Looking forward to the inquest into 2019 GE, when the leadership were allegedly funnelling money to the seats with pro-Corbyn candidates irrespective of whether they were targets or not.
Anybody still thinks we are going to get a South Korean type system without certain sections of the media making a hell of a racket and special interest grouping mounting long winded legal challenges....
Somebody clearly very keen to leak to the Guardian all this.
Surely the major problem with this app is that it is next to useless unless it is compulsory. A compulsory app and compulsory use of a smartphone if you are outside your house would work. Someone needs to buy me a smartphone, though.
Making smartphone possession and download of apps I think is a step that goes far too far
The choice being between, on the one hand, relative safety plus free movement or, on the other, either a longer lockdown or having to gamble with your health/life? Surely the vast majority of people would prefer the former?
What percentage of people would have to install the app though? I know I wouldn't but then I don't carry my phone with me anyway when out and about
Even 95% takeup would suggest that every time 20 people meet then that group could be compromised. Could businesses make it a condition of employment?
Isn't one approach to start lockdown relaxation by allowing it first to people willing to carry a phone with the app? We could all choose whether the surveillance was so worrying that we preferred to stay at home until further relaxation later. I'd guess that most people would be OK with it, and that would get the economy off the floor.
How would you enforce this? You would need to spy on all those out and about to check if they have the app / bluetooth is on.
You would also need to spy on them to check they had their fricking phones on them.
This assumes that everyone has a smartphone. More people than you might think don't have one. A lot of people manage with old-fashioned phones that just do calls and text messages.
Send the old dears a phone.
Ed you are a fantastic and thoughtful poster; one of the need to listen to PB contributors. But you are developing a tadge of the Expatus Brexititus opining on how those of us living here should have enforced on us and be happy with this that or the other bonkers or freedom-reducing measure.
I'm not advocating compulsion, I'm just responding to people saying compulsion wouldn't be practical.
However I should point out that British people are currently literally banned from leaving their houses except for a few government-approved purposes, and nobody seems to have a plan to end this situation without the virus coming back and you having to do it again, so you may still increase freedom.if you replace one freedom-reducing thing with a less drastic one.
Ashcroft has has published some focus group stuff on US 2020 FWIW.
The stat that hit me was that 7 out of ten Bernie supporters intend to turn out for Biden.
Which shows a combination of how crap Biden is as a Democratic candidate and how off the rails some Bernie supporters are.
At this point, given choice between the embalmed corpse of Lenin and Trump, I think that Lenin is preferable.
Are the Greens running this time? Stern gave a place for Sanders supports to run to last time.
They'll run, but for whatever reason the third parties (also Libertarians) aren't much of a factor this time (perhaps because their candidates were more notable in 2016). An underrated issue for Trump, I suspect. Overall I still think it's close but leaning Dem.
Libertarians being less of a factor is good for Trump, they clearly leached GOP support from nevertrumpers
Ashcroft has has published some focus group stuff on US 2020 FWIW.
The stat that hit me was that 7 out of ten Bernie supporters intend to turn out for Biden.
Which shows a combination of how crap Biden is as a Democratic candidate and how off the rails some Bernie supporters are.
At this point, given choice between the embalmed corpse of Lenin and Trump, I think that Lenin is preferable.
Are the Greens running this time? Stern gave a place for Sanders supports to run to last time.
They'll run, but for whatever reason the third parties (also Libertarians) aren't much of a factor this time (perhaps because their candidates were more notable in 2016). An underrated issue for Trump, I suspect. Overall I still think it's close but leaning Dem.
It's time for the government to dump Huawei from 5G.
I'm looking forward to getting my Huawei Mate Xs this week.
There's been rumours at work that the company is about to ban Huawei devices for any work correspondence. Not such a big deal for me as I get a device, but loads of junior level people don't and you need to be contactible pretty much at any time and have access to work emails at any time too. Then again, I haven't seen a lot of people with Huawei devices, mostly iPhones and Samsungs.
Still loving my £240 Poco F1. Not for work, that said.
Do Apple devices and other fantastically expensive premium smartphones have functionality significantly better than something you can pick up for a hundred-or-so quid, or are they just a poser fashion accessory?
Yes, I have a very expensive phone, three years later it still works very well, even the battery life is stil acceptable. Cheap phones have a much shorter shelf life.
Hmmm, I think I'll have to wait and see how that works out. All I can say is I've had my £135 handset for a year already, it works perfectly and shows no signs as yet of developing middle-aged eccentricities or slowing down like my laptops have always done, and it's cheap enough to replace that I don't need to bother to insure it.
It really depends on what you want from it. I wanted a phone with a top level camera, fast processor and something with a big enough screen to watch Netflix on comfortably. I also wanted it to last at least 3 years. For £660 it works out to £220 per year of ownership and makes for a good backup phone when I decide to replace it. The only issue is the replacement which is now going to cost £800-900 which I'm not prepared to pay. However, I can still use this for at least another year if I need to.
It's time for the government to dump Huawei from 5G.
I'm looking forward to getting my Huawei Mate Xs this week.
There's been rumours at work that the company is about to ban Huawei devices for any work correspondence. Not such a big deal for me as I get a device, but loads of junior level people don't and you need to be contactible pretty much at any time and have access to work emails at any time too. Then again, I haven't seen a lot of people with Huawei devices, mostly iPhones and Samsungs.
Still loving my £240 Poco F1. Not for work, that said.
Do Apple devices and other fantastically expensive premium smartphones have functionality significantly better than something you can pick up for a hundred-or-so quid, or are they just a poser fashion accessory?
Yes, I have a very expensive phone, three years later it still works very well, even the battery life is stil acceptable. Cheap phones have a much shorter shelf life.
How many £250 Poco F1s can you get for the latest iPhone? Mine (the former) is still going strong after a year plus.
Still doesn't explain how the "saboteurs" managed a hung parliament and the True Believers got a Tory majority and the worst Labour result in 8 decades.....but whatever floats your boat....
I saw a tweet yesterday from a Corbynite blaming the defeats in 2017 and 2019, are you ready to be shocked, on the Jews.
Now that they've served the function, the Tories are happy to see the Jewish Chronicle go bust.
Midlands deaths higher than London in the latest set. And North West up there as well.
It seems to be kicking off more up here in Yorkshire now, as well. It appears that the focus may well be moving north of Birmingham for the next stage. Still not up to the level of London’s problem though.
One would expect the number of cases as a proportion of total population to end up varying by region, with the most urbanized areas suffering the worst. We have all been asked to practice social distancing for a reason, after all. This is why, for example, it's no surprise that the East of England, which has no large cities, is suffering less badly than Scotland, which has approximately the same population but where most of the people inhabit the central belt.
however Scotland count all deaths , care homes etc, as far as I am aware England do not , they only count hospital and then only if tested so not a great comparison. Deaths in Scotland are significantly below England even counting those factors, why is that.
It's time for the government to dump Huawei from 5G.
I'm looking forward to getting my Huawei Mate Xs this week.
There's been rumours at work that the company is about to ban Huawei devices for any work correspondence. Not such a big deal for me as I get a device, but loads of junior level people don't and you need to be contactible pretty much at any time and have access to work emails at any time too. Then again, I haven't seen a lot of people with Huawei devices, mostly iPhones and Samsungs.
Still loving my £240 Poco F1. Not for work, that said.
I think it's just Huawei under the spotlight because of he opaque ownership structure. We've also suspended all zoom meetings until we can be sure that recordings are secure. Reverted to Hangouts.
Is there a particular reason why Zoom is superior to the likes of Teams? For me, they are all a much of a muchness, but my use case is quite limited.
Teams has a huge setup investment cost while zoom doesn't aiui.
Still doesn't explain how the "saboteurs" managed a hung parliament and the True Believers got a Tory majority and the worst Labour result in 8 decades.....but whatever floats your boat....
Unfortunately, a minority of the Labour PLP and the membership will now view this as the historical reason why Corbyn did not win in 2017*. The idea of the 2017 betrayal will now poison the party for a long time unless Starmer acts and forces them out and into the Workers Party or whatever it is called this week.
* Obviously there is some cognitive dissonance going on, because the same people have been telling us since 2017 that Corbyn did win.
Starmer The Myth Slayer - has more of a clang to it than a ring?
It's time for the government to dump Huawei from 5G.
I'm looking forward to getting my Huawei Mate Xs this week.
There's been rumours at work that the company is about to ban Huawei devices for any work correspondence. Not such a big deal for me as I get a device, but loads of junior level people don't and you need to be contactible pretty much at any time and have access to work emails at any time too. Then again, I haven't seen a lot of people with Huawei devices, mostly iPhones and Samsungs.
Still loving my £240 Poco F1. Not for work, that said.
Do Apple devices and other fantastically expensive premium smartphones have functionality significantly better than something you can pick up for a hundred-or-so quid, or are they just a poser fashion accessory?
Yes, I have a very expensive phone, three years later it still works very well, even the battery life is stil acceptable. Cheap phones have a much shorter shelf life.
How many £250 Poco F1s can you get for the latest iPhone? Mine (the former) is still going strong after a year plus.
I just pick up a phone from CeX myself usually costs me around 80 for reasonable one, current one has lasted me years and came with a 1 year warranty
It's time for the government to dump Huawei from 5G.
I'm looking forward to getting my Huawei Mate Xs this week.
There's been rumours at work that the company is about to ban Huawei devices for any work correspondence. Not such a big deal for me as I get a device, but loads of junior level people don't and you need to be contactible pretty much at any time and have access to work emails at any time too. Then again, I haven't seen a lot of people with Huawei devices, mostly iPhones and Samsungs.
Still loving my £240 Poco F1. Not for work, that said.
I think it's just Huawei under the spotlight because of he opaque ownership structure. We've also suspended all zoom meetings until we can be sure that recordings are secure. Reverted to Hangouts.
On Huawei - the fact that they are ahead in 5G technology was why the technology working group the government runs recommended the following
1) Limit participation. 2) Limit percentage of use in various areas to ensure viable alternatives are rapidly deployable
Note that they had done an in-depth dive through the software and hardware in question. Also note that BT then complained of the *amount of Huawei equipment they would have to remove from the system* to meet the percentage requirements.
Whatever the "issues" against it, seems the height of foolishness to rely on China any more than we absolutely need to; security wise, politically or economically. We can surely compensate amongst friends.
Which was the point of detailed report into the matter - that we should limit exposure on this generation, take precautions, and work towards a situation for the next generation (5 years or so) where there would be a range of options at the same capability level.
It's time for the government to dump Huawei from 5G.
I'm looking forward to getting my Huawei Mate Xs this week.
There's been rumours at work that the company is about to ban Huawei devices for any work correspondence. Not such a big deal for me as I get a device, but loads of junior level people don't and you need to be contactible pretty much at any time and have access to work emails at any time too. Then again, I haven't seen a lot of people with Huawei devices, mostly iPhones and Samsungs.
Staff are expected to purchase their own device in order to access work emails?
Anybody still thinks we are going to get a South Korean type system without certain sections of the media making a hell of a racket and special interest grouping mounting long winded legal challenges....
Somebody clearly very keen to leak to the Guardian all this.
Surely the major problem with this app is that it is next to useless unless it is compulsory. A compulsory app and compulsory use of a smartphone if you are outside your house would work. Someone needs to buy me a smartphone, though.
