Leadership (Especially setting realistic objectives) Decision making (timely, good judgement, accountable) Representing the electorates priorities inside government Unblocking political problems (using authority to get thing moving) Communication
Not sure we can give any of them a great score.
objectives have been unrealistic Decision making has been hesitant and accountability delegated to scientists civil servants seems to have a better grip on the electorates priorities critical equipment keeps getting blocked, money has been slow to arrive and ministerial clout seems ineffective communication has at times been very confused and counter productive
Some ministers are better than others. Some you have to ask, what is the point.
Why would you expect people to get a great score during one of the most challenging crises of our lifetime?
The key objective was to stop the NHS being overwhelmed to the point of it not being able to function - achieved. What would the response have been if the govt overruled the scientists? Criticial equipment gets blocked because other countries are chasing the same stuff and people are looking to make quick bucks exploiting the situation. On the business side, money hasnt been slow imo, we have received a grant already and should get the furlough money by the end of the month. Its an extremely generous scheme given the circumstances and delivered on time. Communication has been confused because people arent very good at dealing with uncertainty.
Its amazing the number of people sitting at home having a free paid holiday who think they could do better.
Has the NHS coped? Yes, easily Have the health systems in other countries coped eg Spain,USA, Italy and now Japan? No Is there food in the supermarkets? Yes the shelves are fully stocked Are the population following the lockdown rules? Yes Are people still being paid? Yes
The above are the key points of the Governments response so far and they have passed them all.
Now we have a "scandal" of the UK not signing up to a EU PPE procurement scheme which has so far delivered not a single item of equipment.
The press and posters on PB just need something to criticise the Government about. This is a once in a 100 year pandemic and the UK is coping well.
"Coping well" would surely imply not heading for one on the highest deaths per capita in the world despite having more warning than many countries of the impending problem. "Coping relatively badly" would be a more accurate description.
You realise that there is no treatment for Covid-19?
Of course there is treatment for Covid-19. That's what all the ventilators are for. There is not yet a vaccine, but work is under way to develop one.
So you think that we should stay locked down until a vaccine is found (which probably will be nowhere near 100% effective) for an indefinite period regardless of the destruction it is doing? Do you have a political agenda?
I think we should have locked down more rapidly and more strictly from the start. Then it's likely that we would have already passed a much lower peak in deaths and could have been cautiously easing our lockdown. We could then have continued to tune the lockdown as our understanding of the virus improved, gradually lessening the economic impact while keeping new infections at a low level. This could have then continued indefinitely until either a vaccine was found or herd immunity was reached. Note also that as more people become immune, the degree of lockdown required lessens.
If we had locked down earlier our herd immunity would be lower.
No win game.
It's only when we look back in 2-5 years time will we know what approach worked best.
And I really do think it will turn out that it was impossible to do things well as the difference between doing well and badly was probably just a single day (although I suspect going forward it will be multiple single days as lockdowns 2 and 3 are unavoidably triggered).
Btw, I can tell you something amusing about the crowd at the Festival. Whilst there are invariably queues at the toilets it was the first time I'd ever seen queues at the washbasins! You've never seen so many clean pairs of hands.
I only saw one face mask, and that was a put-up job by the Telegraph.
Six years ago Alex Salmond (remember him?) was promising us, north of the border, a rosy economic future based on oil at $100 per barrel. As a former oil economist who could gainsay him.
Today, Nicola Sturgeon is seeking urgent talks with the UK Government and the industry in order to save thousands of jobs as the price has totally collapsed.
No doubt those nice Dutch and Germans would have stepped in to help had we voted the other way six years ago.
Project Fear I was the original and best album that everyone listened to. Project Fear III is warmed over dribble that only Scottish Tories are going out to buy.
We just need Project Remember.
That'll do the trick.
Unfortunately the Nats only seem to have Project Mudslinging from the Shitpit.
As I said earlier it's their only approach to hiding their (the SNP Government's) disasters / mistakes. And remarkably it still works.
