Sky just outed Prof John Ashton as a labour supporter and he really lost it, objecting that he was not a member of the labour party and has not been in the labour party for the last year.
He asked Sky not to politicise this !!!
Oh the irony
This is the first time I have seen Sky declare the politics of those experts they interview and it is refreshing
Big G, your partisanship is becoming tiresome and dare I say it silly.
I have been given a list of dangerously strenuous (for a man of my years) DIY and gardening tasks which I have been procrastinating over on account of NHS rationing and am barely a quarter through. Time to get to it I think!
With respect you do not need to read my post
And talking about 'silly' is a perfect example of the 'pot calling the kettle black'
I always read your posts Big G. Sometimes I agree, sometimes I don't. In my opinion you have turned the pro-Boris, pro- government rhetoric up to 11 in the last 24 hours.
Right now Boris and HMG is key to this country's immediate future
Of course I will support him and of course opponents will object
It is called
Politics
Why do you support him “of course”?
Oh, given you didn’t care that the government’s lack of pandemic preparedness may have cost untold lives, why am I asking that question?
You throw away comments about respecting lives with utter disdain almost as an act of hate.
It is sad and belittles you
I care for every lost life and if you read my posts that is my constant theme together with compassion
I’m afraid it isn’t. Your constant theme is a servile loyalty to the Conservative party, as illustrated by your hostility to the idea that pandemic preparedness might have been inadequate rather than look at the evidence. Better many people should die than a Conservative government should be seen to have been inadequate.
I do not even know what you are talking about on the pandemic preparedness other than a report was given to Jeremy Hunt and he failed to action it.
No doubt that is part of a conversation to be had at a later date but your hostility to the conservatives is coming from your hate of brexit which has poisioned your attitude to Boris and anything he does
You were fuming last week that Phillip Lee had given details about this. And now you affect to forget. Well, your default setting is pitifully obvious.
Philip Lee has an agenda, was introduced as a liberal when he defected from the conservative party and was not elected as a liberal and had a story about pandemic planning in 2016.
I have no idea how relevant that planning could have been to this outbreak but it later transpired Jeremy Hunt sat on it, so it is to him questions would need to be asked in some future enquiry
Why only Hunt? Just because Lee defected doesn’t distract from his views does it? Lee is a practicing GP so may have better understanding than others.
He was secretary of state for health at the time
So what that doesn’t make him an expert. Only an unqualified government minister is allowed an opinion, well it’s a view.
You miss my point. Hunt received the report but is alleged to have failed to action it
Remember yesterday Guardian were donning the tin foil hats and getting all outraged about Peter Thiel investments with Palantir and Faculty AI, who are working for the government on CV management...
GMG Ventures, the Guardian's venture capital business that was set up in 2017, has invested in London AI start-up Faculty as part of an £8m funding round.
If you hate expertise, then experts are going to find it pretty tricky to vote for your party. And before long they're all in another party.
It is interesting that you assume that everyone will have a party affiliation.
I probably should have said 'voting for another party'. In the US, some polls have found that just 6% of scientists identify as Republicans vs. 55% as Democrats.
If that figure of 55% really is for "identifying as Democrats" that is a really high figure. A large number of scientists will vote but not consider themselves "to be a Democrat" we would be looking at a split of 20% voting Rep 70% voting Dem and 10% not voting. (It is reasonable to assume that scientists are more likely to vote than an average adult citizen and that "scientist" means working as a scientist or is a post-graduate in a science subject.)
where do you find all these moths, most I see are the ones that love my wife's cashmere sweaters
LOL.
Purchase yourself a moth trap, Malc. You can amuse yourself for hours - even while observing lockdown. Just think what might be lurking in the dark in Ayrshire....
'Just think what might be lurking in the dark in Ayrshire....'
Or read Tam 'O Shanter. Young ladies in very short skirts.
A small but pedantic point, if I may: a sark is a shift or chemise (in the context of female dress, a shirt in a male dress context). Item 3 here refers.
Ah; thanks. Did this poem for O level back in mid 1950's and I suspect the English master would not wish to have been so pedantic with 15 year old boys. The idea of a short skirt was rousing enough! Obviously much shorter than the skies of the girls at the school next door, with whom we were discouraged from associating.
Been chatting to a Labour activist this morning, they still think they won the argument and Starmer will be a more presentable face to the same busted policies. If this is the thinking that Labour activists have then it's going to be a long road.
Part of my message to my newly rejoined Labour friends is "your 2019 manifesto was shit". What's more it's pointless talking about 2019 or 2017 or Blair or whatever - that's all the past in a world that doesn't exist any more. They're going to love me...
The political party who grasp both the mood of the public post-Covid and connect with their Hopes and Fears can dominate. All the more reason why a policy platform that had zero Hope but invoked a lot of Fear needs to be buried.
Been chatting to a Labour activist this morning, they still think they won the argument and Starmer will be a more presentable face to the same busted policies. If this is the thinking that Labour activists have then it's going to be a long road.
Except of course, half the nation are now suckling on the government teat of furlough, soon to wind up on universal credit as the redundancies start coming in.
Massive state intervention is here to stay, and is going to look a lot more popular for the forseeable future than it did in 2019.
When the bill for all of the largesse comes due it's going to look a lot less popular. At the moment these are emergency measures in the middle of a global pandemic, most people understand that. If Labour thinks it can propose these policies outside of an unprecedented emergency then they deserve to stay in opposition, which is what will happen.
I hope that you're right. But fear that a lot more people are going to be welcoming of, if not demanding outright state intervention in many more areas of our lives.
People will be poorer than they are now, and many more will have had first-hand experience of our benefits system.
I'm guessing that this will benefit Labour in the long run.
Something sinister in wanting people to be badged for their political opinion.
Not really as long as it consistent. Full disclosure is to be applauded when the alternative is pretty close to fraud.
This has long been a problem particularly at the BBC, where interviewees have been presented as being expert or impartial, and have later turned out to be left wing activists.
I think supposed experts should be judged by their actions, not their politics, even if they make their general preferences known.
My work includes discussions with Ministers - over the last year including half a dozen quite well-known ones - as I have some specialist information that is useful. They know that I'm a Labour activist - chair of my CLP, leader of the group on the council Executive - but also that they can trust me to work with them on projects that have numerous non-partisan elements. If I think they're doing the job well, I'll say so - as I have with Michael Gove, many times - without in the least meaning that I'll vote for them. Elections are one thing, but in between there are jobs to be done and problems to be solved. Not everything is about party politics.
I don't have a problem with my Labour involvement being known, but not everyone is comfortable talking about their opinions, and why should they be? I think an acrual register would focus too much attention on general allegiance and not enough on commitment to working constructively.
You ducked my question. Paul Staines has no interest in the truth, only in being a fully on-message flying monkey for this government and Leave. Inconvenient stories are ignored, non-stories are twisted into hate-clicks.
It’s noteworthy how lacking in useful achievements the far right commentariat is. If they want to be introduced for their specialist knowledge, they need to get some first. Till then, they’ll continue to be introduced as the cheerleaders for basement-dwelling incels and affluent reactionaries that they are.
This is the problem with attempting political balance on matters other than politics. There are few experts in any field of human endeavour who are also passionately right wing in their politics. Therefore if you disclose the politics of people taking part in high profile discussions of this nature it will give the impression that the Right are being unfairly excluded when the truth is that they are being necessarily excluded.
If you hate expertise, then experts are going to find it pretty tricky to vote for your party. And before long they're all in another party.
It is interesting that you assume that everyone will have a party affiliation.
I probably should have said 'voting for another party'. In the US, some polls have found that just 6% of scientists identify as Republicans vs. 55% as Democrats.
If that figure of 55% really is for "identifying as Democrats" that is a really high figure. A large number of scientists will vote but not consider themselves "to be a Democrat" we would be looking at a split of 20% voting Rep 70% voting Dem and 10% not voting. (It is reasonable to assume that scientists are more likely to vote than an average adult citizen and that "scientist" means working as a scientist or is a post-graduate in a science subject.)
People need to be taking that with a pinch of salt when trying to apply it to this country. The democrats are still largely to the right of the tories so you cannot look at that figure and assume that means 55% of scientists vote labour for example.
where do you find all these moths, most I see are the ones that love my wife's cashmere sweaters
LOL.