Making smartphone possession and download of apps I think is a step that goes far too far
The choice being between, on the one hand, relative safety plus free movement or, on the other, either a longer lockdown or having to gamble with your health/life? Surely the vast majority of people would prefer the former?
What percentage of people would have to install the app though? I know I wouldn't but then I don't carry my phone with me anyway when out and about
Even 95% takeup would suggest that every time 20 people meet then that group could be compromised. Could businesses make it a condition of employment?
Isn't one approach to start lockdown relaxation by allowing it first to people willing to carry a phone with the app? We could all choose whether the surveillance was so worrying that we preferred to stay at home until further relaxation later. I'd guess that most people would be OK with it, and that would get the economy off the floor.
How would you enforce this? You would need to spy on all those out and about to check if they have the app / bluetooth is on.
You would also need to spy on them to check they had their fricking phones on them.
This assumes that everyone has a smartphone. More people than you might think don't have one. A lot of people manage with old-fashioned phones that just do calls and text messages.
It's time for the government to dump Huawei from 5G.
I'm looking forward to getting my Huawei Mate Xs this week.
There's been rumours at work that the company is about to ban Huawei devices for any work correspondence. Not such a big deal for me as I get a device, but loads of junior level people don't and you need to be contactible pretty much at any time and have access to work emails at any time too. Then again, I haven't seen a lot of people with Huawei devices, mostly iPhones and Samsungs.
Still loving my £240 Poco F1. Not for work, that said.
I think it's just Huawei under the spotlight because of he opaque ownership structure. We've also suspended all zoom meetings until we can be sure that recordings are secure. Reverted to Hangouts.
On Huawei - the fact that they are ahead in 5G technology was why the technology working group the government runs recommended the following
1) Limit participation. 2) Limit percentage of use in various areas to ensure viable alternatives are rapidly deployable
Note that they had done an in-depth dive through the software and hardware in question. Also note that BT then complained of the *amount of Huawei equipment they would have to remove from the system* to meet the percentage requirements.
Whatever the "issues" against it, seems the height of foolishness to rely on China any more than we absolutely need to; security wise, politically or economically. We can surely compensate amongst friends.
Which was the point of detailed report into the matter - that we should limit exposure on this generation, take precautions, and work towards a situation for the next generation (5 years or so) where there would be a range of options at the same capability level.
But will it happen?
Well, the first part - limit the usage in infrastructure - was in the process of being implement in this.
The second part - creating a diverse range of options for the next generation - will depend on various consortia investing in that work.
The fact that a substantial percentage of UK kit buy is reserved for non-Huawei options going forward, is making this investment easy to justify. Which was the intent.
It's time for the government to dump Huawei from 5G.
I'm looking forward to getting my Huawei Mate Xs this week.
There's been rumours at work that the company is about to ban Huawei devices for any work correspondence. Not such a big deal for me as I get a device, but loads of junior level people don't and you need to be contactible pretty much at any time and have access to work emails at any time too. Then again, I haven't seen a lot of people with Huawei devices, mostly iPhones and Samsungs.
Still loving my £240 Poco F1. Not for work, that said.
I think it's just Huawei under the spotlight because of he opaque ownership structure. We've also suspended all zoom meetings until we can be sure that recordings are secure. Reverted to Hangouts.
Is there a particular reason why Zoom is superior to the likes of Teams? For me, they are all a much of a muchness, but my use case is quite limited.
Teams has a huge setup investment cost while zoom doesn't aiui.
Non workers use Houseparty now.
Yeah it's got heads up 👌
Houseparty looks good, but most of the people I know have settled on Zoom. I hope we won't have to worry about this for too long!
Still doesn't explain how the "saboteurs" managed a hung parliament and the True Believers got a Tory majority and the worst Labour result in 8 decades.....but whatever floats your boat....
I saw a tweet yesterday from a Corbynite blaming the defeats in 2017 and 2019, are you ready to be shocked, on the Jews.
Now that they've served the function, the Tories are happy to see the Jewish Chronicle go bust.
It's time for the government to dump Huawei from 5G.
I'm looking forward to getting my Huawei Mate Xs this week.
There's been rumours at work that the company is about to ban Huawei devices for any work correspondence. Not such a big deal for me as I get a device, but loads of junior level people don't and you need to be contactible pretty much at any time and have access to work emails at any time too. Then again, I haven't seen a lot of people with Huawei devices, mostly iPhones and Samsungs.
Still loving my £240 Poco F1. Not for work, that said.
Do Apple devices and other fantastically expensive premium smartphones have functionality significantly better than something you can pick up for a hundred-or-so quid, or are they just a poser fashion accessory?
Yes, I have a very expensive phone, three years later it still works very well, even the battery life is stil acceptable. Cheap phones have a much shorter shelf life.
I have a very, very cheap phone at least four years old and it works as well as it ever did, which is ample for my needs.
I buy my wifes and grandsons in CEX, a couple of models back smartphones that do everything you want , usually around £80 - £120 with a years warranty. Only had one issue and they said just pick another phone and even gave me 20 quid back.
Still doesn't explain how the "saboteurs" managed a hung parliament and the True Believers got a Tory majority and the worst Labour result in 8 decades.....but whatever floats your boat....
I saw a tweet yesterday from a Corbynite blaming the defeats in 2017 and 2019, are you ready to be shocked, on the Jews.
Now that they've served the function, the Tories are happy to see the Jewish Chronicle go bust.
It's time for the government to dump Huawei from 5G.
I'm looking forward to getting my Huawei Mate Xs this week.
There's been rumours at work that the company is about to ban Huawei devices for any work correspondence. Not such a big deal for me as I get a device, but loads of junior level people don't and you need to be contactible pretty much at any time and have access to work emails at any time too. Then again, I haven't seen a lot of people with Huawei devices, mostly iPhones and Samsungs.
Still loving my £240 Poco F1. Not for work, that said.
I think it's just Huawei under the spotlight because of he opaque ownership structure. We've also suspended all zoom meetings until we can be sure that recordings are secure. Reverted to Hangouts.
On Huawei - the fact that they are ahead in 5G technology was why the technology working group the government runs recommended the following
1) Limit participation. 2) Limit percentage of use in various areas to ensure viable alternatives are rapidly deployable
Note that they had done an in-depth dive through the software and hardware in question. Also note that BT then complained of the *amount of Huawei equipment they would have to remove from the system* to meet the percentage requirements.
Yes I know about all of that, it's all a load of rubbish though, basically the government is giving BT/EE a free ride because it would cost them billions to take Huawei to 0% of the network. That was probably a huge factor in the process.
What is a load of rubbish? The detail analysis of the actual software and hardware involved? Which was carried out by high respected people....
Yes, and just like our "experts" got the lockdown timing wrong the same thing happened with the Huawei decision. It's become clear that the ruling classes in the civil service and other bodies are no longer fit for purpose.
It's time for the government to dump Huawei from 5G.
I'm looking forward to getting my Huawei Mate Xs this week.
There's been rumours at work that the company is about to ban Huawei devices for any work correspondence. Not such a big deal for me as I get a device, but loads of junior level people don't and you need to be contactible pretty much at any time and have access to work emails at any time too. Then again, I haven't seen a lot of people with Huawei devices, mostly iPhones and Samsungs.
Staff are expected to purchase their own device in order to access work emails?
The employer needs to be told to feck right off.
Lol as if anyone who works for us doesn't have a smartphone.
Refurbished phones are a bargain I've found. Bought mine a year ago unlocked, much cheaper than a newer phone and works fine for everything I use it for.
Midlands deaths higher than London in the latest set. And North West up there as well.
It seems to be kicking off more up here in Yorkshire now, as well. It appears that the focus may well be moving north of Birmingham for the next stage. Still not up to the level of London’s problem though.
One would expect the number of cases as a proportion of total population to end up varying by region, with the most urbanized areas suffering the worst. We have all been asked to practice social distancing for a reason, after all. This is why, for example, it's no surprise that the East of England, which has no large cities, is suffering less badly than Scotland, which has approximately the same population but where most of the people inhabit the central belt.
however Scotland count all deaths , care homes etc, as far as I am aware England do not , they only count hospital and then only if tested so not a great comparison. Deaths in Scotland are significantly below England even counting those factors, why is that.
What are the numbers per capita? However dissimilar data sets are, it improves them if you make them pc. China looks interesting then?
It's time for the government to dump Huawei from 5G.
I'm looking forward to getting my Huawei Mate Xs this week.
There's been rumours at work that the company is about to ban Huawei devices for any work correspondence. Not such a big deal for me as I get a device, but loads of junior level people don't and you need to be contactible pretty much at any time and have access to work emails at any time too. Then again, I haven't seen a lot of people with Huawei devices, mostly iPhones and Samsungs.
Still loving my £240 Poco F1. Not for work, that said.
I think it's just Huawei under the spotlight because of he opaque ownership structure. We've also suspended all zoom meetings until we can be sure that recordings are secure. Reverted to Hangouts.
On Huawei - the fact that they are ahead in 5G technology was why the technology working group the government runs recommended the following
1) Limit participation. 2) Limit percentage of use in various areas to ensure viable alternatives are rapidly deployable
Note that they had done an in-depth dive through the software and hardware in question. Also note that BT then complained of the *amount of Huawei equipment they would have to remove from the system* to meet the percentage requirements.
Yes I know about all of that, it's all a load of rubbish though, basically the government is giving BT/EE a free ride because it would cost them billions to take Huawei to 0% of the network. That was probably a huge factor in the process.
What is a load of rubbish? The detail analysis of the actual software and hardware involved? Which was carried out by high respected people....
Yes, and just like our "experts" got the lockdown timing wrong the same thing happened with the Huawei decision. It's become clear that the ruling classes in the civil service and other bodies are no longer fit for purpose.
We have had enough of experts.
Unaccountable one, yes. They make these decisions in their ivory towers and when shit hits the fan they face no consequences for their poor decision making. The government is off the hook because they followed expert advice, but the public has no way of voting this cabal out who continually make bad decisions on our behalf.
It's time for the government to dump Huawei from 5G.
I'm looking forward to getting my Huawei Mate Xs this week.
There's been rumours at work that the company is about to ban Huawei devices for any work correspondence. Not such a big deal for me as I get a device, but loads of junior level people don't and you need to be contactible pretty much at any time and have access to work emails at any time too. Then again, I haven't seen a lot of people with Huawei devices, mostly iPhones and Samsungs.
Staff are expected to purchase their own device in order to access work emails?
The employer needs to be told to feck right off.
Lol as if anyone who works for us doesn't have a smartphone.
I think what Sandy meant was you want me accessing work stuff on a phone you supply a phone as your apps are going nowhere near my private phone. Which is much the stance I take with my company.
Day 3 of reading War and Peace. Over 200 pages under my belt. Over 1,100 still to go.
Quite entertaining.
Certainly a better read than Volume 1 of Capital, in which Marx takes 100 pages to say that workers create more value than they get paid.
Adam Smith makes the same point in about three pages.
But my all time favourite quote of his is this:
“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities, but of their advantages”
It's time for the government to dump Huawei from 5G.
I'm looking forward to getting my Huawei Mate Xs this week.
There's been rumours at work that the company is about to ban Huawei devices for any work correspondence. Not such a big deal for me as I get a device, but loads of junior level people don't and you need to be contactible pretty much at any time and have access to work emails at any time too. Then again, I haven't seen a lot of people with Huawei devices, mostly iPhones and Samsungs.
