The doctors/epidemiologists advising the government have effectively ruled 1) out. The restrictions will continue until cases have been reduced to a very low level. The restrictions will then be slightly loosened until cases rise again when the restrictions will be reimposed. There will never be enough cases for herd immunity to be reached. The only other scenario the doctors will accept for restrictions to be lifted is if a vaccine is available that enables herd immunity to be reached. No doctor will admit this.
See Question Time last night when the epidemiologist was asked what was required for the lockdown to be lifted, and he did not answer the question. The doctors are running the country, and the elected politicians are taking orders from them. If this continues and no vaccine is found the lockdown could last more than 50 years.
Exactly.
If we rule out herd immunity as a strategy, which we seem to have,
Maybe steps like mass antibody testing and compulsory mask wearing (once enough are available) can bring us closer to something that resembles normality, but I've become quite pessimistic of late.
I think things might have been better if we'd never heard the phrase 'herd immunity.'
I agree re. your last paragraph. Mass antibody testing, carrying some sort of 'I've had the virus' ID and, yes, compulsory wearing of masks on public transport and inside public buildings.
It did however confirm how our betters think of us, they do not normally admit to it. Our Lords and Masters think of us as disposable worker ants.
Hard as it is to accept, herd immunity is still the only show in town.
Just out of curiosity, would you agree to be infected with the virus, and to go into isolation until you were no longer infectious, and also to waive the right to medical treatment for the infection?
It's a genuine question. If there were really large numbers of people who felt that way, they could make a genuine contribution to solving the problem.
As volunteers for a large scale vaccine trial, perhaps ?
No, I'm not talking about volunteers for a vaccine trial. I'm talking about volunteers actually to be infected by the virus so as to contribute to herd immunity. While ensuring that they won't infect any non-volunteers or deprive non-volunteers of medical resources.
Yes, so am I, but perhaps more constructively ? If they were first vaccinated, and then deliberately infected, you would save many months in testing a vaccine’s efficacy.
Oh - OK, provided you're going to have a really good go at infecting them.
But I do think time is of the essence, and if they really think herd immunity is such a brilliant idea they should be willing to do their bit asap.
No volunteers yet, though.
If there were a virus infection programme, I'd certainly give it serious consideration. I think there is something in 'viral dose' so I would expect to be given a minimal dose in controlled conditions.
That would be OK, if you insisted.
But you still feel a bit unsure whether you'd be willing to do it. Why? If you're advocating herd immunity, you're advocating 60% of the population getting it, including many people who would die. Why so hesitant when it comes to you getting it yourself?
Because I would want to know the specifics. If I 'caught' Coronavirus, I would be able to eat the foods, take the supplements, and put in place the treatment regimen that I felt most beneficial. I'd want to do that in this case too.
And if it turned out to be a bad case I suppose you'd want intensive care.
South Korea's approach is far from perfect, and really does raise awkward questions about use of personal data.
Does anybody here consider their use of personal data awkward? Speaking as a privacy hawk I definitely don't. They're tracing infection of a deadly disease, the main alternative is to have everyone shut up in their homes. I mean, if we can come up with technical clevers that produce the same results with more anonymity then great, and we need to make sure this ends when the crisis does but otherwise, give the contract tracers the data.
Agreed. Though the point about S Korea is that the systems were pretty well there already, pre pandemic. IOW it would have to be an exception to our legal privacy regime; that didn’t really arise for them.
The Thing (aka the new upper 10,000) will already be arguing that such data is so useful that it should be available to the authorities for ever.
To such people, the world of Minority Report is their dream.
Note that they assume *they* will be excluded from the databases. As for the national identity card scheme that Labour setup - where *influential people* would have their data segregated under special lock and key.
So successfully, the policy has also been implemented across Europe.
A comparison between the UK death rates and Germany show that's not the case. However best to ascribe the UKs failure to political incompetence rather than active malice.
Why is Germany the baseline rather than Italy, Spain, France, Holland, Switzerland, Denmark etc? All that shows is at least one country is doing better than us.
I would say the UK response to the coronavirus has been average to poor in European terms, which collectively has done better than the US but worse than East Asia.
I would put the UK in a group of countries including France, Italy, Spain, Belgium and Netherlands. Another group of countries including Germany, most of Scandinavia, some of East and Central Europe and Ireland have done better.
The only countries that have really responded well are Germany and South Korea, hence their low death rates per capita. Indeed despite having the biggest population in western Europe, Germany only has the fifth highest number of deaths in western Europe.
Sweden is still pursuing herd immunity and its death rate is rising rapidly
South Korea's approach is far from perfect, and really does raise awkward questions about use of personal data.
Japan was highlighted previously as being on the right track and keeping a lid on it but on Tuesday they've had to escalate matters.
See also Singapore.
Pointing out 'Germany' is the absolute absence of an argument - they're on a broadly similar path to everyone else.
Actually Germany isn't on a broadly similar path to everyone else. Its death rate curve is flattening earlier and at a much lower level of death compared with some other countries, including the UK. This does show it has a better control of the epidemic for now at least. There will be reasons for this, that we can speculate about, including more extensive testing, more treatment capacity etc
So successfully, the policy has also been implemented across Europe.
A comparison between the UK death rates and Germany show that's not the case. However best to ascribe the UKs failure to political incompetence rather than active malice.
Why is Germany the baseline rather than Italy, Spain, France, Holland, Switzerland, Denmark etc? All that shows is at least one country is doing better than us.
I would say the UK response to the coronavirus has been average to poor in European terms, which collectively has done better than the US but worse than East Asia.
I would put the UK in a group of countries including France, Italy, Spain, Belgium and Netherlands. Another group of countries including Germany, most of Scandinavia, some of East and Central Europe and Ireland have done better.
The only countries that have really responded well are Germany and South Korea, hence their low death rates per capita. Indeed despite having the biggest population in western Europe, Germany only has the fifth highest number of deaths in western Europe.
Sweden is still pursuing herd immunity and its death rate is rising rapidly
South Korea's approach is far from perfect, and really does raise awkward questions about use of personal data.
Japan was highlighted previously as being on the right track and keeping a lid on it but on Tuesday they've had to escalate matters.
See also Singapore.
Pointing out 'Germany' is the absolute absence of an argument - they're on a broadly similar path to everyone else.
In 24 months time perhaps we can judge which country performed the best. At the moment it is all conjecture.
Certainly. At least folk have stopped posting that Italy v. UK tweet usually with regard how much better the UK was doing.
So successfully, the policy has also been implemented across Europe.
A comparison between the UK death rates and Germany show that's not the case. However best to ascribe the UKs failure to political incompetence rather than active malice.
Why is Germany the baseline rather than Italy, Spain, France, Holland, Switzerland, Denmark etc? All that shows is at least one country is doing better than us.
I would say the UK response to the coronavirus has been average to poor in European terms, which collectively has done better than the US but worse than East Asia.
I would put the UK in a group of countries including France, Italy, Spain, Belgium and Netherlands. Another group of countries including Germany, most of Scandinavia, some of East and Central Europe and Ireland have done better.
The only countries that have really responded well are Germany and South Korea, hence their low death rates per capita. Indeed despite having the biggest population in western Europe, Germany only has the fifth highest number of deaths in western Europe.
Sweden is still pursuing herd immunity and its death rate is rising rapidly
Kimchi and sauerkraut obviously have greater efficacy than hot broth.
Been eating delicious home made sauerkraut lately like it's going out of fashion. But properly made bone broth is also incredibly beneficial.
I'm trying but failing to see a way out of lockdown (or similar) anytime soon, without accepting a much higher death toll. This virus took 3-4 months to move from a single city in China to causing thousands of deaths daily across different continents, with most of the world on lockdown. Even if cases fall, as in Italy/Spain, the virus will still have a much stronger footing to restart in most countries than it did last time.
I can only see two sustainable ways out:
1) For restrictions to be loosened/tightened according to NHS capacity. That means we will have lots more deaths, but gradually build up herd immunity. 2) A vaccine, offering a relatively quick route to herd immunity, but we won't be seeing that until 2021 at the latest.
Of course, there are other potential outcomes, such as people don't get long-term immunity from having the virus (very bad); or it does give immunity and there are far more asymptomatic cases than we thought (very good).
From a personal perspective, my wife and I have broadly accepted that the lockdown is for the long-haul and so are planning accordingly with deliveries. Having a 3 week old baby means we're erring on the side of caution and avoiding physical shops as much as possible.
The doctors/epidemiologists advising the government have effectively ruled 1) out. The restrictions will continue until cases have been reduced to a very low level. The restrictions will then be slightly loosened until cases rise again when the restrictions will be reimposed. There will never be enough cases for herd immunity to be reached. The only other scenario the doctors will accept for restrictions to be lifted is if a vaccine is available that enables herd immunity to be reached. No doctor will admit this.
See Question Time last night when the epidemiologist was asked what was required for the lockdown to be lifted, and he did not answer the question. The doctors are running the country, and the elected politicians are taking orders from them. If this continues and no vaccine is found the lockdown could last more than 50 years.
There seems to be a school of thought that as soon as the daily death toll passes its peak we can start to loosen restrictions. That just reflects complete scientific illiteracy.
Some epidemiologists have been called mathematical biologists, but they are doctors not mathematicians. Just because a person is not an epidemiologist does not make them an idiot. The medical profession is not uniquely qualified to make judgements on ethical, social and economic issues or to balance them against medical priorities. If doctors take sole responsibility for deciding the response to this crisis they may regret it in the future.
What I'm saying is that if someone thinks the peak of daily deaths is the point at which restrictions can be relaxed, then they are scientifically illiterate.
Can't quite make out what your response has to do with that, or whether you agree or disagree.
If scientific illiteracy means having no qualifications in science, I am not sure how believing that the lockdown can potentially be eased after the peak of the epidemic has passed is proof that a person has no science qualifications. Personally, I have postgraduate qualifications in mathematics and science. I have worked at PG level with mathematicians who have written research papers on epidemics and other topics related to biology.
