Michael Howard being interviewed on BBC about the power vacuum. Mentioned cabinet responsibility. No mention of Dominic Raab. Worrying?
Yes we have cabinet responsibility but we also have a Prime minister.
We do have a Prime Minister and a Cabinet. And while the PM is incapacitated the Cabinet (especially Raab) can take on the PM's responsibilities. There's no story here.
Can the PM's responsibilities be shared? Surely one individual needs to be in position to make a big call? What does 'especially' Raab mean? Either he is acting Prime minister or he isn't.
We do have a Prime Minister and a Cabinet. And while the PM is incapacitated the Cabinet (especially Raab) can take on the PM's responsibilities. There's no story here.
That's how I see it. While Boris is sick it's Dom. When he recovers it's Boris again. If he dies rather than recovers the cabinet chooses and IMO they go for Mike. I'm not getting the fuss here. Not atm anyway.
Care homes are where the real horror of this pandemic will have been unleashed when the final tallies are made.
We already seeing that as France start to process the numbers and Spain have admitted they know very large number have died, but don't have exact figures and aren't including them (at the moment).
To emphasis just how easily this thing spreads, Sky had a report from really rural part of France, literally more cows than people, but it had ripped through the whole area and killed 10s of oldies in a local care home already.
Belgium started including care home deaths the other day too.
Michael Howard being interviewed on BBC about the power vacuum. Mentioned cabinet responsibility. No mention of Dominic Raab. Worrying?
Yes we have cabinet responsibility but we also have a Prime minister.
We do have a Prime Minister and a Cabinet. And while the PM is incapacitated the Cabinet (especially Raab) can take on the PM's responsibilities. There's no story here.
Can the PM's responsibilities be shared? Surely one individual needs to be in position to make a big call? What does 'especially' Raab mean? Either he is acting Prime minister or he isn't.
Yes the PM's responsibilities can be shared that is precisely an advantage of an unwritten constitution and a Cabinet position.
One individual is in position to make a big call - Raab - with the cooperation of the Cabinet. As always.
No Raab is not "acting Prime Minister" he is deputising for the Prime Minister. Same consequences different title.
In fairness to Dan, while he has been intentionally supportive of the government he has several times called out what he thought were communication blunders.
Every indication from Sweden is that voluntary distancing is working as well as the lock-down.
(The Swedes are not notorious for their close social distancing in the first place )
But yes, voluntary distancing appears to have worked for them - Stockholm is by all accounts a ghost-town right now. Unfortunately, large sections of the UK population simply ignored our government’s pleas to self-isolate for the good of the everyone: The bars and clubs of London were full of people insisting that their god-given right to a pint not be infringed. Given that reality, what would you have had the government do, when cases are doubling every 3 days? Ask again, with extra sugar on top?
Infectious disease control requires measures that we would in ordinary times not even begin to contemplate. But that’s the world we’re living in - it’s very clear that Boris was extremely reluctant to bring in these measures, but even he believed them to be necessary.
Michael Howard being interviewed on BBC about the power vacuum. Mentioned cabinet responsibility. No mention of Dominic Raab. Worrying?
Yes we have cabinet responsibility but we also have a Prime minister.
We do have a Prime Minister and a Cabinet. And while the PM is incapacitated the Cabinet (especially Raab) can take on the PM's responsibilities. There's no story here.
Can the PM's responsibilities be shared? Surely one individual needs to be in position to make a big call? What does 'especially' Raab mean? Either he is acting Prime minister or he isn't.
Raab is the de facto PM.
I do not see any confusion other than something the media want to obsess about
Michael Howard being interviewed on BBC about the power vacuum. Mentioned cabinet responsibility. No mention of Dominic Raab. Worrying?
Yes we have cabinet responsibility but we also have a Prime minister.
We do have a Prime Minister and a Cabinet. And while the PM is incapacitated the Cabinet (especially Raab) can take on the PM's responsibilities. There's no story here.
Can the PM's responsibilities be shared? Surely one individual needs to be in position to make a big call? What does 'especially' Raab mean? Either he is acting Prime minister or he isn't.
Raab is the de facto PM.
I do not see any confusion other than something the media want to obsess about
De facto but not de jure really shouldn't be a hard to explain concept.
I stopped reading once I no longer found them funny. Which, as far as I recall, was after the second one. Plenty of her recent stuff is vicious shite, and she's a hypocrite for suddenly shedding crocodile tears over how language makes people feel.
That's interesting that you find a talent such as Hyde relentlessly unfunny. It means that your politics plays a big role in what makes you laugh. Nothing wrong with that, nothing at all, but this is not so much the case with me. I often wish it was, actually, because I do not enjoy chuckling at the occasional zinger that, for example, the ghastly Rod Liddle comes out with. Fortunately (for me) there is a genuine and objectively verified negative correlation between right wing views and a facility with comic prose, so although it does happen - me creasing up at the likes of Rod - it is not a routine everyday event.
No, plenty of left-wing comedy can make me laugh, I just don't find her particularly amusing, despite her facility with prose. However, the fact that the great majority of all comedy is left-wing and takes similar positions on everything does tend to engender a sense of cloying tedium no matter what one's politics are.
BBC just interviewed a British bloke living in Wuhan (he's an English teacher) - he said he had Covid symptoms "back in late November/early December" and that the provincial government covered up the stats as opposed to the Beijing government.
BBC just interviewed a British bloke living in Wuhan (he's an English teacher) - he said he had Covid symptoms "back in late November/early December" and that the provincial government covered up the stats as opposed to the Beijing government.
Michael Howard being interviewed on BBC about the power vacuum. Mentioned cabinet responsibility. No mention of Dominic Raab. Worrying?
Yes we have cabinet responsibility but we also have a Prime minister.
We do have a Prime Minister and a Cabinet. And while the PM is incapacitated the Cabinet (especially Raab) can take on the PM's responsibilities. There's no story here.
Can the PM's responsibilities be shared? Surely one individual needs to be in position to make a big call? What does 'especially' Raab mean? Either he is acting Prime minister or he isn't.
Of course they can be shared. I'm unclear in any case how many things would solely be decided by the pm without reference to or with other cabinet members.
The number of immediate calls that would need to be made by one person alone I suspect is small, and Raab is explicitly covering for the PM so could do so.
I stopped reading once I no longer found them funny. Which, as far as I recall, was after the second one. Plenty of her recent stuff is vicious shite, and she's a hypocrite for suddenly shedding crocodile tears over how language makes people feel.
That's interesting that you find a talent such as Hyde relentlessly unfunny. It means that your politics plays a big role in what makes you laugh. Nothing wrong with that, nothing at all, but this is not so much the case with me. I often wish it was, actually, because I do not enjoy chuckling at the occasional zinger that, for example, the ghastly Rod Liddle comes out with. Fortunately (for me) there is a genuine and objectively verified negative correlation between right wing views and a facility with comic prose, so although it does happen - me creasing up at the likes of Rod - it is not a routine everyday event.
No, plenty of left-wing comedy can make me laugh, I just don't find her particularly amusing, despite her facility with prose. However, the fact that the great majority of all comedy is left-wing and takes similar positions on everything does tend to engender a sense of cloying tedium no matter what one's politics are.