Purchase yourself a moth trap, Malc. You can amuse yourself for hours - even while observing lockdown. Just think what might be lurking in the dark in Ayrshire....
'Just think what might be lurking in the dark in Ayrshire....'
Or read Tam 'O Shanter. Young ladies in very short skirts.
A small but pedantic point, if I may: a sark is a shift or chemise (in the context of female dress, a shirt in a male dress context). Item 3 here refers.
Ah; thanks. Did this poem for O level back in mid 1950's and I suspect the English master would not wish to have been so pedantic with 15 year old boys. The idea of a short skirt was rousing enough! Obviously much shorter than the skies of the girls at the school next door, with whom we were discouraged from associating.
It's what I always understood, from reading about the derivation of the name ofg the clipper ship Cutty Sark (= fastest of the witches), but I did check the DSL anyway out of interest as it suddenly occurred to me to wonder if Ayrshire Scots was different in that meaning.
Sky just outed Prof John Ashton as a labour supporter and he really lost it, objecting that he was not a member of the labour party and has not been in the labour party for the last year.
He asked Sky not to politicise this !!!
Oh the irony
This is the first time I have seen Sky declare the politics of those experts they interview and it is refreshing
Big G, your partisanship is becoming tiresome and dare I say it silly.
I have been given a list of dangerously strenuous (for a man of my years) DIY and gardening tasks which I have been procrastinating over on account of NHS rationing and am barely a quarter through. Time to get to it I think!
With respect you do not need to read my post
And talking about 'silly' is a perfect example of the 'pot calling the kettle black'
I always read your posts Big G. Sometimes I agree, sometimes I don't. In my opinion you have turned the pro-Boris, pro- government rhetoric up to 11 in the last 24 hours.
Right now Boris and HMG is key to this country's immediate future
Of course I will support him and of course opponents will object
It is called
Politics
Why do you support him “of course”?
Oh, given you didn’t care that the government’s lack of pandemic preparedness may have cost untold lives, why am I asking that question?
You throw away comments about respecting lives with utter disdain almost as an act of hate.
It is sad and belittles you
I care for every lost life and if you read my posts that is my constant theme together with compassion
I’m afraid it isn’t. Your constant theme is a servile loyalty to the Conservative party, as illustrated by your hostility to the idea that pandemic preparedness might have been inadequate rather than look at the evidence. Better many people should die than a Conservative government should be seen to have been inadequate.
So what if he is? 30% of the country are partisan Tories, voting Tory even in 1997 and 2001 (although to be fair to him BigG actually voted for New Labour at both those elections).
Beyond a bit more testing the government has not done too badly relatively speaking anyway in terms of the pandemic
The death count makes that judgement hard to sustain. But since you care more about Conservative electoral fortunes than a few thousand dead, that probably isn’t the metric you’re using.
A death count per head lower than France, Italy, Spain, Belgium and the Netherlands and the increase in which fell yesterday does make that judgement possible to sustain
Problem is HYUFD you are always very selective in the facts you choose to use.
As I pointed out in an earlier discussion the UK has 23 times more infections per head than Japan and we have 150 times more deaths per head than Japan. But you chose to argue that Japan has no right to criticise us because we have done more testing. That is true but it is also intellectually dishonest.
Something sinister in wanting people to be badged for their political opinion.
Not really as long as it consistent. Full disclosure is to be applauded when the alternative is pretty close to fraud.
This has long been a problem particularly at the BBC, where interviewees have been presented as being expert or impartial, and have later turned out to be left wing activists.
I think supposed experts should be judged by their actions, not their politics, even if they make their general preferences known.
My work includes discussions with Ministers - over the last year including half a dozen quite well-known ones - as I have some specialist information that is useful. They know that I'm a Labour activist - chair of my CLP, leader of the group on the council Executive - but also that they can trust me to work with them on projects that have numerous non-partisan elements. If I think they're doing the job well, I'll say so - as I have with Michael Gove, many times - without in the least meaning that I'll vote for them. Elections are one thing, but in between there are jobs to be done and problems to be solved. Not everything is about party politics.
I don't have a problem with my Labour involvement being known, but not everyone is comfortable talking about their opinions, and why should they be? I think an acrual register would focus too much attention on general allegiance and not enough on commitment to working constructively.
There is however a difference between doing an actual job of work though Nick which tends to be more rigourous in terms of evidence supplied and being a talking head on a tv show. It is the latter we are really discussing.
Sky just outed Prof John Ashton as a labour supporter and he really lost it, objecting that he was not a member of the labour party and has not been in the labour party for the last year.
He asked Sky not to politicise this !!!
Oh the irony
This is the first time I have seen Sky declare the politics of those experts they interview and it is refreshing
Big G, your partisanship is becoming tiresome and dare I say it silly.
I have been given a list of dangerously strenuous (for a man of my years) DIY and gardening tasks which I have been procrastinating over on account of NHS rationing and am barely a quarter through. Time to get to it I think!
With respect you do not need to read my post
And talking about 'silly' is a perfect example of the 'pot calling the kettle black'
I always read your posts Big G. Sometimes I agree, sometimes I don't. In my opinion you have turned the pro-Boris, pro- government rhetoric up to 11 in the last 24 hours.
Right now Boris and HMG is key to this country's immediate future
Of course I will support him and of course opponents will object
It is called
Politics
Why do you support him “of course”?
Oh, given you didn’t care that the government’s lack of pandemic preparedness may have cost untold lives, why am I asking that question?
You throw away comments about respecting lives with utter disdain almost as an act of hate.
It is sad and belittles you
I care for every lost life and if you read my posts that is my constant theme together with compassion
I’m afraid it isn’t. Your constant theme is a servile loyalty to the Conservative party, as illustrated by your hostility to the idea that pandemic preparedness might have been inadequate rather than look at the evidence. Better many people should die than a Conservative government should be seen to have been inadequate.
I do not even know what you are talking about on the pandemic preparedness other than a report was given to Jeremy Hunt and he failed to action it.
No doubt that is part of a conversation to be had at a later date but your hostility to the conservatives is coming from your hate of brexit which has poisioned your attitude to Boris and anything he does
Big G. you would be the first to rightly call for the heads of Drakeford and Gethin if it turns out Covid-19 deaths in Wales occurred through their errors or negligence. You do not apply the same standards to Westminster.
Drakeford and Sturgeon are part of Cobra headed by Boris and following the expert advice. I therefore support them all as they have no choice and if at some stage the advice was wrong then that will have to be addressed
On covid I have no criticism of Sturgeon or Drakeford who have largely acted in sync with Boris
Well I would. If the lack of PPE and testing contribute to any unnecessary deaths in Wales they should be vilified.
Scotland and Wales have devolved health services so lots of variables will be in play but it is all so easy to attack those making life and death decisions from the comfort of one's own home
If it transpires that through the incompetence of the Welsh Assembly Government that people are dying unneccesarily in Wales I will call the negligent bastards out. How dare they put the lives of myself and my family at risk through their bungling.
Sky just outed Prof John Ashton as a labour supporter and he really lost it, objecting that he was not a member of the labour party and has not been in the labour party for the last year.
He asked Sky not to politicise this !!!
Oh the irony
This is the first time I have seen Sky declare the politics of those experts they interview and it is refreshing
Big G, your partisanship is becoming tiresome and dare I say it silly.
I have been given a list of dangerously strenuous (for a man of my years) DIY and gardening tasks which I have been procrastinating over on account of NHS rationing and am barely a quarter through. Time to get to it I think!
With respect you do not need to read my post
And talking about 'silly' is a perfect example of the 'pot calling the kettle black'
I always read your posts Big G. Sometimes I agree, sometimes I don't. In my opinion you have turned the pro-Boris, pro- government rhetoric up to 11 in the last 24 hours.
Right now Boris and HMG is key to this country's immediate future
Of course I will support him and of course opponents will object
It is called
Politics
Why do you support him “of course”?
Oh, given you didn’t care that the government’s lack of pandemic preparedness may have cost untold lives, why am I asking that question?
You throw away comments about respecting lives with utter disdain almost as an act of hate.
It is sad and belittles you
I care for every lost life and if you read my posts that is my constant theme together with compassion
I’m afraid it isn’t. Your constant theme is a servile loyalty to the Conservative party, as illustrated by your hostility to the idea that pandemic preparedness might have been inadequate rather than look at the evidence. Better many people should die than a Conservative government should be seen to have been inadequate.