I am afraid that I don't really agree. The public have the right to call for the restrictions to be lifted, especially after the peak has passed. The mathematical models are complicated and non-linear. There are trade-offs that can be made between different sections of society and activities in society that could enable some restrictions to be lifted even without having an increase in cases. When the peak has passed it will be time to discuss whether any of the restrictions can be lifted.
It's curious they are still trying to enforce such a thing when it's been made clear already that is beyond what is required by the law. Do they not read the news?
PS - Am I the only working class Northerner to have never set foot in an Aldi or Lidl?
The last time I was in the local Aldi the Isle of Shite was very much still a thing, but that must've been more than a week ago now.
With the advent of the queueing systems, one doesn't really have the luxury of waiting to go into one shop, getting bits and pieces in there, then joining the back of the queue for the next one. It would take a bloody age.
Aldi is next door to Marks & Spencer. I have decided that I can live without Aldi for the time being.
I'm trying but failing to see a way out of lockdown (or similar) anytime soon, without accepting a much higher death toll. This virus took 3-4 months to move from a single city in China to causing thousands of deaths daily across different continents, with most of the world on lockdown. Even if cases fall, as in Italy/Spain, the virus will still have a much stronger footing to restart in most countries than it did last time.
I can only see two sustainable ways out:
1) For restrictions to be loosened/tightened according to NHS capacity. That means we will have lots more deaths, but gradually build up herd immunity. 2) A vaccine, offering a relatively quick route to herd immunity, but we won't be seeing that until 2021 at the latest.
Of course, there are other potential outcomes, such as people don't get long-term immunity from having the virus (very bad); or it does give immunity and there are far more asymptomatic cases than we thought (very good).
From a personal perspective, my wife and I have broadly accepted that the lockdown is for the long-haul and so are planning accordingly with deliveries. Having a 3 week old baby means we're erring on the side of caution and avoiding physical shops as much as possible.
The doctors/epidemiologists advising the government have effectively ruled 1) out. The restrictions will continue until cases have been reduced to a very low level. The restrictions will then be slightly loosened until cases rise again when the restrictions will be reimposed. There will never be enough cases for herd immunity to be reached. The only other scenario the doctors will accept for restrictions to be lifted is if a vaccine is available that enables herd immunity to be reached. No doctor will admit this.
See Question Time last night when the epidemiologist was asked what was required for the lockdown to be lifted, and he did not answer the question. The doctors are running the country, and the elected politicians are taking orders from them. If this continues and no vaccine is found the lockdown could last more than 50 years.
There seems to be a school of thought that as soon as the daily death toll passes its peak we can start to loosen restrictions. That just reflects complete scientific illiteracy.
Some epidemiologists have been called mathematical biologists, but they are doctors not mathematicians. Just because a person is not an epidemiologist does not make them an idiot. The medical profession is not uniquely qualified to make judgements on ethical, social and economic issues or to balance them against medical priorities. If doctors take sole responsibility for deciding the response to this crisis they may regret it in the future.
What I'm saying is that if someone thinks the peak of daily deaths is the point at which restrictions can be relaxed, then they are scientifically illiterate.
Can't quite make out what your response has to do with that, or whether you agree or disagree.
If scientific illiteracy means having no qualifications in science, I am not sure how believing that the lockdown can potentially be eased after the peak of the epidemic has passed is proof that a person has no science qualifications. Personally, I have postgraduate qualifications in mathematics and science. I have worked at PG level with mathematicians who have written research papers on epidemics and other topics related to biology.
I am afraid that I don't really agree. The public have the right to call for the restrictions to be lifted, especially after the peak has passed. The mathematical models are complicated and non-linear. There are trade-offs that can be made between different sections of society and activities in society that could enable some restrictions to be lifted even without having an increase in cases. When the peak has passed it will be time to discuss whether any of the restrictions can be lifted.
I'm afraid that is what I mean by scientific illiteracy. I mean not having any grasp of the relevant science - nothing to do with formal qualifications.
It's curious they are still trying to enforce such a thing when it's been made clear already that is beyond what is required by the law. Do they not read the news?
What is a non essential aisle.?
...and if such a thing exists, why haven't the supermarkets closed them?
Well, quite. I'm a hardline lockdowner but I want consistent rules that are sensibly enforced., not rules where the police, the sdupermarket and you all have to guess at what is meant. I don't think that a random check on purchases and an arbitrary decisikon on what's essential is a sensible way to address it.
The issue that underlies this is that most supermarkets are only allowing custoimers in gradually, spaced out, so there are loads of people outside in the queue (80 at my local Sainsbury yesterday, I'm told). Obviously it's irritating if you then spend 15 minutes in an aisle pondering which bottle of wine you'd most like for your dinner, so possibly what's needed is for assistants to say politely "please make your choices swiftly, there are others waiting". But they'll get abused if they do.
Re non-essential items, where many would question (or misunderstand) the rules are, if you go to Tesco to buy food (allowed) then what difference does it make if you also pick up an Easter egg or birthday card (non-essential) while you are there? From what I observe, the supermarkets think it is OK, as do many shoppers judging by their trolleys, but not (some) police forces.
So what are the rules? And here we go back to @Cyclefree's complaints and also to arguments about whether journalists seeking clarity are guilty of asking inane questions of ministers.
I have two complaints. One is about members of the public who take the piss, ignore the guidance and put others at risk.
My other is that the police should understand the rules they are seeking to enforce. I know, I know, a counsel of perfection.
But it’s not as if there hasn’t been plenty of guidance around, some of it from lawyers who regularly advise the police. Reading a page and a half of rules is not exactly onerous stuff.
It seems to me that there are some in the police force who are perhaps a bit too desperate to be seen as the good guys playing their part and are overreaching. Others are using the opportunity to boss others around and could not care less about the law or think that their uniform and fear will allow them to get away with it. Others are confused - which is the fault of their leaders, though individual officers are not excused the obligation to know what the law is, as “obeying orders” or, indeed, “ignorance of the law” are no excuse. And yet others are plain stupid or utterly lacking in judgment or common-sense.
And there are plenty of others who are enforcing the rules properly and intelligently. They get forgotten but should not be.
The virus has not and should not stop us criticising authorities when they get it wrong. We may not be able to go out but we can still think. The fact that authorities are doing this “for our own good” is not, never has been and never should be a justification for unlawfulness.
I note that when it comes to crimes such as burglary, anti-social behaviour and fraud, the police are generally not interested and say that they do not have the resources to deal with them. And yet now, somehow, they do have the resources to patrol parks and supermarkets and front gardens, and in some numbers too. I never again want to hear them bleating about a lack of resources.
Overreach by the police is standard operating procedure. The only way to deal with this is by reining them in. Frequently.
Michael Howard (the noted extreme libertarian anarchist) noted that one of the most important jobs of the home secretary was going - "No, No. No." - to the pile of demented measures that would be pulled out of a drawer for each crisis. And telling the police repeatedly to stop arresting people under anti-terrorism legislation for writing graffiti etc.
So successfully, the policy has also been implemented across Europe.
A comparison between the UK death rates and Germany show that's not the case. However best to ascribe the UKs failure to political incompetence rather than active malice.
Why is Germany the baseline rather than Italy, Spain, France, Holland, Switzerland, Denmark etc? All that shows is at least one country is doing better than us.
I would say the UK response to the coronavirus has been average to poor in European terms, which collectively has done better than the US but worse than East Asia.
I would put the UK in a group of countries including France, Italy, Spain, Belgium and Netherlands. Another group of countries including Germany, most of Scandinavia, some of East and Central Europe and Ireland have done better.
Scandinavia, East & Central Europe have much lower population density and are less inter connected than UK, France, Spain, Italy, Belgium and Netherlands. The virus hasnt spread as much to rural areas in those countries either. Id imagine the former group also has better levels of fitness and lower levels of obesity.
It seems much more likely to me the variations are primarily down to factors other than policy.
Yes - Germany and Austria aren't really modern Western industrial countries. There are just a few small remote villages, whose inhabitants spend most of the time tilling the land and rarely even see another. They're more likely to catch the virus from a horse than a human! You can't compare what happens there to the experience of proper countries.
Comparing the UK with Germany, Italy, France, Spain, Belgium, Netherlands, Switzerland, Austria, Ireland, Denmark would be fine. We would be average or better so far.
... Our finding of a highly-overdispersed offspring distribution highlights a potential benefit to focusing intervention efforts on superspreading. As most infected individuals do not contribute to the expansion of an epidemic, the effective reproduction number could be drastically reduced by preventing relatively rare superspreading events....
Their statistical analysis seems to suggest that a large proportion of transmissions come from relatively few individuals (aka ‘superspreaders’). My own guess is that this just as likely relates to the immediate environment of transmission - for example a single individual in a crowded tube carriage has the potential to infect far more people than say someone going round to visit their parents.
Sky were reporting this morning from a park in London. I was quite shocked how many people were casually using metal railings as part of their stretching and exercising. I ain't touching one of those suckers in a month of Sundays.
So successfully, the policy has also been implemented across Europe.
A comparison between the UK death rates and Germany show that's not the case. However best to ascribe the UKs failure to political incompetence rather than active malice.
Why is Germany the baseline rather than Italy, Spain, France, Holland, Switzerland, Denmark etc? All that shows is at least one country is doing better than us.
I would say the UK response to the coronavirus has been average to poor in European terms, which collectively has done better than the US but worse than East Asia.
I would put the UK in a group of countries including France, Italy, Spain, Belgium and Netherlands. Another group of countries including Germany, most of Scandinavia, some of East and Central Europe and Ireland have done better.
The only countries that have really responded well are Germany and South Korea, hence their low death rates per capita. Indeed despite having the biggest population in western Europe, Germany only has the fifth highest number of deaths in western Europe.
Sweden is still pursuing herd immunity and its death rate is rising rapidly
South Korea's approach is far from perfect, and really does raise awkward questions about use of personal data.
