Poor figures from Spain again today more than 5000 new cases and more than 500 new deaths. Still a long way to go.
That's why I'm surprised that the lockdown has been relaxed. There doesn't seem to be any dramatic fall in cases.
To be fair the 'relaxation' has just started and it does not amount to much - just allowing a few more people back to work. In most respects the lockdown is stricter than the UK and the enforcement is failry severe although very well supported by the people. However, time is marching and Spain is not especially rich....
Of course many countries have simply banned arrivals from Britain, except for their own nationals.
They're all wrong and we're right?
But that really isn't the choice, is it ? We're talking about a complete absence of any kind of screening. Asking if we should ban all arrivals isn't an answer to that.
Thailand has banned air arrivals from the UK. For a while now, I think. Position doesn't seem as serious there, but there are lockdowns.
One thing that makes it difficult online is the lack of other information to go with profiles. EG I'd be curious to know the age profile of the BBC debate. I'm 37 and I'm curious if anyone my age or younger is on the side of compulsory BBC payments.
It does seem (no disrespect intended) that the desire to see the BBC paid for by all is a metric of the elderly. While simultaneously not wanting the elderly to pay for it!
The difference between most young-old debates though is that as people get older their views change on many things, but I wager it won't on the BBC. People who've grown up to view entertainment on a plethora of platforms aren't going to grow up into viewing the BBC as special for entertainment above all others.
I am over 50 and I favour scrapping the license, my father just cancelled his as due to lockdown I shared my prime account with him and my son shared his netflix account and after 2 weeks he came to the view that what he now had access to was far superior to most broadcast channels. He could watch what he liked when he liked and didn't have to put up with daytime tv. He also uses youtube incessantly for tutorials on things such as how to tie new patterns of fishing flies.
Of course many countries have simply banned arrivals from Britain, except for their own nationals.
They're all wrong and we're right?
But that really isn't the choice, is it ? We're talking about a complete absence of any kind of screening. Asking if we should ban all arrivals isn't an answer to that.
I think the answer is that it doesn't work. Screening by temperature misses the asymptomatic and those with mild symptoms, and catches a lot of other people. No other country is currently much worse than us so it doesn't really matter. And to do it properly the Government would have to rent hotels and quarantine everyone for 14 days under house arrest,
Screening by temperature works a bit, even given it is unreliable. It is fast, cheap and unintrusive. If those with high temperatures are then given a second, more reliable test, then that will take care of false positives. We should do it.
Poor figures from Spain again today more than 5000 new cases and more than 500 new deaths. Still a long way to go.
Is their truly any evidence that lockdowns work or is the virus just following its curve?
The spanish Health service is very good but has come close to collapse this time. Very close indeed. No lockdown would have been a massacre of the people and the service.
Boris will do what he was always going to do - announce success knowing that his press would back him. The fundamental difference between the May deal and the Johnson deal was that having said "no British government would put a border down the Irish Sea" he put a border down the Irish Sea. That he and his ministers have since denied they have done so doesn't change the reality.
So the final Brexit deal will be the same. The utter lack of any movement on creating the physical, digital and human resource needed for no deal with the insistence that we will have a deal reveals the nature of the deal: alignment. We will remain entirely aligned with the EU because we leave ourselves no other options. Boris will declare that we are not aligned, the media will repeat it, and anyone saying "but I can see your cock my Emperor" will be dismissed as another remoaner.
So in 2021 when we pass through borders the signs will be EU+EEA+CH+UK. Not that anyone will have a problem getting through the UK border - we aren't even asking people coming in if they are in during a pandemic, so the idea that we will be stopping people next year and interviewing them about what they are doing is absurd.
Extension until June 2021 to make up for time lost through lockdown might be OK but Leavers will not stomach a longer extension of the transition period without some starting to look to Farage and the Brexit Party again
Why do we need an extension to June 21? Not enough time to implement the border down the Irish Sea never mind channel border. The deal we will get is the deal we have, spun magnificently by your good self and the Daily Mail as being nothing of the sort.
If no deal agreed past June 21 then we go got No Deal, as most Tory MPs and most Leavers and most Tory voters will demand. For them we cannot have free movement and ECJ jurisdiction continuing indefinitely
1. Practically speaking how do you propose to implement an end to free movement? Its not possible to build / staff / resource a border at every border point in the time allowed. Its fine to say "end free movement" its another to actually do so 2. We will always be under ECJ jurisdiction and rules on everything we trade with the EU. As we are under American rules. Japanese rules. Etc Etc. Its at best obtuse to pretend otherwise.
Fundamentally, we will need to trade our way out of the depression that lockdown will have placed us all in. We will not need an extension as we will agree a quick deal. Which will be the current deal with added lipstick and you/the Daily Mail spinning it.
Of course many countries have simply banned arrivals from Britain, except for their own nationals.
They're all wrong and we're right?
THe GOv'ts complacency over airports has been an absolute disgrace. I think I may have made this point a few times here. If we're getting R0 down, must be time to start looking at stopping arrivals from certain places. I'M LOOKING AT YOU JFK
It's the same "we know better" decision making from our ruling classes in the civil service. They are no longer fit for purpose. Our "experts" have shown themselves to be severely lacking in this crisis. Everything has been late, poorly thought out and poorly planned. We have public bodies fighting against the private sector and all kinds of procurement issues. We need a huge clear out once this is over, as with brexit where the likes of Ollie Robbins thought he was the smartest guy in the room but was outsmarted at every turn by Barnier and his team, our experts have been caught short on far too many occasions.
Why pick on Ollie Robbins? I thought he was just a masochistic Remainer who gladly went along with everything Barnier proposed. Surely DD, who genuinely thought he could give the EU a fight, should be the main object of your ire.
1. Nice strawman. I'm happy to pay for your kids education. Your bahamain adventure is neither necessary or desirable. Public service broadcasting is.
2. I think the BBC should be funded from general taxation, but ringfenced and chartered properly to ensure its independence. The TV license is regressive in that it's harder for families that can make the best use of its public service aspect (that includes entertainment) to actually pay for it. A subscription is just the TV license but without the breadth of programming that collecting from everyone allows and requires.
3. This is aimed at Phillip and the rest of the "Why must I pay for Eastenders REEEEE" crowd: Entertainment is a public service. You might not like the output, but the Beeb has a requirement to produce programming that a majority enjoy. Eastenders is popular and people like it. For a lot of people, particularly the elderly who may not be able to afford (or even really understand) the insane world of streaming services it is a lifeline that provides them with varied entertainment they can meaningfully engage with. Eastenders is amongst the Beeb's most popular programming. I don't like it especially, but my widowed Grandmother practically lives for it. I don't watch kids TV but the number of "Thank God for CBBC" statuses on FB from child-rearing friends have been rising steadily with my entry into my 30s. I am happy for these things to exist because they provide pleasure, education and good cheer to a huge number of people. Now I'm sure Socky will pop up from the well of unintelligent posts and say "But my holiday does that". However the state spending money on one person to go to the Bahamas is not a good allocation of resources. Spending money on programming that makes the day of ten million people slightly better absolutely is.
Agree with the point about streaming services being difficult for the elderly to manage - had that with mum.
I think Freeview is different, but that does not reach us for some reason. i is a poor signal spot.
I still say make the BBC like the National Trust - a charitable incorporation with a membership, governed by the membership indirectly to give a moderately slow rate of any change.
Many of my friends are in the 70s and some older. All have boxes for streamed TV services and none have any difficulty at all in using them.
Spoke to my local independent cycle repair shop, and so many people are cycling that they are so busy they need one week's advance notice for a bike service.
Being out on the bike is like the 1940s. Cars? What cars.
My only complaint about cyclists is the way a lot of them in places like London seem to think it's okay to go through red lights.
Of course many countries have simply banned arrivals from Britain, except for their own nationals.
They're all wrong and we're right?
THe GOv'ts complacency over airports has been an absolute disgrace. I think I may have made this point a few times here. If we're getting R0 down, must be time to start looking at stopping arrivals from certain places. I'M LOOKING AT YOU JFK
It's the same "we know better" decision making from our ruling classes in the civil service. They are no longer fit for purpose. Our "experts" have shown themselves to be severely lacking in this crisis. Everything has been late, poorly thought out and poorly planned. We have public bodies fighting against the private sector and all kinds of procurement issues. We need a huge clear out once this is over, as with brexit where the likes of Ollie Robbins thought he was the smartest guy in the room but was outsmarted at every turn by Barnier and his team, our experts have been caught short on far too many occasions.
Why pick on Ollie Robbins? I thought he was just a masochistic Remainer who gladly went along with everything Barnier proposed. Surely DD, who genuinely thought he could give the EU a fight, should be the main object of your ire.
Why would they not be great for trade deals? They won't be great for TRADE. That's totally different for not being great for trade DEALS. Pissing rain isn't good for a holiday but it's GREAT for planning a holiday. More holidays get planned during crap weather than any other time.
Spoke to my local independent cycle repair shop, and so many people are cycling that they are so busy they need one week's advance notice for a bike service.
Being out on the bike is like the 1940s. Cars? What cars.
My only complaint about cyclists is the way a lot of them in places like London seem to think it's okay to go through red lights.
100% agreed.
Cyclists who obey the law I have no problems with. Cyclist law breakers I do.
Poor figures from Spain again today more than 5000 new cases and more than 500 new deaths. Still a long way to go.
Is their truly any evidence that lockdowns work or is the virus just following its curve?
The spanish Health service is very good but has come close to collapse this time. Very close indeed. No lockdown would have been a massacre of the people and the service.
Spain has been in a severe lockdown for 34 days, yet there were 5000 new cases yesterday. Italy has been in lockdown for 38 days, yet there were 3000 new cases yesterday.
It may be that without a lockdown the number of cases would have been 100 times higher, but is there any evidence of that?
The arguments for simplicity should be obvious: It's cheaper to administer, it leads to fewer edge cases of people gaining or losing out unfairly due some peculiarity of their circumstances that happens to not match up well with the rules, and it's easier to explain and sell to the public.
Simpler is indeed good as a principle, but there will be downsides. Making people pay for something (say education) may be more complex, but if it results in better schools (and I think it would) then it is a price worth paying.