I do not even know what you are talking about on the pandemic preparedness other than a report was given to Jeremy Hunt and he failed to action it.
No doubt that is part of a conversation to be had at a later date but your hostility to the conservatives is coming from your hate of brexit which has poisioned your attitude to Boris and anything he does
Big G. you would be the first to rightly call for the heads of Drakeford and Gethin if it turns out Covid-19 deaths in Wales occurred through their errors or negligence. You do not apply the same standards to Westminster.
Drakeford and Sturgeon are part of Cobra headed by Boris and following the expert advice. I therefore support them all as they have no choice and if at some stage the advice was wrong then that will have to be addressed
On covid I have no criticism of Sturgeon or Drakeford who have largely acted in sync with Boris
Well I would. If the lack of PPE and testing contribute to any unnecessary deaths in Wales they should be vilified.
Scotland and Wales have devolved health services so lots of variables will be in play but it is all so easy to attack those making life and death decisions from the comfort of one's own home
If it transpires that through the incompetence of the Welsh Assembly Government that people are dying unneccesarily in Wales I will call the negligent bastards out. How dare they put the lives of myself and my family at risk through their bungling.
If true I agree but this is a very complex issue and it has a huge number of variables
Sky just outed Prof John Ashton as a labour supporter and he really lost it, objecting that he was not a member of the labour party and has not been in the labour party for the last year.
He asked Sky not to politicise this !!!
Oh the irony
This is the first time I have seen Sky declare the politics of those experts they interview and it is refreshing
Big G, your partisanship is becoming tiresome and dare I say it silly.
I have been given a list of dangerously strenuous (for a man of my years) DIY and gardening tasks which I have been procrastinating over on account of NHS rationing and am barely a quarter through. Time to get to it I think!
With respect you do not need to read my post
And talking about 'silly' is a perfect example of the 'pot calling the kettle black'
I always read your posts Big G. Sometimes I agree, sometimes I don't. In my opinion you have turned the pro-Boris, pro- government rhetoric up to 11 in the last 24 hours.
Right now Boris and HMG is key to this country's immediate future
Of course I will support him and of course opponents will object
It is called
Politics
Why do you support him “of course”?
Oh, given you didn’t care that the government’s lack of pandemic preparedness may have cost untold lives, why am I asking that question?
You throw away comments about respecting lives with utter disdain almost as an act of hate.
It is sad and belittles you
I care for every lost life and if you read my posts that is my constant theme together with compassion
I’m afraid it isn’t. Your constant theme is a servile loyalty to the Conservative party, as illustrated by your hostility to the idea that pandemic preparedness might have been inadequate rather than look at the evidence. Better many people should die than a Conservative government should be seen to have been inadequate.
I do not even know what you are talking about on the pandemic preparedness other than a report was given to Jeremy Hunt and he failed to action it.
No doubt that is part of a conversation to be had at a later date but your hostility to the conservatives is coming from your hate of brexit which has poisioned your attitude to Boris and anything he does
Big G. you would be the first to rightly call for the heads of Drakeford and Gethin if it turns out Covid-19 deaths in Wales occurred through their errors or negligence. You do not apply the same standards to Westminster.
Drakeford and Sturgeon are part of Cobra headed by Boris and following the expert advice. I therefore support them all as they have no choice and if at some stage the advice was wrong then that will have to be addressed
On covid I have no criticism of Sturgeon or Drakeford who have largely acted in sync with Boris
Well I would. If the lack of PPE and testing contribute to any unnecessary deaths in Wales they should be vilified.
Scotland and Wales have devolved health services so lots of variables will be in play but it is all so easy to attack those making life and death decisions from the comfort of one's own home
If it transpires that through the incompetence of the Welsh Assembly Government that people are dying unneccesarily in Wales I will call the negligent bastards out. How dare they put the lives of myself and my family at risk through their bungling.
If true I agree but this is a very complex issue and it has a huge number of variables
The one constant is if the fools in Cardiff Bay put my family at risk from Covid-19 through their gross incompetence they must be called out. Likewise the Westminster Government.
Great persuasive thread header from Robert Smithson.
Certainly this extract convinced me that the Democrats look virtually certain to win Wisconsin come November:
" And she won with more votes than President Trump got in 2016. I want you to think about that for a second. A Senatorial candidate, in a midterms year, got more votes than the winning Presidential candidate got two years earlier. If anyone can find another example of that, I will send along a 20 pound Amazon voucher. I expect I’ll keep my money.":
I've put my money down for a Democratic win in this State at odds of 8/11 with BetFred (Betfair Sportsbook offer the same odds).
DYOR.
Although I've given four examples on this thread of cases where a Senatorial candidate, in a midterms year, got more votes than a winning Presidential candidate two years earlier. And that with minimal research. So I await my £20!
This may be where underplaying the severity of the outbreak will come back to haunt them. If they had been honest, in all likelihood there would be a continuing decline in cases from the peak. As they clearly haven’t been, however...
Been chatting to a Labour activist this morning, they still think they won the argument and Starmer will be a more presentable face to the same busted policies. If this is the thinking that Labour activists have then it's going to be a long road.
Part of my message to my newly rejoined Labour friends is "your 2019 manifesto was shit". What's more it's pointless talking about 2019 or 2017 or Blair or whatever - that's all the past in a world that doesn't exist any more. They're going to love me...
The political party who grasp both the mood of the public post-Covid and connect with their Hopes and Fears can dominate. All the more reason why a policy platform that had zero Hope but invoked a lot of Fear needs to be buried.
I actually don't think the situation is going to be that different once all of this is over. There will be calls for more strategic reserve for manufacturing and onshoring of supply chains. Other than that I think the vast majority of voters recognise this is an extremely odd situation. It's possible that laws will be written over which programmes are to be instituted and what the eligibility criteria. I don't foresee a huge change in the national psyche that suddenly makes people more liable to vote for socialists.
where do you find all these moths, most I see are the ones that love my wife's cashmere sweaters
LOL.
Purchase yourself a moth trap, Malc. You can amuse yourself for hours - even while observing lockdown. Just think what might be lurking in the dark in Ayrshire....
He's a libertarian tech bro, invented JavaScript. So definitely clever, but with no particular domain expertise in public health or whatever, so follow him and read his stuff but don't assume it's not bollocks just because he's saying it.
Great persuasive thread header from Robert Smithson.
Certainly this extract convinced me that the Democrats look virtually certain to win Wisconsin come November:
" And she won with more votes than President Trump got in 2016. I want you to think about that for a second. A Senatorial candidate, in a midterms year, got more votes than the winning Presidential candidate got two years earlier. If anyone can find another example of that, I will send along a 20 pound Amazon voucher. I expect I’ll keep my money.":
I've put my money down for a Democratic win in this State at odds of 8/11 with BetFred (Betfair Sportsbook offer the same odds).
DYOR.
Although I've given four examples on this thread of cases where a Senatorial candidate, in a midterms year, got more votes than a winning Presidential candidate two years earlier. And that with minimal research. So I await my £20!
Oh, and here's a fifth for you. New Mexico:
2004 Presidential - Bush wins for GOP with 376,930
2006 Senate - Bingaman wins for Democrats with 394,365
An interesting take by Robert. At a stretch and with a smidgen of "confirmation bias" it supports my view that Trump is heading for a shellacking in November.
I strongly believe there are a small but critical mass of Americans in the apolitical centre who either did not vote in 2016 or voted reluctantly for the Donald ("let's try him, you never know") who this time, since now they DO know - that they landed themselves with what is essentially a joke figure in the White House - will vote Dem. If so, given the rather freakish maths which delivered Trump's EC majority, the 2016 result will unwind and then some. He will lose almost every state except the ones he won comfortably last time.
My call is therefore a Dem landslide. I think Trump will struggle to exceed 200 in the EC.
Caveats are two. (1) That the Dems do not allow Joe Biden to run if he is medically incapable due to cognitive impairment. (2) That the Covid-19 crisis does not become so tragic and all consuming that even an individual as palpably unsuited to national political leadership as Donald Trump gets the benefit of "rally around the flag" and "not the time to change" sentiment.
where do you find all these moths, most I see are the ones that love my wife's cashmere sweaters
LOL.