Japan was highlighted previously as being on the right track and keeping a lid on it but on Tuesday they've had to escalate matters.
See also Singapore.
Pointing out 'Germany' is the absolute absence of an argument - they're on a broadly similar path to everyone else.
In 24 months time perhaps we can judge which country performed the best. At the moment it is all conjecture.
Certainly. At least folk have stopped posting that Italy v. UK tweet usually with regard how much better the UK was doing.
David Cameron's comment on Twitter is for the ages - eternally true.
It's curious they are still trying to enforce such a thing when it's been made clear already that is beyond what is required by the law. Do they not read the news?
The doctors/epidemiologists advising the government have effectively ruled 1) out. The restrictions will continue until cases have been reduced to a very low level. The restrictions will then be slightly loosened until cases rise again when the restrictions will be reimposed. There will never be enough cases for herd immunity to be reached. The only other scenario the doctors will accept for restrictions to be lifted is if a vaccine is available that enables herd immunity to be reached. No doctor will admit this.
See Question Time last night when the epidemiologist was asked what was required for the lockdown to be lifted, and he did not answer the question. The doctors are running the country, and the elected politicians are taking orders from them. If this continues and no vaccine is found the lockdown could last more than 50 years.
Exactly.
If we rule out herd immunity as a strategy, which we seem to have,
Maybe steps like mass antibody testing and compulsory mask wearing (once enough are available) can bring us closer to something that resembles normality, but I've become quite pessimistic of late.
I think things might have been better if we'd never heard the phrase 'herd immunity.'
I agree re. your last paragraph. Mass antibody testing, carrying some sort of 'I've had the virus' ID and, yes, compulsory wearing of masks on public transport and inside public buildings.
It did however confirm how our betters think of us, they do not normally admit to it. Our Lords and Masters think of us as disposable worker ants.
Hard as it is to accept, herd immunity is still the only show in town.
Just out of curiosity, would you agree to be infected with the virus, and to go into isolation until you were no longer infectious, and also to waive the right to medical treatment for the infection?
It's a genuine question. If there were really large numbers of people who felt that way, they could make a genuine contribution to solving the problem.
As volunteers for a large scale vaccine trial, perhaps ?
No, I'm not talking about volunteers for a vaccine trial. I'm talking about volunteers actually to be infected by the virus so as to contribute to herd immunity. While ensuring that they won't infect any non-volunteers or deprive non-volunteers of medical resources.
Yes, so am I, but perhaps more constructively ? If they were first vaccinated, and then deliberately infected, you would save many months in testing a vaccine’s efficacy.
Oh - OK, provided you're going to have a really good go at infecting them.
But I do think time is of the essence, and if they really think herd immunity is such a brilliant idea they should be willing to do their bit asap.
No volunteers yet, though.
A measured dose, delivered nasally.
I'm happy for it to be measured, provided there's plenty of it. It wouldn't be right to waste the time of all these brave volunteers.
It is a serious, though ethically questionable, suggestion. Being able to deploy a workable vaccine globally, six months earlier than otherwise, would save millions of lives.
Don't worry. The Chinese will do the initial mass testing on a vaccine for us. They are probably volunteering people as we type....
It's curious they are still trying to enforce such a thing when it's been made clear already that is beyond what is required by the law. Do they not read the news?
Is pollution the reason some places are more affected by Covid-19 than others? Lombardy, Wuhan and London are bad I think
“Conclusions: A small increase in long-term exposure to PM2.5 leads to a large increase in COVID-19 death rate, with the magnitude of increase 20 times that observed for PM2.5 and all-cause mortality. The study results underscore the importance of continuing to enforce existing air pollution regulations to protect human health both during and after the COVID-19 crisis. The data and code are publicly available.”
The doctors/epidemiologists advising the government have effectively ruled 1) out. The restrictions will continue until cases have been reduced to a very low level. The restrictions will then be slightly loosened until cases rise again when the restrictions will be reimposed. There will never be enough cases for herd immunity to be reached. The only other scenario the doctors will accept for restrictions to be lifted is if a vaccine is available that enables herd immunity to be reached. No doctor will admit this.
See Question Time last night when the epidemiologist was asked what was required for the lockdown to be lifted, and he did not answer the question. The doctors are running the country, and the elected politicians are taking orders from them. If this continues and no vaccine is found the lockdown could last more than 50 years.
Exactly.
If we rule out herd immunity as a strategy, which we seem to have,
Maybe steps like mass antibody testing and compulsory mask wearing (once enough are available) can bring us closer to something that resembles normality, but I've become quite pessimistic of late.
I think things might have been better if we'd never heard the phrase 'herd immunity.'
I agree re. your last paragraph. Mass antibody testing, carrying some sort of 'I've had the virus' ID and, yes, compulsory wearing of masks on public transport and inside public buildings.
It did however confirm how our betters think of us, they do not normally admit to it. Our Lords and Masters think of us as disposable worker ants.
Hard as it is to accept, herd immunity is still the only show in town.
Just out of curiosity, would you agree to be infected with the virus, and to go into isolation until you were no longer infectious, and also to waive the right to medical treatment for the infection?
It's a genuine question. If there were really large numbers of people who felt that way, they could make a genuine contribution to solving the problem.
As volunteers for a large scale vaccine trial, perhaps ?
No, I'm not talking about volunteers for a vaccine trial. I'm talking about volunteers actually to be infected by the virus so as to contribute to herd immunity. While ensuring that they won't infect any non-volunteers or deprive non-volunteers of medical resources.
Yes, so am I, but perhaps more constructively ? If they were first vaccinated, and then deliberately infected, you would save many months in testing a vaccine’s efficacy.
Oh - OK, provided you're going to have a really good go at infecting them.
But I do think time is of the essence, and if they really think herd immunity is such a brilliant idea they should be willing to do their bit asap.
No volunteers yet, though.
If there were a virus infection programme, I'd certainly give it serious consideration. I think there is something in 'viral dose' so I would expect to be given a minimal dose in controlled conditions.
That would be OK, if you insisted.
But you still feel a bit unsure whether you'd be willing to do it. Why? If you're advocating herd immunity, you're advocating 60% of the population getting it, including many people who would die. Why so hesitant when it comes to you getting it yourself?
Because I would want to know the specifics. If I 'caught' Coronavirus, I would be able to eat the foods, take the supplements, and put in place the treatment regimen that I felt most beneficial. I'd want to do that in this case too.
And if it turned out to be a bad case I suppose you'd want intensive care.
I've been on an HDU ward before and didn't care for it much, so I'd prefer to have a device to support me at home, even if I were experiencing breathing difficulties. But having paid into the NHS all my adult life, and having health insurance, I'd expect to be treated medically if the worst came to the worst, yes.
It's curious they are still trying to enforce such a thing when it's been made clear already that is beyond what is required by the law. Do they not read the news?
PS - Am I the only working class Northerner to have never set foot in an Aldi or Lidl?
If you want to.continue to pay 30 per cent more for your shop... keep avoiding aldi and lidl
What Aldi and Lidl have done is to persuade people to buy off-brand, which for decades we have avoided. It is the one contributing secret of their success that is rarely discussed.
The last time I was in the local Aldi the Isle of Shite was very much still a thing, but that must've been more than a week ago now.
With the advent of the queueing systems, one doesn't really have the luxury of waiting to go into one shop, getting bits and pieces in there, then joining the back of the queue for the next one. It would take a bloody age.
Aldi is next door to Marks & Spencer. I have decided that I can live without Aldi for the time being.
The great trick around my neck of the woods is Iceland. Massive queues at all the supermarkets yet you can stroll straight into the sparely populated Iceland store and get pretty much anything. I'm guessing this is because most people are under the impression - as I was until I lucked into the place this morning - that all you can buy there are frozen fish fingers. This is an utter travesty of the truth. It's a veritable cornucopia of goods, many encased in icy frosted cabinets but just as many sitting quite happily at room temperature on traditional, easy to navigate shelves. Highly recommended.
Anyone looked into the Belgian numbers, they look disastrous, 496 dead yesterday which is equivalent to about 3000 deaths in a single day in the UK. What has gone wrong there?!
Included a three figure tally of historic care home deaths.
It certainly seems "Sir" Kier has picked just about the most remain-centric shadow cabinet he possibly can.
Could it be that Starmer is planning to run a REJOIN manifesto in 2024?
You all know what I think about the Tories chances in 2024 but if Labour are mad enough to fight the election on REJOIN that's the one thing that could well see them lose...
I don't think he's that daft, but I do think the presence of Lammy, Reeves etc... in the Shadow Cabinet does very much suggest that BRINO is Labour's Brexit policy. If Starmer wins in 2024, the Tories end up in some disarray in opposition, and Farage is an irrelevance, I think it's at that point you'd probably get a rejoin manifesto for Starmer's second GE campaign.
But the thing is by 2024 we'll have been out for 4 years (either from the current arrangements or the deal that UK and EU will strike next year) - why would people then want to reopen the whole thing again in 2024 by moving to a BRINO position?
This would involve fresh negotiations with the EU. maybe another referendum etc etc.
In the end Labour are going to have to accept Brexit and move the conversation on if they ever want to form another government in the same way they had to accept Thatchers reforms to get to 1997.
If Labour argue the trade deal the Tories reach with the EU is crap - which I'm sure they will - it's gonna look extremely weird if come the GE campaign they suddenly state they won't make any changes to it. So, I think Labour are committed to some kind of renegotiation with the EU if they get into power; it's just the extent of those changes which is the issue really. And to be honest, I doubt the sort of voters Labour need to win back give a damn about the exact terms of the trade deal agree with the EU, except possibly if it means accepting FOM. Rather, they just want their vote for Brexit respected, and to move on from it. Now, I suspect the Tories would try and make out Labour are trying to reopen the referendum debate if Labour policy would be to replace the agreed trade deal, say, with a customs union. But I don't think the issue would gain much traction in an election campaign.