Still loving my £240 Poco F1. Not for work, that said.
I think it's just Huawei under the spotlight because of he opaque ownership structure. We've also suspended all zoom meetings until we can be sure that recordings are secure. Reverted to Hangouts.
On Huawei - the fact that they are ahead in 5G technology was why the technology working group the government runs recommended the following
1) Limit participation. 2) Limit percentage of use in various areas to ensure viable alternatives are rapidly deployable
Note that they had done an in-depth dive through the software and hardware in question. Also note that BT then complained of the *amount of Huawei equipment they would have to remove from the system* to meet the percentage requirements.
Whatever the "issues" against it, seems the height of foolishness to rely on China any more than we absolutely need to; security wise, politically or economically. We can surely compensate amongst friends.
Which was the point of detailed report into the matter - that we should limit exposure on this generation, take precautions, and work towards a situation for the next generation (5 years or so) where there would be a range of options at the same capability level.
But will it happen?
Well, the first part - limit the usage in infrastructure - was in the process of being implement in this.
The second part - creating a diverse range of options for the next generation - will depend on various consortia investing in that work.
The fact that a substantial percentage of UK kit buy is reserved for non-Huawei options going forward, is making this investment easy to justify. Which was the intent.
It's time for the government to dump Huawei from 5G.
I'm looking forward to getting my Huawei Mate Xs this week.
There's been rumours at work that the company is about to ban Huawei devices for any work correspondence. Not such a big deal for me as I get a device, but loads of junior level people don't and you need to be contactible pretty much at any time and have access to work emails at any time too. Then again, I haven't seen a lot of people with Huawei devices, mostly iPhones and Samsungs.
Staff are expected to purchase their own device in order to access work emails?
The employer needs to be told to feck right off.
Lol as if anyone who works for us doesn't have a smartphone.
Many UK employers do the following -
Remote access to system - login, email etc - is available via app on
1) Your own phone 2) If you insist on not having a phone, you may or may not get a company phone
Some are still using physical tokens - such as the RSA dongles that go on your keychain. But they are dying out rapidly
Company phones are generally limited to those who really need them - and would actually use them. Sales for example.
Anybody still thinks we are going to get a South Korean type system without certain sections of the media making a hell of a racket and special interest grouping mounting long winded legal challenges....
Somebody clearly very keen to leak to the Guardian all this.
Surely the major problem with this app is that it is next to useless unless it is compulsory. A compulsory app and compulsory use of a smartphone if you are outside your house would work. Someone needs to buy me a smartphone, though.
Making smartphone possession and download of apps I think is a step that goes far too far
The choice being between, on the one hand, relative safety plus free movement or, on the other, either a longer lockdown or having to gamble with your health/life? Surely the vast majority of people would prefer the former?
What percentage of people would have to install the app though? I know I wouldn't but then I don't carry my phone with me anyway when out and about
Even 95% takeup would suggest that every time 20 people meet then that group could be compromised. Could businesses make it a condition of employment?
Isn't one approach to start lockdown relaxation by allowing it first to people willing to carry a phone with the app? We could all choose whether the surveillance was so worrying that we preferred to stay at home until further relaxation later. I'd guess that most people would be OK with it, and that would get the economy off the floor.
How would you enforce this? You would need to spy on all those out and about to check if they have the app / bluetooth is on.
You would also need to spy on them to check they had their fricking phones on them.
This assumes that everyone has a smartphone. More people than you might think don't have one. A lot of people manage with old-fashioned phones that just do calls and text messages.
That stat may be distorted by the people buying a phone for Grandma/Grandpa and paying for it - so the account is in their name, not the grand parents.
For personal experience this is a not uncommon thing. As is gifting last years smart phone for this purpose.
You can argue about whether Starmer ought to be PM, or whether he'd be a good PM, or whether he's likely to be PM, or even if he's got a better than one in five or one in ten chance of being PM.
But he's leader of the main opposition party. So of course Starmer COULD be PM in circumstances which don't require a bizarre flight of fancy.
That is a ridiculous question. Unless it doesn't mean "is it reasonably possible that he will become PM?" but more "if he does become PM could he handle the job?"
This latter being a formulation of "can you imagine him as PM?"
Which is key IMO. For example, a lot of people just could not imagine Jeremy Corbyn as PM and I think this cost him more votes than the fact that many others could imagine it - or thought they could - and were not keen.
There is a big difference between the following two statements -
"I really don't think he's up to it."
"I'm sure he's up to it but I don't like the thought of what he will be up to."
It's time for the government to dump Huawei from 5G.
I'm looking forward to getting my Huawei Mate Xs this week.
There's been rumours at work that the company is about to ban Huawei devices for any work correspondence. Not such a big deal for me as I get a device, but loads of junior level people don't and you need to be contactible pretty much at any time and have access to work emails at any time too. Then again, I haven't seen a lot of people with Huawei devices, mostly iPhones and Samsungs.
Staff are expected to purchase their own device in order to access work emails?
The employer needs to be told to feck right off.
Lol as if anyone who works for us doesn't have a smartphone.
That’s not the point. You have highlighted that the company may decide that some people have the wrong make of phone and expect them to buy a replacement. That is simply not acceptable.
It's time for the government to dump Huawei from 5G.
I'm looking forward to getting my Huawei Mate Xs this week.
There's been rumours at work that the company is about to ban Huawei devices for any work correspondence. Not such a big deal for me as I get a device, but loads of junior level people don't and you need to be contactible pretty much at any time and have access to work emails at any time too. Then again, I haven't seen a lot of people with Huawei devices, mostly iPhones and Samsungs.
Still loving my £240 Poco F1. Not for work, that said.
Do Apple devices and other fantastically expensive premium smartphones have functionality significantly better than something you can pick up for a hundred-or-so quid, or are they just a poser fashion accessory?
Yes, I have a very expensive phone, three years later it still works very well, even the battery life is stil acceptable. Cheap phones have a much shorter shelf life.
I have a very, very cheap phone at least four years old and it works as well as it ever did, which is ample for my needs.
My Nokia 6.1, bought for around £200 nearly 2 years ago, continues to work perfectly well. Because it runs Android One, it gets updates quite quickly; in fact, it updated itself to Android 10 this morning.
I've always found around £200 to be the sweet spot for a phone. You'll generally get a phone that has all the functionality you need, will run all the latest apps, and retains a battery life of at least a day for about 4 years or so. Paying much more than that for a phone is really just for pose value.
It's time for the government to dump Huawei from 5G.
I'm looking forward to getting my Huawei Mate Xs this week.
There's been rumours at work that the company is about to ban Huawei devices for any work correspondence. Not such a big deal for me as I get a device, but loads of junior level people don't and you need to be contactible pretty much at any time and have access to work emails at any time too. Then again, I haven't seen a lot of people with Huawei devices, mostly iPhones and Samsungs.
Staff are expected to purchase their own device in order to access work emails?
The employer needs to be told to feck right off.
Lol as if anyone who works for us doesn't have a smartphone.
I think what Sandy meant was you want me accessing work stuff on a phone you supply a phone as your apps are going nowhere near my private phone. Which is much the stance I take with my company.
That's not what I was thinking but strengthens the argument!
Ashcroft has has published some focus group stuff on US 2020 FWIW.
The stat that hit me was that 7 out of ten Bernie supporters intend to turn out for Biden.
Which shows a combination of how crap Biden is as a Democratic candidate and how off the rails some Bernie supporters are.
At this point, given choice between the embalmed corpse of Lenin and Trump, I think that Lenin is preferable.
Are the Greens running this time? Stern gave a place for Sanders supports to run to last time.
They'll run, but for whatever reason the third parties (also Libertarians) aren't much of a factor this time (perhaps because their candidates were more notable in 2016). An underrated issue for Trump, I suspect. Overall I still think it's close but leaning Dem.
Libertarians being less of a factor is good for Trump, they clearly leached GOP support from nevertrumpers
I`ve being going in big against Trump/Republicans for a while. Topped up yet again today.
At current odds I prefer laying Trump for Next President at 1.99 (1.97 this morning) rather than laying Republicans to win GE at 1.95. My reasoning is that I still hold a hunch that Trump may not run.
It's time for the government to dump Huawei from 5G.
I'm looking forward to getting my Huawei Mate Xs this week.
There's been rumours at work that the company is about to ban Huawei devices for any work correspondence. Not such a big deal for me as I get a device, but loads of junior level people don't and you need to be contactible pretty much at any time and have access to work emails at any time too. Then again, I haven't seen a lot of people with Huawei devices, mostly iPhones and Samsungs.
Staff are expected to purchase their own device in order to access work emails?
The employer needs to be told to feck right off.
Lol as if anyone who works for us doesn't have a smartphone.
That’s not the point. You have highlighted that the company may decide that some people have the wrong make of phone and expect them to buy a replacement. That is simply not acceptable.
I've actually had that at work -
Employee - "The login token app won't install on my phone" Support - "You need to have a phone of the following spec x" E - "I refuse to replace my phone" S - "Nothing we can do" E - "I'll call my manager" Manger - "You don't qualify for a company phone. We have stopped handing out hard tokens. either change your phone or no remote working"
It's time for the government to dump Huawei from 5G.
I'm looking forward to getting my Huawei Mate Xs this week.
There's been rumours at work that the company is about to ban Huawei devices for any work correspondence. Not such a big deal for me as I get a device, but loads of junior level people don't and you need to be contactible pretty much at any time and have access to work emails at any time too. Then again, I haven't seen a lot of people with Huawei devices, mostly iPhones and Samsungs.
Staff are expected to purchase their own device in order to access work emails?
The employer needs to be told to feck right off.
Lol as if anyone who works for us doesn't have a smartphone.
I think what Sandy meant was you want me accessing work stuff on a phone you supply a phone as your apps are going nowhere near my private phone. Which is much the stance I take with my company.
That's not what I was thinking but strengthens the argument!
Part of the reason for my reluctance for that is that my company states it has the ability to check your phone for company data when you leave. HR is not thumbing through my personal phone thanks. I suspect a lot of firms have that sort of clause
It's time for the government to dump Huawei from 5G.
I'm looking forward to getting my Huawei Mate Xs this week.
There's been rumours at work that the company is about to ban Huawei devices for any work correspondence. Not such a big deal for me as I get a device, but loads of junior level people don't and you need to be contactible pretty much at any time and have access to work emails at any time too. Then again, I haven't seen a lot of people with Huawei devices, mostly iPhones and Samsungs.
Still loving my £240 Poco F1. Not for work, that said.
I think it's just Huawei under the spotlight because of he opaque ownership structure. We've also suspended all zoom meetings until we can be sure that recordings are secure. Reverted to Hangouts.
You heard about the archers chat forum that was hacked?
72 bed home so that's 18% of entire population, with undisclosed number of further unresolved cases. Sobering.
Over 50% of hospital deaths from Covid-19 are aged over 80, and the unreported deaths from care homes are estimated to be 50% of the total, so likely 2/3rds of all Covid deaths are 80+, and 6% under 40
It's time for the government to dump Huawei from 5G.
I'm looking forward to getting my Huawei Mate Xs this week.
There's been rumours at work that the company is about to ban Huawei devices for any work correspondence. Not such a big deal for me as I get a device, but loads of junior level people don't and you need to be contactible pretty much at any time and have access to work emails at any time too. Then again, I haven't seen a lot of people with Huawei devices, mostly iPhones and Samsungs.