In fairness to Dan, while he has been intentionally supportive of the government he has several times called out what he thought were communication blunders.
said it once before and will say it again, he's been good on this.
really don't get the hate - other than for correctly predicting Labour's electoral chances 2010-2019.
The health secretary, Matt Hancock, will ask industry leaders to help the UK find an antibody test that works.
Hancock will issue the plea on a conference call on Wednesday, echoing his call for help on ventilators, after the government conceded that none of the antibody tests it has are good enough for mass usage.
This is clearly proving to be an a far more difficult task than first thought, as nobody else has a working one either. And no doubt the likes of the Germans will have been at this full speed.
BBC just interviewed a British bloke living in Wuhan (he's an English teacher) - he said he had Covid symptoms "back in late November/early December" and that the provincial government covered up the stats as opposed to the Beijing government.
Oh dear - I hope we hear from him again.
Of course we will - when he lands at Heathrow on Thursday.
So before we went into lockdown journalists were going crazy that we wasn't in lockdown.
We've been in lockdown for two weeks, we haven't even reached the peak of the virus yet and journalists are going on about when we're going to come out of lockdown (and tying this in with the PM being critically ill)
I'm possibly not seeing the point. What have death counts for January and February being quite good got to do with the current pandemic? I thought we were concerned about the covid-19 deaths that started to shoot upwards on an exponential line over the past 10 days or so - beyond the scope of that graph.
And even more concerned with preventing that exponential from getting traction and out of control. I mean, yes, if we can stop the upwards line from running away, we can keep deaths down to [eyeballs the y-axis, does some mental arithmetic, realises that the extra 5000 deaths over the past week, unless offset by far fewer deaths than normal will already spike us to the past the highest point on that graph in midwinter 2015] maybe the top of that graph? Without needing to redo the y-axis.
So, yes, it's a good way of re-emphasising that it's not too late as long as we stick with the measures we're taking, I suppose. We can still stop this being a runaway disaster. Sure, it'll probably look pretty bad when the last week's figures are added to it - after all, we're getting a spike upwards starting already, even though "only" 1200 people had died by then (950 covid-19 deaths in the week leading up to the final point on the graph).
The point I take from it is there are a lot of people, for want of a better phrase, ‘living on borrowed time’, because flu usually kills thousands more in Jan & Feb than it did this year
I don't think that it works quite like that. Rather reminiscent of the Final Destination movies. In any case, that thick black line over January and February seems to be pretty close to the average of the other lines (if possibly a bit high - bear in mind that the thin blue line, for 2010-2014 therefore has five times the weighting of the lines for each of the individual annual lines after them).
So that graph isn't saying that thousands more are usually killed in Jan & Feb. It's saying fewer are usually killed in Jan & Feb - the precise opposite of your claim.
Take a look at it. The 2020 line is significantly above average deaths for 3 of the first 10 weeks, noticeably (but not hugely) above it for 4 more of them, almost bang on it for 2 of them, and a bit below it for one. We're looking at maybe 4,000 extra deaths in 2020 in the first 10 weeks than the average for 2010-2019.
The health secretary, Matt Hancock, will ask industry leaders to help the UK find an antibody test that works.
Hancock will issue the plea on a conference call on Wednesday, echoing his call for help on ventilators, after the government conceded that none of the antibody tests it has are good enough for mass usage.
This is clearly proving to be an a far more difficult task than first thought, as nobody else has a working one either. And no doubt the likes of the Germans will have been at this full speed.
The health secretary, Matt Hancock, will ask industry leaders to help the UK find an antibody test that works.
Hancock will issue the plea on a conference call on Wednesday, echoing his call for help on ventilators, after the government conceded that none of the antibody tests it has are good enough for mass usage.....
I'm slightly gobsmacked this wasn't asked a month ago. And generously funded.
Rather like Bill Gates figured out with vaccine production, multiple simultaneous efforts to solve a hard problem have a far better chance of succeeding quickly. The 'wasted' investment is trivial in the context of this thing, and would be recouped a thousand times over in being able to deal with it sooner.
So before we went into lockdown journalists were going crazy that we wasn't in lockdown.
We've been in lockdown for two weeks, we haven't even reached the peak of the virus yet and journalists are going on about when we're going to come out of lockdown (and tying this in with the PM being critically ill)
Can anyone make sense of our media?
Two weeks isn't even that long. I mean I think most of us have been ill at some point in our lives and had to spend 2 weeks in bed. And basically every other country is doing the same.
The health secretary, Matt Hancock, will ask industry leaders to help the UK find an antibody test that works.
Hancock will issue the plea on a conference call on Wednesday, echoing his call for help on ventilators, after the government conceded that none of the antibody tests it has are good enough for mass usage.....
I'm slightly gobsmacked this wasn't asked a month ago. And generously funded.
Rather like Bill Gates figured out with vaccine production, multiple simultaneous efforts to solve a hard problem have a far better chance of succeeding quickly. The 'wasted' investment is trivial in the context of this thing, and would be recouped a thousand times over in being able to deal with it sooner.
Well they were. A British company, Mologic, was given several million quid to develop it and they haven't got anywhere.
And while they worked on this, a load of other companies have all popped up promising 98-99% accuracy. So the UK government bought samples, tested them, asked them to try and improve them and now found them all to be bullshitters.
In the UK alone, I think 14-15 companies have claimed to have a pregnancy style test, but they all come with massive caveats and limitations.
The health secretary, Matt Hancock, will ask industry leaders to help the UK find an antibody test that works.
Hancock will issue the plea on a conference call on Wednesday, echoing his call for help on ventilators, after the government conceded that none of the antibody tests it has are good enough for mass usage.....
I'm slightly gobsmacked this wasn't asked a month ago. And generously funded.
Rather like Bill Gates figured out with vaccine production, multiple simultaneous efforts to solve a hard problem have a far better chance of succeeding quickly. The 'wasted' investment is trivial in the context of this thing, and would be recouped a thousand times over in being able to deal with it sooner.
But better late that not at all.
It sounds like the government had gone down the Gates route and funded lots of tests - only they all failed.
I'm possibly not seeing the point. What have death counts for January and February being quite good got to do with the current pandemic? I thought we were concerned about the covid-19 deaths that started to shoot upwards on an exponential line over the past 10 days or so - beyond the scope of that graph.
And even more concerned with preventing that exponential from getting traction and out of control. I mean, yes, if we can stop the upwards line from running away, we can keep deaths down to [eyeballs the y-axis, does some mental arithmetic, realises that the extra 5000 deaths over the past week, unless offset by far fewer deaths than normal will already spike us to the past the highest point on that graph in midwinter 2015] maybe the top of that graph? Without needing to redo the y-axis.
So, yes, it's a good way of re-emphasising that it's not too late as long as we stick with the measures we're taking, I suppose. We can still stop this being a runaway disaster. Sure, it'll probably look pretty bad when the last week's figures are added to it - after all, we're getting a spike upwards starting already, even though "only" 1200 people had died by then (950 covid-19 deaths in the week leading up to the final point on the graph).