Purchase yourself a moth trap, Malc. You can amuse yourself for hours - even while observing lockdown. Just think what might be lurking in the dark in Ayrshire....
Been chatting to a Labour activist this morning, they still think they won the argument and Starmer will be a more presentable face to the same busted policies. If this is the thinking that Labour activists have then it's going to be a long road.
Part of my message to my newly rejoined Labour friends is "your 2019 manifesto was shit". What's more it's pointless talking about 2019 or 2017 or Blair or whatever - that's all the past in a world that doesn't exist any more. They're going to love me...
The political party who grasp both the mood of the public post-Covid and connect with their Hopes and Fears can dominate. All the more reason why a policy platform that had zero Hope but invoked a lot of Fear needs to be buried.
I actually don't think the situation is going to be that different once all of this is over. There will be calls for more strategic reserve for manufacturing and onshoring of supply chains. Other than that I think the vast majority of voters recognise this is an extremely odd situation. It's possible that laws will be written over which programmes are to be instituted and what the eligibility criteria. I don't foresee a huge change in the national psyche that suddenly makes people more liable to vote for socialists.
If Labour have any sense they will not be offering socialism. They won with pragmatism (Wilson) or centrism (Blair).
I have to say I'm puzzled by this notion that everyone has to declare their political allegiance when they pop up on Sky, the BBC or wherever.
Everybody has a right to a political opinion whether they choose to express it or not. I used to be an LD - it was a rarity to hear or see anyone with whom I agreed. It's easy to create an adversarial scenario - do you want a 5 minute argument or the full half hour as someone once said.
The logical end would be one news network filled by people who only take one side on every issue and another which takes the other side and you can choose to only listen to those people whose opinions and views mirror your own.
Seriously?
There's nothing wrong with having your opinions/prejudices/misconceptions (delete as appropriate) challenged. If you want to know someone's political allegiance so you can disregard their view in advance, that's frankly weak.
I'm happy to hear all sides - if there's one group that doesn't get much representation, it's the mealy-mouthed wishy-washy namby-pamby see the compromise in everything liberals.
All we get are the loudmouthed provocateurs from both Left and Right who are more interesting in getting a rise off the other side than advancing anything approaching an argument.
Eamonn Holmes attacks "mainstream media" for "slapping down" the conspiracy theory about 5G causing coronavirus because it suits the "state narrative"...
Clarification. I don't mean sometimes vote Conservative, I mean hold strong political views that are well right of centre.
Take a random sample of 1000 truly eminent people weighted across various fields - music, the arts, business, the law, science, technology etc.
How many of the 1000 will be decidedly right wing politically?
"Very few", I say. If you want a number, in the range 25 to 50.
And whatever the number is it will be lower than the % of such people in the general population.
Not provable but not a complete load of rubbish. I wouldn't do that.
I would suggest that there would not be a huge difference between the number of experts who hold strong right wing views and those who hold strong left wing views. Institutions, by their very nature, tend to lean to the left but that is only because the left are more comfortable in an institutional environment. At the same time many more who are more right orientated or perhaps more anti-statist (as I do think the right/left axis is obsolete to a large extent) are working in the private sector. They are still leaders in their field and may be making more advances than those in the institutional environment but they tend not to be as high profile given the nature of the environment in which they are working.
If you hate expertise, then experts are going to find it pretty tricky to vote for your party. And before long they're all in another party.
It is interesting that you assume that everyone will have a party affiliation.
I probably should have said 'voting for another party'. In the US, some polls have found that just 6% of scientists identify as Republicans vs. 55% as Democrats.
If that figure of 55% really is for "identifying as Democrats" that is a really high figure. A large number of scientists will vote but not consider themselves "to be a Democrat" we would be looking at a split of 20% voting Rep 70% voting Dem and 10% not voting. (It is reasonable to assume that scientists are more likely to vote than an average adult citizen and that "scientist" means working as a scientist or is a post-graduate in a science subject.)
An interesting take by Robert. At a stretch and with a smidgen of "confirmation bias" it supports my view that Trump is heading for a shellacking in November.
I strongly believe there are a small but critical mass of Americans in the apolitical centre who either did not vote in 2016 or voted reluctantly for the Donald ("let's try him, you never know") who this time, since now they DO know - that they landed themselves with what is essentially a joke figure in the White House - will vote Dem. If so, given the rather freakish maths which delivered Trump's EC majority, the 2016 result will unwind and then some. He will lose almost every state except the ones he won comfortably last time.
My call is therefore a Dem landslide. I think Trump will struggle to exceed 200 in the EC.
Caveats are two. (1) That the Dems do not allow Joe Biden to run if he is medically incapable due to cognitive impairment. (2) That the Covid-19 crisis does not become so tragic and all consuming that even an individual as palpably unsuited to national political leadership as Donald Trump gets the benefit of "rally around the flag" and "not the time to change" sentiment.
Have you read the original post which says that the voting intention polls use 2016 Voters as the sampling population? Robert clais that the apporval ratings are a better guide. On top of that the poll was conducted by Trump's favourite news corporation.
Fox's polling operation is pretty good, I don't have many worries about it.
Eamonn Holmes attacks "mainstream media" for "slapping down" the conspiracy theory about 5G causing coronavirus because it suits the "state narrative"...
Eamonn Holmes attacks "mainstream media" for "slapping down" the conspiracy theory about 5G causing coronavirus because it suits the "state narrative"...
He's a libertarian tech bro, invented JavaScript. So definitely clever, but with no particular domain expertise in public health or whatever, so follow him and read his stuff but don't assume it's not bollocks just because he's saying it.
He seems to miss two important factors which are that we have not necessarily had a clear idea of who the vulnerable cohorts are until very recently and also that to protect them it may still be necessary (I would suggest IS necessary) to have much of the country including any of those who are not at highest risk under some form of restraint.
Government's, through absolutely no fault of their own, are simply not able to make the sort of very refined, targeted conditions that would be necessary to protect the vulnerable whilst allowing the rest to go about life as normal. I am not sure any organisation could do that and certainly not in the short timescale that was needed.
If you hate expertise, then experts are going to find it pretty tricky to vote for your party. And before long they're all in another party.
It is interesting that you assume that everyone will have a party affiliation.
I probably should have said 'voting for another party'. In the US, some polls have found that just 6% of scientists identify as Republicans vs. 55% as Democrats.
If that figure of 55% really is for "identifying as Democrats" that is a really high figure. A large number of scientists will vote but not consider themselves "to be a Democrat" we would be looking at a split of 20% voting Rep 70% voting Dem and 10% not voting. (It is reasonable to assume that scientists are more likely to vote than an average adult citizen and that "scientist" means working as a scientist or is a post-graduate in a science subject.)
If you hate expertise, then experts are going to find it pretty tricky to vote for your party. And before long they're all in another party.
It is interesting that you assume that everyone will have a party affiliation.
I probably should have said 'voting for another party'. In the US, some polls have found that just 6% of scientists identify as Republicans vs. 55% as Democrats.
If that figure of 55% really is for "identifying as Democrats" that is a really high figure. A large number of scientists will vote but not consider themselves "to be a Democrat" we would be looking at a split of 20% voting Rep 70% voting Dem and 10% not voting. (It is reasonable to assume that scientists are more likely to vote than an average adult citizen and that "scientist" means working as a scientist or is a post-graduate in a science subject.)
If you hate expertise, then experts are going to find it pretty tricky to vote for your party. And before long they're all in another party.
It is interesting that you assume that everyone will have a party affiliation.
I probably should have said 'voting for another party'. In the US, some polls have found that just 6% of scientists identify as Republicans vs. 55% as Democrats.
If that figure of 55% really is for "identifying as Democrats" that is a really high figure. A large number of scientists will vote but not consider themselves "to be a Democrat" we would be looking at a split of 20% voting Rep 70% voting Dem and 10% not voting. (It is reasonable to assume that scientists are more likely to vote than an average adult citizen and that "scientist" means working as a scientist or is a post-graduate in a science subject.)
Science is true whether you believe it or not. It's the Republicans that have to change.
There is however also a problem when those who call themselves scientists do not work scientifically and veer into advocacy and politics.
All science is inherently political. It's futile to try to decouple the two, and indeed science needs political advocacy just as much as any other interest does.