Staff are expected to purchase their own device in order to access work emails?
The employer needs to be told to feck right off.
Lol as if anyone who works for us doesn't have a smartphone.
That’s not the point. You have highlighted that the company may decide that some people have the wrong make of phone and expect them to buy a replacement. That is simply not acceptable.
I've actually had that at work -
Employee - "The login token app won't install on my phone" Support - "You need to have a phone of the following spec x" E - "I refuse to replace my phone" S - "Nothing we can do" E - "I'll call my manager" Manger - "You don't qualify for a company phone. We have stopped handing out hard tokens. either change your phone or no remote working"
So then the manager can't let their employee know that the meeting in London has been cancelled, and they waste half the day and £300 on a pointless journey.
72 bed home so that's 18% of entire population, with undisclosed number of further unresolved cases. Sobering.
Over 50% of hospital deaths from Covid-19 are aged over 80, and the unreported deaths from care homes are estimated to be 50% of the total, so likely 2/3rds of all Covid deaths are 80+, and 6% under 40
By those figures we are already close to 20,000 deaths.
72 bed home so that's 18% of entire population, with undisclosed number of further unresolved cases. Sobering.
Over 50% of hospital deaths from Covid-19 are aged over 80, and the unreported deaths from care homes are estimated to be 50% of the total, so likely 2/3rds of all Covid deaths are 80+, and 6% under 40
People over 80 don't matter - in fact, think of the money we're going save because they've died.
It's time for the government to dump Huawei from 5G.
I'm looking forward to getting my Huawei Mate Xs this week.
There's been rumours at work that the company is about to ban Huawei devices for any work correspondence. Not such a big deal for me as I get a device, but loads of junior level people don't and you need to be contactible pretty much at any time and have access to work emails at any time too. Then again, I haven't seen a lot of people with Huawei devices, mostly iPhones and Samsungs.
Staff are expected to purchase their own device in order to access work emails?
The employer needs to be told to feck right off.
Lol as if anyone who works for us doesn't have a smartphone.
That’s not the point. You have highlighted that the company may decide that some people have the wrong make of phone and expect them to buy a replacement. That is simply not acceptable.
I've actually had that at work -
Employee - "The login token app won't install on my phone" Support - "You need to have a phone of the following spec x" E - "I refuse to replace my phone" S - "Nothing we can do" E - "I'll call my manager" Manger - "You don't qualify for a company phone. We have stopped handing out hard tokens. either change your phone or no remote working"
So then the manager can't let their employee know that the meeting in London has been cancelled, and they waste half the day and £300 on a pointless journey.
False economy not giving staff a phone.
Why wouldn't they be able to call them? The phone was just incompatible with software, it wasn't as if they didn't have a phone.
Midlands deaths higher than London in the latest set. And North West up there as well.
It seems to be kicking off more up here in Yorkshire now, as well. It appears that the focus may well be moving north of Birmingham for the next stage. Still not up to the level of London’s problem though.
One would expect the number of cases as a proportion of total population to end up varying by region, with the most urbanized areas suffering the worst. We have all been asked to practice social distancing for a reason, after all. This is why, for example, it's no surprise that the East of England, which has no large cities, is suffering less badly than Scotland, which has approximately the same population but where most of the people inhabit the central belt.
however Scotland count all deaths , care homes etc, as far as I am aware England do not , they only count hospital and then only if tested so not a great comparison. Deaths in Scotland are significantly below England even counting those factors, why is that.
No Malc. The daily death results in England come from hospitals but over time the Office for National Statistics add the total deaths in England from death certificates to get a true picture.
In Scotland the situation is very similar indeed - although not exactly the same. We won't know the true figure in Scotland until the National Records of Scotland update us on Wednesday -
As this site itself confirms their "...number is different from the count of deaths published daily on the gov.scot website, because the latter is based on deaths of those who have tested positive for COVID-19 whereas these figures include all deaths where COVID-19 (included suspected cases) was mentioned on the death certificate". So those that pass away in care homes, north and south of the border, will only be included in the daily updates if they had previously tested positive for Covid-19. Huge numbers of those who have died untested in Scotland will not have been included in the figures.
But why let the facts get in the way of your Anglophobic narrative, eh?
Midlands deaths higher than London in the latest set. And North West up there as well.
It seems to be kicking off more up here in Yorkshire now, as well. It appears that the focus may well be moving north of Birmingham for the next stage. Still not up to the level of London’s problem though.
One would expect the number of cases as a proportion of total population to end up varying by region, with the most urbanized areas suffering the worst. We have all been asked to practice social distancing for a reason, after all. This is why, for example, it's no surprise that the East of England, which has no large cities, is suffering less badly than Scotland, which has approximately the same population but where most of the people inhabit the central belt.
however Scotland count all deaths , care homes etc, as far as I am aware England do not , they only count hospital and then only if tested so not a great comparison. Deaths in Scotland are significantly below England even counting those factors, why is that.
I've just been noticing the trends in the numbers of Covid-19 cases in hospital, as displayed in one of the charts that we're shown in the daily UK Government press briefing. The numbers for the South West of England are lowest; the East is in a similar place to Wales, which has a lower population but where most of the people are concentrated in the far South; and Scotland is running well above the East of England and only a little below the (significantly more populous) South East in terms of the current total numbers hospitalised.
I doubt if the differences are attributable to issues such as Governmental competence because London and the devolved administrations have mostly been singing from the same hymn sheet through this crisis, and nor does it seem to be anything to do with resourcing because per capita public spending is not radically different between the various parts of the UK (Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all do better than the mean for the English regions on this metric, but it's not as if they vary by a factor of 2 or 3.) Thus, I wondered if the most obvious explanation might be population density? Obviously Scotland has a greater percentage of its population clustered in conurbations and a correspondingly lower percentage in the countryside than in the East of England or the West Country.
I'm not aware of there being any major difference in the procedures for the reporting of Covid-19-related deaths between Scotland and the rest of the country, but not being an expert on that topic there might well be.
Midlands deaths higher than London in the latest set. And North West up there as well.
It seems to be kicking off more up here in Yorkshire now, as well. It appears that the focus may well be moving north of Birmingham for the next stage. Still not up to the level of London’s problem though.
One would expect the number of cases as a proportion of total population to end up varying by region, with the most urbanized areas suffering the worst. We have all been asked to practice social distancing for a reason, after all. This is why, for example, it's no surprise that the East of England, which has no large cities, is suffering less badly than Scotland, which has approximately the same population but where most of the people inhabit the central belt.
however Scotland count all deaths , care homes etc, as far as I am aware England do not , they only count hospital and then only if tested so not a great comparison. Deaths in Scotland are significantly below England even counting those factors, why is that.
What are the numbers per capita? However dissimilar data sets are, it improves them if you make them pc. China looks interesting then?
I know latest is 575 but better numbers on wednesday when they add all non hospital numbers , last I saw Scotland was well down on England and they count all deaths not just hospital ones like in England. Hard to see why there should be a big difference.
72 bed home so that's 18% of entire population, with undisclosed number of further unresolved cases. Sobering.
Over 50% of hospital deaths from Covid-19 are aged over 80, and the unreported deaths from care homes are estimated to be 50% of the total, so likely 2/3rds of all Covid deaths are 80+, and 6% under 40
People over 80 don't matter - in fact, think of the money we're going save because they've died.
It's time for the government to dump Huawei from 5G.
I'm looking forward to getting my Huawei Mate Xs this week.
There's been rumours at work that the company is about to ban Huawei devices for any work correspondence. Not such a big deal for me as I get a device, but loads of junior level people don't and you need to be contactible pretty much at any time and have access to work emails at any time too. Then again, I haven't seen a lot of people with Huawei devices, mostly iPhones and Samsungs.
Staff are expected to purchase their own device in order to access work emails?
The employer needs to be told to feck right off.
Lol as if anyone who works for us doesn't have a smartphone.
That’s not the point. You have highlighted that the company may decide that some people have the wrong make of phone and expect them to buy a replacement. That is simply not acceptable.
I've actually had that at work -
Employee - "The login token app won't install on my phone" Support - "You need to have a phone of the following spec x" E - "I refuse to replace my phone" S - "Nothing we can do" E - "I'll call my manager" Manger - "You don't qualify for a company phone. We have stopped handing out hard tokens. either change your phone or no remote working"
So then the manager can't let their employee know that the meeting in London has been cancelled, and they waste half the day and £300 on a pointless journey.
False economy not giving staff a phone.
Generally if you are actually mobile (ha) then you have some possibility of getting a company phone.
The simple truth is that most people don't want to carry 2 phones. They actually *want* a BYOD world....
I raise eyebrows by not installing company email support etc - because you have to surrender control of your phone to company support. Remote wipe capability etc. Most *employees* see that as a bit weird
It's time for the government to dump Huawei from 5G.
I'm looking forward to getting my Huawei Mate Xs this week.
There's been rumours at work that the company is about to ban Huawei devices for any work correspondence. Not such a big deal for me as I get a device, but loads of junior level people don't and you need to be contactible pretty much at any time and have access to work emails at any time too. Then again, I haven't seen a lot of people with Huawei devices, mostly iPhones and Samsungs.
Staff are expected to purchase their own device in order to access work emails?
The employer needs to be told to feck right off.
Lol as if anyone who works for us doesn't have a smartphone.
That’s not the point. You have highlighted that the company may decide that some people have the wrong make of phone and expect them to buy a replacement. That is simply not acceptable.
I've actually had that at work -
Employee - "The login token app won't install on my phone" Support - "You need to have a phone of the following spec x" E - "I refuse to replace my phone" S - "Nothing we can do" E - "I'll call my manager" Manger - "You don't qualify for a company phone. We have stopped handing out hard tokens. either change your phone or no remote working"
So then the manager can't let their employee know that the meeting in London has been cancelled, and they waste half the day and £300 on a pointless journey.
False economy not giving staff a phone.
Why wouldn't they be able to call them? The phone was just incompatible with software, it wasn't as if they didn't have a phone.
Midlands deaths higher than London in the latest set. And North West up there as well.
It seems to be kicking off more up here in Yorkshire now, as well. It appears that the focus may well be moving north of Birmingham for the next stage. Still not up to the level of London’s problem though.
One would expect the number of cases as a proportion of total population to end up varying by region, with the most urbanized areas suffering the worst. We have all been asked to practice social distancing for a reason, after all. This is why, for example, it's no surprise that the East of England, which has no large cities, is suffering less badly than Scotland, which has approximately the same population but where most of the people inhabit the central belt.
however Scotland count all deaths , care homes etc, as far as I am aware England do not , they only count hospital and then only if tested so not a great comparison. Deaths in Scotland are significantly below England even counting those factors, why is that.
What are the numbers per capita? However dissimilar data sets are, it improves them if you make them pc. China looks interesting then?
I know latest is 575 but better numbers on wednesday when they add all non hospital numbers , last I saw Scotland was well down on England and they count all deaths not just hospital ones like in England. Hard to see why there should be a big difference.
Midlands deaths higher than London in the latest set. And North West up there as well.
It seems to be kicking off more up here in Yorkshire now, as well. It appears that the focus may well be moving north of Birmingham for the next stage. Still not up to the level of London’s problem though.