That's exactly what happened when they introduced free prescriptions for medicine etc in Scotland: much of the additional cost turned out to be covered by the reduction in bureaucracy, given that quite a few people such as OAPs and those on the dole were getting prescriptions free anyway, whatever happened.
Prescription charges are a silly fig leaf so that the politicians can claim GP visits are "free".
Having a sensible charge for a GP appointment (including free prescription if needed) may have lots of side benefits, but is apparently taboo.
1. Nice strawman. I'm happy to pay for your kids education. Your bahamain adventure is neither necessary or desirable. Public service broadcasting is.
2. I think the BBC should be funded from general taxation, but ringfenced and chartered properly to ensure its independence. The TV license is regressive in that it's harder for families that can make the best use of its public service aspect (that includes entertainment) to actually pay for it. A subscription is just the TV license but without the breadth of programming that collecting from everyone allows and requires.
3. This is aimed at Phillip and the rest of the "Why must I pay for Eastenders REEEEE" crowd: Entertainment is a public service. You might not like the output, but the Beeb has a requirement to produce programming that a majority enjoy. Eastenders is popular and people like it. For a lot of people, particularly the elderly who may not be able to afford (or even really understand) the insane world of streaming services it is a lifeline that provides them with varied entertainment they can meaningfully engage with. Eastenders is amongst the Beeb's most popular programming. I don't like it especially, but my widowed Grandmother practically lives for it. I don't watch kids TV but the number of "Thank God for CBBC" statuses on FB from child-rearing friends have been rising steadily with my entry into my 30s. I am happy for these things to exist because they provide pleasure, education and good cheer to a huge number of people. Now I'm sure Socky will pop up from the well of unintelligent posts and say "But my holiday does that". However the state spending money on one person to go to the Bahamas is not a good allocation of resources. Spending money on programming that makes the day of ten million people slightly better absolutely is.
Agree with the point about streaming services being difficult for the elderly to manage - had that with mum.
I think Freeview is different, but that does not reach us for some reason. i is a poor signal spot.
I still say make the BBC like the National Trust - a charitable incorporation with a membership, governed by the membership indirectly to give a moderately slow rate of any change.
Many of my friends are in the 70s and some older. All have boxes for streamed TV services and none have any difficulty at all in using them.
Previously we had Virgin, but they got around to trying to charge the best part of £100 a month for phone-TV-internet, and satellite was difficult here (trees), so for her last couple of years we were using the Roku sticks.
To be fair, the streaming boxes were better for an integrated EPG. The lack of that on Internet TV was the main problem.
Of course many countries have simply banned arrivals from Britain, except for their own nationals.
They're all wrong and we're right?
THe GOv'ts complacency over airports has been an absolute disgrace. I think I may have made this point a few times here. If we're getting R0 down, must be time to start looking at stopping arrivals from certain places. I'M LOOKING AT YOU JFK
It's the same "we know better" decision making from our ruling classes in the civil service. They are no longer fit for purpose. Our "experts" have shown themselves to be severely lacking in this crisis. Everything has been late, poorly thought out and poorly planned. We have public bodies fighting against the private sector and all kinds of procurement issues. We need a huge clear out once this is over, as with brexit where the likes of Ollie Robbins thought he was the smartest guy in the room but was outsmarted at every turn by Barnier and his team, our experts have been caught short on far too many occasions.
It is the lack of urgency that is so depressing. Never mind the "jam tomorrow" approach to everything from masks to tests to ventilators. Recently the government told us the army (why?) had created a Covid-19 web site that would be online "within weeks". FFS how much time does it take to spin up a web site? A few hours if you stop for lunch, or some unspecified time "in the coming weeks"?
The fact is for those under 45 Covid 19 is no more deadly than seasonal flu, once the peak has passed the focus should be on gettimg them back to school, college and work as soon as possible, using mass testing to try and keep the spread under control and still keeping prudent social distancing.
Then ultimately the focus should shift to just keeping those over 70 who are most at risk indoors with lockdown ended but the advice to them being to stay indoors as much as possible until a vaccine is found or the virus dies out.
Note that one seventh of all deaths for ages 15-44 in the week ending 3rd April 2020 were down as COVID-19 deaths.
People aged 15 to 44 die from seasonal flu too but barely any of them die at all so no surprise there.
The fact remains the death rate for under 45s is around 0.5% or less from Covid 19 so no higher than seasonal flu really and the focus must therefore be on getting them to school, college or work as soon as possible once the peak has passed
There's something amiss with this argument, I think. I think it's that while under 45s die from seasonal flu, hardly any of them get it. While lots of them appear to be getting Covid 19. A disease which you are almost certain to get (for that is the case without a vaccine or herd immunity) and which you have a 1 in 200 chance of dying from is something to worry about.
Now, I personally think the death rate will turn out to be lower, as the number of asymptomatic or not-much-symptomatic cases will turn out to be larger (though my expertise in this is no greater than any interested observer). So I do see cause for optimism. But choosing not to worry on the basis of 'only' a 1 in 200 chance of dying seems remarkably cavalier.
Compared to say a 1 in 10 chance of mass unemployment if under 45s do not go back to work once the peak is over a less than 1 in 200 chance of them dying if they catch Covid 19 is less significant, especially if we use mass testing and face masks to reduce the risk of spread
I agree 1 in 200 is less significant than 1 in 10. But death is rather more significant than unemployment. AT THESE ODDS, I would choose the higher risk of unemployment. Its not that I'm especially anxious about the 1 in 200 risk of me dying (though I am anxious). I'm more concerned about the certainty of many of those I love dying - and hell, even many of those I don't love. Even to reduce it to cold economics, losing 1 in 200 of the working age population seems something of a negative. And more people will recover from unemployment than recover from death. Now, as I said, I think the odds of dying are overstated at 1 in 200. And I know that many will also die as a result of the depression we are heading towards. And on an emotional level I'm fed up of the lockdown. But to me the argument for ending it doesn't seem particularly clear cut, and a 1 in 200 chance of dying seems pretty unappealing.
Don't know how old you are but at around 60 that is about your chance of dying in the next year anyway. The odds do not improve from there either. You just have to acknowledge the risk and get on with other stuff. Choosing unemployment for others who are younger than you as a trade-off for safety is unacceptable.
I'm 44. I should have clarified above that I think a 1 in 200 chance of dying for those under 45 is pretty unappealing. It's not really an argument about one generation against another; it's whether a 40 year old would prefer a in in 200 chance of death or a one in ten chance of unemployment.
Spoke to my local independent cycle repair shop, and so many people are cycling that they are so busy they need one week's advance notice for a bike service.
Being out on the bike is like the 1940s. Cars? What cars.
My only complaint about cyclists is the way a lot of them in places like London seem to think it's okay to go through red lights.
100% agreed.
Cyclists who obey the law I have no problems with. Cyclist law breakers I do.
I'm not a cyclist but the Highway code should be amended to go left (cautiously) on red.
Quiz questions: @rcs1000 This was mine from last week. Think carefully before answering. Difficulty: medium QUIZ Questions - not the expected answer
1. Wife and I had Bombay Duck for dinner. What type of animal did we eat? 2. An aeroplane contains a device called a Flight Data Recorder, that is used to help investigate accidents. Commonly known as the Black Box, what colour is it? 3. What is the chemical symbol for the element Potassium? 4. Before the discovery of Mt Everest, what was the world’s tallest mountain? 5. A doctor gives you three pills and says to take one every 30 minutes. How long do they last? 6. According to the world records, the highest speed men’s running race is held over what distance? 7. If you navigate the Suez Canal by boat, how many locks do you have to pass through? 8. Launched in 2008, what was the name given to the second generation iPhone? 9. Write down the number eleven thousand, eleven hundred and eleven 10. Where is the Sea of Tranquility?
Extra Questions 1. What has four eyes and runs 2,000 miles? 2. Who is the Prime Minister of France? 3. Rapper Eminem was in a band called D12. Otherwise known as the Dirty Dozen, how many members did this band have?
TIE BREAKER Airbus A380 - How many people evacuated in 90 seconds for certification test? (plane was full of economy seats).
QUIZ Answers.
1. Fish 2. Orange (or red) 3. K (Po is Polonium, don’t get them confused!) 4. Mt Everest 5. 60 minutes (0m, 30m and 60m) 6. 400m (4x100m relay) 7. None (the Panama Canal is the one with the big locks) 8. iPhone 3G 9. 12,111 (11,111 is 11k *one* hundred and 11) 10. On the Moon
Extras 1. Mississippi 2. Eduard Philippe 3. Six (Each had two names) TIE BREAKER - 873 people!
Poor figures from Spain again today more than 5000 new cases and more than 500 new deaths. Still a long way to go.
Is their truly any evidence that lockdowns work or is the virus just following its curve?
The spanish Health service is very good but has come close to collapse this time. Very close indeed. No lockdown would have been a massacre of the people and the service.
Spain has been in a severe lockdown for 34 days, yet there were 5000 new cases yesterday. Italy has been in lockdown for 38 days, yet there were 3000 new cases yesterday.
It may be that without a lockdown the number of cases would have been 100 times higher, but is there any evidence of that?
I mean, the obvious conclusion is that the lockdowns are as leaky as all hell.
But it does make you wonder if there's something else we're missing.
It’s a thread header with nothing for everyone. That’s why it’s so disliked!
Yes. I said it was very good not that I liked it.
As for my promise to vote Tory next time if they take the "tax affluence and wealth" route out of this hole, I really mean it, horribly difficult though it would be. But I have a sneaky feeling I will not be tested.
I think the lockdown should start to be lifted by the end of the month.
I don't think it's the worst of all worlds. The NHS hasn't hit capacity, and the virus hasn't gone away, so we need to safely reinstate as much economic activity as we can within its bounds.
Exactly right. The number of new infections will be on a downward path, and we can SLOWLY begin to remove the most severe restrictions.
I can see social distancing remaining for some time.
But, I don't see why that can't permit openings of schools and nurseries (definitely), pubs, restuarants and cinemas (with suitable separation and timing/booked seatings, if necessary) plus parents, grandparents and their children being able to see one another.
Nightclubs, crowded bars, mass parties, and large race meets may still need to be postponed (for now) unless and until they can be done safely.