Eamonn Holmes attacks "mainstream media" for "slapping down" the conspiracy theory about 5G causing coronavirus because it suits the "state narrative"...
Experts from both left and right certainly bring their politics to the table with their opinions don't be so damn naive. There are plenty of ways to present facts that whilst not untrue are definitely misleading. Knowing the affiliation is crucial to being fully informed.
Example: An expert in renewable energy commenting on a new scheme will highlight some facts as more important than others or even omit others depending on whether they are an XR guy, a green party guy, a labour guy, or a tory guy.
All the facts will be true. All will paint a different picture by what is omitted or downplayed.
Anyone saying strong affiliation with an ideology is not important in experts and we don't need to know is basically saying "Hey we don't need full information"
You introduce something worse. The majority of people watching that debate on renewable energy will not know much about the subject. But they WILL have political views. So if you flash up on screen "Marcus is a true blue tory" as said Marcus is holding forth, making his well constructed arguments either for or against the new scheme, all of those viewers who are both Corbynite and clueless about the technicalities of green energy (the combination is possible, trust me) will tune him out. They will grade his contribution based not on what he is (an expert) but on who he is - a tory. This will corrupt public discourse beyond redemption. Look at America. It's grotesque.
Sky just outed Prof John Ashton as a labour supporter and he really lost it, objecting that he was not a member of the labour party and has not been in the labour party for the last year.
He asked Sky not to politicise this !!!
Oh the irony
This is the first time I have seen Sky declare the politics of those experts they interview and it is refreshing
Feels like going down the Fox News route. Not good. Do we now have to question every expert affiliation and have Tory facts and Labour facts?
Comparing Sky to Fox news is a nonsense
It is correct for impartial broadcasting that those invited to express their opinion should be introduced on their political allegiance whether it be right, left or centre
It really isn’t. This way madness lies.
Why are you scared of transparency
“Chris Whity and Sir Patrick Valance, thank you for coming on the programme. Before we explore the government’s policy on CV19, it is important for transparency for our audience to know who you voted for in the December 2019 election.”
It does not achieve transparency, it simply forces any issue to be looked at through a partisan lens.
Utter madness.
Absolutely. Who knows, they may say LD and what would that do for the nation's morale?
The point is to clearly identify the affiliations of the hordes of ostensibly 'impartial' invitees.
Why would you be afraid of such transparency for the viewing public?
Why would you insist on it? Are you going to dismiss someone's analysis because they are a member of a political party which you don't support?
What of people who are independent or non-aligned or does everyone have to disclose how they voted at the last election or should people be compelled to reveal how they voted before they appear on Sky, the BBC or wherever?
If you hate expertise, then experts are going to find it pretty tricky to vote for your party. And before long they're all in another party.
It is interesting that you assume that everyone will have a party affiliation.
I probably should have said 'voting for another party'. In the US, some polls have found that just 6% of scientists identify as Republicans vs. 55% as Democrats.
If that figure of 55% really is for "identifying as Democrats" that is a really high figure. A large number of scientists will vote but not consider themselves "to be a Democrat" we would be looking at a split of 20% voting Rep 70% voting Dem and 10% not voting. (It is reasonable to assume that scientists are more likely to vote than an average adult citizen and that "scientist" means working as a scientist or is a post-graduate in a science subject.)
He's a libertarian tech bro, invented JavaScript. So definitely clever, but with no particular domain expertise in public health or whatever, so follow him and read his stuff but don't assume it's not bollocks just because he's saying it.
He seems to miss two important factors which are that we have not necessarily had a clear idea of who the vulnerable cohorts are until very recently and also that to protect them it may still be necessary (I would suggest IS necessary) to have much of the country including any of those who are not at highest risk under some form of restraint.
Government's, through absolutely no fault of their own, are simply not able to make the sort of very refined, targeted conditions that would be necessary to protect the vulnerable whilst allowing the rest to go about life as normal. I am not sure any organisation could do that and certainly not in the short timescale that was needed.
Also, in terms of vulnerability, it's a continuous function rather than a binary one. As a 39 year old I'm definitely less at risk than if I was 78, but with a BMI of > 35 (and not being a rugby player) I'm also definitely more at risk than if my BMI was < 30.
What about the poor saps who end up being the most vulnerable people who aren't vulnerable enough to be protected?
Take a random sample of 1000 truly eminent people weighted across various fields - music, the arts, business, the law, science, technology etc.
Even the term "eminent" is problematic, just who decides this? and as for the field selection...
To caveat my comments, some of the clear bias in guest selection is quite likely to be unintentional. e.g. BBC newspaper reviews tend to alternate between Guardian journo and lefty academic. I suspect often this simply because in a tight corner they just ring up a friend.
Catching up with Steve Richards's 'Left out of power' on R4. Gloria De Piero comes across as really getting the mess Labour is in with its core vote. She's a loss to the party.
What is the 5G conspiracy theory. I assume it cannot be that the virus actually travels over the airwaves, so must be that it makes us all weaker and more vulnerable to infection?
Experts from both left and right certainly bring their politics to the table with their opinions don't be so damn naive. There are plenty of ways to present facts that whilst not untrue are definitely misleading. Knowing the affiliation is crucial to being fully informed.
Example: An expert in renewable energy commenting on a new scheme will highlight some facts as more important than others or even omit others depending on whether they are an XR guy, a green party guy, a labour guy, or a tory guy.
All the facts will be true. All will paint a different picture by what is omitted or downplayed.
Anyone saying strong affiliation with an ideology is not important in experts and we don't need to know is basically saying "Hey we don't need full information"
You introduce something worse. The majority of people watching that debate on renewable energy will not know much about the subject. But they WILL have political views. So if you flash up on screen "Marcus is a true blue tory" as said Marcus is holding forth, making his well constructed arguments either for or against the new scheme, all of those viewers who are both Corbynite and clueless about the technicalities of green energy (the combination is possible, trust me) will tune him out. They will grade his contribution based not on what he is (an expert) but on who he is - a tory. This will corrupt public discourse beyond redemption. Look at America. It's grotesque.
So you prefer to treat people as children rather than give them the information they need to know to look critically at what someone is saying and judge where facts may have been slanted or omitted.....a typical hard left attitude...people can't be trusted they might not come to the "right" conclusion
What is the 5G conspiracy theory. I assume it cannot be that the virus actually travels over the airwaves, so must be that it makes us all weaker and more vulnerable to infection?
Strong version: there is no virus at all, what people are suffering from is the direct effect of 5G radio waves.
Weak version: 5G saps the immune system, making us all susceptible to the virus.
What is the 5G conspiracy theory. I assume it cannot be that the virus actually travels over the airwaves, so must be that it makes us all weaker and more vulnerable to infection?
One conspiracy is that apparently there's no virus at all and this is all about us reacting to 5G, or some such rubbish, but I think for most it is as you say, which is a longstanding kind of position well before 5G even, about no proof that mobile masts and the like are not not hazadous to our health.
I've already had an FOI request for details about 5G health checks.
If you hate expertise, then experts are going to find it pretty tricky to vote for your party. And before long they're all in another party.
It is interesting that you assume that everyone will have a party affiliation.
I probably should have said 'voting for another party'. In the US, some polls have found that just 6% of scientists identify as Republicans vs. 55% as Democrats.
If that figure of 55% really is for "identifying as Democrats" that is a really high figure. A large number of scientists will vote but not consider themselves "to be a Democrat" we would be looking at a split of 20% voting Rep 70% voting Dem and 10% not voting. (It is reasonable to assume that scientists are more likely to vote than an average adult citizen and that "scientist" means working as a scientist or is a post-graduate in a science subject.)
Science is true whether you believe it or not. It's the Republicans that have to change.
"Science is true" is a statement without any significant meaning whatever.
"Archaeology is the search for fact… not truth. If it's truth you're looking for, Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall." - Indiana Jones.
If you hate expertise, then experts are going to find it pretty tricky to vote for your party. And before long they're all in another party.
It is interesting that you assume that everyone will have a party affiliation.
I probably should have said 'voting for another party'. In the US, some polls have found that just 6% of scientists identify as Republicans vs. 55% as Democrats.
If that figure of 55% really is for "identifying as Democrats" that is a really high figure. A large number of scientists will vote but not consider themselves "to be a Democrat" we would be looking at a split of 20% voting Rep 70% voting Dem and 10% not voting. (It is reasonable to assume that scientists are more likely to vote than an average adult citizen and that "scientist" means working as a scientist or is a post-graduate in a science subject.)