One would expect the number of cases as a proportion of total population to end up varying by region, with the most urbanized areas suffering the worst. We have all been asked to practice social distancing for a reason, after all. This is why, for example, it's no surprise that the East of England, which has no large cities, is suffering less badly than Scotland, which has approximately the same population but where most of the people inhabit the central belt.
however Scotland count all deaths , care homes etc, as far as I am aware England do not , they only count hospital and then only if tested so not a great comparison. Deaths in Scotland are significantly below England even counting those factors, why is that.
No Malc. The daily death results in England come from hospitals but over time the Office for National Statistics add the total deaths in England from death certificates to get a true picture.
In Scotland the situation is very similar indeed - although not exactly the same. We won't know the true figure in Scotland until the National Records of Scotland update us on Wednesday -
As this site itself confirms their "...number is different from the count of deaths published daily on the gov.scot website, because the latter is based on deaths of those who have tested positive for COVID-19 whereas these figures include all deaths where COVID-19 (included suspected cases) was mentioned on the death certificate". So those that pass away in care homes, north and south of the border, will only be included in the daily updates if they had previously tested positive for Covid-19. Huge numbers of those who have died untested in Scotland will not have been included in the figures.
But why let the facts get in the way of your Anglophobic narrative, eh?
Away you twisted nasty halfwit, I was having a serious conversation with someone about the numbers and how counted etc and don't need retreads like you butting in with your unionist jingoism. If you cannot have a decent conversation F**K off.
It's time for the government to dump Huawei from 5G.
I'm looking forward to getting my Huawei Mate Xs this week.
There's been rumours at work that the company is about to ban Huawei devices for any work correspondence. Not such a big deal for me as I get a device, but loads of junior level people don't and you need to be contactible pretty much at any time and have access to work emails at any time too. Then again, I haven't seen a lot of people with Huawei devices, mostly iPhones and Samsungs.
Staff are expected to purchase their own device in order to access work emails?
The employer needs to be told to feck right off.
Lol as if anyone who works for us doesn't have a smartphone.
That’s not the point. You have highlighted that the company may decide that some people have the wrong make of phone and expect them to buy a replacement. That is simply not acceptable.
I've actually had that at work -
Employee - "The login token app won't install on my phone" Support - "You need to have a phone of the following spec x" E - "I refuse to replace my phone" S - "Nothing we can do" E - "I'll call my manager" Manger - "You don't qualify for a company phone. We have stopped handing out hard tokens. either change your phone or no remote working"
So then the manager can't let their employee know that the meeting in London has been cancelled, and they waste half the day and £300 on a pointless journey.
False economy not giving staff a phone.
Why wouldn't they be able to call them? The phone was just incompatible with software, it wasn't as if they didn't have a phone.
On their personal number? That’s not on.
Why not? If it's during work hours I see no issue with that.
The NCSC made a very good point that if we ban Huawei we will be overly dependent on Nokia and Ericsson, and there's no real evidence that their software practices are really any better than Huawei's. It's not backdoors that are the issue, it's plain old bugs.
There is unfortunately no quick fix for the issue, we need things like OpenRAN to start delivering carrier grade systems that we can either build ourselves and source from multiple suppliers, that is a long way off.
A ban on Huawei might be politically appealing, but I doubt it will do anything to improve security.
Generally if you are actually mobile (ha) then you have some possibility of getting a company phone.
The simple truth is that most people don't want to carry 2 phones. They actually *want* a BYOD world....
I raise eyebrows by not installing company email support etc - because you have to surrender control of your phone to company support. Remote wipe capability etc. Most *employees* see that as a bit weird
I'm so glad I've got a dual sim phone.
Have an esim for my personal line and a physical sim card for my work number
72 bed home so that's 18% of entire population, with undisclosed number of further unresolved cases. Sobering.
Over 50% of hospital deaths from Covid-19 are aged over 80, and the unreported deaths from care homes are estimated to be 50% of the total, so likely 2/3rds of all Covid deaths are 80+, and 6% under 40
People over 80 don't matter - in fact, think of the money we're going save because they've died.
Some Age UK stats:
Older people in care homes • 400,000 older people • Average age 85 years • 66% Cognitive impairment • 40% depression • 75% classified “severely disabled”
That depression stat is frightening (they all are). Personal decision but if that was me I'd wanna be euthanased. Not that that should dictate our policy in this instance.
Midlands deaths higher than London in the latest set. And North West up there as well.
It seems to be kicking off more up here in Yorkshire now, as well. It appears that the focus may well be moving north of Birmingham for the next stage. Still not up to the level of London’s problem though.
One would expect the number of cases as a proportion of total population to end up varying by region, with the most urbanized areas suffering the worst. We have all been asked to practice social distancing for a reason, after all. This is why, for example, it's no surprise that the East of England, which has no large cities, is suffering less badly than Scotland, which has approximately the same population but where most of the people inhabit the central belt.
however Scotland count all deaths , care homes etc, as far as I am aware England do not , they only count hospital and then only if tested so not a great comparison. Deaths in Scotland are significantly below England even counting those factors, why is that.
What are the numbers per capita? However dissimilar data sets are, it improves them if you make them pc. China looks interesting then?
I know latest is 575 but better numbers on wednesday when they add all non hospital numbers , last I saw Scotland was well down on England and they count all deaths not just hospital ones like in England. Hard to see why there should be a big difference.
Scotland can't count all deaths on the day (nor can the rest of the UK) - it takes time for death certificates to work through the system. Often, death certificates are not completed and returned on the day of death, for start.
Midlands deaths higher than London in the latest set. And North West up there as well.
It seems to be kicking off more up here in Yorkshire now, as well. It appears that the focus may well be moving north of Birmingham for the next stage. Still not up to the level of London’s problem though.
One would expect the number of cases as a proportion of total population to end up varying by region, with the most urbanized areas suffering the worst. We have all been asked to practice social distancing for a reason, after all. This is why, for example, it's no surprise that the East of England, which has no large cities, is suffering less badly than Scotland, which has approximately the same population but where most of the people inhabit the central belt.
however Scotland count all deaths , care homes etc, as far as I am aware England do not , they only count hospital and then only if tested so not a great comparison. Deaths in Scotland are significantly below England even counting those factors, why is that.
No Malc. The daily death results in England come from hospitals but over time the Office for National Statistics add the total deaths in England from death certificates to get a true picture.
In Scotland the situation is very similar indeed - although not exactly the same. We won't know the true figure in Scotland until the National Records of Scotland update us on Wednesday -
As this site itself confirms their "...number is different from the count of deaths published daily on the gov.scot website, because the latter is based on deaths of those who have tested positive for COVID-19 whereas these figures include all deaths where COVID-19 (included suspected cases) was mentioned on the death certificate". So those that pass away in care homes, north and south of the border, will only be included in the daily updates if they had previously tested positive for Covid-19. Huge numbers of those who have died untested in Scotland will not have been included in the figures.
But why let the facts get in the way of your Anglophobic narrative, eh?
Your stated aim to avoid engaging with malc seems to be a bit of a failure.
Anybody still thinks we are going to get a South Korean type system without certain sections of the media making a hell of a racket and special interest grouping mounting long winded legal challenges....
Somebody clearly very keen to leak to the Guardian all this.
72 bed home so that's 18% of entire population, with undisclosed number of further unresolved cases. Sobering.
Over 50% of hospital deaths from Covid-19 are aged over 80, and the unreported deaths from care homes are estimated to be 50% of the total, so likely 2/3rds of all Covid deaths are 80+, and 6% under 40
People over 80 don't matter - in fact, think of the money we're going save because they've died.
Some Age UK stats:
Older people in care homes • 400,000 older people • Average age 85 years • 66% Cognitive impairment • 40% depression • 75% classified “severely disabled”
That depression stat is frightening (they all are). Personal decision but if that was me I'd wanna be euthanased. Not that that should dictate our policy in this instance.
I`m with you - though I`d have topped myself before getting to that stage.
Clearly dividing by Referendum vote, the division is no longer between support for Socialism and Capitalism as it was under Corbyn but between support for Leave and Remain under Starmer, hence both 2019 Tory and LD voting Remainers give Starmer higher approval ratings than 2019 Labour Leave voters and 2019 Tory Leave voters give Starmer the lowest approval ratings of all.
Midlands deaths higher than London in the latest set. And North West up there as well.
It seems to be kicking off more up here in Yorkshire now, as well. It appears that the focus may well be moving north of Birmingham for the next stage. Still not up to the level of London’s problem though.
One would expect the number of cases as a proportion of total population to end up varying by region, with the most urbanized areas suffering the worst. We have all been asked to practice social distancing for a reason, after all. This is why, for example, it's no surprise that the East of England, which has no large cities, is suffering less badly than Scotland, which has approximately the same population but where most of the people inhabit the central belt.
however Scotland count all deaths , care homes etc, as far as I am aware England do not , they only count hospital and then only if tested so not a great comparison. Deaths in Scotland are significantly below England even counting those factors, why is that.
What are the numbers per capita? However dissimilar data sets are, it improves them if you make them pc. China looks interesting then?
I know latest is 575 but better numbers on wednesday when they add all non hospital numbers , last I saw Scotland was well down on England and they count all deaths not just hospital ones like in England. Hard to see why there should be a big difference.
Scotland can't count all deaths on the day (nor can the rest of the UK) - it takes time for death certificates to work through the system. Often, death certificates are not completed and returned on the day of death, for start.
Yeah, I would be surprised if the stats coming from the NHS north and south of the border were that different to be honest.
Midlands deaths higher than London in the latest set. And North West up there as well.
It seems to be kicking off more up here in Yorkshire now, as well. It appears that the focus may well be moving north of Birmingham for the next stage. Still not up to the level of London’s problem though.
One would expect the number of cases as a proportion of total population to end up varying by region, with the most urbanized areas suffering the worst. We have all been asked to practice social distancing for a reason, after all. This is why, for example, it's no surprise that the East of England, which has no large cities, is suffering less badly than Scotland, which has approximately the same population but where most of the people inhabit the central belt.
however Scotland count all deaths , care homes etc, as far as I am aware England do not , they only count hospital and then only if tested so not a great comparison. Deaths in Scotland are significantly below England even counting those factors, why is that.
I've just been noticing the trends in the numbers of Covid-19 cases in hospital, as displayed in one of the charts that we're shown in the daily UK Government press briefing. The numbers for the South West of England are lowest; the East is in a similar place to Wales, which has a lower population but where most of the people are concentrated in the far South; and Scotland is running well above the East of England and only a little below the (significantly more populous) South East in terms of the current total numbers hospitalised.
I doubt if the differences are attributable to issues such as Governmental competence because London and the devolved administrations have mostly been singing from the same hymn sheet through this crisis, and nor does it seem to be anything to do with resourcing because per capita public spending is not radically different between the various parts of the UK (Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all do better than the mean for the English regions on this metric, but it's not as if they vary by a factor of 2 or 3.) Thus, I wondered if the most obvious explanation might be population density? Obviously Scotland has a greater percentage of its population clustered in conurbations and a correspondingly lower percentage in the countryside than in the East of England or the West Country.
I'm not aware of there being any major difference in the procedures for the reporting of Covid-19-related deaths between Scotland and the rest of the country, but not being an expert on that topic there might well be.
Pretty poor that they cannot all agree to count using the same methodology , you read something different every day. I would expect central belt to be highest which I believe it is , North and south will be minimal due to very low population for sure. I had a site that did it by Scottish region but have lost it now.
Midlands deaths higher than London in the latest set. And North West up there as well.