(Oh, and strip the bloody police of their extra powers asap.)
Pubs only should allow the amount of people that can be seated maybe?
I wonder if the government will have the guts and integrity to adopt the only approach to the economic crisis which is both feasible and fair - higher and steeply progressive taxation with a focus on wealth.
If they do I'll be voting Conservative next time, Starmer or no Starmer.
It’s a thread header with nothing for everyone. That’s why it’s so disliked!
I quite enjoyed it actually, particularly the whinging journos bit
That's exactly what happened when they introduced free prescriptions for medicine etc in Scotland: much of the additional cost turned out to be covered by the reduction in bureaucracy, given that quite a few people such as OAPs and those on the dole were getting prescriptions free anyway, whatever happened.
Prescription charges are a silly fig leaf so that the politicians can claim GP visits are "free".
Having a sensible charge for a GP appointment (including free prescription if needed) may have lots of side benefits, but is apparently taboo.
Charges for GP appointments pay for themselves by preventing missed appointments.
But only if you assume there will be a reduction in missed appointments, whereas the opposite might be the case if people are more willing to skip if they've paid, and if you wildly over-estimate the cost of missed appointments by dividing the massive fixed costs of a facility into ten-minute units.
Spoke to my local independent cycle repair shop, and so many people are cycling that they are so busy they need one week's advance notice for a bike service.
Being out on the bike is like the 1940s. Cars? What cars.
My only complaint about cyclists is the way a lot of them in places like London seem to think it's okay to go through red lights.
100% agreed.
Cyclists who obey the law I have no problems with. Cyclist law breakers I do.
So the easy solution to make you happy would be to change the law so that cyclists are allowed to go through red lights, as pedestrians or joggers can.
I think the lockdown should start to be lifted by the end of the month.
I don't think it's the worst of all worlds. The NHS hasn't hit capacity, and the virus hasn't gone away, so we need to safely reinstate as much economic activity as we can within its bounds.
Exactly right. The number of new infections will be on a downward path, and we can SLOWLY begin to remove the most severe restrictions.
I can see social distancing remaining for some time.
But, I don't see why that can't permit openings of schools and nurseries (definitely), pubs, restuarants and cinemas (with suitable separation and timing/booked seatings, if necessary) plus parents, grandparents and their children being able to see one another.
Nightclubs, crowded bars, mass parties, and large race meets may still need to be postponed (for now) unless and until they can be done safely.
(Oh, and strip the bloody police of their extra powers asap.)
Pubs only should allow the amount of people that can be seated maybe?
Or all buildings have to apply for and get a 'number of people' they can host at any one time and stick to it. Take bookings, hand out tickets, whatever.
I am one of the few people outside NZ that loathes Jacinda Ardern. She has great PR, but she’s an inexperienced nitwit.
She’s just done something fabulous though, which is to take a 20% pay cut, along with the rest of her Cabinet.
I know this is just a symbol, but it is a powerful one that we are “in this together”.
What chances of Boris et al following suit?
I'm no fan of silly virtue-signalling, so hopefully not
Gordon Brown did that in 2010 ... his last action after losing the GE. What a shit that man is.
Is that right? iirc Brown took the cut before the election but did not announce it (so hardly virtue-signalling). That the millionaire Cameron complained about it, despite having promised to do the same, did not show him in a favourable light.
Nah Brown announced it, but dated the cut to the end of April (I think) so he had lower pay for 5 days, while it was politically impossible for Cameron not to take the cut.
It was a shitty move, regardless of the merits on the specific wage.
Of course many countries have simply banned arrivals from Britain, except for their own nationals.
They're all wrong and we're right?
But that really isn't the choice, is it ? We're talking about a complete absence of any kind of screening. Asking if we should ban all arrivals isn't an answer to that.
We could ban all non-national arrivals (USA, Singapore, Australia et al) or we could mandate 14 day self quarantine for ALL arrivals (countries too numerous to mention) - but we've chosen "nothing".
Poor figures from Spain again today more than 5000 new cases and more than 500 new deaths. Still a long way to go.
Is their truly any evidence that lockdowns work or is the virus just following its curve?
The spanish Health service is very good but has come close to collapse this time. Very close indeed. No lockdown would have been a massacre of the people and the service.
Spain has been in a severe lockdown for 34 days, yet there were 5000 new cases yesterday. Italy has been in lockdown for 38 days, yet there were 3000 new cases yesterday.
It may be that without a lockdown the number of cases would have been 100 times higher, but is there any evidence of that?
I mean, the obvious conclusion is that the lockdowns are as leaky as all hell.
But it does make you wonder if there's something else we're missing.
I know its not scientific but I trawl webcams in Spain and Italy (sad I know) and you really do not see anyone out.
Spoke to my local independent cycle repair shop, and so many people are cycling that they are so busy they need one week's advance notice for a bike service.
Being out on the bike is like the 1940s. Cars? What cars.
My only complaint about cyclists is the way a lot of them in places like London seem to think it's okay to go through red lights.
100% agreed.
Cyclists who obey the law I have no problems with. Cyclist law breakers I do.
I'm not a cyclist but the Highway code should be amended to go left (cautiously) on red.
I 100% agree with that one too!
A car (or any other vehicle) turning left on red cautiously is safer than cyclists simply going straight on at a red whenever they want to do so.
I think the lockdown should start to be lifted by the end of the month.
I don't think it's the worst of all worlds. The NHS hasn't hit capacity, and the virus hasn't gone away, so we need to safely reinstate as much economic activity as we can within its bounds.
Exactly right. The number of new infections will be on a downward path, and we can SLOWLY begin to remove the most severe restrictions.
I can see social distancing remaining for some time.
But, I don't see why that can't permit openings of schools and nurseries (definitely), pubs, restuarants and cinemas (with suitable separation and timing/booked seatings, if necessary) plus parents, grandparents and their children being able to see one another.
Nightclubs, crowded bars, mass parties, and large race meets may still need to be postponed (for now) unless and until they can be done safely.
(Oh, and strip the bloody police of their extra powers asap.)
Pubs only should allow the amount of people that can be seated maybe?
Or all buildings have to apply for and get a 'number of people' they can host at any one time and stick to it. Take bookings, hand out tickets, whatever.
That's already the case for bars and clubs, usually based on fire escape route capacity and location. They will just need to adjust the numbers down, based on seating capacity and proximity instead.
Of course many countries have simply banned arrivals from Britain, except for their own nationals.
They're all wrong and we're right?
But that really isn't the choice, is it ? We're talking about a complete absence of any kind of screening. Asking if we should ban all arrivals isn't an answer to that.
We could ban all non-national arrivals (USA, Singapore, Australia et al) or we could mandate 14 day self quarantine for ALL arrivals (countries too numerous to mention) - but we've chosen "nothing".
Government asleep at the wheel.
That's the problem, nationals and long term residents only and 14 days mandatory quarantine on arrival. Everyone else can wait for a few months. Our approach is absolutely irresponsible.
As I said a few nights ago, we're being put into the same disaster zone bucket as the US because of our policies for incoming travellers. The UK may end up being cut off from many parts of the world because of our lax policies on incoming travellers.
I think the lockdown should start to be lifted by the end of the month.
I don't think it's the worst of all worlds. The NHS hasn't hit capacity, and the virus hasn't gone away, so we need to safely reinstate as much economic activity as we can within its bounds.
Exactly right. The number of new infections will be on a downward path, and we can SLOWLY begin to remove the most severe restrictions.
I can see social distancing remaining for some time.
But, I don't see why that can't permit openings of schools and nurseries (definitely), pubs, restuarants and cinemas (with suitable separation and timing/booked seatings, if necessary) plus parents, grandparents and their children being able to see one another.
Nightclubs, crowded bars, mass parties, and large race meets may still need to be postponed (for now) unless and until they can be done safely.
(Oh, and strip the bloody police of their extra powers asap.)
Pubs only should allow the amount of people that can be seated maybe?
Or all buildings have to apply for and get a 'number of people' they can host at any one time and stick to it. Take bookings, hand out tickets, whatever.
You might at well just kill the hospitality industry stone dead now. None of this is practical at all.
Spoke to my local independent cycle repair shop, and so many people are cycling that they are so busy they need one week's advance notice for a bike service.
Being out on the bike is like the 1940s. Cars? What cars.
My only complaint about cyclists is the way a lot of them in places like London seem to think it's okay to go through red lights.
100% agreed.
Cyclists who obey the law I have no problems with. Cyclist law breakers I do.
I'm not a cyclist but the Highway code should be amended to go left (cautiously) on red.
I 100% agree with that one too!
A car (or any other vehicle) turning left on red cautiously is safer than cyclists simply going straight on at a red whenever they want to do so.
Wait for the first accident where a car turning left on red is hit by a cyclist going straight on, through the red, on their inside.
I think the lockdown should start to be lifted by the end of the month.
I don't think it's the worst of all worlds. The NHS hasn't hit capacity, and the virus hasn't gone away, so we need to safely reinstate as much economic activity as we can within its bounds.
Exactly right. The number of new infections will be on a downward path, and we can SLOWLY begin to remove the most severe restrictions.
I can see social distancing remaining for some time.
But, I don't see why that can't permit openings of schools and nurseries (definitely), pubs, restuarants and cinemas (with suitable separation and timing/booked seatings, if necessary) plus parents, grandparents and their children being able to see one another.
Nightclubs, crowded bars, mass parties, and large race meets may still need to be postponed (for now) unless and until they can be done safely.
(Oh, and strip the bloody police of their extra powers asap.)
Pubs only should allow the amount of people that can be seated maybe?
The BBC needs a kick up the arse. It’s news operation is complacent. It’s drama is too worthy. Much of its output is very predictable.
But scrap the BBC? Fuck off. It’s a great national asset, like the NHS, the monarchy, the armed forces, and the National Trust.
I don't think anyone said it should be scrapped.
Those who want it should voluntarily subscribe to it. There already is a subscription fee, just break the link to having to pay for it if you wish to watch other live TV channels would be my only adjustment.
This amounts to scrapping it, as far as I am concerned.
Just fund it through taxation, with some kind of lock on the funding to safeguard its non-political role.
