June or July. The only way to actually kill it is going to be Hunt it more than we are doing.
And it’s important for that penny to drop, because the economy can’t be kept in coma much after June or bits of it will start permanently dying, so we we need to start hunting lot more than we doing.
We are not going to kill it until a vaccine emerges, which could be years away, so in the meantime we will just have to lockdown as we near the peak, then ease off again for all but the most vulnerable and mass test, then lockdown again before the next peak
No. That is wrong. You see I am right, the penny hasn’t dropped. What happens to the Big G of this world in the herd immunity you just described. What happens to so much of the economy if state of play doesn’t allow the easing you are anticipating? We need to hunt it, track it down and isolate it. Lock down is defence, we need to go on the offence.
No, it is not wrong.
Big G can just stay indoors and read PB, he is retired and does not need to work and can get his food delivered.
For under 50s the death rate is less than 1%, as I said the state of play will allow such easing for the economy once the peak has passed until the next peak.
Mass testing can be used to track it and isolate it while still getting people back to work
1% of under 70s is over half a million people. And that's assuming no over 70s get it and the NHS doesn't collapse.
There was some wasn’t there? In the bigger picture you don’t want General Melchett in the trenches or going over the top. The equivalents in this war are handshakes, testing, quarantine, leaders all over the planet just been getting on with it eschewing those things.
Personally I think this whole thing has just come in on the blind side. It’s only this week the penny has dropped those on the ventilators are in their 50s and less. It’s still not properly sunk in this lockdown is just flattening the sombrero not going to kill it, no switch on for economy in June or July. The only way to actually kill it is going to be Hunt it more than we are doing.
And it’s important for that penny to drop, because the economy can’t be kept in coma much after June or bits of it will start permanently dying, so we we need to start hunting lot more than we doing.
We are not going to kill it until a vaccine emerges, which could be years away, so in the meantime we will just have to lockdown as we near the peak, then ease off again for all but the most vulnerable and mass test, then lockdown again before the next peak
No. That is wrong. You see I am right, the penny hasn’t dropped. What happens to the Big G of this world in the herd immunity you just described. What happens to so much of the economy if state of play doesn’t allow the easing you are anticipating? We need to hunt it, track it down and isolate it. Lock down is defence, we need to go on the offence.
No, it is not wrong.
Big G can just stay indoors and read PB, he is retired and does not need to work and can get his food delivered.
For under 50s the death rate is less than 1%, as I said the state of play will allow such easing for the economy once the peak has passed until the next peak.
Mass testing can be used to track it and isolate it while still getting people back to work
1% of under 70s is over half a million people. And that's assuming no over 70s get it and the NHS doesn't collapse.
I said under 50s but you cannot have the whole economy and country locked down for years until a vaccine is discovered when well over 99% of under 50s will survive it or we will have no economy left.
As I said lockdown at the peak otherwise mass test and back to work for those of working age without pre existing health conditions
There was some wasn’t there? In the bigger picture you don’t want General Melchett in the trenches or going over the top. The equivalents in this war are handshakes, testing, quarantine, leaders all over the planet just been getting on with it eschewing those things.
Personally I think this whole thing has just come in on the blind side. It’s only this week the penny has dropped those on the ventilators are in their 50s and less. It’s still not properly sunk in this lockdown is just flattening the sombrero not going to kill it, no switch on for economy in June or July. The only way to actually kill it is going to be Hunt it more than we are doing.
And it’s important for that penny to drop, because the economy can’t be kept in coma much after June or bits of it will start permanently dying, so we we need to start hunting lot more than we doing.
We are not going to kill it until a vaccine emerges, which could be years away, so in the meantime we will just have to lockdown as we near the peak, then ease off again for all but the most vulnerable and mass test, then lockdown again before the next peak
No. That is wrong. You see I am right, the penny hasn’t dropped. What happens to the Big G of this world in the herd immunity you just described. What happens to so much of the economy if state of play doesn’t allow the easing you are anticipating? We need to hunt it, track it down and isolate it. Lock down is defence, we need to go on the offence.
No, it is not wrong.
Big G can just stay indoors and read PB, he is retired and does not need to work and can get his food delivered.
For under 50s the death rate is less than 1%, as I said the state of play will allow such easing for the economy once the peak has passed until the next peak.
Mass testing can be used to track it and isolate it while still getting people back to work
1% of under 70s is over half a million people. And that's assuming no over 70s get it and the NHS doesn't collapse.
I said under 50s but you cannot have the whole economy and country locked down for years until a vaccine is discovered when well over 99% of under 50s will survive it or we will have no economy left.
As I said lockdown at the peak otherwise mass test and back to work for those of working age without pre existing health conditions
Then it would be dramatically more deaths. A million plus potentially.
There was some wasn’t there? In the bigger picture you don’t want General Melchett in the trenches or going over the top. The equivalents in this war are handshakes, testing, quarantine, leaders all over the planet just been getting on with it eschewing those things.
Personally I think this whole thing has just come in on the blind side. It’s only this week the penny has dropped those on the ventilators are in their 50s and less. It’s still not properly sunk in this lockdown is just flattening the sombrero not going to kill it, no switch on for economy in June or July. The only way to actually kill it is going to be Hunt it more than we are doing.