Always enlightening to get views from little England.
Presumably you think it's a supine, uniformly pro SNP media that let's the SNP off with it?
Leadership (Especially setting realistic objectives) Decision making (timely, good judgement, accountable) Representing the electorates priorities inside government Unblocking political problems (using authority to get thing moving) Communication
Not sure we can give any of them a great score.
objectives have been unrealistic Decision making has been hesitant and accountability delegated to scientists civil servants seems to have a better grip on the electorates priorities critical equipment keeps getting blocked, money has been slow to arrive and ministerial clout seems ineffective communication has at times been very confused and counter productive
Some ministers are better than others. Some you have to ask, what is the point.
Why would you expect people to get a great score during one of the most challenging crises of our lifetime?
The key objective was to stop the NHS being overwhelmed to the point of it not being able to function - achieved. What would the response have been if the govt overruled the scientists? Criticial equipment gets blocked because other countries are chasing the same stuff and people are looking to make quick bucks exploiting the situation. On the business side, money hasnt been slow imo, we have received a grant already and should get the furlough money by the end of the month. Its an extremely generous scheme given the circumstances and delivered on time. Communication has been confused because people arent very good at dealing with uncertainty.
Its amazing the number of people sitting at home having a free paid holiday who think they could do better.
Has the NHS coped? Yes, easily Have the health systems in other countries coped eg Spain,USA, Italy and now Japan? No Is there food in the supermarkets? Yes the shelves are fully stocked Are the population following the lockdown rules? Yes Are people still being paid? Yes
The above are the key points of the Governments response so far and they have passed them all.
Now we have a "scandal" of the UK not signing up to a EU PPE procurement scheme which has so far delivered not a single item of equipment.
The press and posters on PB just need something to criticise the Government about. This is a once in a 100 year pandemic and the UK is coping well.
"Coping well" would surely imply not heading for one on the highest deaths per capita in the world despite having more warning than many countries of the impending problem. "Coping relatively badly" would be a more accurate description.
You realise that there is no treatment for Covid-19?
Of course there is treatment for Covid-19. That's what all the ventilators are for. There is not yet a vaccine, but work is under way to develop one.
So you think that we should stay locked down until a vaccine is found (which probably will be nowhere near 100% effective) for an indefinite period regardless of the destruction it is doing? Do you have a political agenda?
I think we should have locked down more rapidly and more strictly from the start. Then it's likely that we would have already passed a much lower peak in deaths and could have been cautiously easing our lockdown. We could then have continued to tune the lockdown as our understanding of the virus improved, gradually lessening the economic impact while keeping new infections at a low level. This could have then continued indefinitely until either a vaccine was found or herd immunity was reached. Note also that as more people become immune, the degree of lockdown required lessens.
With hindsight locking down more rapidly would have been preferable. Should we have locked down and crashed the economy for SARS, MERS, Ebola, Zika? If not at what precise point we should take action is always going to be subjective and guessy. Aside from Italy Europe essentially locked down within a few days of each other, the UK was not a big outlier in timing.
Six years ago Alex Salmond (remember him?) was promising us, north of the border, a rosy economic future based on oil at $100 per barrel. As a former oil economist who could gainsay him.
Today, Nicola Sturgeon is seeking urgent talks with the UK Government and the industry in order to save thousands of jobs as the price has totally collapsed.
No doubt those nice Dutch and Germans would have stepped in to help had we voted the other way six years ago.
Project Fear I was the original and best album that everyone listened to. Project Fear III is warmed over dribble that only Scottish Tories are going out to buy.
We just need Project Remember.
That'll do the trick.
Unfortunately the Nats only seem to have Project Mudslinging from the Shitpit.
As I said earlier it's their only approach to hiding their (the SNP Government's) disasters / mistakes. And remarkably it still works.
Always enlightening to get views from little England.
Presumably you think it's a supine, uniformly pro SNP media that let's the SNP off with it?
Scottish media is reflective of the general brain drain Southwards.