Next.
If that amounts to scrapping it you are admitting its a service that people don't think is worth the money when given the choice and that they would instead choose other service.
Your takeaway from that is lets force them to pay for it anyway via tax even though they don't consider it value for money ?
I haven't had a tv license or tv for about a decade frankly as I long ago discovered that what was broadcast had no value to me and I really don't see why I should be expected to pay for your entertainment just because you like it.
Yes.
Public service broadcasting even benefits people who don’t watch it.
See also, public health services, public education systems, public transport networks etc.
The bbc does very little public service broadcasting 99.9% of its output is crap like eastenders and bake off / home/ holiday ripoffs.
You want it you pay for it. It is no benefit to me in the least and no nor do I listen to the radio. If the bbc disappeared tomorrow it wouldn't affect how informed people are in the slightest.
“I have no kids, why do I have to pay for schools”. Just pure selfishness.
I have no love for the argument that "I don't use something so I don't see why I should have to pay for it". Sheer libertarian twaddle. People benefit from the BBC in plenty of ways, from weather forecast distribution to enjoying soap operas. It's the key vector for important national news, is the default channel for most radio listeners because it understands its audience. It has a public education role (and produces the best documentaries in the world) which it is good at, and its kids TV has been superb ever since I was a kid.
There is a world of difference between educating our children which helps the country and people being able to enjoy master chef or what it is called.
Educational films are better done by youtube Weather you can get direct from any number of weather forecasters without needing some overdressed presenter News there are plenty of source Best documentaries in the world? opinion sorry about the only thing I rate is some of the wildlife stuff and that is usually made by third parties in any case. Kids tv is available widely on netflix, prime, disney
There is nothing the bbc does that is not done better elsewhere
I just read Michael Lewis's latest work.
Interestingly, the independent weather forecasts all depend on government funded work (he was referring to the US, but I assume it is the same in the UK)
Of course many countries have simply banned arrivals from Britain, except for their own nationals.
They're all wrong and we're right?
But that really isn't the choice, is it ? We're talking about a complete absence of any kind of screening. Asking if we should ban all arrivals isn't an answer to that.
What are the Dutch doing at Schipol?
I ask because I think the British assumption is that cases will enter the country anyway and monitoring would give rise to a false sense of security.
The Dutch are doing pretty much the same as us.
Monitoring doesn't work because asymptomatic carriers by definition don't have a temperature. Quarantining for 14 days is the approach adopted by most countries for arrivals (those who haven't banned foreign arrivals or transit pax absolutely - like Singapore, for example). Most are doing it by "Stay at Home Notices".
Of course many countries have simply banned arrivals from Britain, except for their own nationals.
They're all wrong and we're right?
But that really isn't the choice, is it ? We're talking about a complete absence of any kind of screening. Asking if we should ban all arrivals isn't an answer to that.
We could ban all non-national arrivals (USA, Singapore, Australia et al) or we could mandate 14 day self quarantine for ALL arrivals (countries too numerous to mention) - but we've chosen "nothing".
Government asleep at the wheel.
It seems extra deaths are a price worth paying not to inconvenience international travellers.
That's exactly what happened when they introduced free prescriptions for medicine etc in Scotland: much of the additional cost turned out to be covered by the reduction in bureaucracy, given that quite a few people such as OAPs and those on the dole were getting prescriptions free anyway, whatever happened.
Prescription charges are a silly fig leaf so that the politicians can claim GP visits are "free".
Having a sensible charge for a GP appointment (including free prescription if needed) may have lots of side benefits, but is apparently taboo.
GPs don't want to do mucky things such as handling money - as a quid pro quo though charging in advance for GP appointments while prescriptions were made free would be an acceptable trade off for the general public in England (and annoy the Scottish something rotten which would have another side benefit).
Spoke to my local independent cycle repair shop, and so many people are cycling that they are so busy they need one week's advance notice for a bike service.
Being out on the bike is like the 1940s. Cars? What cars.
My only complaint about cyclists is the way a lot of them in places like London seem to think it's okay to go through red lights.
100% agreed.
Cyclists who obey the law I have no problems with. Cyclist law breakers I do.
I'm not a cyclist but the Highway code should be amended to go left (cautiously) on red.
I 100% agree with that one too!
A car (or any other vehicle) turning left on red cautiously is safer than cyclists simply going straight on at a red whenever they want to do so.
Wait for the first accident where a car turning left on red is hit by a cyclist going straight on, through the red, on their inside.
Err yes cars can't turn left on red ! Cyclists should be able to - unless there is a pedestrian crossing on the left in which case they should exercise caution and give way to pedestrians crossing.
The BBC needs a kick up the arse. It’s news operation is complacent. It’s drama is too worthy. Much of its output is very predictable.
But scrap the BBC? Fuck off. It’s a great national asset, like the NHS, the monarchy, the armed forces, and the National Trust.
I don't think anyone said it should be scrapped.
Those who want it should voluntarily subscribe to it. There already is a subscription fee, just break the link to having to pay for it if you wish to watch other live TV channels would be my only adjustment.
This amounts to scrapping it, as far as I am concerned.
Just fund it through taxation, with some kind of lock on the funding to safeguard its non-political role.
Next.
If that amounts to scrapping it you are admitting its a service that people don't think is worth the money when given the choice and that they would instead choose other service.
Your takeaway from that is lets force them to pay for it anyway via tax even though they don't consider it value for money ?
I haven't had a tv license or tv for about a decade frankly as I long ago discovered that what was broadcast had no value to me and I really don't see why I should be expected to pay for your entertainment just because you like it.
Yes.
Public service broadcasting even benefits people who don’t watch it.
See also, public health services, public education systems, public transport networks etc.
The bbc does very little public service broadcasting 99.9% of its output is crap like eastenders and bake off / home/ holiday ripoffs.
You want it you pay for it. It is no benefit to me in the least and no nor do I listen to the radio. If the bbc disappeared tomorrow it wouldn't affect how informed people are in the slightest.
“I have no kids, why do I have to pay for schools”. Just pure selfishness.
I have no love for the argument that "I don't use something so I don't see why I should have to pay for it". Sheer libertarian twaddle. People benefit from the BBC in plenty of ways, from weather forecast distribution to enjoying soap operas. It's the key vector for important national news, is the default channel for most radio listeners because it understands its audience. It has a public education role (and produces the best documentaries in the world) which it is good at, and its kids TV has been superb ever since I was a kid.
There is a world of difference between educating our children which helps the country and people being able to enjoy master chef or what it is called.
Educational films are better done by youtube Weather you can get direct from any number of weather forecasters without needing some overdressed presenter News there are plenty of source Best documentaries in the world? opinion sorry about the only thing I rate is some of the wildlife stuff and that is usually made by third parties in any case. Kids tv is available widely on netflix, prime, disney
There is nothing the bbc does that is not done better elsewhere
I just read Michael Lewis's latest work.
Interestingly, the independent weather forecasts all depend on government funded work (he was referring to the US, but I assume it is the same in the UK)
The met office being government funded though has no bearing on the BBC argument especially as they don't even use the Met office for their forecasts they use someone called the Meteo group since 2018 which is I think dutch
Quiz questions: @rcs1000 This was mine from last week. Think carefully before answering. Difficulty: medium QUIZ Questions - not the expected answer
1. Wife and I had Bombay Duck for dinner. What type of animal did we eat? 2. An aeroplane contains a device called a Flight Data Recorder, that is used to help investigate accidents. Commonly known as the Black Box, what colour is it? 3. What is the chemical symbol for the element Potassium? 4. Before the discovery of Mt Everest, what was the world’s tallest mountain? 5. A doctor gives you three pills and says to take one every 30 minutes. How long do they last? 6. According to the world records, the highest speed men’s running race is held over what distance? 7. If you navigate the Suez Canal by boat, how many locks do you have to pass through? 8. Launched in 2008, what was the name given to the second generation iPhone? 9. Write down the number eleven thousand, eleven hundred and eleven 10. Where is the Sea of Tranquility?
Extra Questions 1. What has four eyes and runs 2,000 miles? 2. Who is the Prime Minister of France? 3. Rapper Eminem was in a band called D12. Otherwise known as the Dirty Dozen, how many members did this band have?
TIE BREAKER Airbus A380 - How many people evacuated in 90 seconds for certification test? (plane was full of economy seats).
QUIZ Answers.
1. Fish 2. Orange (or red) 3. K (Po is Polonium, don’t get them confused!) 4. Mt Everest 5. 60 minutes (0m, 30m and 60m) 6. 400m (4x100m relay) 7. None (the Panama Canal is the one with the big locks) 8. iPhone 3G 9. 12,111 (11,111 is 11k *one* hundred and 11) 10. On the Moon
Extras 1. Mississippi 2. Eduard Philippe 3. Six (Each had two names) TIE BREAKER - 873 people!
5 is misleading - arguably the medical effect of the pills lasts 90m, even though you consume the last one at 60m
Of course many countries have simply banned arrivals from Britain, except for their own nationals.
They're all wrong and we're right?
THe GOv'ts complacency over airports has been an absolute disgrace. I think I may have made this point a few times here. If we're getting R0 down, must be time to start looking at stopping arrivals from certain places. I'M LOOKING AT YOU JFK
It's the same "we know better" decision making from our ruling classes in the civil service. They are no longer fit for purpose. Our "experts" have shown themselves to be severely lacking in this crisis. Everything has been late, poorly thought out and poorly planned. We have public bodies fighting against the private sector and all kinds of procurement issues. We need a huge clear out once this is over, as with brexit where the likes of Ollie Robbins thought he was the smartest guy in the room but was outsmarted at every turn by Barnier and his team, our experts have been caught short on far too many occasions.
Why pick on Ollie Robbins? I thought he was just a masochistic Remainer who gladly went along with everything Barnier proposed. Surely DD, who genuinely thought he could give the EU a fight, should be the main object of your ire.
Robbins made the best of a weak negotiating hand. His mistake in the eyes of Btexiteers was to attempt to negotiate at all. Johnson didn't bother with any of that. He just agreed to what the EU asked and pretended afterwards that he hadn't. Which I guess is what Rochdale P is sitting is his SOP. Problem is, these are actual treaties with hard commitments and sanctions. Robbins understood that.