The point I take from it is there are a lot of people, for want of a better phrase, ‘living on borrowed time’, because flu usually kills thousands more in Jan & Feb than it did this year
I don't think that it works quite like that. Rather reminiscent of the Final Destination movies. In any case, that thick black line over January and February seems to be pretty close to the average of the other lines (if possibly a bit high - bear in mind that the thin blue line, for 2010-2014 therefore has five times the weighting of the lines for each of the individual annual lines after them).
So that graph isn't saying that thousands more are usually killed in Jan & Feb. It's saying fewer are usually killed in Jan & Feb - the precise opposite of your claim.
Take a look at it. The 2020 line is significantly above average deaths for 3 of the first 10 weeks, noticeably (but not hugely) above it for 4 more of them, almost bang on it for 2 of them, and a bit below it for one. We're looking at maybe 4,000 extra deaths in 2020 in the first 10 weeks than the average for 2010-2019.
. Ruth Davidson was transformative and the SNP were unsettled by her. They just love Leonard though.
The entirety of her electoral success was made by abandoning the approach she was elected on and adopting Murdo Fraser's ideas.
My thesis is that Murdo Fraser would have done exactly as well as Davidson electorally.
Well not entirely. Granted, she did move in his direction but Murdo's signature proposal was to bin the Party's identity and start afresh with a new name etc. Ruth certainly didn't do that and was right not to. Also, I think you underestimate the personal impact Ruth had in dispelling the stereotypical Tory image. Murdo would not have done so well although he's very competent.
They were literally putting out election leaflets that did not mention the word Conservative except for the legally mandated printing note.
They stopped being the SCons and became the No To A Second IndyRef party.
Yep. Became a binary choice and SCon more credible as unswerving Unionist party than Labour. Ironically SNP success de-toxified SCon.
It was Nicola's de-emphasising of IndyRef and focus on Brexit during GE19 that allowed them to take back some of those Tory seats. Don't think that will work next year when the election will inevitably be about IndyRef again.
Except that's not true. They de emphasised IndyRef at 2017. In 2019 IndyRef was front and centre, it led the campaign. Big G was constantly asking if I thought the SNP's focus on IndyRef was going to damage them in 2019 election.
Hmm. Not my experience on doorstep. Encountered 2017 Tory voters saying they couldn't vote for Boris and Brexit. Sitting it out or voting LibDem, even a few SNP. They won't be voting for Indy though and are likely to return to fold next year.
BBC just interviewed a British bloke living in Wuhan (he's an English teacher) - he said he had Covid symptoms "back in late November/early December" and that the provincial government covered up the stats as opposed to the Beijing government.
Interesting. Makes you wonder if it could have been circulating in Wuhan as far back as September/October?
The health secretary, Matt Hancock, will ask industry leaders to help the UK find an antibody test that works.
Hancock will issue the plea on a conference call on Wednesday, echoing his call for help on ventilators, after the government conceded that none of the antibody tests it has are good enough for mass usage.....
I'm slightly gobsmacked this wasn't asked a month ago. And generously funded.
Rather like Bill Gates figured out with vaccine production, multiple simultaneous efforts to solve a hard problem have a far better chance of succeeding quickly. The 'wasted' investment is trivial in the context of this thing, and would be recouped a thousand times over in being able to deal with it sooner.
But better late that not at all.
It sounds like the government had gone down the Gates route and funded lots of tests - only they all failed.
Perhaps (hence my qualifier, 'slightly'). But this is clearly a ramping up of the effort.
BBC just interviewed a British bloke living in Wuhan (he's an English teacher) - he said he had Covid symptoms "back in late November/early December" and that the provincial government covered up the stats as opposed to the Beijing government.
Interesting. Makes you wonder if it could have been circulating in Wuhan as far back as September/October?
Seems unlikely.
Given how contagious it is, if it was then why didn't it spread further?
BBC just interviewed a British bloke living in Wuhan (he's an English teacher) - he said he had Covid symptoms "back in late November/early December" and that the provincial government covered up the stats as opposed to the Beijing government.
Interesting. Makes you wonder if it could have been circulating in Wuhan as far back as September/October?
Well we know from leaked documents the first recorded case was early November, and they only presented themselves in a fairly serious condition, I believe with pneumonia.
So given the incubation time and time to get to pneumonia stage is probably couple of weeks, that gets you back to end of October.
The health secretary, Matt Hancock, will ask industry leaders to help the UK find an antibody test that works.
Hancock will issue the plea on a conference call on Wednesday, echoing his call for help on ventilators, after the government conceded that none of the antibody tests it has are good enough for mass usage.....
I'm slightly gobsmacked this wasn't asked a month ago. And generously funded.
Rather like Bill Gates figured out with vaccine production, multiple simultaneous efforts to solve a hard problem have a far better chance of succeeding quickly. The 'wasted' investment is trivial in the context of this thing, and would be recouped a thousand times over in being able to deal with it sooner.
But better late that not at all.
It sounds like the government had gone down the Gates route and funded lots of tests - only they all failed.
Perhaps (hence my qualifier, 'slightly'). But this is clearly a ramping up of the effort.
In fairness to Dan, while he has been intentionally supportive of the government he has several times called out what he thought were communication blunders.
said it once before and will say it again, he's been good on this.
really don't get the hate - other than for correctly predicting Labour's electoral chances 2010-2019.
Well he can be one note, but that's punditry. I'm not in a position to throw stones.
I'm possibly not seeing the point. What have death counts for January and February being quite good got to do with the current pandemic? I thought we were concerned about the covid-19 deaths that started to shoot upwards on an exponential line over the past 10 days or so - beyond the scope of that graph.
And even more concerned with preventing that exponential from getting traction and out of control. I mean, yes, if we can stop the upwards line from running away, we can keep deaths down to [eyeballs the y-axis, does some mental arithmetic, realises that the extra 5000 deaths over the past week, unless offset by far fewer deaths than normal will already spike us to the past the highest point on that graph in midwinter 2015] maybe the top of that graph? Without needing to redo the y-axis.
So, yes, it's a good way of re-emphasising that it's not too late as long as we stick with the measures we're taking, I suppose. We can still stop this being a runaway disaster. Sure, it'll probably look pretty bad when the last week's figures are added to it - after all, we're getting a spike upwards starting already, even though "only" 1200 people had died by then (950 covid-19 deaths in the week leading up to the final point on the graph).
The point I take from it is there are a lot of people, for want of a better phrase, ‘living on borrowed time’, because flu usually kills thousands more in Jan & Feb than it did this year
I don't think that it works quite like that. Rather reminiscent of the Final Destination movies. In any case, that thick black line over January and February seems to be pretty close to the average of the other lines (if possibly a bit high - bear in mind that the thin blue line, for 2010-2014 therefore has five times the weighting of the lines for each of the individual annual lines after them).
So that graph isn't saying that thousands more are usually killed in Jan & Feb. It's saying fewer are usually killed in Jan & Feb - the precise opposite of your claim.
Take a look at it. The 2020 line is significantly above average deaths for 3 of the first 10 weeks, noticeably (but not hugely) above it for 4 more of them, almost bang on it for 2 of them, and a bit below it for one. We're looking at maybe 4,000 extra deaths in 2020 in the first 10 weeks than the average for 2010-2019.