It's curious they are still trying to enforce such a thing when it's been made clear already that is beyond what is required by the law. Do they not read the news?
PS - Am I the only working class Northerner to have never set foot in an Aldi or Lidl?
If you want to.continue to pay 30 per cent more for your shop... keep avoiding aldi and lidl
It'll take more than money to persuade (some) folk away from their pursuit of thinking/hoping that they're further up the slippery pole of the class system than they are.
It's curious they are still trying to enforce such a thing when it's been made clear already that is beyond what is required by the law. Do they not read the news?
It's curious they are still trying to enforce such a thing when it's been made clear already that is beyond what is required by the law. Do they not read the news?
What is a non essential aisle.?
...and if such a thing exists, why haven't the supermarkets closed them?
Well, quite. I'm a hardline lockdowner but I want consistent rules that are sensibly enforced., not rules where the police, the sdupermarket and you all have to guess at what is meant. I don't think that a random check on purchases and an arbitrary decisikon on what's essential is a sensible way to address it.
The issue that underlies this is that most supermarkets are only allowing custoimers in gradually, spaced out, so there are loads of people outside in the queue (80 at my local Sainsbury yesterday, I'm told). Obviously it's irritating if you then spend 15 minutes in an aisle pondering which bottle of wine you'd most like for your dinner, so possibly what's needed is for assistants to say politely "please make your choices swiftly, there are others waiting". But they'll get abused if they do.
Re non-essential items, where many would question (or misunderstand) the rules are, if you go to Tesco to buy food (allowed) then what difference does it make if you also pick up an Easter egg or birthday card (non-essential) while you are there? From what I observe, the supermarkets think it is OK, as do many shoppers judging by their trolleys, but not (some) police forces.
So what are the rules? And here we go back to @Cyclefree's complaints and also to arguments about whether journalists seeking clarity are guilty of asking inane questions of ministers.
What the government means by 'essential' can be discerned quite sensibly by noting that off licences are regarded as essential, and this is the case even though alcohol and fags can be obtained in lots of other places. (Part 3 of Schedule 2). This suggests that most ordinary everyday things are essential, even though we can live without them - like birthday cards, newspapers, books and so on. The police should not remotely be interfering with these parts of life. The fact they seem willing to is a good reason for keeping the police under control and within the law.
I think that those police forces who are making these calls about what is essential do need to remember that in a period of extended lock down "Man Does Not Live by Bread Alone".
For people to be able to accept lockdown as they should they do need some of the other items that are available from supermarkets and the other shops that remain open. We are not supposed to be in jail or being punished like children for having been naughty and the police (or rather those forces who do not seem to understand this) need to stop treating us like we are all criminals or children.
It's curious they are still trying to enforce such a thing when it's been made clear already that is beyond what is required by the law. Do they not read the news?
It's curious they are still trying to enforce such a thing when it's been made clear already that is beyond what is required by the law. Do they not read the news?
PS - Am I the only working class Northerner to have never set foot in an Aldi or Lidl?
If you want to.continue to pay 30 per cent more for your shop... keep avoiding aldi and lidl
What Aldi and Lidl have done is to persuade people to buy off-brand, which for decades we have avoided. It is the one contributing secret of their success that is rarely discussed.
Very true.. but its a bit hit and miss.. i wiuodnt buy their coffee but tgeir biscuits fir cheese are lovely. Booze slways good. Fruit and veg excellent the salmon is lovely tooo
So successfully, the policy has also been implemented across Europe.
A comparison between the UK death rates and Germany show that's not the case. However best to ascribe the UKs failure to political incompetence rather than active malice.
Why is Germany the baseline rather than Italy, Spain, France, Holland, Switzerland, Denmark etc? All that shows is at least one country is doing better than us.
I would say the UK response to the coronavirus has been average to poor in European terms, which collectively has done better than the US but worse than East Asia.
I would put the UK in a group of countries including France, Italy, Spain, Belgium and Netherlands. Another group of countries including Germany, most of Scandinavia, some of East and Central Europe and Ireland have done better.
Scandinavia, East & Central Europe have much lower population density and are less inter connected than UK, France, Spain, Italy, Belgium and Netherlands. The virus hasnt spread as much to rural areas in those countries either. Id imagine the former group also has better levels of fitness and lower levels of obesity.
It seems much more likely to me the variations are primarily down to factors other than policy.
Yes - Germany and Austria aren't really modern Western industrial countries. There are just a few small remote villages, whose inhabitants spend most of the time tilling the land and rarely even see another. They're more likely to catch the virus from a horse than a human! You can't compare what happens there to the experience of proper countries.
Comparing the UK with Germany, Italy, France, Spain, Belgium, Netherlands, Switzerland, Austria, Ireland, Denmark would be fine. We would be average or better so far.
So successfully, the policy has also been implemented across Europe.
A comparison between the UK death rates and Germany show that's not the case. However best to ascribe the UKs failure to political incompetence rather than active malice.
Why is Germany the baseline rather than Italy, Spain, France, Holland, Switzerland, Denmark etc? All that shows is at least one country is doing better than us.
I would say the UK response to the coronavirus has been average to poor in European terms, which collectively has done better than the US but worse than East Asia.
I would put the UK in a group of countries including France, Italy, Spain, Belgium and Netherlands. Another group of countries including Germany, most of Scandinavia, some of East and Central Europe and Ireland have done better.
Scandinavia, East & Central Europe have much lower population density and are less inter connected than UK, France, Spain, Italy, Belgium and Netherlands. The virus hasnt spread as much to rural areas in those countries either. Id imagine the former group also has better levels of fitness and lower levels of obesity.
It seems much more likely to me the variations are primarily down to factors other than policy.
Yes - Germany and Austria aren't really modern Western industrial countries. There are just a few small remote villages, whose inhabitants spend most of the time tilling the land and rarely even see another. They're more likely to catch the virus from a horse than a human! You can't compare what happens there to the experience of proper countries.
Comparing the UK with Germany, Italy, France, Spain, Belgium, Netherlands, Switzerland, Austria, Ireland, Denmark would be fine. We would be average or better so far.
Still far from over, and with Heathrow hoovering in potential new cases daily, time will tell.
The problem with comparing the top line figures is that some of those countries have plateaued or are falling while others including the UK are still rising fast. On current trajectories, it is highly possible that the the UK will hit or surpass the Italian deaths per million figure in this phase of the epidemic.
The Swiss figure looks highish but they have had new cases under control for some time now and the deaths per million figure probably will only increase slowly at this point.
The doctors/epidemiologists advising the government have effectively ruled 1) out. The restrictions will continue until cases have been reduced to a very low level. The restrictions will then be slightly loosened until cases rise again when the restrictions will be reimposed. There will never be enough cases for herd immunity to be reached. The only other scenario the doctors will accept for restrictions to be lifted is if a vaccine is available that enables herd immunity to be reached. No doctor will admit this.
See Question Time last night when the epidemiologist was asked what was required for the lockdown to be lifted, and he did not answer the question. The doctors are running the country, and the elected politicians are taking orders from them. If this continues and no vaccine is found the lockdown could last more than 50 years.
Exactly.
If we rule out herd immunity as a strategy, which we seem to have,
Maybe steps like mass antibody testing and compulsory mask wearing (once enough are available) can bring us closer to something that resembles normality, but I've become quite pessimistic of late.
I think things might have been better if we'd never heard the phrase 'herd immunity.'
I agree re. your last paragraph. Mass antibody testing, carrying some sort of 'I've had the virus' ID and, yes, compulsory wearing of masks on public transport and inside public buildings.
It did however confirm how our betters think of us, they do not normally admit to it. Our Lords and Masters think of us as disposable worker ants.
Hard as it is to accept, herd immunity is still the only show in town.
Just out of curiosity, would you agree to be infected with the virus, and to go into isolation until you were no longer infectious, and also to waive the right to medical treatment for the infection?
It's a genuine question. If there were really large numbers of people who felt that way, they could make a genuine contribution to solving the problem.
As volunteers for a large scale vaccine trial, perhaps ?
No, I'm not talking about volunteers for a vaccine trial. I'm talking about volunteers actually to be infected by the virus so as to contribute to herd immunity. While ensuring that they won't infect any non-volunteers or deprive non-volunteers of medical resources.
Yes, so am I, but perhaps more constructively ? If they were first vaccinated, and then deliberately infected, you would save many months in testing a vaccine’s efficacy.
Oh - OK, provided you're going to have a really good go at infecting them.
But I do think time is of the essence, and if they really think herd immunity is such a brilliant idea they should be willing to do their bit asap.
No volunteers yet, though.
A measured dose, delivered nasally.
I'm happy for it to be measured, provided there's plenty of it. It wouldn't be right to waste the time of all these brave volunteers.
It is a serious, though ethically questionable, suggestion. Being able to deploy a workable vaccine globally, six months earlier than otherwise, would save millions of lives.
Well, if there were really large numbers of people willing to be infected to contribute to herd immunity, and if the practicalities could be handled, that would also be a serious, though ethically questionable, suggestion.No doubt in principle large numbers of lives could be saved by low-risk volunteers agreeing to be infected.
But of course there wouldn't be large numbers of volunteers, That's why it's not a sensible suggestion.
Of course. But a vaccine trial would require a few hundred.
I'm trying but failing to see a way out of lockdown (or similar) anytime soon, without accepting a much higher death toll. This virus took 3-4 months to move from a single city in China to causing thousands of deaths daily across different continents, with most of the world on lockdown. Even if cases fall, as in Italy/Spain, the virus will still have a much stronger footing to restart in most countries than it did last time.
I can only see two sustainable ways out:
1) For restrictions to be loosened/tightened according to NHS capacity. That means we will have lots more deaths, but gradually build up herd immunity. 2) A vaccine, offering a relatively quick route to herd immunity, but we won't be seeing that until 2021 at the latest.