I wonder if the government will have the guts and integrity to adopt the only approach to the economic crisis which is both feasible and fair - higher and steeply progressive taxation with a focus on wealth.
If they do I'll be voting Conservative next time, Starmer or no Starmer.
More likely no-one can decide whether the cream or jam goes on first until Boris is fully recuperated. Dom did not appoint the Cabinet to think for themselves. The government's failure to get a grip will be ruthlessly exploited by Starmer unless Sir Keith Kieth started by announcing he did not want to criticise the government. Oh.
Johnson is in a fantastic position right now. Most of the country believes that through a mixture of his indomitable spirit and the NHS miracle workers involved in his care he has just come through a near death experience in a personal battle against the very virus the nation is at war with. This is PR gold and he will not want to jeopardize it by returning to the fray too quickly. If he did there is a risk of people going, “hang on, he looks OK to me, was he really quite as sick as they were making out?” Whatever the answer to this it is not a question he wants out there being floated. So, rest assured we will not see him chairing cabinets or cobras or fronting up daily pressers any time soon. What we will get is the occasional short and inspirational video in which he talks directly to his people. To us. Behind the scenes, however, he will be in charge. I expect the line within government is that he is a little too weak to be doing things like reading documents, especially any with lots of numbers in, but is absolutely up to making the big “Great Man” calls based on being orally briefed by his key colleagues and advisors, especially Michael Gove. So, all in all, if you’re Boris Johnson, a most satisfactory state of affairs and one he will be keen to prolong for as long as is humanly possible.
Except those with a brain, both him and Gove are absolute arses. Would be too tough to expect him to read a few sheets of paper, that might sound like work.
Quiz questions: @rcs1000 This was mine from last week. Think carefully before answering. Difficulty: medium QUIZ Questions - not the expected answer
1. Wife and I had Bombay Duck for dinner. What type of animal did we eat? 2. An aeroplane contains a device called a Flight Data Recorder, that is used to help investigate accidents. Commonly known as the Black Box, what colour is it? 3. What is the chemical symbol for the element Potassium? 4. Before the discovery of Mt Everest, what was the world’s tallest mountain? 5. A doctor gives you three pills and says to take one every 30 minutes. How long do they last? 6. According to the world records, the highest speed men’s running race is held over what distance? 7. If you navigate the Suez Canal by boat, how many locks do you have to pass through? 8. Launched in 2008, what was the name given to the second generation iPhone? 9. Write down the number eleven thousand, eleven hundred and eleven 10. Where is the Sea of Tranquility?
Extra Questions 1. What has four eyes and runs 2,000 miles? 2. Who is the Prime Minister of France? 3. Rapper Eminem was in a band called D12. Otherwise known as the Dirty Dozen, how many members did this band have?
TIE BREAKER Airbus A380 - How many people evacuated in 90 seconds for certification test? (plane was full of economy seats).
QUIZ Answers.
1. Fish 2. Orange (or red) 3. K (Po is Polonium, don’t get them confused!) 4. Mt Everest 5. 60 minutes (0m, 30m and 60m) 6. 400m (4x100m relay) 7. None (the Panama Canal is the one with the big locks) 8. iPhone 3G 9. 12,111 (11,111 is 11k *one* hundred and 11) 10. On the Moon
Extras 1. Mississippi 2. Eduard Philippe 3. Six (Each had two names) TIE BREAKER - 873 people!
5 is misleading - arguably the medical effect of the pills lasts 90m, even though you consume the last one at 60m
And what is the harm in getting potassium and polonium confused? You do not want to be swallowing either one of them.
Quiz questions: @rcs1000 This was mine from last week. Think carefully before answering. Difficulty: medium QUIZ Questions - not the expected answer
1. Wife and I had Bombay Duck for dinner. What type of animal did we eat? 2. An aeroplane contains a device called a Flight Data Recorder, that is used to help investigate accidents. Commonly known as the Black Box, what colour is it? 3. What is the chemical symbol for the element Potassium? 4. Before the discovery of Mt Everest, what was the world’s tallest mountain? 5. A doctor gives you three pills and says to take one every 30 minutes. How long do they last? 6. According to the world records, the highest speed men’s running race is held over what distance? 7. If you navigate the Suez Canal by boat, how many locks do you have to pass through? 8. Launched in 2008, what was the name given to the second generation iPhone? 9. Write down the number eleven thousand, eleven hundred and eleven 10. Where is the Sea of Tranquility?
Extra Questions 1. What has four eyes and runs 2,000 miles? 2. Who is the Prime Minister of France? 3. Rapper Eminem was in a band called D12. Otherwise known as the Dirty Dozen, how many members did this band have?
TIE BREAKER Airbus A380 - How many people evacuated in 90 seconds for certification test? (plane was full of economy seats).
QUIZ Answers.
1. Fish 2. Orange (or red) 3. K (Po is Polonium, don’t get them confused!) 4. Mt Everest 5. 60 minutes (0m, 30m and 60m) 6. 400m (4x100m relay) 7. None (the Panama Canal is the one with the big locks) 8. iPhone 3G 9. 12,111 (11,111 is 11k *one* hundred and 11) 10. On the Moon
Extras 1. Mississippi 2. Eduard Philippe 3. Six (Each had two names) TIE BREAKER - 873 people!
5 is misleading - arguably the medical effect of the pills lasts 90m, even though you consume the last one at 60m
60' after taking the first one, you have none left. Most people instinctively think it's 90'
Could you explain how higher education works then, The student is paying for it and while grades seem to have gone up the output really hasn't.
Hasn't it?
However one of the flaws with the loans system is that it doesn't feel to the student like they are really paying, and to be fair for many they won't be.
Poor figures from Spain again today more than 5000 new cases and more than 500 new deaths. Still a long way to go.
Is their truly any evidence that lockdowns work or is the virus just following its curve?
The spanish Health service is very good but has come close to collapse this time. Very close indeed. No lockdown would have been a massacre of the people and the service.
Spain has been in a severe lockdown for 34 days, yet there were 5000 new cases yesterday. Italy has been in lockdown for 38 days, yet there were 3000 new cases yesterday.
It may be that without a lockdown the number of cases would have been 100 times higher, but is there any evidence of that?
Well the evidence is there in the fact that the growth in cases pre-lockdown was massively more than it is now with no flattening of the curve. Had that been allowed to continue the hospitals would have been overwhelmed throughout the country instead of just in a few areas. The curve has been flattened considerably but the lag is considerable. You seem to not appreciate how dangerous the position is.
Spoke to my local independent cycle repair shop, and so many people are cycling that they are so busy they need one week's advance notice for a bike service.
Being out on the bike is like the 1940s. Cars? What cars.
My only complaint about cyclists is the way a lot of them in places like London seem to think it's okay to go through red lights.
100% agreed.
Cyclists who obey the law I have no problems with. Cyclist law breakers I do.
I'm not a cyclist but the Highway code should be amended to go left (cautiously) on red.
I 100% agree with that one too!
A car (or any other vehicle) turning left on red cautiously is safer than cyclists simply going straight on at a red whenever they want to do so.
Wait for the first accident where a car turning left on red is hit by a cyclist going straight on, through the red, on their inside.
Err yes cars can't turn left on red ! Cyclists should be able to - unless there is a pedestrian crossing on the left in which case they should exercise caution and give way to pedestrians crossing.
Why should cyclists be able to but not cars?
If anyone can it should be the same for all - like in America cars can turn right on red if its safe to do so.
Of course many countries have simply banned arrivals from Britain, except for their own nationals.
They're all wrong and we're right?
But that really isn't the choice, is it ? We're talking about a complete absence of any kind of screening. Asking if we should ban all arrivals isn't an answer to that.
I think the answer is that it doesn't work. Screening by temperature misses the asymptomatic and those with mild symptoms, and catches a lot of other people. No other country is currently much worse than us so it doesn't really matter. And to do it properly the Government would have to rent hotels and quarantine everyone for 14 days under house arrest,
Or do what Singapore does and give every (own national) arrival a 14 day "Stay at Home Notice". And since we insist on admitting visitors (unlike Singapore) refusing entry to anyone without a 14 day hotel reservation (Australia, before they simply stopped all foreign arrivals).
Until widespread testing and screening is in place its folly to keep importing 15,000 potential new cases each day without taking any steps to assess their health.
Quiz questions: @rcs1000 This was mine from last week. Think carefully before answering. Difficulty: medium QUIZ Questions - not the expected answer
1. Wife and I had Bombay Duck for dinner. What type of animal did we eat? 2. An aeroplane contains a device called a Flight Data Recorder, that is used to help investigate accidents. Commonly known as the Black Box, what colour is it? 3. What is the chemical symbol for the element Potassium? 4. Before the discovery of Mt Everest, what was the world’s tallest mountain? 5. A doctor gives you three pills and says to take one every 30 minutes. How long do they last? 6. According to the world records, the highest speed men’s running race is held over what distance? 7. If you navigate the Suez Canal by boat, how many locks do you have to pass through? 8. Launched in 2008, what was the name given to the second generation iPhone? 9. Write down the number eleven thousand, eleven hundred and eleven 10. Where is the Sea of Tranquility?
Extra Questions 1. What has four eyes and runs 2,000 miles? 2. Who is the Prime Minister of France? 3. Rapper Eminem was in a band called D12. Otherwise known as the Dirty Dozen, how many members did this band have?
TIE BREAKER Airbus A380 - How many people evacuated in 90 seconds for certification test? (plane was full of economy seats).
QUIZ Answers.
1. Fish 2. Orange (or red) 3. K (Po is Polonium, don’t get them confused!) 4. Mt Everest 5. 60 minutes (0m, 30m and 60m) 6. 400m (4x100m relay) 7. None (the Panama Canal is the one with the big locks) 8. iPhone 3G 9. 12,111 (11,111 is 11k *one* hundred and 11) 10. On the Moon
Extras 1. Mississippi 2. Eduard Philippe 3. Six (Each had two names) TIE BREAKER - 873 people!
5 is misleading - arguably the medical effect of the pills lasts 90m, even though you consume the last one at 60m
60' after taking the first one, you have none left. Most people instinctively think it's 90'
I would say the pills last 30 minutes. Otherwise why take them at intervals?