It seems to be kicking off more up here in Yorkshire now, as well. It appears that the focus may well be moving north of Birmingham for the next stage. Still not up to the level of London’s problem though.
One would expect the number of cases as a proportion of total population to end up varying by region, with the most urbanized areas suffering the worst. We have all been asked to practice social distancing for a reason, after all. This is why, for example, it's no surprise that the East of England, which has no large cities, is suffering less badly than Scotland, which has approximately the same population but where most of the people inhabit the central belt.
however Scotland count all deaths , care homes etc, as far as I am aware England do not , they only count hospital and then only if tested so not a great comparison. Deaths in Scotland are significantly below England even counting those factors, why is that.
I've just been noticing the trends in the numbers of Covid-19 cases in hospital, as displayed in one of the charts that we're shown in the daily UK Government press briefing. The numbers for the South West of England are lowest; the East is in a similar place to Wales, which has a lower population but where most of the people are concentrated in the far South; and Scotland is running well above the East of England and only a little below the (significantly more populous) South East in terms of the current total numbers hospitalised.
I doubt if the differences are attributable to issues such as Governmental competence because London and the devolved administrations have mostly been singing from the same hymn sheet through this crisis, and nor does it seem to be anything to do with resourcing because per capita public spending is not radically different between the various parts of the UK (Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all do better than the mean for the English regions on this metric, but it's not as if they vary by a factor of 2 or 3.) Thus, I wondered if the most obvious explanation might be population density? Obviously Scotland has a greater percentage of its population clustered in conurbations and a correspondingly lower percentage in the countryside than in the East of England or the West Country.
I'm not aware of there being any major difference in the procedures for the reporting of Covid-19-related deaths between Scotland and the rest of the country, but not being an expert on that topic there might well be.
In Spain it is pretty much all about population density - as I suspect it is pretty well everywhere.
Midlands deaths higher than London in the latest set. And North West up there as well.
It seems to be kicking off more up here in Yorkshire now, as well. It appears that the focus may well be moving north of Birmingham for the next stage. Still not up to the level of London’s problem though.
One would expect the number of cases as a proportion of total population to end up varying by region, with the most urbanized areas suffering the worst. We have all been asked to practice social distancing for a reason, after all. This is why, for example, it's no surprise that the East of England, which has no large cities, is suffering less badly than Scotland, which has approximately the same population but where most of the people inhabit the central belt.
however Scotland count all deaths , care homes etc, as far as I am aware England do not , they only count hospital and then only if tested so not a great comparison. Deaths in Scotland are significantly below England even counting those factors, why is that.
No Malc. The daily death results in England come from hospitals but over time the Office for National Statistics add the total deaths in England from death certificates to get a true picture.
In Scotland the situation is very similar indeed - although not exactly the same. We won't know the true figure in Scotland until the National Records of Scotland update us on Wednesday -
As this site itself confirms their "...number is different from the count of deaths published daily on the gov.scot website, because the latter is based on deaths of those who have tested positive for COVID-19 whereas these figures include all deaths where COVID-19 (included suspected cases) was mentioned on the death certificate". So those that pass away in care homes, north and south of the border, will only be included in the daily updates if they had previously tested positive for Covid-19. Huge numbers of those who have died untested in Scotland will not have been included in the figures.
But why let the facts get in the way of your Anglophobic narrative, eh?
Away you twisted nasty halfwit, I was having a serious conversation with someone about the numbers and how counted etc and don't need retreads like you butting in with your unionist jingoism. If you cannot have a decent conversation F**K off.
I am not a Unionist - at least not in the UK sense. Happy for the Scots to decide their own destiny. You, however, are an Anglophobe, you just dress it up in plausably deniable terms like "Unionist" and "Southerner". I am just pointing out some facts that don't meet your narrative. Troll away. You wouldn't know a serious or civil conversation if it bit you in the arse.
The NCSC made a very good point that if we ban Huawei we will be overly dependent on Nokia and Ericsson, and there's no real evidence that their software practices are really any better than Huawei's. It's not backdoors that are the issue, it's plain old bugs.
There is unfortunately no quick fix for the issue, we need things like OpenRAN to start delivering carrier grade systems that we can either build ourselves and source from multiple suppliers, that is a long way off.
A ban on Huawei might be politically appealing, but I doubt it will do anything to improve security.
Ericsson have never come up with convincing answers for -
It's time for the government to dump Huawei from 5G.
I'm looking forward to getting my Huawei Mate Xs this week.
There's been rumours at work that the company is about to ban Huawei devices for any work correspondence. Not such a big deal for me as I get a device, but loads of junior level people don't and you need to be contactible pretty much at any time and have access to work emails at any time too. Then again, I haven't seen a lot of people with Huawei devices, mostly iPhones and Samsungs.
Staff are expected to purchase their own device in order to access work emails?
The employer needs to be told to feck right off.
Lol as if anyone who works for us doesn't have a smartphone.
That’s not the point. You have highlighted that the company may decide that some people have the wrong make of phone and expect them to buy a replacement. That is simply not acceptable.
I've actually had that at work -
Employee - "The login token app won't install on my phone" Support - "You need to have a phone of the following spec x" E - "I refuse to replace my phone" S - "Nothing we can do" E - "I'll call my manager" Manger - "You don't qualify for a company phone. We have stopped handing out hard tokens. either change your phone or no remote working"
So then the manager can't let their employee know that the meeting in London has been cancelled, and they waste half the day and £300 on a pointless journey.
False economy not giving staff a phone.
Why wouldn't they be able to call them? The phone was just incompatible with software, it wasn't as if they didn't have a phone.
On their personal number? That’s not on.
Why not? If it's during work hours I see no issue with that.
HR have your personal number, for use only when strictly necessary. If you want to share it with other colleagues and bosses it is down to you, but you should not be compelled to do so.
Midlands deaths higher than London in the latest set. And North West up there as well.
It seems to be kicking off more up here in Yorkshire now, as well. It appears that the focus may well be moving north of Birmingham for the next stage. Still not up to the level of London’s problem though.
One would expect the number of cases as a proportion of total population to end up varying by region, with the most urbanized areas suffering the worst. We have all been asked to practice social distancing for a reason, after all. This is why, for example, it's no surprise that the East of England, which has no large cities, is suffering less badly than Scotland, which has approximately the same population but where most of the people inhabit the central belt.
however Scotland count all deaths , care homes etc, as far as I am aware England do not , they only count hospital and then only if tested so not a great comparison. Deaths in Scotland are significantly below England even counting those factors, why is that.
I've just been noticing the trends in the numbers of Covid-19 cases in hospital, as displayed in one of the charts that we're shown in the daily UK Government press briefing. The numbers for the South West of England are lowest; the East is in a similar place to Wales, which has a lower population but where most of the people are concentrated in the far South; and Scotland is running well above the East of England and only a little below the (significantly more populous) South East in terms of the current total numbers hospitalised.
I doubt if the differences are attributable to issues such as Governmental competence because London and the devolved administrations have mostly been singing from the same hymn sheet through this crisis, and nor does it seem to be anything to do with resourcing because per capita public spending is not radically different between the various parts of the UK (Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all do better than the mean for the English regions on this metric, but it's not as if they vary by a factor of 2 or 3.) Thus, I wondered if the most obvious explanation might be population density? Obviously Scotland has a greater percentage of its population clustered in conurbations and a correspondingly lower percentage in the countryside than in the East of England or the West Country.
I'm not aware of there being any major difference in the procedures for the reporting of Covid-19-related deaths between Scotland and the rest of the country, but not being an expert on that topic there might well be.
Interesting as well that more non corona deaths than actual ones by look of it. Non-coronavirus deaths in Scotland have risen since the pandemic took hold, amid warnings of "eerily quiet" hospital departments as vulnerable people miss out on medical care.
Scottish deaths in late March and early April were 60 percent higher than the five-year average - with less than half of the increase attributed to COVID-19. Data from the National Records of Scotland show that 1,741 deaths were recorded between March 30 and April 5, 643 more than the average for the same period over the past five years.
Of these, 282 were linked to coronavirus, leaving an unexplained surplus of 361.
Speaking at a Scottish Government media briefing this week, interim chief medical officer Dr Gregor Smith warned that areas of the National Health Service (NHS) not involved with coronavirus were "eerily quiet".
Midlands deaths higher than London in the latest set. And North West up there as well.
It seems to be kicking off more up here in Yorkshire now, as well. It appears that the focus may well be moving north of Birmingham for the next stage. Still not up to the level of London’s problem though.
One would expect the number of cases as a proportion of total population to end up varying by region, with the most urbanized areas suffering the worst. We have all been asked to practice social distancing for a reason, after all. This is why, for example, it's no surprise that the East of England, which has no large cities, is suffering less badly than Scotland, which has approximately the same population but where most of the people inhabit the central belt.
however Scotland count all deaths , care homes etc, as far as I am aware England do not , they only count hospital and then only if tested so not a great comparison. Deaths in Scotland are significantly below England even counting those factors, why is that.
Then there is a weekly update which covers all deaths based on death certificates. This will cover any death that mentions Covid-19 on the death certificate, wherever they died, hospital, care home or at home. As it takes time for death certificates to filter through there is a lag,
Anybody still thinks we are going to get a South Korean type system without certain sections of the media making a hell of a racket and special interest grouping mounting long winded legal challenges....
Somebody clearly very keen to leak to the Guardian all this.
Surely the major problem with this app is that it is next to useless unless it is compulsory. A compulsory app and compulsory use of a smartphone if you are outside your house would work. Someone needs to buy me a smartphone, though.
Making smartphone possession and download of apps I think is a step that goes far too far
The choice being between, on the one hand, relative safety plus free movement or, on the other, either a longer lockdown or having to gamble with your health/life? Surely the vast majority of people would prefer the former?
What percentage of people would have to install the app though? I know I wouldn't but then I don't carry my phone with me anyway when out and about
Even 95% takeup would suggest that every time 20 people meet then that group could be compromised. Could businesses make it a condition of employment?
Isn't one approach to start lockdown relaxation by allowing it first to people willing to carry a phone with the app? We could all choose whether the surveillance was so worrying that we preferred to stay at home until further relaxation later. I'd guess that most people would be OK with it, and that would get the economy off the floor.
How would you enforce this? You would need to spy on all those out and about to check if they have the app / bluetooth is on.
I'm not really convinced this needs much compulsion but for the sake of argument: Plod's phone sends a message to nearby phones, your phone fails to answer due to lack of the app or lack of existence, plod harasses you for sunbathing or whatever they normally do over there.
There are 30 people in the high st, they get 29 replies because I haven't got my phone on me. They identify which of the 30 people it is how exactly?
Plod doesn't stand in the middle of a crowd for this particular task.
They avoid that on your average city street how?
Do the enforcement on a smaller street. Train turnstiles, entrances to buildings etc would also work.
Enforcement won't be perfect, but enforcement of "only.leave your house for approved activities" isn't perfect. It doesn't have to be, it's a game of averages.
Stop and search was controversial enough, stop and search we think your cellphone / app is not on...I can see the headline's now.
The reason why South Korea / China work so well, you can't do much out in the real world without your cellphone these days. You need it for payments, transport, getting into your office, etc. You don't even really need to check, because you know people can't really be functioning in society without it.
72 bed home so that's 18% of entire population, with undisclosed number of further unresolved cases. Sobering.