2020 is well below average for the last 5 years
The difference there is actually quite small, just a few thousand people.
BBC just interviewed a British bloke living in Wuhan (he's an English teacher) - he said he had Covid symptoms "back in late November/early December" and that the provincial government covered up the stats as opposed to the Beijing government.
Interesting. Makes you wonder if it could have been circulating in Wuhan as far back as September/October?
I think that unlikely. The doubling rate that we have seen, and resultant mortality would have made it obvious very quickly. The same goes for people getting respiratory symptoms in the UK over the winter too.
I'm possibly not seeing the point. What have death counts for January and February being quite good got to do with the current pandemic? I thought we were concerned about the covid-19 deaths that started to shoot upwards on an exponential line over the past 10 days or so - beyond the scope of that graph.
And even more concerned with preventing that exponential from getting traction and out of control. I mean, yes, if we can stop the upwards line from running away, we can keep deaths down to [eyeballs the y-axis, does some mental arithmetic, realises that the extra 5000 deaths over the past week, unless offset by far fewer deaths than normal will already spike us to the past the highest point on that graph in midwinter 2015] maybe the top of that graph? Without needing to redo the y-axis.
So, yes, it's a good way of re-emphasising that it's not too late as long as we stick with the measures we're taking, I suppose. We can still stop this being a runaway disaster. Sure, it'll probably look pretty bad when the last week's figures are added to it - after all, we're getting a spike upwards starting already, even though "only" 1200 people had died by then (950 covid-19 deaths in the week leading up to the final point on the graph).
The point I take from it is there are a lot of people, for want of a better phrase, ‘living on borrowed time’, because flu usually kills thousands more in Jan & Feb than it did this year
I don't think that it works quite like that. Rather reminiscent of the Final Destination movies. In any case, that thick black line over January and February seems to be pretty close to the average of the other lines (if possibly a bit high - bear in mind that the thin blue line, for 2010-2014 therefore has five times the weighting of the lines for each of the individual annual lines after them).
So that graph isn't saying that thousands more are usually killed in Jan & Feb. It's saying fewer are usually killed in Jan & Feb - the precise opposite of your claim.
Take a look at it. The 2020 line is significantly above average deaths for 3 of the first 10 weeks, noticeably (but not hugely) above it for 4 more of them, almost bang on it for 2 of them, and a bit below it for one. We're looking at maybe 4,000 extra deaths in 2020 in the first 10 weeks than the average for 2010-2019.
2020 is well below average for the last 5 years
The difference there is actually quite small, just a few thousand people.
So is the amount of people to have died with Covid-19 in their system
I'm possibly not seeing the point. What have death counts for January and February being quite good got to do with the current pandemic? I thought we were concerned about the covid-19 deaths that started to shoot upwards on an exponential line over the past 10 days or so - beyond the scope of that graph.
And even more concerned with preventing that exponential from getting traction and out of control. I mean, yes, if we can stop the upwards line from running away, we can keep deaths down to [eyeballs the y-axis, does some mental arithmetic, realises that the extra 5000 deaths over the past week, unless offset by far fewer deaths than normal will already spike us to the past the highest point on that graph in midwinter 2015] maybe the top of that graph? Without needing to redo the y-axis.
So, yes, it's a good way of re-emphasising that it's not too late as long as we stick with the measures we're taking, I suppose. We can still stop this being a runaway disaster. Sure, it'll probably look pretty bad when the last week's figures are added to it - after all, we're getting a spike upwards starting already, even though "only" 1200 people had died by then (950 covid-19 deaths in the week leading up to the final point on the graph).
The point I take from it is there are a lot of people, for want of a better phrase, ‘living on borrowed time’, because flu usually kills thousands more in Jan & Feb than it did this year
I don't think that it works quite like that. Rather reminiscent of the Final Destination movies. In any case, that thick black line over January and February seems to be pretty close to the average of the other lines (if possibly a bit high - bear in mind that the thin blue line, for 2010-2014 therefore has five times the weighting of the lines for each of the individual annual lines after them).
So that graph isn't saying that thousands more are usually killed in Jan & Feb. It's saying fewer are usually killed in Jan & Feb - the precise opposite of your claim.
Take a look at it. The 2020 line is significantly above average deaths for 3 of the first 10 weeks, noticeably (but not hugely) above it for 4 more of them, almost bang on it for 2 of them, and a bit below it for one. We're looking at maybe 4,000 extra deaths in 2020 in the first 10 weeks than the average for 2010-2019.
2020 is well below average for the last 5 years
The difference there is actually quite small, just a few thousand people.
Same as the amount of people to have died with Covid-19 in their system
Fewer, and only one of those numbers is continuing to grow.
I stopped reading once I no longer found them funny. Which, as far as I recall, was after the second one. Plenty of her recent stuff is vicious shite, and she's a hypocrite for suddenly shedding crocodile tears over how language makes people feel.
That's interesting that you find a talent such as Hyde relentlessly unfunny. It means that your politics plays a big role in what makes you laugh. Nothing wrong with that, nothing at all, but this is not so much the case with me. I often wish it was, actually, because I do not enjoy chuckling at the occasional zinger that, for example, the ghastly Rod Liddle comes out with. Fortunately (for me) there is a genuine and objectively verified negative correlation between right wing views and a facility with comic prose, so although it does happen - me creasing up at the likes of Rod - it is not a routine everyday event.
"Fortunately (for me) there is a genuine and objectively verified negative correlation between right wing views and a facility with comic prose,"
You really must be joking.
Never read Evelyn Waugh? The pantheon of great comic writers is heavily skewed to the right.
BBC just interviewed a British bloke living in Wuhan (he's an English teacher) - he said he had Covid symptoms "back in late November/early December" and that the provincial government covered up the stats as opposed to the Beijing government.
Interesting. Makes you wonder if it could have been circulating in Wuhan as far back as September/October?
Never quite understood how it goes from somebody eating a pangolin pie to the whole city of Wuhan heaving with this bug in days. That isn't what we are seeing in Europe. And once you question that, then there is a wider question of when did the virus first arrive here?
BBC just interviewed a British bloke living in Wuhan (he's an English teacher) - he said he had Covid symptoms "back in late November/early December" and that the provincial government covered up the stats as opposed to the Beijing government.
Interesting. Makes you wonder if it could have been circulating in Wuhan as far back as September/October?
I think that unlikely. The doubling rate that we have seen, and resultant mortality would have made it obvious very quickly. The same goes for people getting respiratory symptoms in the UK over the winter too.
I honestly wonder if the WHO will survive their handling of this.
No tanks in Baghdad Only 3,000 deaths in China...
Difficult to take any graph that still has the China figures on seriously.
Seriously, I would love to know what percentage of the true figure you think the UK case numbers represent.
Do you really think the UK confirmed cases are more than 1% of the real number of infections?
Uk is publishing positive tests figures and deaths.
Guesses at "no of cases" would be up there with Michael Mann's hockey stick graph.
You're unable even to guess how many cases there are in the UK.