Spoke to my local independent cycle repair shop, and so many people are cycling that they are so busy they need one week's advance notice for a bike service.
Being out on the bike is like the 1940s. Cars? What cars.
My only complaint about cyclists is the way a lot of them in places like London seem to think it's okay to go through red lights.
100% agreed.
Cyclists who obey the law I have no problems with. Cyclist law breakers I do.
I'm not a cyclist but the Highway code should be amended to go left (cautiously) on red.
I 100% agree with that one too!
A car (or any other vehicle) turning left on red cautiously is safer than cyclists simply going straight on at a red whenever they want to do so.
Wait for the first accident where a car turning left on red is hit by a cyclist going straight on, through the red, on their inside.
Err yes cars can't turn left on red ! Cyclists should be able to - unless there is a pedestrian crossing on the left in which case they should exercise caution and give way to pedestrians crossing.
Why should cyclists be able to but not cars?
If anyone can it should be the same for all - like in America cars can turn right on red if its safe to do so.
Seeing as cyclists can't seem to even give way to pedestrians when riding on pavements I can't see that letting them turn left at a red light isn't going to result in the bad ones being even bigger dicks
One thing that makes it difficult online is the lack of other information to go with profiles. EG I'd be curious to know the age profile of the BBC debate. I'm 37 and I'm curious if anyone my age or younger is on the side of compulsory BBC payments.
It does seem (no disrespect intended) that the desire to see the BBC paid for by all is a metric of the elderly. While simultaneously not wanting the elderly to pay for it!
The difference between most young-old debates though is that as people get older their views change on many things, but I wager it won't on the BBC. People who've grown up to view entertainment on a plethora of platforms aren't going to grow up into viewing the BBC as special for entertainment above all others.
Some findings that may surprise you: "There was more support for the BBC being funded by the licence fee than by any of the alternatives. Over half (54%) chose the current fee or a variant with more exemptions for those on lower incomes."
"More people saw the current licence fee as being good value (44%) rather than bad value (32%) "
"women being more favourable [towards the BBC] than men (6.6 v 6.3) and younger people (6.8) more positive than the over-25s (6.4)."
Spoke to my local independent cycle repair shop, and so many people are cycling that they are so busy they need one week's advance notice for a bike service.
Being out on the bike is like the 1940s. Cars? What cars.
My only complaint about cyclists is the way a lot of them in places like London seem to think it's okay to go through red lights.
100% agreed.
Cyclists who obey the law I have no problems with. Cyclist law breakers I do.
I'm not a cyclist but the Highway code should be amended to go left (cautiously) on red.
I 100% agree with that one too!
A car (or any other vehicle) turning left on red cautiously is safer than cyclists simply going straight on at a red whenever they want to do so.
Wait for the first accident where a car turning left on red is hit by a cyclist going straight on, through the red, on their inside.
Err yes cars can't turn left on red ! Cyclists should be able to - unless there is a pedestrian crossing on the left in which case they should exercise caution and give way to pedestrians crossing.
Why should cyclists be able to but not cars?
If anyone can it should be the same for all - like in America cars can turn right on red if its safe to do so.
Seeing as cyclists can't seem to even give way to pedestrians when riding on pavements I can't see that letting them turn left at a red light isn't going to result in the bad ones being even bigger dicks
Cyclists should not be on the pavement. They should be able to turn left at red lights (with caution).
Turning right on a red occurs as a natural consequence of certain junction arrangements, it's not remotely like turning left at a red light.
@rcs100 - my favourite quiz question is the one which was asked here a few weeks back about the third most populous island in the British Isles, but you don't want to be making a whole quiz out of questions that people won't get. Therefore, I will advance a quiz in a question my wife set last week: not too difficult, but not something I had ever thought about before: what is the only country to be crossed by both the equator and the tropic of Capricorn?
Because people naturally demand more from a product they pay for, and take their money elsewhere if they don't get it. It's economic Darwinism.
Soviet communism rather proved this point.
Viewed another way this is one of the (many) excellent arguments against private schools. In their absence the influential and affluent would be invested in the state sector and this would feed through to higher general standards.
Poor figures from Spain again today more than 5000 new cases and more than 500 new deaths. Still a long way to go.
Is their truly any evidence that lockdowns work or is the virus just following its curve?
The spanish Health service is very good but has come close to collapse this time. Very close indeed. No lockdown would have been a massacre of the people and the service.
Spain has been in a severe lockdown for 34 days, yet there were 5000 new cases yesterday. Italy has been in lockdown for 38 days, yet there were 3000 new cases yesterday.
It may be that without a lockdown the number of cases would have been 100 times higher, but is there any evidence of that?
I mean, the obvious conclusion is that the lockdowns are as leaky as all hell.
But it does make you wonder if there's something else we're missing.
A significant percentage of the total of new cases today is due to people who had no symptoms, "he adds. In La Rioja, for example, they reach 80% of new cases. Increasing the number of tests increases the number of confirmed cases, explains Simón. "The information we have received today that in recent weeks over 40,000 PCRs in Spain are good news
I think the lockdown should start to be lifted by the end of the month.
I don't think it's the worst of all worlds. The NHS hasn't hit capacity, and the virus hasn't gone away, so we need to safely reinstate as much economic activity as we can within its bounds.
Exactly right. The number of new infections will be on a downward path, and we can SLOWLY begin to remove the most severe restrictions.
I can see social distancing remaining for some time.
But, I don't see why that can't permit openings of schools and nurseries (definitely), pubs, restuarants and cinemas (with suitable separation and timing/booked seatings, if necessary) plus parents, grandparents and their children being able to see one another.
Nightclubs, crowded bars, mass parties, and large race meets may still need to be postponed (for now) unless and until they can be done safely.
(Oh, and strip the bloody police of their extra powers asap.)
Pubs only should allow the amount of people that can be seated maybe?
Or all buildings have to apply for and get a 'number of people' they can host at any one time and stick to it. Take bookings, hand out tickets, whatever.
You might at well just kill the hospitality industry stone dead now. None of this is practical at all.
For some businesses, it won't be a profitable model. For many they will find a good way - perhaps even a better way. For a lot of visitor attractions and restaurants booking online will become essential, and this will be of long term benefit to their business.
If the UK government doesn't come up with a serious plan for screening arrivals as the world start to lift restrictions, we are just going to see a second wave in the UK within a few weeks of opening up again for business.
Of course many countries have simply banned arrivals from Britain, except for their own nationals.
They're all wrong and we're right?
But that really isn't the choice, is it ? We're talking about a complete absence of any kind of screening. Asking if we should ban all arrivals isn't an answer to that.
I think the answer is that it doesn't work. Screening by temperature misses the asymptomatic and those with mild symptoms, and catches a lot of other people. No other country is currently much worse than us so it doesn't really matter. And to do it properly the Government would have to rent hotels and quarantine everyone for 14 days under house arrest,
Or do what Singapore does and give every (own national) arrival a 14 day "Stay at Home Notice". And since we insist on admitting visitors (unlike Singapore) refusing entry to anyone without a 14 day hotel reservation (Australia, before they simply stopped all foreign arrivals).
Until widespread testing and screening is in place its folly to keep importing 15,000 potential new cases each day without taking any steps to assess their health.
Of course many countries have simply banned arrivals from Britain, except for their own nationals.
They're all wrong and we're right?
A relative of mine and his family have returned from the Far East. Now quarantined at home for 14 days. But who polices that? Can he nip to Waitrose when running short of milk?
Air travel was the single most efficient conduit for Covid-19, and we are still at it!
Why would [paying for education] result in better schools?
Because people naturally demand more from a product they pay for, and take their money elsewhere if they don't get it. It's economic Darwinism.
Soviet communism rather proved this point.
So you said earlier that parents who can afford to pay for school are forced to, whereas those who can't (presumably) have their fees paid by the government? In that case, do you believe that both sets of parents would move their children to a different school if they were unhappy with the standard, or only the paying parent?
Of course many countries have simply banned arrivals from Britain, except for their own nationals.
They're all wrong and we're right?
But that really isn't the choice, is it ? We're talking about a complete absence of any kind of screening. Asking if we should ban all arrivals isn't an answer to that.
Thailand has banned air arrivals from the UK. For a while now, I think. Position doesn't seem as serious there, but there are lockdowns.
All foreign nationals, from March 26th - initially until April 30. They've also got quite a strict lockdown in place:
That's exactly what happened when they introduced free prescriptions for medicine etc in Scotland: much of the additional cost turned out to be covered by the reduction in bureaucracy, given that quite a few people such as OAPs and those on the dole were getting prescriptions free anyway, whatever happened.
Prescription charges are a silly fig leaf so that the politicians can claim GP visits are "free".
Having a sensible charge for a GP appointment (including free prescription if needed) may have lots of side benefits, but is apparently taboo.
Charges for GP appointments pay for themselves by preventing missed appointments.
But only if you assume there will be a reduction in missed appointments, whereas the opposite might be the case if people are more willing to skip if they've paid, and if you wildly over-estimate the cost of missed appointments by dividing the massive fixed costs of a facility into ten-minute units.
Of course many countries have simply banned arrivals from Britain, except for their own nationals.
They're all wrong and we're right?
A relative of mine and his family have returned from the Far East. Now quarantined at home for 14 days. But who polices that? Can he nip to Waitrose when running short of milk?
Air travel was the single most efficient conduit for Covid-19, and we are still at it!
I would guess the thinking at the moment is that everybody should be in lockdown regardless of having travelled or not. However, the government need a serious plan going forward. Otherwise, a second wave will be here with us in weeks of reopening and all the current measures will have been a waste of time.
If the UK government doesn't come up with a serious plan for screening arrivals as the world start to lift restrictions, we are just going to see a second wave in the UK within a few weeks of opening up again for business.
Exactly.
Its so obvious but the government is obsessed about protecting air travel.
One thing that makes it difficult online is the lack of other information to go with profiles. EG I'd be curious to know the age profile of the BBC debate. I'm 37 and I'm curious if anyone my age or younger is on the side of compulsory BBC payments.