Science is true whether you believe it or not. It's the Republicans that have to change.
There is however also a problem when those who call themselves scientists do not work scientifically and veer into advocacy and politics.
All science is inherently political. It's futile to try to decouple the two, and indeed science needs political advocacy just as much as any other interest does.
That is simply wrong.
Practicing science is based on the principle of the scientific method. If you do not adhere to this method then you are not acting as a scientist. Politics has no place in this. That is where so many people go fundamentally wrong.
Why would you insist on it? Are you going to dismiss someone's analysis because they are a member of a political party which you don't support?
Well yes if, say, the Beeb back up a Boris-is-evil story with an "independent expert" who turns out to be a Labour party official, and hence neither independent nor expert.
Does everyone have to disclose how they voted at the last election or should people be compelled to reveal how they voted before they appear on Sky, the BBC or wherever?
To the broadcaster? Why not?
More openness is a good thing, and it might just encourage a move to genuine balance in reporting.
Eamonn Holmes attacks "mainstream media" for "slapping down" the conspiracy theory about 5G causing coronavirus because it suits the "state narrative"...
What is the 5G conspiracy theory. I assume it cannot be that the virus actually travels over the airwaves, so must be that it makes us all weaker and more vulnerable to infection?
Strong version: there is no virus at all, what people are suffering from is the direct effect of 5G radio waves.
Weak version: 5G saps the immune system, making us all susceptible to the virus.
All it needs to be disproved is a virus hotspot that doesn't have any 5G.
There must be several around by now, does anyone know of one?
where do you find all these moths, most I see are the ones that love my wife's cashmere sweaters
malcy, there's 2,600 species of moth in the UK - and only 2 will chew clothes. They are both tiny, even for micro moths. If you can tell it is a moth with the naked eye, then the cashmere should be safe.
The rest of your veg garden though? Maybe not so much.....
Put out a bright light and white sheet behind it, on a warm still night without a full moon, and you shoud find plenty of moths. Any time between April and October.
For a functioning democracy we are better with an informed demos. Given that why when some argue that we should give voters more information are you arguing that we shouldn't?
One issue is that actual experts screw up because they are the wrong sort of experts. Bringing this back to the important question, ‘how did we make such a massive mistake as to waste a week toying with herd immunity?’
The reports say that SAGE was divided, with clinicians and epidemiologists saying it was crazy and, on the other side, behavioural scientists and mathematical modellers saying, no it will be fine. Just look at that division and it beggars belief that each side was treated equally. At the time I exploded at the naivety of the latter and, as it turns out, they have been wrong, disastrously wrong, and they are now responsible not just for the extra thousands of deaths but also in elongating the lockdown for a long time yet, having let the virus spread enough to make it so.
Listening to the wrong sort of experts is why we are where we are now,
where do you find all these moths, most I see are the ones that love my wife's cashmere sweaters
LOL.
Purchase yourself a moth trap, Malc. You can amuse yourself for hours - even while observing lockdown. Just think what might be lurking in the dark in Ayrshire....
'Just think what might be lurking in the dark in Ayrshire....'
Or read Tam 'O Shanter. Young ladies in very short skirts.
A small but pedantic point, if I may: a sark is a shift or chemise (in the context of female dress, a shirt in a male dress context). Item 3 here refers.
Ah; thanks. Did this poem for O level back in mid 1950's and I suspect the English master would not wish to have been so pedantic with 15 year old boys. The idea of a short skirt was rousing enough! Obviously much shorter than the skies of the girls at the school next door, with whom we were discouraged from associating.
It's what I always understood, from reading about the derivation of the name ofg the clipper ship Cutty Sark (= fastest of the witches), but I did check the DSL anyway out of interest as it suddenly occurred to me to wonder if Ayrshire Scots was different in that meaning.
What is the 5G conspiracy theory. I assume it cannot be that the virus actually travels over the airwaves, so must be that it makes us all weaker and more vulnerable to infection?
Strong version: there is no virus at all, what people are suffering from is the direct effect of 5G radio waves.
Weak version: 5G saps the immune system, making us all susceptible to the virus.
All it needs to be disproved is a virus hotspot that doesn't have any 5G.
There must be several around by now, does anyone know of one?
I assume Iran doesn't have any 5G.
Well, yes and no.
You're obviously right, but there is no point arguing with a conspiracy theorist as their response is just to come up with some additional layer of bullsh1t. Their can't be "disproved" in their own minds as they just don't work in that way.
Eamonn Holmes attacks "mainstream media" for "slapping down" the conspiracy theory about 5G causing coronavirus because it suits the "state narrative"...
I would suggest that there would not be a huge difference between the number of experts who hold strong right wing views and those who hold strong left wing views. Institutions, by their very nature, tend to lean to the left but that is only because the left are more comfortable in an institutional environment. At the same time many more who are more right orientated or perhaps more anti-statist (as I do think the right/left axis is obsolete to a large extent) are working in the private sector. They are still leaders in their field and may be making more advances than those in the institutional environment but they tend not to be as high profile given the nature of the environment in which they are working.
Right. But a couple of things -
Institutions lean naturally to the left and the left are more comfortable in institutions? No, I can't go with that. Not many socialists in many of this country's venerable institutions.
And I sense you're under-weighting the whole arts and creative and social sciences side. There are more left-wingers at the top in business than right-wingers writing great plays, if I can put it that way.
Those 1000 random experts -
200 left wing 350 left of centre 175 apolitical 200 right of centre 75 right wing
What is the 5G conspiracy theory. I assume it cannot be that the virus actually travels over the airwaves, so must be that it makes us all weaker and more vulnerable to infection?
One conspiracy is that apparently there's no virus at all and this is all about us reacting to 5G, or some such rubbish, but I think for most it is as you say, which is a longstanding kind of position well before 5G even, about no proof that mobile masts and the like are not not hazadous to our health.
I've already had an FOI request for details about 5G health checks.
He's a libertarian tech bro, invented JavaScript. So definitely clever, but with no particular domain expertise in public health or whatever, so follow him and read his stuff but don't assume it's not bollocks just because he's saying it.
He seems to miss two important factors which are that we have not necessarily had a clear idea of who the vulnerable cohorts are until very recently and also that to protect them it may still be necessary (I would suggest IS necessary) to have much of the country including any of those who are not at highest risk under some form of restraint.
Government's, through absolutely no fault of their own, are simply not able to make the sort of very refined, targeted conditions that would be necessary to protect the vulnerable whilst allowing the rest to go about life as normal. I am not sure any organisation could do that and certainly not in the short timescale that was needed.
Also, in terms of vulnerability, it's a continuous function rather than a binary one. As a 39 year old I'm definitely less at risk than if I was 78, but with a BMI of > 35 (and not being a rugby player) I'm also definitely more at risk than if my BMI was < 30.
What about the poor saps who end up being the most vulnerable people who aren't vulnerable enough to be protected?
It's also the case that just because some demographics are more vulnerable than others doesn't make the less vulnerable demographics safe.
Say, for the sake of argument, all over-forties were magically immune to coronavirus. Should we let the virus rip? After all, those in their thirties, twenties, and younger are less vulnerable?
Except that a third of a million people in this country being ill enough to be hospitalised (a significant proportion bearing the damage from it for a long time - possibly the rest of their lives), with 30,000-40,000 deaths would count as a horrifying outcome for many. Maybe some might say it's a price worth paying; I don't know - but we should have the scenario in mind if we were to consider it properly.
Just because some people are comparatively less at risk doesn't make them not at risk.
The comparison tendency is a well-known bias/heuristic in psychology/behavioural economics. And it can lead the brightest of us to an absolutist tendency ("X is less damaging than Y; therefore X is not damaging")
If you hate expertise, then experts are going to find it pretty tricky to vote for your party. And before long they're all in another party.
It is interesting that you assume that everyone will have a party affiliation.
I probably should have said 'voting for another party'. In the US, some polls have found that just 6% of scientists identify as Republicans vs. 55% as Democrats.
If that figure of 55% really is for "identifying as Democrats" that is a really high figure. A large number of scientists will vote but not consider themselves "to be a Democrat" we would be looking at a split of 20% voting Rep 70% voting Dem and 10% not voting. (It is reasonable to assume that scientists are more likely to vote than an average adult citizen and that "scientist" means working as a scientist or is a post-graduate in a science subject.)