Of course, there are other potential outcomes, such as people don't get long-term immunity from having the virus (very bad); or it does give immunity and there are far more asymptomatic cases than we thought (very good).
From a personal perspective, my wife and I have broadly accepted that the lockdown is for the long-haul and so are planning accordingly with deliveries. Having a 3 week old baby means we're erring on the side of caution and avoiding physical shops as much as possible.
The doctors/epidemiologists advising the government have effectively ruled 1) out. The restrictions will continue until cases have been reduced to a very low level. The restrictions will then be slightly loosened until cases rise again when the restrictions will be reimposed. There will never be enough cases for herd immunity to be reached. The only other scenario the doctors will accept for restrictions to be lifted is if a vaccine is available that enables herd immunity to be reached. No doctor will admit this.
See Question Time last night when the epidemiologist was asked what was required for the lockdown to be lifted, and he did not answer the question. The doctors are running the country, and the elected politicians are taking orders from them. If this continues and no vaccine is found the lockdown could last more than 50 years.
The lockdown will not last for more than 50 years.
The doctors/epidemiologists advising the government have effectively ruled 1) out. The restrictions will continue until cases have been reduced to a very low level. The restrictions will then be slightly loosened until cases rise again when the restrictions will be reimposed. There will never be enough cases for herd immunity to be reached. The only other scenario the doctors will accept for restrictions to be lifted is if a vaccine is available that enables herd immunity to be reached. No doctor will admit this.
See Question Time last night when the epidemiologist was asked what was required for the lockdown to be lifted, and he did not answer the question. The doctors are running the country, and the elected politicians are taking orders from them. If this continues and no vaccine is found the lockdown could last more than 50 years.
Exactly.
If we rule out herd immunity as a strategy, which we seem to have,
Maybe steps like mass antibody testing and compulsory mask wearing (once enough are available) can bring us closer to something that resembles normality, but I've become quite pessimistic of late.
I think things might have been better if we'd never heard the phrase 'herd immunity.'
I agree re. your last paragraph. Mass antibody testing, carrying some sort of 'I've had the virus' ID and, yes, compulsory wearing of masks on public transport and inside public buildings.
It did however confirm how our betters think of us, they do not normally admit to it. Our Lords and Masters think of us as disposable worker ants.
Hard as it is to accept, herd immunity is still the only show in town.
Just out of curiosity, would you agree to be infected with the virus, and to go into isolation until you were no longer infectious, and also to waive the right to medical treatment for the infection?
It's a genuine question. If there were really large numbers of people who felt that way, they could make a genuine contribution to solving the problem.
As volunteers for a large scale vaccine trial, perhaps ?
No, I'm not talking about volunteers for a vaccine trial. I'm talking about volunteers actually to be infected by the virus so as to contribute to herd immunity. While ensuring that they won't infect any non-volunteers or deprive non-volunteers of medical resources.
Yes, so am I, but perhaps more constructively ? If they were first vaccinated, and then deliberately infected, you would save many months in testing a vaccine’s efficacy.
Oh - OK, provided you're going to have a really good go at infecting them.
But I do think time is of the essence, and if they really think herd immunity is such a brilliant idea they should be willing to do their bit asap.
No volunteers yet, though.
A measured dose, delivered nasally.
I'm happy for it to be measured, provided there's plenty of it. It wouldn't be right to waste the time of all these brave volunteers.
It is a serious, though ethically questionable, suggestion. Being able to deploy a workable vaccine globally, six months earlier than otherwise, would save millions of lives.
Don't worry. The Chinese will do the initial mass testing on a vaccine for us. They are probably volunteering people as we type....
But is it not ethically questionable to rely on that ? Setting aside that most of the vaccines in development are not in China.
It's curious they are still trying to enforce such a thing when it's been made clear already that is beyond what is required by the law. Do they not read the news?
PS - Am I the only working class Northerner to have never set foot in an Aldi or Lidl?
If you want to.continue to pay 30 per cent more for your shop... keep avoiding aldi and lidl
What Aldi and Lidl have done is to persuade people to buy off-brand, which for decades we have avoided. It is the one contributing secret of their success that is rarely discussed.
Very true.. but its a bit hit and miss.. i wiuodnt buy their coffee but tgeir biscuits fir cheese are lovely. Booze slways good. Fruit and veg excellent the salmon is lovely tooo
I don't shop at Aldi or Lidl, but my parents do at the latter. My impression is that meat is very good, fruit and veg produce is pretty crap, there is limited choice, but some great 'gems'.
I'm trying but failing to see a way out of lockdown (or similar) anytime soon, without accepting a much higher death toll. This virus took 3-4 months to move from a single city in China to causing thousands of deaths daily across different continents, with most of the world on lockdown. Even if cases fall, as in Italy/Spain, the virus will still have a much stronger footing to restart in most countries than it did last time.
I can only see two sustainable ways out:
1) For restrictions to be loosened/tightened according to NHS capacity. That means we will have lots more deaths, but gradually build up herd immunity. 2) A vaccine, offering a relatively quick route to herd immunity, but we won't be seeing that until 2021 at the latest.
Of course, there are other potential outcomes, such as people don't get long-term immunity from having the virus (very bad); or it does give immunity and there are far more asymptomatic cases than we thought (very good).
From a personal perspective, my wife and I have broadly accepted that the lockdown is for the long-haul and so are planning accordingly with deliveries. Having a 3 week old baby means we're erring on the side of caution and avoiding physical shops as much as possible.
The doctors/epidemiologists advising the government have effectively ruled 1) out. The restrictions will continue until cases have been reduced to a very low level. The restrictions will then be slightly loosened until cases rise again when the restrictions will be reimposed. There will never be enough cases for herd immunity to be reached. The only other scenario the doctors will accept for restrictions to be lifted is if a vaccine is available that enables herd immunity to be reached. No doctor will admit this.
See Question Time last night when the epidemiologist was asked what was required for the lockdown to be lifted, and he did not answer the question. The doctors are running the country, and the elected politicians are taking orders from them. If this continues and no vaccine is found the lockdown could last more than 50 years.
The lockdown will not last for more than 50 years.
The doctors/epidemiologists advising the government have effectively ruled 1) out. The restrictions will continue until cases have been reduced to a very low level. The restrictions will then be slightly loosened until cases rise again when the restrictions will be reimposed. There will never be enough cases for herd immunity to be reached. The only other scenario the doctors will accept for restrictions to be lifted is if a vaccine is available that enables herd immunity to be reached. No doctor will admit this.
See Question Time last night when the epidemiologist was asked what was required for the lockdown to be lifted, and he did not answer the question. The doctors are running the country, and the elected politicians are taking orders from them. If this continues and no vaccine is found the lockdown could last more than 50 years.
Exactly.
If we rule out herd immunity as a strategy, which we seem to have,
Maybe steps like mass antibody testing and compulsory mask wearing (once enough are available) can bring us closer to something that resembles normality, but I've become quite pessimistic of late.
I think things might have been better if we'd never heard the phrase 'herd immunity.'
I agree re. your last paragraph. Mass antibody testing, carrying some sort of 'I've had the virus' ID and, yes, compulsory wearing of masks on public transport and inside public buildings.
It did however confirm how our betters think of us, they do not normally admit to it. Our Lords and Masters think of us as disposable worker ants.
Hard as it is to accept, herd immunity is still the only show in town.
Just out of curiosity, would you agree to be infected with the virus, and to go into isolation until you were no longer infectious, and also to waive the right to medical treatment for the infection?
It's a genuine question. If there were really large numbers of people who felt that way, they could make a genuine contribution to solving the problem.
As volunteers for a large scale vaccine trial, perhaps ?
No, I'm not talking about volunteers for a vaccine trial. I'm talking about volunteers actually to be infected by the virus so as to contribute to herd immunity. While ensuring that they won't infect any non-volunteers or deprive non-volunteers of medical resources.
Yes, so am I, but perhaps more constructively ? If they were first vaccinated, and then deliberately infected, you would save many months in testing a vaccine’s efficacy.
Oh - OK, provided you're going to have a really good go at infecting them.
But I do think time is of the essence, and if they really think herd immunity is such a brilliant idea they should be willing to do their bit asap.
No volunteers yet, though.
A measured dose, delivered nasally.
I'm happy for it to be measured, provided there's plenty of it. It wouldn't be right to waste the time of all these brave volunteers.
It is a serious, though ethically questionable, suggestion. Being able to deploy a workable vaccine globally, six months earlier than otherwise, would save millions of lives.
Don't worry. The Chinese will do the initial mass testing on a vaccine for us. They are probably volunteering people as we type....
But is it not ethically questionable to rely on that ? Setting aside that most of the vaccines in development are not in China.
Oh, not much more so than, say, relying on the German WWII data for hypothermia.
So successfully, the policy has also been implemented across Europe.
A comparison between the UK death rates and Germany show that's not the case. However best to ascribe the UKs failure to political incompetence rather than active malice.
Why is Germany the baseline rather than Italy, Spain, France, Holland, Switzerland, Denmark etc? All that shows is at least one country is doing better than us.
I would say the UK response to the coronavirus has been average to poor in European terms, which collectively has done better than the US but worse than East Asia.
I would put the UK in a group of countries including France, Italy, Spain, Belgium and Netherlands. Another group of countries including Germany, most of Scandinavia, some of East and Central Europe and Ireland have done better.
Scandinavia, East & Central Europe have much lower population density and are less inter connected than UK, France, Spain, Italy, Belgium and Netherlands. The virus hasnt spread as much to rural areas in those countries either. Id imagine the former group also has better levels of fitness and lower levels of obesity.
It seems much more likely to me the variations are primarily down to factors other than policy.
Yes - Germany and Austria aren't really modern Western industrial countries. There are just a few small remote villages, whose inhabitants spend most of the time tilling the land and rarely even see another. They're more likely to catch the virus from a horse than a human! You can't compare what happens there to the experience of proper countries.