Perhaps if you weren't so keen to dismiss such evidence as we have, you wouldn't be in quite such a complete state of ignorance.
You seem to be using karate on a straw man.
Do you believe the Chinese death figures Y/N ?
The Chinese government murderously lied about the existence of COVID19 The Chinese government murderously lied about human-to-human transmission The Chinese government told the exact truth, openly, about the death rate from COVID19
Correct.
Now if Chris has evidence that the Uk government is hiding deaths then that would be a story.
Why do I keep coming back here and wasting my time on this kind of drivel?
BBC just interviewed a British bloke living in Wuhan (he's an English teacher) - he said he had Covid symptoms "back in late November/early December" and that the provincial government covered up the stats as opposed to the Beijing government.
Interesting. Makes you wonder if it could have been circulating in Wuhan as far back as September/October?
Never quite understood how it goes from somebody eating a pangolin pie to the whole city of Wuhan heaving with this bug in days. That isn't what we are seeing in Europe. And once you question that, then there is a wider question of when did the virus first arrive here?
Maybe it was released - most certainly accidentally - from that lab across the road from the "wet market"?
So the phobiavirus has spawned a new mutation: Sinophobia.
So hard to keep up.
Where does being really, really pissed that our economy will tank because the Chinese still insist on eating pangolins and bats in wet markets end - and being Sinophobic begin? I'd really like to know because, obviously, I don't want to cross that line...
BBC just interviewed a British bloke living in Wuhan (he's an English teacher) - he said he had Covid symptoms "back in late November/early December" and that the provincial government covered up the stats as opposed to the Beijing government.
Interesting. Makes you wonder if it could have been circulating in Wuhan as far back as September/October?
I think that unlikely. The doubling rate that we have seen, and resultant mortality would have made it obvious very quickly. The same goes for people getting respiratory symptoms in the UK over the winter too.
I read that even with the duff antibody tests you can control for the false positive/negative rates in population studies, and that such studies are underway in the UK.
I stopped reading once I no longer found them funny. Which, as far as I recall, was after the second one. Plenty of her recent stuff is vicious shite, and she's a hypocrite for suddenly shedding crocodile tears over how language makes people feel.
That's interesting that you find a talent such as Hyde relentlessly unfunny. It means that your politics plays a big role in what makes you laugh. Nothing wrong with that, nothing at all, but this is not so much the case with me. I often wish it was, actually, because I do not enjoy chuckling at the occasional zinger that, for example, the ghastly Rod Liddle comes out with. Fortunately (for me) there is a genuine and objectively verified negative correlation between right wing views and a facility with comic prose, so although it does happen - me creasing up at the likes of Rod - it is not a routine everyday event.
No, plenty of left-wing comedy can make me laugh, I just don't find her particularly amusing, despite her facility with prose. However, the fact that the great majority of all comedy is left-wing and takes similar positions on everything does tend to engender a sense of cloying tedium no matter what one's politics are.
Wonder why there aren't more right-wing comedians? Trump is about the only one that springs to mind.
Jewish Chronicle and Jewish News to be liquidated and staff laid off Sources say staff have been told parent company has run out of money during UK lockdown
Jewish Chronicle and Jewish News to be liquidated and staff laid off Sources say staff have been told parent company has run out of money during UK lockdown
I'm possibly not seeing the point. What have death counts for January and February being quite good got to do with the current pandemic? I thought we were concerned about the covid-19 deaths that started to shoot upwards on an exponential line over the past 10 days or so - beyond the scope of that graph.
And even more concerned with preventing that exponential from getting traction and out of control. I mean, yes, if we can stop the upwards line from running away, we can keep deaths down to [eyeballs the y-axis, does some mental arithmetic, realises that the extra 5000 deaths over the past week, unless offset by far fewer deaths than normal will already spike us to the past the highest point on that graph in midwinter 2015] maybe the top of that graph? Without needing to redo the y-axis.
So, yes, it's a good way of re-emphasising that it's not too late as long as we stick with the measures we're taking, I suppose. We can still stop this being a runaway disaster. Sure, it'll probably look pretty bad when the last week's figures are added to it - after all, we're getting a spike upwards starting already, even though "only" 1200 people had died by then (950 covid-19 deaths in the week leading up to the final point on the graph).
The point I take from it is there are a lot of people, for want of a better phrase, ‘living on borrowed time’, because flu usually kills thousands more in Jan & Feb than it did this year
I don't think that it works quite like that. Rather reminiscent of the Final Destination movies. In any case, that thick black line over January and February seems to be pretty close to the average of the other lines (if possibly a bit high - bear in mind that the thin blue line, for 2010-2014 therefore has five times the weighting of the lines for each of the individual annual lines after them).
So that graph isn't saying that thousands more are usually killed in Jan & Feb. It's saying fewer are usually killed in Jan & Feb - the precise opposite of your claim.
Take a look at it. The 2020 line is significantly above average deaths for 3 of the first 10 weeks, noticeably (but not hugely) above it for 4 more of them, almost bang on it for 2 of them, and a bit below it for one. We're looking at maybe 4,000 extra deaths in 2020 in the first 10 weeks than the average for 2010-2019.
2020 is well below average for the last 5 years
The difference there is actually quite small, just a few thousand people.
Same as the amount of people to have died with Covid-19 in their system
Fewer, and only one of those numbers is continuing to grow.
Yes, this may be a slightly above average year by the look of it
Jewish Chronicle and Jewish News to be liquidated and staff laid off Sources say staff have been told parent company has run out of money during UK lockdown
A far as I'm concerned until it is proved otherwise by their revolting government I working on the perfectly reasonable assumption that this virus accidentally escaped from their laboratory in Wuhan.
I'm possibly not seeing the point. What have death counts for January and February being quite good got to do with the current pandemic? I thought we were concerned about the covid-19 deaths that started to shoot upwards on an exponential line over the past 10 days or so - beyond the scope of that graph.
And even more concerned with preventing that exponential from getting traction and out of control. I mean, yes, if we can stop the upwards line from running away, we can keep deaths down to [eyeballs the y-axis, does some mental arithmetic, realises that the extra 5000 deaths over the past week, unless offset by far fewer deaths than normal will already spike us to the past the highest point on that graph in midwinter 2015] maybe the top of that graph? Without needing to redo the y-axis.
So, yes, it's a good way of re-emphasising that it's not too late as long as we stick with the measures we're taking, I suppose. We can still stop this being a runaway disaster. Sure, it'll probably look pretty bad when the last week's figures are added to it - after all, we're getting a spike upwards starting already, even though "only" 1200 people had died by then (950 covid-19 deaths in the week leading up to the final point on the graph).
The point I take from it is there are a lot of people, for want of a better phrase, ‘living on borrowed time’, because flu usually kills thousands more in Jan & Feb than it did this year
I don't think that it works quite like that. Rather reminiscent of the Final Destination movies. In any case, that thick black line over January and February seems to be pretty close to the average of the other lines (if possibly a bit high - bear in mind that the thin blue line, for 2010-2014 therefore has five times the weighting of the lines for each of the individual annual lines after them).
So that graph isn't saying that thousands more are usually killed in Jan & Feb. It's saying fewer are usually killed in Jan & Feb - the precise opposite of your claim.