Science is true whether you believe it or not. It's the Republicans that have to change.
"Science is true" is a statement without any significant meaning whatever.
No, the meaning is fairly clear, even if it was poorly expressed. Republicans can ignore or deny science, defund or obstruct it, but none of that will alter the validity of the scientific process.
This does not read well, Better Together? "pooling and sharing resources," they said in 2014. Turns out that means the 4 biggest PPE providers in the UK REFUSING TO SHIP TO SCOTTISH CARE HOMES AND CONCENTRATING ON ENGLAND ONLY!
Eamonn Holmes attacks "mainstream media" for "slapping down" the conspiracy theory about 5G causing coronavirus because it suits the "state narrative"...
“We have a culture here in Germany that is actually not supporting a centralized diagnostic system,” Drosten said. “So Germany does not have a public health laboratory that would restrict other labs from doing the tests. So we had an open market from the beginning.”
"80% of all people infected in Germany are younger than 60, the Robert Koch Institute said on Monday, indicating that the outbreak hasn’t yet taken hold in older people, where the risk of death is much higher. In Spain the number of affected over-60s is around 50%."
This article is a couple of weeks old. Be interesting to know if the 80% stat is still anywhere near true.
Have the UK done a particularly bad job at shielding oldies? Did they not listen and carried on with normal life too long?
We know in the UK, 1/3 of ICU patients are ethnic minorities. Wonder what the age demographic is? Are they for instance more weighted towards elderly Asians, who are much more likely to a) be devotedly religious and b) live in multi-generational households.
What is the 5G conspiracy theory. I assume it cannot be that the virus actually travels over the airwaves, so must be that it makes us all weaker and more vulnerable to infection?
One conspiracy is that apparently there's no virus at all and this is all about us reacting to 5G, or some such rubbish, but I think for most it is as you say, which is a longstanding kind of position well before 5G even, about no proof that mobile masts and the like are not not hazadous to our health.
I've already had an FOI request for details about 5G health checks.
4G was responsible for swine flu and 3G for SARS.
True fact.
Our addiction to smartphones is certainly not a good thing.
He's a libertarian tech bro, invented JavaScript. So definitely clever, but with no particular domain expertise in public health or whatever, so follow him and read his stuff but don't assume it's not bollocks just because he's saying it.
He seems to miss two important factors which are that we have not necessarily had a clear idea of who the vulnerable cohorts are until very recently and also that to protect them it may still be necessary (I would suggest IS necessary) to have much of the country including any of those who are not at highest risk under some form of restraint.
Government's, through absolutely no fault of their own, are simply not able to make the sort of very refined, targeted conditions that would be necessary to protect the vulnerable whilst allowing the rest to go about life as normal. I am not sure any organisation could do that and certainly not in the short timescale that was needed.
Also, in terms of vulnerability, it's a continuous function rather than a binary one. As a 39 year old I'm definitely less at risk than if I was 78, but with a BMI of > 35 (and not being a rugby player) I'm also definitely more at risk than if my BMI was < 30.
What about the poor saps who end up being the most vulnerable people who aren't vulnerable enough to be protected?
I don’t know if you saw the ‘scorecard’ for dealing with COVID patients posted late last night? It gave numbers for various matters such as age, physical condition, co-morbidities and so on. Adding them up then suggested what sort of treatment you would receive, Maybe that could be done for the population, so the lowest scores were released from lockdown first, the next number a month later and so on? In the meantime a month would allow for any rise and fall in infection.
This does not read well, Better Together? "pooling and sharing resources," they said in 2014. Turns out that means the 4 biggest PPE providers in the UK REFUSING TO SHIP TO SCOTTISH CARE HOMES AND CONCENTRATING ON ENGLAND ONLY!
Same thing reported on the TV news in Wales late last week.
Been chatting to a Labour activist this morning, they still think they won the argument and Starmer will be a more presentable face to the same busted policies. If this is the thinking that Labour activists have then it's going to be a long road.
Part of my message to my newly rejoined Labour friends is "your 2019 manifesto was shit". What's more it's pointless talking about 2019 or 2017 or Blair or whatever - that's all the past in a world that doesn't exist any more. They're going to love me...
The political party who grasp both the mood of the public post-Covid and connect with their Hopes and Fears can dominate. All the more reason why a policy platform that had zero Hope but invoked a lot of Fear needs to be buried.
I actually don't think the situation is going to be that different once all of this is over. There will be calls for more strategic reserve for manufacturing and onshoring of supply chains. Other than that I think the vast majority of voters recognise this is an extremely odd situation. It's possible that laws will be written over which programmes are to be instituted and what the eligibility criteria. I don't foresee a huge change in the national psyche that suddenly makes people more liable to vote for socialists.
If Labour have any sense they will not be offering socialism. They won with pragmatism (Wilson) or centrism (Blair).
"Socialism" means what exactly? Politics is about selling a narrative. And as soon as you have to spend time explaining what your pitch is about you've lost the audience.
The watershed changes I referred to are there to be seen. People don't have to commute to an office to do a desk job. Expect a steady move away from 5 days a week in the office roles with all that entails for transportation, support businesses etc. People have discovered that collective effort for a common cause is worth a little self sacrifice. I don't think people will be as self-absorbed and self-centred as we have seen in recent decades.
And finally the environment. The transformation in air quality is stunning. Finding ways to cut traffic levels and with it pollution for good feels like a key societal driver. Say goodbye to HS2 and the Heathrow runway. Say goodbye to anything other than accident black spot road schemes - getting less travel happening rather than making it easier will be the driver. We've seen governments set out unlikely targets on both emissions and polluting vehicles - unlikely no more. They'll be pulled forward.
None of these things are about getting people to "vote for socialists" - Supermac campaigned proudly on how many hundreds of thousands of council houses his Conservative government had built...
Eamonn Holmes attacks "mainstream media" for "slapping down" the conspiracy theory about 5G causing coronavirus because it suits the "state narrative"...
An interesting take by Robert. At a stretch and with a smidgen of "confirmation bias" it supports my view that Trump is heading for a shellacking in November.
I strongly believe there are a small but critical mass of Americans in the apolitical centre who either did not vote in 2016 or voted reluctantly for the Donald ("let's try him, you never know") who this time, since now they DO know - that they landed themselves with what is essentially a joke figure in the White House - will vote Dem. If so, given the rather freakish maths which delivered Trump's EC majority, the 2016 result will unwind and then some. He will lose almost every state except the ones he won comfortably last time.
My call is therefore a Dem landslide. I think Trump will struggle to exceed 200 in the EC.
Caveats are two. (1) That the Dems do not allow Joe Biden to run if he is medically incapable due to cognitive impairment. (2) That the Covid-19 crisis does not become so tragic and all consuming that even an individual as palpably unsuited to national political leadership as Donald Trump gets the benefit of "rally around the flag" and "not the time to change" sentiment.
Given the utter horlicks the state government is making of just about everything in Florida, and that the governor is a Trump MiniMe, I don’t rate Trump’s chances very high there.
Eamonn Holmes attacks "mainstream media" for "slapping down" the conspiracy theory about 5G causing coronavirus because it suits the "state narrative"...
Comments
GMG Ventures, the Guardian's venture capital business that was set up in 2017, has invested in London AI start-up Faculty as part of an £8m funding round.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2019/11/29/home-office-partner-faculty-raises-fresh-cash-investors-pile/
I think that is more the preserve of those "out looking for bagders" though.
He doesn't even have a GCSE in maths.
The idea of a short skirt was rousing enough! Obviously much shorter than the skies of the girls at the school next door, with whom we were discouraged from associating.
The political party who grasp both the mood of the public post-Covid and connect with their Hopes and Fears can dominate. All the more reason why a policy platform that had zero Hope but invoked a lot of Fear needs to be buried.
People will be poorer than they are now, and many more will have had first-hand experience of our benefits system.
I'm guessing that this will benefit Labour in the long run.
My work includes discussions with Ministers - over the last year including half a dozen quite well-known ones - as I have some specialist information that is useful. They know that I'm a Labour activist - chair of my CLP, leader of the group on the council Executive - but also that they can trust me to work with them on projects that have numerous non-partisan elements. If I think they're doing the job well, I'll say so - as I have with Michael Gove, many times - without in the least meaning that I'll vote for them. Elections are one thing, but in between there are jobs to be done and problems to be solved. Not everything is about party politics.