Comparing the UK with Germany, Italy, France, Spain, Belgium, Netherlands, Switzerland, Austria, Ireland, Denmark would be fine. We would be average or better so far.
The doctors/epidemiologists advising the government have effectively ruled 1) out. The restrictions will continue until cases have been reduced to a very low level. The restrictions will then be slightly loosened until cases rise again when the restrictions will be reimposed. There will never be enough cases for herd immunity to be reached. The only other scenario the doctors will accept for restrictions to be lifted is if a vaccine is available that enables herd immunity to be reached. No doctor will admit this.
See Question Time last night when the epidemiologist was asked what was required for the lockdown to be lifted, and he did not answer the question. The doctors are running the country, and the elected politicians are taking orders from them. If this continues and no vaccine is found the lockdown could last more than 50 years.
Exactly.
If we rule out herd immunity as a strategy, which we seem to have,
Maybe steps like mass antibody testing and compulsory mask wearing (once enough are available) can bring us closer to something that resembles normality, but I've become quite pessimistic of late.
I think things might have been better if we'd never heard the phrase 'herd immunity.'
I agree re. your last paragraph. Mass antibody testing, carrying some sort of 'I've had the virus' ID and, yes, compulsory wearing of masks on public transport and inside public buildings.
It did however confirm how our betters think of us, they do not normally admit to it. Our Lords and Masters think of us as disposable worker ants.
Hard as it is to accept, herd immunity is still the only show in town.
Just out of curiosity, would you agree to be infected with the virus, and to go into isolation until you were no longer infectious, and also to waive the right to medical treatment for the infection?
It's a genuine question. If there were really large numbers of people who felt that way, they could make a genuine contribution to solving the problem.
As volunteers for a large scale vaccine trial, perhaps ?
No, I'm not talking about volunteers for a vaccine trial. I'm talking about volunteers actually to be infected by the virus so as to contribute to herd immunity. While ensuring that they won't infect any non-volunteers or deprive non-volunteers of medical resources.
Yes, so am I, but perhaps more constructively ? If they were first vaccinated, and then deliberately infected, you would save many months in testing a vaccine’s efficacy.
Oh - OK, provided you're going to have a really good go at infecting them.
But I do think time is of the essence, and if they really think herd immunity is such a brilliant idea they should be willing to do their bit asap.
No volunteers yet, though.
A measured dose, delivered nasally.
I'm happy for it to be measured, provided there's plenty of it. It wouldn't be right to waste the time of all these brave volunteers.
It is a serious, though ethically questionable, suggestion. Being able to deploy a workable vaccine globally, six months earlier than otherwise, would save millions of lives.
Don't worry. The Chinese will do the initial mass testing on a vaccine for us. They are probably volunteering people as we type....
But is it not ethically questionable to rely on that ? Setting aside that most of the vaccines in development are not in China.
Oh, not much more so than, say, relying on the German WWII data for hypothermia.
It's curious they are still trying to enforce such a thing when it's been made clear already that is beyond what is required by the law. Do they not read the news?
PS - Am I the only working class Northerner to have never set foot in an Aldi or Lidl?
If you want to.continue to pay 30 per cent more for your shop... keep avoiding aldi and lidl
What Aldi and Lidl have done is to persuade people to buy off-brand, which for decades we have avoided. It is the one contributing secret of their success that is rarely discussed.
Very true.. but its a bit hit and miss.. i wiuodnt buy their coffee but tgeir biscuits fir cheese are lovely. Booze slways good. Fruit and veg excellent the salmon is lovely tooo
Chilli Non Carne is a nice meat free dish from Aldi
Does anyone know of a resource for finding out when the day's coronavirus press conference will be? It is normally 5pm on weekdays, but I believe it has been at a different time at weekends and of course today is a Bank Holiday
Isn’t that the computer equivalent of calling for Sumerian speakers?
When I graduated in comp sci in mid 80s, COBOL was still being taught on the sister degree (Data Processing) and there were still jobs around asking for it. I'm guessing that continued into the 90s.
Father of a friend of mine is a COBOL programmer, still working into his 70s at over a grand a day.
Wish I'd gone down that route now, but we were all told it was a dead language 25 years ago!
Robert Glass wrote a book called "Facts and Fallacies of Software Engineering" around the turn of the millenium. In Fact 30 he pointed out that COBOL is a hardy perennial of a language and would be sticking around for years to come and that if you looked at job postings the number requesting COBOL had been increasing not decreasing.
Like Latin?
Ha, I used to be a COBOL programmer. Felt like it was going nowhere - all the jobs getting offshored - and took a masters in town planning. Now moved on from that too. Maybe time to go back to COBOL if suddenly we're short of programmers! Though it's not exactly difficult.
I'm currently trying to get back into software development by teaching myself Kotlin to write Android apps. I have a feeling that COBOL is probably a bit easier!
Yeah, give me 'PIC S9(6) COMP SYNC RIGHT' over 'int' any day!
(Ex ICL-1900 COBOL programmer)
EDIT: My COBOL may be 40 years rusty tbf.
Thank you for posting that. I now don't feel remotely bad for posting pictures of moths.....
Does anyone know of a resource for finding out when the day's coronavirus press conference will be? It is normally 5pm on weekdays, but I believe it has been at a different time at weekends and of course today is a Bank Holiday
If you go on youtube and search for any of the mainstream media channels, they put up the holding page for it normally by lunchtime and it always says the time.
So successfully, the policy has also been implemented across Europe.
A comparison between the UK death rates and Germany show that's not the case. However best to ascribe the UKs failure to political incompetence rather than active malice.
Why is Germany the baseline rather than Italy, Spain, France, Holland, Switzerland, Denmark etc? All that shows is at least one country is doing better than us.
I would say the UK response to the coronavirus has been average to poor in European terms, which collectively has done better than the US but worse than East Asia.
I would put the UK in a group of countries including France, Italy, Spain, Belgium and Netherlands. Another group of countries including Germany, most of Scandinavia, some of East and Central Europe and Ireland have done better.
Scandinavia, East & Central Europe have much lower population density and are less inter connected than UK, France, Spain, Italy, Belgium and Netherlands. The virus hasnt spread as much to rural areas in those countries either. Id imagine the former group also has better levels of fitness and lower levels of obesity.
It seems much more likely to me the variations are primarily down to factors other than policy.
Yes - Germany and Austria aren't really modern Western industrial countries. There are just a few small remote villages, whose inhabitants spend most of the time tilling the land and rarely even see another. They're more likely to catch the virus from a horse than a human! You can't compare what happens there to the experience of proper countries.
Comparing the UK with Germany, Italy, France, Spain, Belgium, Netherlands, Switzerland, Austria, Ireland, Denmark would be fine. We would be average or better so far.
I'd been sloppily going along with the romantic notion that this crisis is leading to an egalitarian sensibility taking root across the land. As he has done many times before my rather more rigorous and clear headed comrade OJ has put me right. Thank you Owen.
BBC News: US stocks have just recorded their biggest weekly gain for 46 years despite the bleak economic outlook. Wall Street's S&P 500 shares index has risen 12% this week, as the US central bank announced more stimulus measures to support the economy.
From talking to a buyer, I understand the Lidl and Aldi buying approach is the same as Tesco and the others: determine the minimum requirements for the product delivery, including quality and capacity to deliver and then choose whoever meets those criteria at the cheapest price. This means there is very little difference in quality across the board for all the supermarkets. The partial exceptions are Marks and Spencer and Waitrose on some products where they include a better but not cheaper metric.
South Korea's approach is far from perfect, and really does raise awkward questions about use of personal data.
Does anybody here consider their use of personal data awkward? Speaking as a privacy hawk I definitely don't. They're tracing infection of a deadly disease, the main alternative is to have everyone shut up in their homes. I mean, if we can come up with technical clevers that produce the same results with more anonymity then great, and we need to make sure this ends when the crisis does but otherwise, give the contract tracers the data.
Agreed. Though the point about S Korea is that the systems were pretty well there already, pre pandemic. IOW it would have to be an exception to our legal privacy regime; that didn’t really arise for them.
The Thing (aka the new upper 10,000) will already be arguing that such data is so useful that it should be available to the authorities for ever.
To such people, the world of Minority Report is their dream.
Note that they assume *they* will be excluded from the databases. As for the national identity card scheme that Labour setup - where *influential people* would have their data segregated under special lock and key.
It's like the movement app that alerts you if you've been near someone with the virus. It's good in theory, until you realise that it quickly turns into a sinister enabler of a police state - and that having a phone with a flat battery becomes an imprisonable offence.
"Abandoning severe lockdowns at a time when the likelihood of a resurgence in infections remains high will lead to greater total economic damage than sustaining the lockdowns to eliminate the resurgence risk"
South Korea's approach is far from perfect, and really does raise awkward questions about use of personal data.
Does anybody here consider their use of personal data awkward? Speaking as a privacy hawk I definitely don't. They're tracing infection of a deadly disease, the main alternative is to have everyone shut up in their homes. I mean, if we can come up with technical clevers that produce the same results with more anonymity then great, and we need to make sure this ends when the crisis does but otherwise, give the contract tracers the data.
Agreed. Though the point about S Korea is that the systems were pretty well there already, pre pandemic. IOW it would have to be an exception to our legal privacy regime; that didn’t really arise for them.
The Thing (aka the new upper 10,000) will already be arguing that such data is so useful that it should be available to the authorities for ever.
To such people, the world of Minority Report is their dream.
Note that they assume *they* will be excluded from the databases. As for the national identity card scheme that Labour setup - where *influential people* would have their data segregated under special lock and key.
It's like the movement app that alerts you if you've been near someone with the virus. It's good in theory, until you realise that it quickly turns into a sinister enabler of a police state - and that having a phone with a flat battery becomes an imprisonable offence.
These are the sort of issues the press should be raising. As we move from out of lockdown, are we going to use tracking technology, what limits will be placed on this, etc etc etc. Huge civil liberties issues.