Take a look at it. The 2020 line is significantly above average deaths for 3 of the first 10 weeks, noticeably (but not hugely) above it for 4 more of them, almost bang on it for 2 of them, and a bit below it for one. We're looking at maybe 4,000 extra deaths in 2020 in the first 10 weeks than the average for 2010-2019.
2020 is well below average for the last 5 years
The difference there is actually quite small, just a few thousand people.
Same as the amount of people to have died with Covid-19 in their system
Fewer, and only one of those numbers is continuing to grow.
Yes, this may be a slightly above average year by the look of it
It's actually approaching double. So that would be significantly above average going by your previous comment.
Jewish Chronicle and Jewish News to be liquidated and staff laid off Sources say staff have been told parent company has run out of money during UK lockdown
Going to be a lot of Corbynites scratching their heads at that.
"How does that work? The Jews control all the world's money...."
Get with the program...It is clearly false flag event...they are going to try and look like they aren't in control of the world's economy and struggling just like everybody else....while secretly plotting to relaunch when all this is over...or something like that.
A far as I'm concerned until it is proved otherwise by their revolting government I working on the perfectly reasonable assumption that this virus accidentally escaped from their laboratory in Wuhan.
I'm possibly not seeing the point. What have death counts for January and February being quite good got to do with the current pandemic? I thought we were concerned about the covid-19 deaths that started to shoot upwards on an exponential line over the past 10 days or so - beyond the scope of that graph.
And even more concerned with preventing that exponential from getting traction and out of control. I mean, yes, if we can stop the upwards line from running away, we can keep deaths down to [eyeballs the y-axis, does some mental arithmetic, realises that the extra 5000 deaths over the past week, unless offset by far fewer deaths than normal will already spike us to the past the highest point on that graph in midwinter 2015] maybe the top of that graph? Without needing to redo the y-axis.
So, yes, it's a good way of re-emphasising that it's not too late as long as we stick with the measures we're taking, I suppose. We can still stop this being a runaway disaster. Sure, it'll probably look pretty bad when the last week's figures are added to it - after all, we're getting a spike upwards starting already, even though "only" 1200 people had died by then (950 covid-19 deaths in the week leading up to the final point on the graph).
The point I take from it is there are a lot of people, for want of a better phrase, ‘living on borrowed time’, because flu usually kills thousands more in Jan & Feb than it did this year
I don't think that it works quite like that. Rather reminiscent of the Final Destination movies. In any case, that thick black line over January and February seems to be pretty close to the average of the other lines (if possibly a bit high - bear in mind that the thin blue line, for 2010-2014 therefore has five times the weighting of the lines for each of the individual annual lines after them).
So that graph isn't saying that thousands more are usually killed in Jan & Feb. It's saying fewer are usually killed in Jan & Feb - the precise opposite of your claim.
Take a look at it. The 2020 line is significantly above average deaths for 3 of the first 10 weeks, noticeably (but not hugely) above it for 4 more of them, almost bang on it for 2 of them, and a bit below it for one. We're looking at maybe 4,000 extra deaths in 2020 in the first 10 weeks than the average for 2010-2019.
2020 is well below average for the last 5 years
The difference there is actually quite small, just a few thousand people.
Same as the amount of people to have died with Covid-19 in their system
Fewer, and only one of those numbers is continuing to grow.
Yes, this may be a slightly above average year by the look of it
It's actually approaching double. So that would be significantly above average going by your previous comment.
I'm possibly not seeing the point. What have death counts for January and February being quite good got to do with the current pandemic? I thought we were concerned about the covid-19 deaths that started to shoot upwards on an exponential line over the past 10 days or so - beyond the scope of that graph.
And even more concerned with preventing that exponential from getting traction and out of control. I mean, yes, if we can stop the upwards line from running away, we can keep deaths down to [eyeballs the y-axis, does some mental arithmetic, realises that the extra 5000 deaths over the past week, unless offset by far fewer deaths than normal will already spike us to the past the highest point on that graph in midwinter 2015] maybe the top of that graph? Without needing to redo the y-axis.
So, yes, it's a good way of re-emphasising that it's not too late as long as we stick with the measures we're taking, I suppose. We can still stop this being a runaway disaster. Sure, it'll probably look pretty bad when the last week's figures are added to it - after all, we're getting a spike upwards starting already, even though "only" 1200 people had died by then (950 covid-19 deaths in the week leading up to the final point on the graph).
The point I take from it is there are a lot of people, for want of a better phrase, ‘living on borrowed time’, because flu usually kills thousands more in Jan & Feb than it did this year
I don't think that it works quite like that. Rather reminiscent of the Final Destination movies. In any case, that thick black line over January and February seems to be pretty close to the average of the other lines (if possibly a bit high - bear in mind that the thin blue line, for 2010-2014 therefore has five times the weighting of the lines for each of the individual annual lines after them).
So that graph isn't saying that thousands more are usually killed in Jan & Feb. It's saying fewer are usually killed in Jan & Feb - the precise opposite of your claim.
Take a look at it. The 2020 line is significantly above average deaths for 3 of the first 10 weeks, noticeably (but not hugely) above it for 4 more of them, almost bang on it for 2 of them, and a bit below it for one. We're looking at maybe 4,000 extra deaths in 2020 in the first 10 weeks than the average for 2010-2019.
2020 is well below average for the last 5 years
Your original graph had 10 years of data on it. It included 2010-2014. I thought you wanted to discuss what was shown by that graph. Going to the ONS and getting the raw data, plugging it into a spreadsheet and producing an unsmoothed graph gives this:
So we were discussing the first graph you showed, you claimed it showed that deaths in 2020 to date (or, at least, in Jan and Feb, the first 9 weeks) were "thousands" below average. I pointed out that it didn't. As per the graph I've just added.
You've now shifted to a different, shorter baseline. Why?
Jesus Christ, we have a killer virus spreading the world and these twats are more concerned about gender balance and diversity. The holders of the departments responsible for this are men, so no shit sherlock that men are there.
And they are conveniently forgetting there are 3 of the supporting scientific and medical experts regularly doing the pressers for female.
No, plenty of left-wing comedy can make me laugh, I just don't find her particularly amusing, despite her facility with prose. However, the fact that the great majority of all comedy is left-wing and takes similar positions on everything does tend to engender a sense of cloying tedium no matter what one's politics are.
The point is interesting if generalized. Is the quality of a creative work a matter of opinion or of fact? I think it is mainly the first - opinion - but not completely. There is a degree of objectivity. One can see this by looking at relative rather than absolute value. For example, which is the better novel, Moby Dick or Fifty Shades Of Grey? I have read neither but I can answer the question. Moby Dick. I know this to be true. It's a fact. As much of a fact as the Earth goes round the Sun. Or take two songs, in this case where I'm familiar with both and can compare from direct experience. I will Always Love You by Whitney Houston and Delaney's Donkey by Val Doonican. Which is the greater? Again, it's fact not opinion. The Whitney song is superior. And because it's a fact it is the answer I would always give even though I prefer Delaney's Donkey. So, the point of this analysis, you can do the same with Marina Hyde. You should be able to state that she's an absolute scream even though you don't find her at all funny.