It does seem (no disrespect intended) that the desire to see the BBC paid for by all is a metric of the elderly. While simultaneously not wanting the elderly to pay for it!
The difference between most young-old debates though is that as people get older their views change on many things, but I wager it won't on the BBC. People who've grown up to view entertainment on a plethora of platforms aren't going to grow up into viewing the BBC as special for entertainment above all others.
Some findings that may surprise you: "There was more support for the BBC being funded by the licence fee than by any of the alternatives. Over half (54%) chose the current fee or a variant with more exemptions for those on lower incomes."
"More people saw the current licence fee as being good value (44%) rather than bad value (32%) "
"women being more favourable [towards the BBC] than men (6.6 v 6.3) and younger people (6.8) more positive than the over-25s (6.4)."
Sorry got to call you there on 54% chose the current fee or variant they were only offered 5 options 4 of which had some variant of the current fee. The 5th option being a universal levy
Of course many countries have simply banned arrivals from Britain, except for their own nationals.
They're all wrong and we're right?
But that really isn't the choice, is it ? We're talking about a complete absence of any kind of screening. Asking if we should ban all arrivals isn't an answer to that.
I think the answer is that it doesn't work. Screening by temperature misses the asymptomatic and those with mild symptoms, and catches a lot of other people. No other country is currently much worse than us so it doesn't really matter. And to do it properly the Government would have to rent hotels and quarantine everyone for 14 days under house arrest,
Or do what Singapore does and give every (own national) arrival a 14 day "Stay at Home Notice". And since we insist on admitting visitors (unlike Singapore) refusing entry to anyone without a 14 day hotel reservation (Australia, before they simply stopped all foreign arrivals).
Until widespread testing and screening is in place its folly to keep importing 15,000 potential new cases each day without taking any steps to assess their health.
If the UK government doesn't come up with a serious plan for screening arrivals as the world start to lift restrictions, we are just going to see a second wave in the UK within a few weeks of opening up again for business.
Exactly.
Its so obvious but the government is obsessed about protecting air travel.
Well and I think they have this real aversion to taking the sort of surveillance steps required. The obvious approach is everybody has to download an app (or a tracking tag), they must have it on at all times, and they must go to an address and not leave for 14 days. Turning off your phone or leaving that location, huge fine / deportation if not a UK citizen. That is basically South Korea approach.
One thing that makes it difficult online is the lack of other information to go with profiles. EG I'd be curious to know the age profile of the BBC debate. I'm 37 and I'm curious if anyone my age or younger is on the side of compulsory BBC payments.
It does seem (no disrespect intended) that the desire to see the BBC paid for by all is a metric of the elderly. While simultaneously not wanting the elderly to pay for it!
The difference between most young-old debates though is that as people get older their views change on many things, but I wager it won't on the BBC. People who've grown up to view entertainment on a plethora of platforms aren't going to grow up into viewing the BBC as special for entertainment above all others.
Some findings that may surprise you: "There was more support for the BBC being funded by the licence fee than by any of the alternatives. Over half (54%) chose the current fee or a variant with more exemptions for those on lower incomes."
"More people saw the current licence fee as being good value (44%) rather than bad value (32%) "
"women being more favourable [towards the BBC] than men (6.6 v 6.3) and younger people (6.8) more positive than the over-25s (6.4)."
They don't surprise me but they should appall anyone who believes in the licence fee.
Barely a majority support the licence fee "or a variant" - that's not a healthy consensus to expect it to last long.
A third consider it bad value for money - hardly a surprise either. That not even a majority consider it being good value for money is not a good sign for longevity of the Beeb either.
That younger people are more positive does surprise me, but then they've done the threshold of "not young" as "over-25s" and there's not that big of a difference there. I don't think Beeb lovers should see those 18-24 year olds as being overly in love with the Beeb.
Of course many countries have simply banned arrivals from Britain, except for their own nationals.
They're all wrong and we're right?
A relative of mine and his family have returned from the Far East. Now quarantined at home for 14 days. But who polices that? Can he nip to Waitrose when running short of milk?
Air travel was the single most efficient conduit for Covid-19, and we are still at it!
I would guess the thinking at the moment is that everybody should be in lockdown regardless of having travelled or not. However, the government need a serious plan going forward. Otherwise, a second wave will be here with us in weeks of reopening and all the current measures will have been a waste of time.
But not everyone is in lockdown - there are people working, going to the supermarket and panting around the streets on their daily jog.
And you can do all those the day after flying in from who knows where.
Of course many countries have simply banned arrivals from Britain, except for their own nationals.
They're all wrong and we're right?
But that really isn't the choice, is it ? We're talking about a complete absence of any kind of screening. Asking if we should ban all arrivals isn't an answer to that.
What are the Dutch doing at Schipol?
I ask because I think the British assumption is that cases will enter the country anyway and monitoring would give rise to a false sense of security.
The Dutch are doing pretty much the same as us.
Monitoring doesn't work because asymptomatic carriers by definition don't have a temperature. Quarantining for 14 days is the approach adopted by most countries for arrivals (those who haven't banned foreign arrivals or transit pax absolutely - like Singapore, for example). Most are doing it by "Stay at Home Notices".
Aren't all these arrivals in the UK going directly into lock-down anyway, so the call for them to be quarantined is a bit of a distinction without a difference?
Of course many countries have simply banned arrivals from Britain, except for their own nationals.
They're all wrong and we're right?
But that really isn't the choice, is it ? We're talking about a complete absence of any kind of screening. Asking if we should ban all arrivals isn't an answer to that.
I think the answer is that it doesn't work. Screening by temperature misses the asymptomatic and those with mild symptoms, and catches a lot of other people. No other country is currently much worse than us so it doesn't really matter. And to do it properly the Government would have to rent hotels and quarantine everyone for 14 days under house arrest,
Or do what Singapore does and give every (own national) arrival a 14 day "Stay at Home Notice". And since we insist on admitting visitors (unlike Singapore) refusing entry to anyone without a 14 day hotel reservation (Australia, before they simply stopped all foreign arrivals).
Until widespread testing and screening is in place its folly to keep importing 15,000 potential new cases each day without taking any steps to assess their health.
Poor figures from Spain again today more than 5000 new cases and more than 500 new deaths. Still a long way to go.
Is their truly any evidence that lockdowns work or is the virus just following its curve?
The spanish Health service is very good but has come close to collapse this time. Very close indeed. No lockdown would have been a massacre of the people and the service.
Spain has been in a severe lockdown for 34 days, yet there were 5000 new cases yesterday. Italy has been in lockdown for 38 days, yet there were 3000 new cases yesterday.
It may be that without a lockdown the number of cases would have been 100 times higher, but is there any evidence of that?
Well the evidence is there in the fact that the growth in cases pre-lockdown was massively more than it is now with no flattening of the curve. Had that been allowed to continue the hospitals would have been overwhelmed throughout the country instead of just in a few areas. The curve has been flattened considerably but the lag is considerable. You seem to not appreciate how dangerous the position is.
What I fail to understand is how 34 days into a lockdown there can be 5000 new cases when this virus needs human to human contact to infect. As you have said the lockdown in Spain has been vigourously enforced and people are complying. I understand families and lag etc but 5000 cases after 34 days of not going out, and those that do social distance etc is a very high figure
Of course many countries have simply banned arrivals from Britain, except for their own nationals.
They're all wrong and we're right?
A relative of mine and his family have returned from the Far East. Now quarantined at home for 14 days. But who polices that? Can he nip to Waitrose when running short of milk?
Air travel was the single most efficient conduit for Covid-19, and we are still at it!
I would guess the thinking at the moment is that everybody should be in lockdown regardless of having travelled or not. However, the government need a serious plan going forward. Otherwise, a second wave will be here with us in weeks of reopening and all the current measures will have been a waste of time.
But not everyone is in lockdown - there are people working, going to the supermarket and panting around the streets on their daily jog.
And you can do all those the day after flying in from who knows where.
Yes, but in terms of spread, given restricted movement across the world and the much reduced number of people you can come into contact with. The lockdown isn't designed to totally eliminate all spread, rather squash the demand right down.
However, as I said, I bloody hope the government are working on a serious plan for when the world start to open up. We need serious tracking and enforcement, however much people scream about racism or human rights violations of having to wear a tag and be tracked.
However, all this stuff about the tracking app being voluntary, doesn't fill me full of confidence. This can't be optional, it just can't. And it has to be able to access as much of our personal data as is required. I don't want to find out that we missed a load of people, because the government were too worried about the Guardian kicking up a fuss that they know whose mobile is whose and AI from a company, who got money from a guy they don't like, isn't being fully utilised.
Spoke to my local independent cycle repair shop, and so many people are cycling that they are so busy they need one week's advance notice for a bike service.
Being out on the bike is like the 1940s. Cars? What cars.
Yep. Trouble is some motorists are taking advantage of quiet roads in rural areas to drive like maniacs, which is not so good news for cyclists.
Spoke to my local independent cycle repair shop, and so many people are cycling that they are so busy they need one week's advance notice for a bike service.
Being out on the bike is like the 1940s. Cars? What cars.
My only complaint about cyclists is the way a lot of them in places like London seem to think it's okay to go through red lights.
100% agreed.
Cyclists who obey the law I have no problems with. Cyclist law breakers I do.
I'm not a cyclist but the Highway code should be amended to go left (cautiously) on red.
I 100% agree with that one too!
A car (or any other vehicle) turning left on red cautiously is safer than cyclists simply going straight on at a red whenever they want to do so.
Wait for the first accident where a car turning left on red is hit by a cyclist going straight on, through the red, on their inside.
Err yes cars can't turn left on red ! Cyclists should be able to - unless there is a pedestrian crossing on the left in which case they should exercise caution and give way to pedestrians crossing.
Why should cyclists be able to but not cars?
If anyone can it should be the same for all - like in America cars can turn right on red if its safe to do so.
I'm not arguing on any particular side, but I guess the consequences of a car driver getting this wrong would be more disastrous than those of a cyclist doing so.
I wonder if the government will have the guts and integrity to adopt the only approach to the economic crisis which is both feasible and fair - higher and steeply progressive taxation with a focus on wealth.
If they do I'll be voting Conservative next time, Starmer or no Starmer.