I gather there is a enormous queue at our local Sainsbury's this morning. Stocking up before the shop is shut for a whole day on Sunday?
Friday is traditionally a long queue day. I'd not read too much into it. Btw the fly tippers have been back to our local Sainsbury's car park, ironically blocking access to the recycling bins.
I gather there is a enormous queue at our local Sainsbury's this morning. Stocking up before the shop is shut for a whole day on Sunday?
There was an enormous queue at our local Tesco last Saturday morning as well. I think it's just when a large fraction of the people who are still actually working choose to turn up and do their shopping all at the same time.
The ones who can be arsed to put up with the queues will keep doggedly turning up on Saturday mornings. The ones who can't won't.
EDIT: shows how one day is now morphing into another. I'd forgotten it was still Friday.
Does anyone know of a resource for finding out when the day's coronavirus press conference will be? It is normally 5pm on weekdays, but I believe it has been at a different time at weekends and of course today is a Bank Holiday
If you go on youtube and search for any of the mainstream media channels, they put up the holding page for it normally by lunchtime and it always says the time.
It's curious they are still trying to enforce such a thing when it's been made clear already that is beyond what is required by the law. Do they not read the news?
PS - Am I the only working class Northerner to have never set foot in an Aldi or Lidl?
If you want to.continue to pay 30 per cent more for your shop... keep avoiding aldi and lidl
What Aldi and Lidl have done is to persuade people to buy off-brand, which for decades we have avoided. It is the one contributing secret of their success that is rarely discussed.
Very true.. but its a bit hit and miss.. i wiuodnt buy their coffee but tgeir biscuits fir cheese are lovely. Booze slways good. Fruit and veg excellent the salmon is lovely tooo
I don't shop at Aldi or Lidl, but my parents do at the latter. My impression is that meat is very good, fruit and veg produce is pretty crap, there is limited choice, but some great 'gems'.
It may be partly the BH effect but some good figures coming out of Spain now nationally and in the regions. My province of Almeria was always pretty low but now has the number of active cases falling for the first time [ Total 400 - 295 active]
It's curious they are still trying to enforce such a thing when it's been made clear already that is beyond what is required by the law. Do they not read the news?
PS - Am I the only working class Northerner to have never set foot in an Aldi or Lidl?
If you want to.continue to pay 30 per cent more for your shop... keep avoiding aldi and lidl
What Aldi and Lidl have done is to persuade people to buy off-brand, which for decades we have avoided. It is the one contributing secret of their success that is rarely discussed.
Very true.. but its a bit hit and miss.. i wiuodnt buy their coffee but tgeir biscuits fir cheese are lovely. Booze slways good. Fruit and veg excellent the salmon is lovely tooo
Chilli Non Carne is a nice meat free dish from Aldi
It certainly seems "Sir" Kier has picked just about the most remain-centric shadow cabinet he possibly can.
Could it be that Starmer is planning to run a REJOIN manifesto in 2024?
You all know what I think about the Tories chances in 2024 but if Labour are mad enough to fight the election on REJOIN that's the one thing that could well see them lose...
I don't think he's that daft, but I do think the presence of Lammy, Reeves etc... in the Shadow Cabinet does very much suggest that BRINO is Labour's Brexit policy. If Starmer wins in 2024, the Tories end up in some disarray in opposition, and Farage is an irrelevance, I think it's at that point you'd probably get a rejoin manifesto for Starmer's second GE campaign.
But the thing is by 2024 we'll have been out for 4 years (either from the current arrangements or the deal that UK and EU will strike next year) - why would people then want to reopen the whole thing again in 2024 by moving to a BRINO position?
This would involve fresh negotiations with the EU. maybe another referendum etc etc.
In the end Labour are going to have to accept Brexit and move the conversation on if they ever want to form another government in the same way they had to accept Thatchers reforms to get to 1997.
If Labour argue the trade deal the Tories reach with the EU is crap - which I'm sure they will - it's gonna look extremely weird if come the GE campaign they suddenly state they won't make any changes to it. So, I think Labour are committed to some kind of renegotiation with the EU if they get into power; it's just the extent of those changes which is the issue really. And to be honest, I doubt the sort of voters Labour need to win back give a damn about the exact terms of the trade deal agree with the EU, except possibly if it means accepting FOM. Rather, they just want their vote for Brexit respected, and to move on from it. Now, I suspect the Tories would try and make out Labour are trying to reopen the referendum debate if Labour policy would be to replace the agreed trade deal, say, with a customs union. But I don't think the issue would gain much traction in an election campaign.
A bigger issue would be what they will do with the trade deals we strike in the next few years with the USA and other countries, which would then have to be torn up in order to put all our eggs back in the EU basket.
Labour are going to be much better off ignoring the EU and other foreign policy (Palestine!) issues and concentrating their efforts on domestic policy, of which there will be plenty of opportunity to identify in the next few years.
It's curious they are still trying to enforce such a thing when it's been made clear already that is beyond what is required by the law. Do they not read the news?
PS - Am I the only working class Northerner to have never set foot in an Aldi or Lidl?
If you want to.continue to pay 30 per cent more for your shop... keep avoiding aldi and lidl
What Aldi and Lidl have done is to persuade people to buy off-brand, which for decades we have avoided. It is the one contributing secret of their success that is rarely discussed.
Very true.. but its a bit hit and miss.. i wiuodnt buy their coffee but tgeir biscuits fir cheese are lovely. Booze slways good. Fruit and veg excellent the salmon is lovely tooo
I don't shop at Aldi or Lidl, but my parents do at the latter. My impression is that meat is very good, fruit and veg produce is pretty crap, there is limited choice, but some great 'gems'.
Amongst the lettuce?
Let's try and avoid this particular conversational iceberg.
Probably referring to the family tbf. I see the language Police are now determining how we refer to disease and illness. Too tedious.
I can only imagine how mad they would have been during WWII...forget the worries of Hitler, no Churchill has just formed a sentence in a way which I take issue...down with him.
So successfully, the policy has also been implemented across Europe.
A comparison between the UK death rates and Germany show that's not the case. However best to ascribe the UKs failure to political incompetence rather than active malice.
Why is Germany the baseline rather than Italy, Spain, France, Holland, Switzerland, Denmark etc? All that shows is at least one country is doing better than us.
I would say the UK response to the coronavirus has been average to poor in European terms, which collectively has done better than the US but worse than East Asia.
I would put the UK in a group of countries including France, Italy, Spain, Belgium and Netherlands. Another group of countries including Germany, most of Scandinavia, some of East and Central Europe and Ireland have done better.
Scandinavia, East & Central Europe have much lower population density and are less inter connected than UK, France, Spain, Italy, Belgium and Netherlands. The virus hasnt spread as much to rural areas in those countries either. Id imagine the former group also has better levels of fitness and lower levels of obesity.
It seems much more likely to me the variations are primarily down to factors other than policy.
Yes - Germany and Austria aren't really modern Western industrial countries. There are just a few small remote villages, whose inhabitants spend most of the time tilling the land and rarely even see another. They're more likely to catch the virus from a horse than a human! You can't compare what happens there to the experience of proper countries.
Comparing the UK with Germany, Italy, France, Spain, Belgium, Netherlands, Switzerland, Austria, Ireland, Denmark would be fine. We would be average or better so far.
Still far from over, and with Heathrow hoovering in potential new cases daily, time will tell.
Why doesn't someone, at the daily Press conference, have the wit to ask why there are no controls at Heathrow (etc).
How many passengers are coming in daily?
Before this kicked off it was over 106,000 international arrivals per day. So even if traffic is down 90% that's still over 10,000 a day. Singapore has simply banned all foreigners from arriving or transiting and returning Singapore nationals are quarantined for 14 days. But there are still 3 SQ flights a week from Singapore to London (used to be 21).
"Abandoning severe lockdowns at a time when the likelihood of a resurgence in infections remains high will lead to greater total economic damage than sustaining the lockdowns to eliminate the resurgence risk"
So the dichotomy between saving (old people's) lives vs saving jobs, turns out to be a false one.
That feels right. If it were truly a stark binary between thousands of old people and the economy, all governments would choose the economy. The real decision will be on the margins.
So successfully, the policy has also been implemented across Europe.
A comparison between the UK death rates and Germany show that's not the case. However best to ascribe the UKs failure to political incompetence rather than active malice.
Why is Germany the baseline rather than Italy, Spain, France, Holland, Switzerland, Denmark etc? All that shows is at least one country is doing better than us.
I would say the UK response to the coronavirus has been average to poor in European terms, which collectively has done better than the US but worse than East Asia.
I would put the UK in a group of countries including France, Italy, Spain, Belgium and Netherlands. Another group of countries including Germany, most of Scandinavia, some of East and Central Europe and Ireland have done better.
Scandinavia, East & Central Europe have much lower population density and are less inter connected than UK, France, Spain, Italy, Belgium and Netherlands. The virus hasnt spread as much to rural areas in those countries either. Id imagine the former group also has better levels of fitness and lower levels of obesity.
It seems much more likely to me the variations are primarily down to factors other than policy.
Yes - Germany and Austria aren't really modern Western industrial countries. There are just a few small remote villages, whose inhabitants spend most of the time tilling the land and rarely even see another. They're more likely to catch the virus from a horse than a human! You can't compare what happens there to the experience of proper countries.
Comparing the UK with Germany, Italy, France, Spain, Belgium, Netherlands, Switzerland, Austria, Ireland, Denmark would be fine. We would be average or better so far.
Still far from over, and with Heathrow hoovering in potential new cases daily, time will tell.
Why doesn't someone, at the daily Press conference, have the wit to ask why there are no controls at Heathrow (etc).
How many passengers are coming in daily?
Before this kicked off it was over 106,000 international arrivals per day. So even if traffic is down 90% that's still over 10,000 a day. Singapore has simply banned all foreigners from arriving or transiting and returning Singapore nationals are quarantined for 14 days. But there are still 3 SQ flights a week from Singapore to London (used to be 21).