Over 50% of hospital deaths from Covid-19 are aged over 80, and the unreported deaths from care homes are estimated to be 50% of the total, so likely 2/3rds of all Covid deaths are 80+, and 6% under 40
People over 80 don't matter - in fact, think of the money we're going save because they've died.
Some Age UK stats:
Older people in care homes • 400,000 older people • Average age 85 years • 66% Cognitive impairment • 40% depression • 75% classified “severely disabled”
That depression stat is frightening (they all are). Personal decision but if that was me I'd wanna be euthanased. Not that that should dictate our policy in this instance.
I`m with you - though I`d have topped myself before getting to that stage.
My son in laws parents, both in their late eighties, are in a terrible way with his mother in dementia care and his father needing hospital or nursing care and not able to get either, but both are fighting to live
When you arrive in old age you may find it harder to face your own death
I`ve being going in big against Trump/Republicans for a while. Topped up yet again today.
At current odds I prefer laying Trump for Next President at 1.99 (1.97 this morning) rather than laying Republicans to win GE at 1.95. My reasoning is that I still hold a hunch that Trump may not run.
Yes. It would be galling to go against Trump by laying the Reps and then do your money if some other Rep ends up with the nom and wins the general.
As for me, if I am emotionally invested in an outcome - i.e. it's something I really want to happen - I never put money on it. I either stay clear, which is the best approach, or if it's something I desperately want to happen, e.g. Tiger Woods to win the Open, I might back against it. The "emotional hedge". It's human nature and sometimes I succumb.
I'm breaking this habit of a lifetime with WH2020. I want Trump to lose more than I've ever wanted anything and yet I'm not staying clear and I'm not backing against it. I am backing Trump to lose. That's how much of a cert I think it is.
It's time for the government to dump Huawei from 5G.
I'm looking forward to getting my Huawei Mate Xs this week.
There's been rumours at work that the company is about to ban Huawei devices for any work correspondence. Not such a big deal for me as I get a device, but loads of junior level people don't and you need to be contactible pretty much at any time and have access to work emails at any time too. Then again, I haven't seen a lot of people with Huawei devices, mostly iPhones and Samsungs.
Staff are expected to purchase their own device in order to access work emails?
The employer needs to be told to feck right off.
Lol as if anyone who works for us doesn't have a smartphone.
That’s not the point. You have highlighted that the company may decide that some people have the wrong make of phone and expect them to buy a replacement. That is simply not acceptable.
I've actually had that at work -
Employee - "The login token app won't install on my phone" Support - "You need to have a phone of the following spec x" E - "I refuse to replace my phone" S - "Nothing we can do" E - "I'll call my manager" Manger - "You don't qualify for a company phone. We have stopped handing out hard tokens. either change your phone or no remote working"
So then the manager can't let their employee know that the meeting in London has been cancelled, and they waste half the day and £300 on a pointless journey.
False economy not giving staff a phone.
The Government has told employers that people should be working from home if they are able to do so.
The employee should therefore shop the employer to the police.
If they're really lucky the employer will be located in Derbyshire, which should help to move things along a bit...
72 bed home so that's 18% of entire population, with undisclosed number of further unresolved cases. Sobering.
Over 50% of hospital deaths from Covid-19 are aged over 80, and the unreported deaths from care homes are estimated to be 50% of the total, so likely 2/3rds of all Covid deaths are 80+, and 6% under 40
People over 80 don't matter - in fact, think of the money we're going save because they've died.
And all those windfalls for their children.
If they've been in a care home,e for a while any windfall may well be reduced!
And, on ageing, one of my one-time staff, a lady in her late 50's, used to lament, on being mildly criticised, 'Once I was young and beautiful and nobody called me a cow'!
Midlands deaths higher than London in the latest set. And North West up there as well.
It seems to be kicking off more up here in Yorkshire now, as well. It appears that the focus may well be moving north of Birmingham for the next stage. Still not up to the level of London’s problem though.
One would expect the number of cases as a proportion of total population to end up varying by region, with the most urbanized areas suffering the worst. We have all been asked to practice social distancing for a reason, after all. This is why, for example, it's no surprise that the East of England, which has no large cities, is suffering less badly than Scotland, which has approximately the same population but where most of the people inhabit the central belt.
however Scotland count all deaths , care homes etc, as far as I am aware England do not , they only count hospital and then only if tested so not a great comparison. Deaths in Scotland are significantly below England even counting those factors, why is that.
What are the numbers per capita? However dissimilar data sets are, it improves them if you make them pc. China looks interesting then?
I know latest is 575 but better numbers on wednesday when they add all non hospital numbers , last I saw Scotland was well down on England and they count all deaths not just hospital ones like in England. Hard to see why there should be a big difference.
Scotland can't count all deaths on the day (nor can the rest of the UK) - it takes time for death certificates to work through the system. Often, death certificates are not completed and returned on the day of death, for start.
I know Scotland include any that have Corona on the death certificate outside hospitals, do England do the same. Also do both only count hospital deaths where they have had test. Seems crazy that they have so many permutations and just makes you think they want to underplay the numbers. Should be very easy to show in each country using exactly the same metrics.
Well yes I've long felt a big part of the US beef with Huawei is that it must be much harder to put pressure on or recruit agents in a Chinese company than it is in a western company.
It's time for the government to dump Huawei from 5G.
I'm looking forward to getting my Huawei Mate Xs this week.
There's been rumours at work that the company is about to ban Huawei devices for any work correspondence. Not such a big deal for me as I get a device, but loads of junior level people don't and you need to be contactible pretty much at any time and have access to work emails at any time too. Then again, I haven't seen a lot of people with Huawei devices, mostly iPhones and Samsungs.
Staff are expected to purchase their own device in order to access work emails?
The employer needs to be told to feck right off.
Lol as if anyone who works for us doesn't have a smartphone.
That’s not the point. You have highlighted that the company may decide that some people have the wrong make of phone and expect them to buy a replacement. That is simply not acceptable.
I've actually had that at work -
Employee - "The login token app won't install on my phone" Support - "You need to have a phone of the following spec x" E - "I refuse to replace my phone" S - "Nothing we can do" E - "I'll call my manager" Manger - "You don't qualify for a company phone. We have stopped handing out hard tokens. either change your phone or no remote working"
So then the manager can't let their employee know that the meeting in London has been cancelled, and they waste half the day and £300 on a pointless journey.
False economy not giving staff a phone.
The Government has told employers that people should be working from home if they are able to do so.
The employee should therefore shop the employer to the police.
If they're really lucky the employer will be located in Derbyshire, which should help to move things along a bit...
Alternatively, the employee failed to answer the phone call/text from the manager. So travelled for a non-urgent purpose.
Sadly he/she was shot as a precautionary measure by Cambridge police, following a risk assessment into the threat they represented.
His/her replacement was strongly advised by the line manager to have a phone of the correct type.
It's time for the government to dump Huawei from 5G.
I'm looking forward to getting my Huawei Mate Xs this week.
There's been rumours at work that the company is about to ban Huawei devices for any work correspondence. Not such a big deal for me as I get a device, but loads of junior level people don't and you need to be contactible pretty much at any time and have access to work emails at any time too. Then again, I haven't seen a lot of people with Huawei devices, mostly iPhones and Samsungs.
Staff are expected to purchase their own device in order to access work emails?
The employer needs to be told to feck right off.
Lol as if anyone who works for us doesn't have a smartphone.
That’s not the point. You have highlighted that the company may decide that some people have the wrong make of phone and expect them to buy a replacement. That is simply not acceptable.
I've actually had that at work -
Employee - "The login token app won't install on my phone" Support - "You need to have a phone of the following spec x" E - "I refuse to replace my phone" S - "Nothing we can do" E - "I'll call my manager" Manger - "You don't qualify for a company phone. We have stopped handing out hard tokens. either change your phone or no remote working"
So then the manager can't let their employee know that the meeting in London has been cancelled, and they waste half the day and £300 on a pointless journey.
False economy not giving staff a phone.
Why wouldn't they be able to call them? The phone was just incompatible with software, it wasn't as if they didn't have a phone.
On their personal number? That’s not on.
Why not? If it's during work hours I see no issue with that.
HR have your personal number, for use only when strictly necessary. If you want to share it with other colleagues and bosses it is down to you, but you should not be compelled to do so.
Well, you hope they do.
You get a call at home from X with whom you work.
Manager Z wants to speak to you but HR doesn't have your number, so he's called Y who also doesn't have your number but is pretty sure that X does. Etc.
The potential problem for both Rayner and Starmer is that both are actually fairly left-wing and neither so very far away from Corbyn. After all both stayed in his shadow cabinet throughout and despite their claims now they let the anti-semitism issue go mostly unchallenged while some very good MPs stood above the parapet and others left the party. They are tainted. The members are probably aware of this - the public are nowhere near this kind of viewpoint. Of course if they do now get embroiled in this nonsense squabbling about internal leaks and reports they are going to seem even less relevant. A misstep from Starmer yes and one that has not especially surprised me.
Midlands deaths higher than London in the latest set. And North West up there as well.
It seems to be kicking off more up here in Yorkshire now, as well. It appears that the focus may well be moving north of Birmingham for the next stage. Still not up to the level of London’s problem though.
One would expect the number of cases as a proportion of total population to end up varying by region, with the most urbanized areas suffering the worst. We have all been asked to practice social distancing for a reason, after all. This is why, for example, it's no surprise that the East of England, which has no large cities, is suffering less badly than Scotland, which has approximately the same population but where most of the people inhabit the central belt.
however Scotland count all deaths , care homes etc, as far as I am aware England do not , they only count hospital and then only if tested so not a great comparison. Deaths in Scotland are significantly below England even counting those factors, why is that.
Then there is a weekly update which covers all deaths based on death certificates. This will cover any death that mentions Covid-19 on the death certificate, wherever they died, hospital, care home or at home. As it takes time for death certificates to filter through there is a lag,
The same way as England & Wales.
I did indeed and knew how Scotland counted , but have seen varying articles on what is counted in England, some say care homes included some say not, some say only if tested some say all. Given they will not bother testing in care homes it could make a huge difference to the actual numbers reported.
Midlands deaths higher than London in the latest set. And North West up there as well.
It seems to be kicking off more up here in Yorkshire now, as well. It appears that the focus may well be moving north of Birmingham for the next stage. Still not up to the level of London’s problem though.
One would expect the number of cases as a proportion of total population to end up varying by region, with the most urbanized areas suffering the worst. We have all been asked to practice social distancing for a reason, after all. This is why, for example, it's no surprise that the East of England, which has no large cities, is suffering less badly than Scotland, which has approximately the same population but where most of the people inhabit the central belt.
however Scotland count all deaths , care homes etc, as far as I am aware England do not , they only count hospital and then only if tested so not a great comparison. Deaths in Scotland are significantly below England even counting those factors, why is that.
Then there is a weekly update which covers all deaths based on death certificates. This will cover any death that mentions Covid-19 on the death certificate, wherever they died, hospital, care home or at home. As it takes time for death certificates to filter through there is a lag,
The same way as England & Wales.
I did indeed and knew how Scotland counted , but have seen varying articles on what is counted in England, some say care homes included some say not, some say only if tested some say all. Given they will not bother testing in care homes it could make a huge difference to the actual numbers reported.
The daily NHS stats are in-hospital only, whereas the weekly ONS stats include all deaths. I don't think that has ever changed.