I don't have a problem with my Labour involvement being known, but not everyone is comfortable talking about their opinions, and why should they be? I think an acrual register would focus too much attention on general allegiance and not enough on commitment to working constructively.
As I pointed out in an earlier discussion the UK has 23 times more infections per head than Japan and we have 150 times more deaths per head than Japan. But you chose to argue that Japan has no right to criticise us because we have done more testing. That is true but it is also intellectually dishonest.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/13/irans-president-has-left-nation-open-to-second-covid-19-wave-critics
This may be where underplaying the severity of the outbreak will come back to haunt them. If they had been honest, in all likelihood there would be a continuing decline in cases from the peak. As they clearly haven’t been, however...
https://twitter.com/brendaneich/status/1249579188933120002?s=21
Why would you be afraid of such transparency for the viewing public?
2004 Presidential - Bush wins for GOP with 376,930
2006 Senate - Bingaman wins for Democrats with 394,365
Ah, my coat...
Take a random sample of 1000 truly eminent people weighted across various fields - music, the arts, business, the law, science, technology etc.
How many of the 1000 will be decidedly right wing politically?
"Very few", I say. If you want a number, in the range 25 to 50.
And whatever the number is it will be lower than the % of such people in the general population.
Not provable but not a complete load of rubbish. I wouldn't do that.
I have to say I'm puzzled by this notion that everyone has to declare their political allegiance when they pop up on Sky, the BBC or wherever.
Everybody has a right to a political opinion whether they choose to express it or not. I used to be an LD - it was a rarity to hear or see anyone with whom I agreed. It's easy to create an adversarial scenario - do you want a 5 minute argument or the full half hour as someone once said.
The logical end would be one news network filled by people who only take one side on every issue and another which takes the other side and you can choose to only listen to those people whose opinions and views mirror your own.
Seriously?
There's nothing wrong with having your opinions/prejudices/misconceptions (delete as appropriate) challenged. If you want to know someone's political allegiance so you can disregard their view in advance, that's frankly weak.
I'm happy to hear all sides - if there's one group that doesn't get much representation, it's the mealy-mouthed wishy-washy namby-pamby see the compromise in everything liberals.
All we get are the loudmouthed provocateurs from both Left and Right who are more interesting in getting a rise off the other side than advancing anything approaching an argument.
https://twitter.com/gamray/status/1249639419369357312
It's the Republicans that have to change.
Government's, through absolutely no fault of their own, are simply not able to make the sort of very refined, targeted conditions that would be necessary to protect the vulnerable whilst allowing the rest to go about life as normal. I am not sure any organisation could do that and certainly not in the short timescale that was needed.
Who knows, they may say LD and what would that do for the nation's morale?
What of people who are independent or non-aligned or does everyone have to disclose how they voted at the last election or should people be compelled to reveal how they voted before they appear on Sky, the BBC or wherever?
What about the poor saps who end up being the most vulnerable people who aren't vulnerable enough to be protected?
To caveat my comments, some of the clear bias in guest selection is quite likely to be unintentional. e.g. BBC newspaper reviews tend to alternate between Guardian journo and lefty academic. I suspect often this simply because in a tight corner they just ring up a friend.
Weak version: 5G saps the immune system, making us all susceptible to the virus.
I've already had an FOI request for details about 5G health checks.
- Indiana Jones.
Practicing science is based on the principle of the scientific method. If you do not adhere to this method then you are not acting as a scientist. Politics has no place in this. That is where so many people go fundamentally wrong.
More openness is a good thing, and it might just encourage a move to genuine balance in reporting.
There must be several around by now, does anyone know of one?
I assume Iran doesn't have any 5G.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Field-Guide-Moths-Britain-Ireland/dp/0953139980
For a functioning democracy we are better with an informed demos. Given that why when some argue that we should give voters more information are you arguing that we shouldn't?
The reports say that SAGE was divided, with clinicians and epidemiologists saying it was crazy and, on the other side, behavioural scientists and mathematical modellers saying, no it will be fine. Just look at that division and it beggars belief that each side was treated equally. At the time I exploded at the naivety of the latter and, as it turns out, they have been wrong, disastrously wrong, and they are now responsible not just for the extra thousands of deaths but also in elongating the lockdown for a long time yet, having let the virus spread enough to make it so.
Listening to the wrong sort of experts is why we are where we are now,
The ship was named after the poem.........
https://www.rmg.co.uk/cutty-sark/history/why-ships-name-cutty-sark
You're obviously right, but there is no point arguing with a conspiracy theorist as their response is just to come up with some additional layer of bullsh1t. Their can't be "disproved" in their own minds as they just don't work in that way.
I am starting to feel I have been underestimating human stupidity by an order of magnitude for most of my life.
Institutions lean naturally to the left and the left are more comfortable in institutions? No, I can't go with that. Not many socialists in many of this country's venerable institutions.
And I sense you're under-weighting the whole arts and creative and social sciences side. There are more left-wingers at the top in business than right-wingers writing great plays, if I can put it that way.
Those 1000 random experts -
200 left wing
350 left of centre
175 apolitical
200 right of centre
75 right wing
That's my best shot.
True fact.
Say, for the sake of argument, all over-forties were magically immune to coronavirus. Should we let the virus rip? After all, those in their thirties, twenties, and younger are less vulnerable?
Except that a third of a million people in this country being ill enough to be hospitalised (a significant proportion bearing the damage from it for a long time - possibly the rest of their lives), with 30,000-40,000 deaths would count as a horrifying outcome for many. Maybe some might say it's a price worth paying; I don't know - but we should have the scenario in mind if we were to consider it properly.
Just because some people are comparatively less at risk doesn't make them not at risk.
The comparison tendency is a well-known bias/heuristic in psychology/behavioural economics. And it can lead the brightest of us to an absolutist tendency ("X is less damaging than Y; therefore X is not damaging")
Republicans can ignore or deny science, defund or obstruct it, but none of that will alter the validity of the scientific process.
Better Together? "pooling and sharing resources," they said in 2014. Turns out that means the 4 biggest PPE providers in the UK REFUSING TO SHIP TO SCOTTISH CARE HOMES AND CONCENTRATING ON ENGLAND ONLY!
“We have a culture here in Germany that is actually not supporting a centralized diagnostic system,” Drosten said. “So Germany does not have a public health laboratory that would restrict other labs from doing the tests. So we had an open market from the beginning.”
"80% of all people infected in Germany are younger than 60, the Robert Koch Institute said on Monday, indicating that the outbreak hasn’t yet taken hold in older people, where the risk of death is much higher. In Spain the number of affected over-60s is around 50%."
https://www.businessinsider.nl/germany-why-coronavirus-death-rate-lower-italy-spain-test-healthcare-2020-3?international=true&r=US
This article is a couple of weeks old. Be interesting to know if the 80% stat is still anywhere near true.
Have the UK done a particularly bad job at shielding oldies? Did they not listen and carried on with normal life too long?
We know in the UK, 1/3 of ICU patients are ethnic minorities. Wonder what the age demographic is? Are they for instance more weighted towards elderly Asians, who are much more likely to a) be devotedly religious and b) live in multi-generational households.
The watershed changes I referred to are there to be seen. People don't have to commute to an office to do a desk job. Expect a steady move away from 5 days a week in the office roles with all that entails for transportation, support businesses etc. People have discovered that collective effort for a common cause is worth a little self sacrifice. I don't think people will be as self-absorbed and self-centred as we have seen in recent decades.
And finally the environment. The transformation in air quality is stunning. Finding ways to cut traffic levels and with it pollution for good feels like a key societal driver. Say goodbye to HS2 and the Heathrow runway. Say goodbye to anything other than accident black spot road schemes - getting less travel happening rather than making it easier will be the driver. We've seen governments set out unlikely targets on both emissions and polluting vehicles - unlikely no more. They'll be pulled forward.
None of these things are about getting people to "vote for socialists" - Supermac campaigned proudly on how many hundreds of thousands of council houses his Conservative government had built...
I’m sure more than 10% of Labour’s leadership are upper class.
He’s an irredeemably shallow eejit.