Do those air traffic numbers account for the number of bums in seats, or is it plane movements? Also cargo planes will still be flying etc. I'd be surprised if 10,000 people were arriving into Heathrow daily.
It's curious they are still trying to enforce such a thing when it's been made clear already that is beyond what is required by the law. Do they not read the news?
PS - Am I the only working class Northerner to have never set foot in an Aldi or Lidl?
If you want to.continue to pay 30 per cent more for your shop... keep avoiding aldi and lidl
What Aldi and Lidl have done is to persuade people to buy off-brand, which for decades we have avoided. It is the one contributing secret of their success that is rarely discussed.
Very true.. but its a bit hit and miss.. i wiuodnt buy their coffee but tgeir biscuits fir cheese are lovely. Booze slways good. Fruit and veg excellent the salmon is lovely tooo
Chilli Non Carne is a nice meat free dish from Aldi
most amusing. I never buy supermarket meat. my butcher is outstanding I make my own CCC.
It certainly seems "Sir" Kier has picked just about the most remain-centric shadow cabinet he possibly can.
Could it be that Starmer is planning to run a REJOIN manifesto in 2024?
You all know what I think about the Tories chances in 2024 but if Labour are mad enough to fight the election on REJOIN that's the one thing that could well see them lose...
I don't think he's that daft, but I do think the presence of Lammy, Reeves etc... in the Shadow Cabinet does very much suggest that BRINO is Labour's Brexit policy. If Starmer wins in 2024, the Tories end up in some disarray in opposition, and Farage is an irrelevance, I think it's at that point you'd probably get a rejoin manifesto for Starmer's second GE campaign.
But the thing is by 2024 we'll have been out for 4 years (either from the current arrangements or the deal that UK and EU will strike next year) - why would people then want to reopen the whole thing again in 2024 by moving to a BRINO position?
This would involve fresh negotiations with the EU. maybe another referendum etc etc.
In the end Labour are going to have to accept Brexit and move the conversation on if they ever want to form another government in the same way they had to accept Thatchers reforms to get to 1997.
If Labour argue the trade deal the Tories reach with the EU is crap - which I'm sure they will - it's gonna look extremely weird if come the GE campaign they suddenly state they won't make any changes to it. So, I think Labour are committed to some kind of renegotiation with the EU if they get into power; it's just the extent of those changes which is the issue really. And to be honest, I doubt the sort of voters Labour need to win back give a damn about the exact terms of the trade deal agree with the EU, except possibly if it means accepting FOM. Rather, they just want their vote for Brexit respected, and to move on from it. Now, I suspect the Tories would try and make out Labour are trying to reopen the referendum debate if Labour policy would be to replace the agreed trade deal, say, with a customs union. But I don't think the issue would gain much traction in an election campaign.
A bigger issue would be what they will do with the trade deals we strike in the next few years with the USA and other countries, which would then have to be torn up in order to put all our eggs back in the EU basket.
Labour are going to be much better off ignoring the EU and other foreign policy (Palestine!) issues and concentrating their efforts on domestic policy, of which there will be plenty of opportunity to identify in the next few years.
I'm pretty sceptical we'll reach a trade agreement with the US before the next election (for reasons rcs1000 has set out before).
How many ‘homes’ does Jenrick have? Surely home is where your kids go to school?
Well, he's an MP so will have one in London and one in his constituency, for starters.
This house isn't in his constituency, but it is where is in the area where he has lived since a child, and is where his family reside Friday to Sunday every week and have been there since before the restrictions came into place *.
I think his constituents might be a bit disappointed to learn that he doesn't live there, but again it isn't unheard of for MPs to do so. How often does Ed Miliband really spend living in Doncaster?
It's curious they are still trying to enforce such a thing when it's been made clear already that is beyond what is required by the law. Do they not read the news?
PS - Am I the only working class Northerner to have never set foot in an Aldi or Lidl?
If you want to.continue to pay 30 per cent more for your shop... keep avoiding aldi and lidl
What Aldi and Lidl have done is to persuade people to buy off-brand, which for decades we have avoided. It is the one contributing secret of their success that is rarely discussed.
Very true.. but its a bit hit and miss.. i wiuodnt buy their coffee but tgeir biscuits fir cheese are lovely. Booze slways good. Fruit and veg excellent the salmon is lovely tooo
I don't shop at Aldi or Lidl, but my parents do at the latter. My impression is that meat is very good, fruit and veg produce is pretty crap, there is limited choice, but some great 'gems'.
Amongst the lettuce?
Let's try and avoid this particular conversational iceberg.
Comments
To such people, the world of Minority Report is their dream.
Note that they assume *they* will be excluded from the databases. As for the national identity card scheme that Labour setup - where *influential people* would have their data segregated under special lock and key.
At least folk have stopped posting that Italy v. UK tweet usually with regard how much better the UK was doing.
I am afraid that I don't really agree. The public have the right to call for the restrictions to be lifted, especially after the peak has passed. The mathematical models are complicated and non-linear. There are trade-offs that can be made between different sections of society and activities in society that could enable some restrictions to be lifted even without having an increase in cases. When the peak has passed it will be time to discuss whether any of the restrictions can be lifted.
With the advent of the queueing systems, one doesn't really have the luxury of waiting to go into one shop, getting bits and pieces in there, then joining the back of the queue for the next one. It would take a bloody age.
Aldi is next door to Marks & Spencer. I have decided that I can live without Aldi for the time being.
Michael Howard (the noted extreme libertarian anarchist) noted that one of the most important jobs of the home secretary was going - "No, No. No." - to the pile of demented measures that would be pulled out of a drawer for each crisis. And telling the police repeatedly to stop arresting people under anti-terrorism legislation for writing graffiti etc.
Spain: 339
Italy: 302
Belge: 260
France: 187
Netherlands: 140
UK: 118
Switz: 111
Sweden: 79
Ireland: 53
Denmark: 41
Portugal: 40
Austria: 35
Germany: 31
Middling, I'd say
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
Still far from over, and with Heathrow hoovering in potential new cases daily, time will tell.
Their statistical analysis seems to suggest that a large proportion of transmissions come from relatively few individuals (aka ‘superspreaders’).
My own guess is that this just as likely relates to the immediate environment of transmission - for example a single individual in a crowded tube carriage has the potential to infect far more people than say someone going round to visit their parents.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-52243088
Sky were reporting this morning from a park in London. I was quite shocked how many people were casually using metal railings as part of their stretching and exercising. I ain't touching one of those suckers in a month of Sundays.
“Conclusions: A small increase in long-term exposure to PM2.5 leads to a large increase in COVID-19 death rate, with the magnitude of increase 20 times that observed for PM2.5 and all-cause mortality. The study results underscore the importance of continuing to enforce existing air pollution regulations to protect human health both during and after the COVID-19 crisis. The data and code are publicly available.”
https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/covid-pm/home
I am uncertain why you consider Anna Soubry's apparent comments to have weight.
And to be honest, I doubt the sort of voters Labour need to win back give a damn about the exact terms of the trade deal agree with the EU, except possibly if it means accepting FOM. Rather, they just want their vote for Brexit respected, and to move on from it. Now, I suspect the Tories would try and make out Labour are trying to reopen the referendum debate if Labour policy would be to replace the agreed trade deal, say, with a customs union. But I don't think the issue would gain much traction in an election campaign.
A typical response:
https://twitter.com/SkyeCity_/status/1248332254532833282
Bye!
For people to be able to accept lockdown as they should they do need some of the other items that are available from supermarkets and the other shops that remain open. We are not supposed to be in jail or being punished like children for having been naughty and the police (or rather those forces who do not seem to understand this) need to stop treating us like we are all criminals or children.
Like you I needed to go to my safe spaces like Waitrose and Fortnum and Mason.
The Swiss figure looks highish but they have had new cases under control for some time now and the deaths per million figure probably will only increase slowly at this point.
But a vaccine trial would require a few hundred.
https://twitter.com/holyroodmandy/status/1248552083571253250?s=20
Setting aside that most of the vaccines in development are not in China.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/apr/09/coronavirus-inequality-managers-zoom-cleaners-offices
I love the centre isle. My favourites so far have been:
a) Horse bridle
b) Blocks to put under your caravan wheels
c) Spare wheelbarrow wheels (are they universal?)
Who in their right mind actually goes to Aldi and buys these? It would be one hell of an impulse purchase!
While the health crisis eases, desperation mounts amid predictions a looming social emergency is a "matter of time".
By Sally Lockwood, news correspondent in Rome"
https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-the-dark-fog-is-lifting-in-italy-but-the-end-of-the-lockdown-is-clouded-by-doubt-11971340
US stocks have just recorded their biggest weekly gain for 46 years despite the bleak economic outlook.
Wall Street's S&P 500 shares index has risen 12% this week, as the US central bank announced more stimulus measures to support the economy.
The University of Chicago IGM survey of leading economists is a real thing:
and pretty much unanimously agrees that
"Abandoning severe lockdowns at a time when the likelihood of a resurgence in infections remains high will lead to greater total economic damage than sustaining the lockdowns to eliminate the resurgence risk"
http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/policy-for-the-covid-19-crisis/
So the dichotomy between saving (old people's) lives vs saving jobs, turns out to be a false one.
On French toast too, probably.
He (almost) died to save us all.
The ones who can be arsed to put up with the queues will keep doggedly turning up on Saturday mornings. The ones who can't won't.
EDIT: shows how one day is now morphing into another. I'd forgotten it was still Friday.
Legend.
Labour are going to be much better off ignoring the EU and other foreign policy (Palestine!) issues and concentrating their efforts on domestic policy, of which there will be plenty of opportunity to identify in the next few years.
All I say to these people, calm down dear....
LOL
I think his constituents might be a bit disappointed to learn that he doesn't live there, but again it isn't unheard of for MPs to do so. How often does Ed Miliband really spend living in Doncaster?
* assuming he is telling the truth.