Speaking at a Scottish Government media briefing this week, interim chief medical officer Dr Gregor Smith warned that areas of the National Health Service (NHS) not involved with coronavirus were "eerily quiet".
I would imagine that this pattern is not peculiar to Scotland and is being replicated all over the UK. Presumably the product of patients who don't want to be a burden at the moment, or who are too afraid to access services because of the risk of picking up Covid-19 from staff or the sick in healthcare environments?
There are probably going to be an awful lot of people who are going to end up needlessly sick, maimed or dead through the cumulative effects of this, plus all the screenings, routine appointments and elective surgeries that are being cancelled, whilst the healthcare system scrambles to deal with the virus.
Midlands deaths higher than London in the latest set. And North West up there as well.
It seems to be kicking off more up here in Yorkshire now, as well. It appears that the focus may well be moving north of Birmingham for the next stage. Still not up to the level of London’s problem though.
One would expect the number of cases as a proportion of total population to end up varying by region, with the most urbanized areas suffering the worst. We have all been asked to practice social distancing for a reason, after all. This is why, for example, it's no surprise that the East of England, which has no large cities, is suffering less badly than Scotland, which has approximately the same population but where most of the people inhabit the central belt.
however Scotland count all deaths , care homes etc, as far as I am aware England do not , they only count hospital and then only if tested so not a great comparison. Deaths in Scotland are significantly below England even counting those factors, why is that.
What are the numbers per capita? However dissimilar data sets are, it improves them if you make them pc. China looks interesting then?
I know latest is 575 but better numbers on wednesday when they add all non hospital numbers , last I saw Scotland was well down on England and they count all deaths not just hospital ones like in England. Hard to see why there should be a big difference.
Scotland can't count all deaths on the day (nor can the rest of the UK) - it takes time for death certificates to work through the system. Often, death certificates are not completed and returned on the day of death, for start.
I know Scotland include any that have Corona on the death certificate outside hospitals, do England do the same. Also do both only count hospital deaths where they have had test. Seems crazy that they have so many permutations and just makes you think they want to underplay the numbers. Should be very easy to show in each country using exactly the same metrics.
Agreed. It makes comparisons across countries really difficult, on top of the tendency to report numbers without correcting for overall population, which is infuriating. For what it's worth, I also agree with the above comments that the link with population density seems to be becoming clear.
Midlands deaths higher than London in the latest set. And North West up there as well.
It seems to be kicking off more up here in Yorkshire now, as well. It appears that the focus may well be moving north of Birmingham for the next stage. Still not up to the level of London’s problem though.
One would expect the number of cases as a proportion of total population to end up varying by region, with the most urbanized areas suffering the worst. We have all been asked to practice social distancing for a reason, after all. This is why, for example, it's no surprise that the East of England, which has no large cities, is suffering less badly than Scotland, which has approximately the same population but where most of the people inhabit the central belt.
however Scotland count all deaths , care homes etc, as far as I am aware England do not , they only count hospital and then only if tested so not a great comparison. Deaths in Scotland are significantly below England even counting those factors, why is that.
No Malc. The daily death results in England come from hospitals but over time the Office for National Statistics add the total deaths in England from death certificates to get a true picture.
In Scotland the situation is very similar indeed - although not exactly the same. We won't know the true figure in Scotland until the National Records of Scotland update us on Wednesday -
As this site itself confirms their "...number is different from the count of deaths published daily on the gov.scot website, because the latter is based on deaths of those who have tested positive for COVID-19 whereas these figures include all deaths where COVID-19 (included suspected cases) was mentioned on the death certificate". So those that pass away in care homes, north and south of the border, will only be included in the daily updates if they had previously tested positive for Covid-19. Huge numbers of those who have died untested in Scotland will not have been included in the figures.
But why let the facts get in the way of your Anglophobic narrative, eh?
Away you twisted nasty halfwit, I was having a serious conversation with someone about the numbers and how counted etc and don't need retreads like you butting in with your unionist jingoism. If you cannot have a decent conversation F**K off.
I am not a Unionist - at least not in the UK sense. Happy for the Scots to decide their own destiny. You, however, are an Anglophobe, you just dress it up in plausably deniable terms like "Unionist" and "Southerner". I am just pointing out some facts that don't meet your narrative. Troll away. You wouldn't know a serious or civil conversation if it bit you in the arse.
You know nothing about me you arse, usual pompous jingoistic Little Englander.
Comments
Now that they've served the function, the Tories are happy to see the Jewish Chronicle go bust.
The employer needs to be told to feck right off.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/271851/smartphone-owners-in-the-united-kingdom-uk-by-age/
The second part - creating a diverse range of options for the next generation - will depend on various consortia investing in that work.
The fact that a substantial percentage of UK kit buy is reserved for non-Huawei options going forward, is making this investment easy to justify. Which was the intent.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-52268841
72 bed home so that's 18% of entire population, with undisclosed number of further unresolved cases. Sobering.
But my all time favourite quote of his is this:
“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities, but of their advantages”
Remote access to system - login, email etc - is available via app on
1) Your own phone
2) If you insist on not having a phone, you may or may not get a company phone
Some are still using physical tokens - such as the RSA dongles that go on your keychain. But they are dying out rapidly
Company phones are generally limited to those who really need them - and would actually use them. Sales for example.
For personal experience this is a not uncommon thing. As is gifting last years smart phone for this purpose.
This latter being a formulation of "can you imagine him as PM?"
Which is key IMO. For example, a lot of people just could not imagine Jeremy Corbyn as PM and I think this cost him more votes than the fact that many others could imagine it - or thought they could - and were not keen.
There is a big difference between the following two statements -
"I really don't think he's up to it."
"I'm sure he's up to it but I don't like the thought of what he will be up to."
But they both cost votes.
I've always found around £200 to be the sweet spot for a phone. You'll generally get a phone that has all the functionality you need, will run all the latest apps, and retains a battery life of at least a day for about 4 years or so. Paying much more than that for a phone is really just for pose value.
At current odds I prefer laying Trump for Next President at 1.99 (1.97 this morning) rather than laying Republicans to win GE at 1.95. My reasoning is that I still hold a hunch that Trump may not run.
Employee - "The login token app won't install on my phone"
Support - "You need to have a phone of the following spec x"
E - "I refuse to replace my phone"
S - "Nothing we can do"
E - "I'll call my manager"
Manger - "You don't qualify for a company phone. We have stopped handing out hard tokens. either change your phone or no remote working"
False economy not giving staff a phone.
In Scotland the situation is very similar indeed - although not exactly the same. We won't know the true figure in Scotland until the National Records of Scotland update us on Wednesday -
https://www.nrscotland.gov.uk/covid19stats
As this site itself confirms their "...number is different from the count of deaths published daily on the gov.scot website, because the latter is based on deaths of those who have tested positive for COVID-19 whereas these figures include all deaths where COVID-19 (included suspected cases) was mentioned on the death certificate". So those that pass away in care homes, north and south of the border, will only be included in the daily updates if they had previously tested positive for Covid-19. Huge numbers of those who have died untested in Scotland will not have been included in the figures.
But why let the facts get in the way of your Anglophobic narrative, eh?
I doubt if the differences are attributable to issues such as Governmental competence because London and the devolved administrations have mostly been singing from the same hymn sheet through this crisis, and nor does it seem to be anything to do with resourcing because per capita public spending is not radically different between the various parts of the UK (Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all do better than the mean for the English regions on this metric, but it's not as if they vary by a factor of 2 or 3.) Thus, I wondered if the most obvious explanation might be population density? Obviously Scotland has a greater percentage of its population clustered in conurbations and a correspondingly lower percentage in the countryside than in the East of England or the West Country.
I'm not aware of there being any major difference in the procedures for the reporting of Covid-19-related deaths between Scotland and the rest of the country, but not being an expert on that topic there might well be.
The simple truth is that most people don't want to carry 2 phones. They actually *want* a BYOD world....
I raise eyebrows by not installing company email support etc - because you have to surrender control of your phone to company support. Remote wipe capability etc. Most *employees* see that as a bit weird
There is unfortunately no quick fix for the issue, we need things like OpenRAN to start delivering carrier grade systems that we can either build ourselves and source from multiple suppliers, that is a long way off.
A ban on Huawei might be politically appealing, but I doubt it will do anything to improve security.
Have an esim for my personal line and a physical sim card for my work number
Older people in care homes
• 400,000 older people
• Average age 85 years
• 66% Cognitive impairment
• 40% depression
• 75% classified “severely
disabled”
That depression stat is frightening (they all are). Personal decision but if that was me I'd wanna be euthanased. Not that that should dictate our policy in this instance.
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1249725053828239360?s=20
In that case I would suggest a report on the leaking of the report on the report should be commissioned *now* to save time
As should the report on the leaking of the report on the leaking of the report on the......
https://www.theregister.co.uk/Print/2007/07/11/greek_mobile_wiretap_latest/
for example.
Non-coronavirus deaths in Scotland have risen since the pandemic took hold, amid warnings of "eerily quiet" hospital departments as vulnerable people miss out on medical care.
Scottish deaths in late March and early April were 60 percent higher than the five-year average - with less than half of the increase attributed to COVID-19.
Data from the National Records of Scotland show that 1,741 deaths were recorded between March 30 and April 5, 643 more than the average for the same period over the past five years.
Of these, 282 were linked to coronavirus, leaving an unexplained surplus of 361.
Speaking at a Scottish Government media briefing this week, interim chief medical officer Dr Gregor Smith warned that areas of the National Health Service (NHS) not involved with coronavirus were "eerily quiet".
Scotland announces daily deaths - hospital deaths tested positive for Covid-19.
The same way as England & Wales.
Then there is a weekly update which covers all deaths based on death certificates. This will cover any death that mentions Covid-19 on the death certificate, wherever they died, hospital, care home or at home. As it takes time for death certificates to filter through there is a lag,
The same way as England & Wales.
When you arrive in old age you may find it harder to face your own death
As for me, if I am emotionally invested in an outcome - i.e. it's something I really want to happen - I never put money on it. I either stay clear, which is the best approach, or if it's something I desperately want to happen, e.g. Tiger Woods to win the Open, I might back against it. The "emotional hedge". It's human nature and sometimes I succumb.
I'm breaking this habit of a lifetime with WH2020. I want Trump to lose more than I've ever wanted anything and yet I'm not staying clear and I'm not backing against it. I am backing Trump to lose. That's how much of a cert I think it is.
The employee should therefore shop the employer to the police.
If they're really lucky the employer will be located in Derbyshire, which should help to move things along a bit...
It's been a popcorn day for Labour watchers.
And, on ageing, one of my one-time staff, a lady in her late 50's, used to lament, on being mildly criticised, 'Once I was young and beautiful and nobody called me a cow'!
Sadly he/she was shot as a precautionary measure by Cambridge police, following a risk assessment into the threat they represented.
His/her replacement was strongly advised by the line manager to have a phone of the correct type.
You get a call at home from X with whom you work.
Manager Z wants to speak to you but HR doesn't have your number, so he's called Y who also doesn't have your number but is pretty sure that X does.
Etc.
that's not quite the one I was think of, though...
There are probably going to be an awful lot of people who are going to end up needlessly sick, maimed or dead through the cumulative effects of this, plus all the screenings, routine appointments and elective surgeries that are being cancelled, whilst the healthcare system scrambles to deal with the virus.