Jesus Christ, we have a killer virus spreading the world and these twats are more concerned about gender balance and diversity. The holders of the departments responsible for this are men, so no shit sherlock that men are there.
And they are conveniently forgetting there are 3 of the supporting scientific and medical experts regularly doing the pressers for female.
Yep has anyone asked which women they want to be leading the press briefings?
Were there any complaints about the all-female Scottish press conferences?
Thought not.
Not only that but I suspect the all-female Holyrood press conference made up of politicians and scientists probably had more in common with the all-male Westminster press conference made up of politicians and scientists than they do those "on NHS frontline or suffering worst financially or juggling kids and work".
One suspects that Nicola Sturgeon is working flat out on this no different to male politicians and doesn't have magical genitalia that enables her to know how other women in completely different circumstances are coping.
I'm possibly not seeing the point. What have death counts for January and February being quite good got to do with the current pandemic? I thought we were concerned about the covid-19 deaths that started to shoot upwards on an exponential line over the past 10 days or so - beyond the scope of that graph.
And even more concerned with preventing that exponential from getting traction and out of control. I mean, yes, if we can stop the upwards line from running away, we can keep deaths down to [eyeballs the y-axis, does some mental arithmetic, realises that the extra 5000 deaths over the past week, unless offset by far fewer deaths than normal will already spike us to the past the highest point on that graph in midwinter 2015] maybe the top of that graph? Without needing to redo the y-axis.
So, yes, it's a good way of re-emphasising that it's not too late as long as we stick with the measures we're taking, I suppose. We can still stop this being a runaway disaster. Sure, it'll probably look pretty bad when the last week's figures are added to it - after all, we're getting a spike upwards starting already, even though "only" 1200 people had died by then (950 covid-19 deaths in the week leading up to the final point on the graph).
The point I take from it is there are a lot of people, for want of a better phrase, ‘living on borrowed time’, because flu usually kills thousands more in Jan & Feb than it did this year
I don't think that it works quite like that. Rather reminiscent of the Final Destination movies. In any case, that thick black line over January and February seems to be pretty close to the average of the other lines (if possibly a bit high - bear in mind that the thin blue line, for 2010-2014 therefore has five times the weighting of the lines for each of the individual annual lines after them).
So that graph isn't saying that thousands more are usually killed in Jan & Feb. It's saying fewer are usually killed in Jan & Feb - the precise opposite of your claim.
Take a look at it. The 2020 line is significantly above average deaths for 3 of the first 10 weeks, noticeably (but not hugely) above it for 4 more of them, almost bang on it for 2 of them, and a bit below it for one. We're looking at maybe 4,000 extra deaths in 2020 in the first 10 weeks than the average for 2010-2019.
2020 is well below average for the last 5 years
Your original graph had 10 years of data on it. It included 2010-2014. I thought you wanted to discuss what was shown by that graph. Going to the ONS and getting the raw data, plugging it into a spreadsheet and producing an unsmoothed graph gives this:
So we were discussing the first graph you showed, you claimed it showed that deaths in 2020 to date (or, at least, in Jan and Feb, the first 9 weeks) were "thousands" below average. I pointed out that it didn't. As per the graph I've just added.
You've now shifted to a different, shorter baseline. Why?
I didn’t post the original graph and hadn’t even looked at it. Sorry, I have been following the person on Twitter who updates the graph I posted and was talking about that time frame
Can we just sack all the Westminster journalist idiots, turn the computer off and on again, and hire some less moronic ones.
Just ensure the only people given accreditation for the pressers are their science correspondents.
Sorted.
To demand that the journalists know what they are talking about would be to muzzle the press.
You can't have a national level story led by a subject matter expert in sciences. It must be led by someone who is a proper generalist. Next you would be suggesting the the person in charge of purchasing ammunition for the British Army should know something about ammunition!
Can we just sack all the Westminster journalist idiots, turn the computer off and on again, and hire some less moronic ones.
Just ensure the only people given accreditation for the pressers are their science correspondents.
Sorted.
To demand that the journalists know what they are talking about would be to muzzle the press.
You can't have a national level story led by a subject matter expert in sciences. It must be led by someone who is a proper generalist. Next you would be suggesting the the person in charge of purchasing ammunition for the British Army should know something about ammunition!
Were there any complaints about the all-female Scottish press conferences?
Thought not.
Not only that but I suspect the all-female Holyrood press conference made up of politicians and scientists probably had more in common with the all-male Westminster press conference made up of politicians and scientists than they do those "on NHS frontline or suffering worst financially or juggling kids and work".
One suspects that Nicola Sturgeon is working flat out on this no different to male politicians and doesn't have magical genitalia that enables her to know how other women in completely different circumstances are coping.
My thoughts exactly, and I didn't mean to come across saying the Scottish Govt's press conferences were a bad thing.
I'm possibly not seeing the point. What have death counts for January and February being quite good got to do with the current pandemic? I thought we were concerned about the covid-19 deaths that started to shoot upwards on an exponential line over the past 10 days or so - beyond the scope of that graph.
And even more concerned with preventing that exponential from getting traction and out of control. I mean, yes, if we can stop the upwards line from running away, we can keep deaths down to [eyeballs the y-axis, does some mental arithmetic, realises that the extra 5000 deaths over the past week, unless offset by far fewer deaths than normal will already spike us to the past the highest point on that graph in midwinter 2015] maybe the top of that graph? Without needing to redo the y-axis.
So, yes, it's a good way of re-emphasising that it's not too late as long as we stick with the measures we're taking, I suppose. We can still stop this being a runaway disaster. Sure, it'll probably look pretty bad when the last week's figures are added to it - after all, we're getting a spike upwards starting already, even though "only" 1200 people had died by then (950 covid-19 deaths in the week leading up to the final point on the graph).
The point I take from it is there are a lot of people, for want of a better phrase, ‘living on borrowed time’, because flu usually kills thousands more in Jan & Feb than it did this year
I don't think that it works quite like that. Rather reminiscent of the Final Destination movies. In any case, that thick black line over January and February seems to be pretty close to the average of the other lines (if possibly a bit high - bear in mind that the thin blue line, for 2010-2014 therefore has five times the weighting of the lines for each of the individual annual lines after them).
So that graph isn't saying that thousands more are usually killed in Jan & Feb. It's saying fewer are usually killed in Jan & Feb - the precise opposite of your claim.
Take a look at it. The 2020 line is significantly above average deaths for 3 of the first 10 weeks, noticeably (but not hugely) above it for 4 more of them, almost bang on it for 2 of them, and a bit below it for one. We're looking at maybe 4,000 extra deaths in 2020 in the first 10 weeks than the average for 2010-2019.
2020 is well below average for the last 5 years
Your original graph had 10 years of data on it. It included 2010-2014. I thought you wanted to discuss what was shown by that graph. Going to the ONS and getting the raw data, plugging it into a spreadsheet and producing an unsmoothed graph gives this:
So we were discussing the first graph you showed, you claimed it showed that deaths in 2020 to date (or, at least, in Jan and Feb, the first 9 weeks) were "thousands" below average. I pointed out that it didn't. As per the graph I've just added.