And if they do it I won't be voting Conservative next time, Boris or no Boris
Boris is instinctively a big state spender. This crisis will make him even more so. He is also a social liberal. The Conservative Party won the last election but what follows will probably be unrecognisable to economic or social conservatives. Cheer away because your side won but in many respects a Boris Government is not going to look much different from a Blair one.
Spoke to my local independent cycle repair shop, and so many people are cycling that they are so busy they need one week's advance notice for a bike service.
Being out on the bike is like the 1940s. Cars? What cars.
My only complaint about cyclists is the way a lot of them in places like London seem to think it's okay to go through red lights.
100% agreed.
Cyclists who obey the law I have no problems with. Cyclist law breakers I do.
I'm not a cyclist but the Highway code should be amended to go left (cautiously) on red.
I 100% agree with that one too!
A car (or any other vehicle) turning left on red cautiously is safer than cyclists simply going straight on at a red whenever they want to do so.
Wait for the first accident where a car turning left on red is hit by a cyclist going straight on, through the red, on their inside.
Err yes cars can't turn left on red ! Cyclists should be able to - unless there is a pedestrian crossing on the left in which case they should exercise caution and give way to pedestrians crossing.
Ah, so the cyclist turns left and realises the turn is too sharp for their speed, so they swing out and collide with a car going straight across the junction on green from their right
One thing that makes it difficult online is the lack of other information to go with profiles. EG I'd be curious to know the age profile of the BBC debate. I'm 37 and I'm curious if anyone my age or younger is on the side of compulsory BBC payments.
It does seem (no disrespect intended) that the desire to see the BBC paid for by all is a metric of the elderly. While simultaneously not wanting the elderly to pay for it!
The difference between most young-old debates though is that as people get older their views change on many things, but I wager it won't on the BBC. People who've grown up to view entertainment on a plethora of platforms aren't going to grow up into viewing the BBC as special for entertainment above all others.
Some findings that may surprise you: "There was more support for the BBC being funded by the licence fee than by any of the alternatives. Over half (54%) chose the current fee or a variant with more exemptions for those on lower incomes."
"More people saw the current licence fee as being good value (44%) rather than bad value (32%) "
"women being more favourable [towards the BBC] than men (6.6 v 6.3) and younger people (6.8) more positive than the over-25s (6.4)."
They don't surprise me but they should appall anyone who believes in the licence fee.
Barely a majority support the licence fee "or a variant" - that's not a healthy consensus to expect it to last long.
A third consider it bad value for money - hardly a surprise either. That not even a majority consider it being good value for money is not a good sign for longevity of the Beeb either.
That younger people are more positive does surprise me, but then they've done the threshold of "not young" as "over-25s" and there's not that big of a difference there. I don't think Beeb lovers should see those 18-24 year olds as being overly in love with the Beeb.
Poor figures from Spain again today more than 5000 new cases and more than 500 new deaths. Still a long way to go.
Is their truly any evidence that lockdowns work or is the virus just following its curve?
The spanish Health service is very good but has come close to collapse this time. Very close indeed. No lockdown would have been a massacre of the people and the service.
Spain has been in a severe lockdown for 34 days, yet there were 5000 new cases yesterday. Italy has been in lockdown for 38 days, yet there were 3000 new cases yesterday.
It may be that without a lockdown the number of cases would have been 100 times higher, but is there any evidence of that?
Well the evidence is there in the fact that the growth in cases pre-lockdown was massively more than it is now with no flattening of the curve. Had that been allowed to continue the hospitals would have been overwhelmed throughout the country instead of just in a few areas. The curve has been flattened considerably but the lag is considerable. You seem to not appreciate how dangerous the position is.
What I fail to understand is how 34 days into a lockdown there can be 5000 new cases when this virus needs human to human contact to infect. As you have said the lockdown in Spain has been vigourously enforced and people are complying. I understand families and lag etc but 5000 cases after 34 days of not going out, and those that do social distance etc is a very high figure
I assume food still has to be produced, families are still living together and people still need to head out to the supermarket ? It's difficult to slow the spread of this thing once it's in.
Comments
2. We will always be under ECJ jurisdiction and rules on everything we trade with the EU. As we are under American rules. Japanese rules. Etc Etc. Its at best obtuse to pretend otherwise.
Fundamentally, we will need to trade our way out of the depression that lockdown will have placed us all in. We will not need an extension as we will agree a quick deal. Which will be the current deal with added lipstick and you/the Daily Mail spinning it.
Cyclists who obey the law I have no problems with. Cyclist law breakers I do.
It may be that without a lockdown the number of cases would have been 100 times higher, but is there any evidence of that?
Having a sensible charge for a GP appointment (including free prescription if needed) may have lots of side benefits, but is apparently taboo.
To be fair, the streaming boxes were better for an integrated EPG. The lack of that on Internet TV was the main problem.
QUIZ Questions - not the expected answer
1. Wife and I had Bombay Duck for dinner. What type of animal did we eat?
2. An aeroplane contains a device called a Flight Data Recorder, that is used to help investigate accidents. Commonly known as the Black Box, what colour is it?
3. What is the chemical symbol for the element Potassium?
4. Before the discovery of Mt Everest, what was the world’s tallest mountain?
5. A doctor gives you three pills and says to take one every 30 minutes. How long do they last?
6. According to the world records, the highest speed men’s running race is held over what distance?
7. If you navigate the Suez Canal by boat, how many locks do you have to pass through?
8. Launched in 2008, what was the name given to the second generation iPhone?
9. Write down the number eleven thousand, eleven hundred and eleven
10. Where is the Sea of Tranquility?
Extra Questions
1. What has four eyes and runs 2,000 miles?
2. Who is the Prime Minister of France?
3. Rapper Eminem was in a band called D12. Otherwise known as the Dirty Dozen, how many members did this band have?
TIE BREAKER Airbus A380 - How many people evacuated in 90 seconds for certification test? (plane was full of economy seats).
QUIZ Answers.
1. Fish
2. Orange (or red)
3. K (Po is Polonium, don’t get them confused!)
4. Mt Everest
5. 60 minutes (0m, 30m and 60m)
6. 400m (4x100m relay)
7. None (the Panama Canal is the one with the big locks)
8. iPhone 3G
9. 12,111 (11,111 is 11k *one* hundred and 11)
10. On the Moon
Extras
1. Mississippi
2. Eduard Philippe
3. Six (Each had two names)
TIE BREAKER - 873 people!
But it does make you wonder if there's something else we're missing.
As for my promise to vote Tory next time if they take the "tax affluence and wealth" route out of this hole, I really mean it, horribly difficult though it would be. But I have a sneaky feeling I will not be tested.
But only if you assume there will be a reduction in missed appointments, whereas the opposite might be the case if people are more willing to skip if they've paid, and if you wildly over-estimate the cost of missed appointments by dividing the massive fixed costs of a facility into ten-minute units.
I doubt there would be any savings in practice.
It was a shitty move, regardless of the merits on the specific wage.
Government asleep at the wheel.
A car (or any other vehicle) turning left on red cautiously is safer than cyclists simply going straight on at a red whenever they want to do so.
Soviet communism rather proved this point.
As I said a few nights ago, we're being put into the same disaster zone bucket as the US because of our policies for incoming travellers. The UK may end up being cut off from many parts of the world because of our lax policies on incoming travellers.
+ Table service
Interestingly, the independent weather forecasts all depend on government funded work (he was referring to the US, but I assume it is the same in the UK)
Monitoring doesn't work because asymptomatic carriers by definition don't have a temperature. Quarantining for 14 days is the approach adopted by most countries for arrivals (those who haven't banned foreign arrivals or transit pax absolutely - like Singapore, for example). Most are doing it by "Stay at Home Notices".
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/snp-mps-at-westminster-are-giving-their-7000-pay-rise-to-charity-10397476.html
https://twitter.com/Gabriel_Pogrund/status/1250729921288310785
Why not just test this out though?
However one of the flaws with the loans system is that it doesn't feel to the student like they are really paying, and to be fair for many they won't be.
If anyone can it should be the same for all - like in America cars can turn right on red if its safe to do so.
Until widespread testing and screening is in place its folly to keep importing 15,000 potential new cases each day without taking any steps to assess their health.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/522509/Research_to_explore_public_views_about_the_BBC.pdf
Some findings that may surprise you:
"There was more support for the BBC being funded by the licence fee than by any of the alternatives. Over half (54%) chose the current fee or a variant with more exemptions for those on lower incomes."
"More people saw the current licence fee as being good value (44%) rather than bad value (32%) "
"women being more favourable [towards the BBC] than men (6.6 v 6.3) and younger people (6.8) more positive than the over-25s (6.4)."
Turning right on a red occurs as a natural consequence of certain junction arrangements, it's not remotely like turning left at a red light.
Increasing the number of tests increases the number of confirmed cases, explains Simón. "The information we have received today that in recent weeks over 40,000 PCRs in Spain are good news
From Spain’s chief scientific officer.
All these comparisons are very useful - until they aren't.
Air travel was the single most efficient conduit for Covid-19, and we are still at it!
https://www.gov.uk/foreign-travel-advice/thailand/coronavirus
Its so obvious but the government is obsessed about protecting air travel.
Barely a majority support the licence fee "or a variant" - that's not a healthy consensus to expect it to last long.
A third consider it bad value for money - hardly a surprise either. That not even a majority consider it being good value for money is not a good sign for longevity of the Beeb either.
That younger people are more positive does surprise me, but then they've done the threshold of "not young" as "over-25s" and there's not that big of a difference there. I don't think Beeb lovers should see those 18-24 year olds as being overly in love with the Beeb.
And you can do all those the day after flying in from who knows where.
However, as I said, I bloody hope the government are working on a serious plan for when the world start to open up. We need serious tracking and enforcement, however much people scream about racism or human rights violations of having to wear a tag and be tracked.
However, all this stuff about the tracking app being voluntary, doesn't fill me full of confidence. This can't be optional, it just can't. And it has to be able to access as much of our personal data as is required. I don't want to find out that we missed a load of people, because the government were too worried about the Guardian kicking up a fuss that they know whose mobile is whose and AI from a company, who got money from a guy they don't like, isn't being fully utilised.