And it’s important for that penny to drop, because the economy can’t be kept in coma much after June or bits of it will start permanently dying, so we we need to start hunting lot more than we doing.
We are not going to kill it until a vaccine emerges, which could be years away, so in the meantime we will just have to lockdown as we near the peak, then ease off again for all but the most vulnerable and mass test, then lockdown again before the next peak
No. That is wrong. You see I am right, the penny hasn’t dropped. What happens to the Big G of this world in the herd immunity you just described. What happens to so much of the economy if state of play doesn’t allow the easing you are anticipating? We need to hunt it, track it down and isolate it. Lock down is defence, we need to go on the offence.
No, it is not wrong.
Big G can just stay indoors and read PB, he is retired and does not need to work and can get his food delivered.
For under 50s the death rate is less than 1%, as I said the state of play will allow such easing for the economy once the peak has passed until the next peak.
Mass testing can be used to track it and isolate it while still getting people back to work
1% of under 70s is over half a million people. And that's assuming no over 70s get it and the NHS doesn't collapse.
I said under 50s but you cannot have the whole economy and country locked down for years until a vaccine is discovered when well over 99% of under 50s will survive it or we will have no economy left.
As I said lockdown at the peak otherwise mass test and back to work for those of working age without pre existing health conditions
Then it would be dramatically more deaths. A million plus potentially.
No it would not at all, even Sweden with full herd immunity is not dramatically higher than the European average in deaths and cases.
Over half a million British people die in a typical year anyway
Ironically, the Russian media have been a more honest and reliable source of information on Johnson's condition than the government. They've obviously got someone inside No.10.
Agent Orange is the other side of the Atlantic.
And not noticeably reliable.
The other, more reliable, russian asset has gone into quarantine, but he will still have his little sparrows whispering in his little ear.
What's the big Republican interest in this? Trying to kill off Democrat supporters?
I suspect suspending elections is not viewed too favourably in the US.
Yes, but isn't the running of the Democrat primaries a matter for the Democratic party? If the Governor orders a delay and they don't agree then I would understand the court cases, but what is the Republican interest? In some states the Republicans aren't even bothering to run Primaries at all.
I don't think so, IIUC primaries are run by the state according to state laws. If it was a caucus then yes, it would be up to the local Democratic Party.
I know it's run by the state - but does that apply to the timing? Was all the super Tuesday stuff instigated by state governors or local Democratic Parties?
Yes, IIUC it's all legislated for, including the timing. I remember during the Obama-Clinton cycle there was this funny conversation in one of the state legislatures - I think it was Florida - where the Dems were trying to get the GOP to legislate to bring the primary forward, but in a way that allowed them to claim to the national Democratic Party that it wasn't their fault.
If i's a caucus, it's run by the party. Primaries are run by the state, which also handles the general election vote in that state. The dates of the primaries are subject to negotiation between the states and the national parties. In a given state both Republican and Democratic primaries are held on the same day.
Comments
Big G can just stay indoors and read PB, he is retired and does not need to work and can get his food delivered.
For under 50s the death rate is less than 1%, as I said the state of play will allow such easing for the economy once the peak has passed until the next peak.
Mass testing can be used to track it and isolate it while still getting people back to work
Not sure what power would have done to Smith - I *think* he would have faired better than Tony Blair. Who is, frankly, weird - I met him when he was a backbencher. The personality of a chameleon.
This must be bad for good Government, and bad for the country - and it is cruelly exposed at a time like this.
They could do worse than send out for William Hague (still only 59), Theresa May and no doubt a few others. Not necessarily to lead, but to offer some help from years of experience that is sorely missing.
And not noticeably reliable.
It is adjusting the lockdowns so they are focused on when the health service most needs them without strangling the economy to death too.
I expect he would still narrowly have won it though
Is he an option? On a technicality.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2764365
88% intubated, mortality rate 26%.
So the odds are perhaps significantly better than we thought ?
From my experience with serious illness, I like the idea of fight. It's at least some proportion mental, and viewing it as a fight helps focus the mind. I guess it's a similar idea to yours, but flipped slightly, so you view it as something you can win if you're strong enough.
To each their own, though. I'm sure that approach is worse than useless for many.
You think I’d Remain had won, UKIP wouldnt be second in the polls? Why?
https://boingboing.net/2020/04/06/wisconsin-supreme-court-rules.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominic_Raab
Perhaps though illness is a good metaphor for war though.
Evers and Republicans initially agreed that it was imperative for the election to proceed because thousands of local offices are on the ballot Tuesday for terms that begin in two weeks. There is also a state Supreme Court election.
https://twitter.com/David_Cameron/status/1247253007147962369?s=20
https://twitter.com/ScottMorrisonMP/status/1247281180535226368?s=20
https://twitter.com/JustinTrudeau/status/1247262302547705856?s=20
https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/1247246639179456518?s=20
As I said lockdown at the peak otherwise mass test and back to work for those of working age without pre existing health conditions
Over half a million British people die in a typical year anyway
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths
Examines the gap between official COVID stats and total excess deaths in Italy France Portugal London.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/05/sweden-prepares-to-tighten-coronavirus-measures-as-death-toll-climbs
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11342864/sweden-coronavirus-deaths-jump-lockdown/