You've now shifted to a different, shorter baseline. Why?
I didn’t post the original graph and hadn’t even looked at it. Sorry, I have been following the person on Twitter who updates the graph I posted and was talking about that time frame
Care homes are where the real horror of this pandemic will have been unleashed when the final tallies are made.
We already seeing that as France start to process the numbers and Spain have admitted they know very large number have died, but don't have exact figures and aren't including them (at the moment).
To emphasis just how easily this thing spreads, Sky had a report from really rural part of France, literally more cows than people, but it had ripped through the whole area and killed 10s of oldies in a local care home already.
Belgium started including care home deaths the other day too.
Interesting that there looks to still be quite a big North-South strip of America stretching from what looks like large parts of Texas, Colorado, Wyoming and Montana that still have no cases.
Were there any complaints about the all-female Scottish press conferences?
Thought not.
Not only that but I suspect the all-female Holyrood press conference made up of politicians and scientists probably had more in common with the all-male Westminster press conference made up of politicians and scientists than they do those "on NHS frontline or suffering worst financially or juggling kids and work".
One suspects that Nicola Sturgeon is working flat out on this no different to male politicians and doesn't have magical genitalia that enables her to know how other women in completely different circumstances are coping.
My thoughts exactly, and I didn't mean to come across saying the Scottish Govt's press conferences were a bad thing.
Comments
One individual is in position to make a big call - Raab - with the cooperation of the Cabinet. As always.
No Raab is not "acting Prime Minister" he is deputising for the Prime Minister. Same consequences different title.
Five more this morning, and my father now has a fever.
It is one thing to expect these things; quite another when they happen.
But yes, voluntary distancing appears to have worked for them - Stockholm is by all accounts a ghost-town right now. Unfortunately, large sections of the UK population simply ignored our government’s pleas to self-isolate for the good of the everyone: The bars and clubs of London were full of people insisting that their god-given right to a pint not be infringed. Given that reality, what would you have had the government do, when cases are doubling every 3 days? Ask again, with extra sugar on top?
Infectious disease control requires measures that we would in ordinary times not even begin to contemplate. But that’s the world we’re living in - it’s very clear that Boris was extremely reluctant to bring in these measures, but even he believed them to be necessary.
I do not see any confusion other than something the media want to obsess about
But every fule know the govt aint saying anything other than "stay at home" until after Easter.
Fingers crossed for your family.
My own father is in a care home and it is a constant concern
The number of immediate calls that would need to be made by one person alone I suspect is small, and Raab is explicitly covering for the PM so could do so.
oh.
oh OK.
Hope your dad doesn't get any more serious symptoms.
really don't get the hate - other than for correctly predicting Labour's electoral chances 2010-2019.
Hancock will issue the plea on a conference call on Wednesday, echoing his call for help on ventilators, after the government conceded that none of the antibody tests it has are good enough for mass usage.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/apr/08/health-minister-defends-uk-coronavirus-testing-approach-chris-whitty-germany-covid-19
This is clearly proving to be an a far more difficult task than first thought, as nobody else has a working one either. And no doubt the likes of the Germans will have been at this full speed.
We've been in lockdown for two weeks, we haven't even reached the peak of the virus yet and journalists are going on about when we're going to come out of lockdown (and tying this in with the PM being critically ill)
Can anyone make sense of our media?
In any case, that thick black line over January and February seems to be pretty close to the average of the other lines (if possibly a bit high - bear in mind that the thin blue line, for 2010-2014 therefore has five times the weighting of the lines for each of the individual annual lines after them).
So that graph isn't saying that thousands more are usually killed in Jan & Feb. It's saying fewer are usually killed in Jan & Feb - the precise opposite of your claim.
Take a look at it. The 2020 line is significantly above average deaths for 3 of the first 10 weeks, noticeably (but not hugely) above it for 4 more of them, almost bang on it for 2 of them, and a bit below it for one. We're looking at maybe 4,000 extra deaths in 2020 in the first 10 weeks than the average for 2010-2019.
Rather like Bill Gates figured out with vaccine production, multiple simultaneous efforts to solve a hard problem have a far better chance of succeeding quickly.
The 'wasted' investment is trivial in the context of this thing, and would be recouped a thousand times over in being able to deal with it sooner.
But better late that not at all.
And while they worked on this, a load of other companies have all popped up promising 98-99% accuracy. So the UK government bought samples, tested them, asked them to try and improve them and now found them all to be bullshitters.
In the UK alone, I think 14-15 companies have claimed to have a pregnancy style test, but they all come with massive caveats and limitations.
But this is clearly a ramping up of the effort.
Given how contagious it is, if it was then why didn't it spread further?
a) 10 seconds after posting he went 'ooops'
or
b) He spent 2 hours trying to get Excel to use a colour that didn't merge and finally went 'sod it' and posted it.
So given the incubation time and time to get to pneumonia stage is probably couple of weeks, that gets you back to end of October.
On R0 figures, this looks ominously correct:
https://twitter.com/PeterHotez/status/1247848728825868289?s=19
In less shocking news, an imbecile thinks criticising China's handling of the pandemic is racist:
https://twitter.com/BellRibeiroAddy/status/1247570145733758980
The need another GE to flush out these MPs.
You really must be joking.
Never read Evelyn Waugh? The pantheon of great comic writers is heavily skewed to the right.
I did however pick up on one snippet
"Up to 50% of our regular staff are off work through sickness, self-isolation and FEAR."
We owe a huge debt of gratitude to those who despite their fear keep rocking up to the coal face to do their part for us all.
So hard to keep up.
Where does being really, really pissed that our economy will tank because the Chinese still insist on eating pangolins and bats in wet markets end - and being Sinophobic begin? I'd really like to know because, obviously, I don't want to cross that line...
Sources say staff have been told parent company has run out of money during UK lockdown
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/apr/08/jewish-chronicle-and-jewish-news-to-be-liquidated-and-staff-laid-off?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
https://twitter.com/PA/status/1247855633564676096
"How does that work? The Jews control all the world's money...."
https://twitter.com/bethrigby/status/1247838068461187072?s=21
Thought not.
I thought you wanted to discuss what was shown by that graph. Going to the ONS and getting the raw data, plugging it into a spreadsheet and producing an unsmoothed graph gives this:
So we were discussing the first graph you showed, you claimed it showed that deaths in 2020 to date (or, at least, in Jan and Feb, the first 9 weeks) were "thousands" below average. I pointed out that it didn't. As per the graph I've just added.
You've now shifted to a different, shorter baseline. Why?
And they are conveniently forgetting there are 3 of the supporting scientific and medical experts regularly doing the pressers for female.
One suspects that Nicola Sturgeon is working flat out on this no different to male politicians and doesn't have magical genitalia that enables her to know how other women in completely different circumstances are coping.
Sorted.
Does remind me a bit of the climate change apocalypse enthusiasts:
"World to end. Women most affected."
You can't have a national level story led by a subject matter expert in sciences. It must be led by someone who is a proper generalist. Next you would be suggesting the the person in charge of purchasing ammunition for the British Army should know something about ammunition!
My bad.