Leadership (Especially setting realistic objectives) Decision making (timely, good judgement, accountable) Representing the electorates priorities inside government Unblocking political problems (using authority to get thing moving) Communication
Not sure we can give any of them a great score.
objectives have been unrealistic Decision making has been hesitant and accountability delegated to scientists civil servants seems to have a better grip on the electorates priorities critical equipment keeps getting blocked, money has been slow to arrive and ministerial clout seems ineffective communication has at times been very confused and counter productive
Some ministers are better than others. Some you have to ask, what is the point.
Why would you expect people to get a great score during one of the most challenging crises of our lifetime?
The key objective was to stop the NHS being overwhelmed to the point of it not being able to function - achieved. What would the response have been if the govt overruled the scientists? Criticial equipment gets blocked because other countries are chasing the same stuff and people are looking to make quick bucks exploiting the situation. On the business side, money hasnt been slow imo, we have received a grant already and should get the furlough money by the end of the month. Its an extremely generous scheme given the circumstances and delivered on time. Communication has been confused because people arent very good at dealing with uncertainty.
Its amazing the number of people sitting at home having a free paid holiday who think they could do better.
Has the NHS coped? Yes, easily Have the health systems in other countries coped eg Spain,USA, Italy and now Japan? No Is there food in the supermarkets? Yes the shelves are fully stocked Are the population following the lockdown rules? Yes Are people still being paid? Yes
The above are the key points of the Governments response so far and they have passed them all.
Now we have a "scandal" of the UK not signing up to a EU PPE procurement scheme which has so far delivered not a single item of equipment.
The press and posters on PB just need something to criticise the Government about. This is a once in a 100 year pandemic and the UK is coping well.
"Coping well" would surely imply not heading for one on the highest deaths per capita in the world despite having more warning than many countries of the impending problem. "Coping relatively badly" would be a more accurate description.
The UK has the 3rd highest population in Europe but only the 5th highest deaths per capita in Europe
That is both factually and logically wrong. The UK has the 2nd highest population in Europe (not counting Russia, since a lot of it lies in Asia), but there is no logical reason to link population and deaths per capita.
Wrong, Germany and France have bigger populations than the UK.
However despite having the 3rd biggest population in Europe, the UK only has the 4th highest number of deaths in Europe
France does not have a bigger population than the UK.
UK population 66.6 million, France population 67 million
It is disingenuous to compare data complied in different ways like that. Your second source and almost every other table of population size (including the one on Worldometers - see below) indicates that the UK currently has a slightly higher population than France.
I think the time for giving the government the benefit of the doubt is over. There have been so many unforced errors - the decision to allow Cheltenham to go ahead was mystifying to me even at the time - that will undoubtedly have cost lives. I suspect that Johnson's illness bought them some breathing space, but now that he has thankfully recovered it is time to hold his administration to account for its dire performance.
If you were closing Cheltenham why would you allow the tube to run?
Perhaps because one was essential to get nurses etc to work and the other wasn't? Can you really not see the difference?
Good morning everyone. And a fine bright one it is here. I might not the best one to comment on Conservative ministers, since I've never voted Tory, but am I the only one to be irritated by the constant assertion, implied or overt, that on all occasions the best possible decisions have been made?
No. Irritated is an understatement; it's effectively claiming infallibility, both on behalf of themselves and their advisers, which is quite obviously nonsense.
Six years ago Alex Salmond (remember him?) was promising us, north of the border, a rosy economic future based on oil at $100 per barrel. As a former oil economist who could gainsay him.
Today, Nicola Sturgeon is seeking urgent talks with the UK Government and the industry in order to save thousands of jobs as the price has totally collapsed.
No doubt those nice Dutch and Germans would have stepped in to help had we voted the other way six years ago.
Project Fear I was the original and best album that everyone listened to. Project Fear III is warmed over dribble that only Scottish Tories are going out to buy.
We just need Project Remember.
That'll do the trick.
Unfortunately the Nats only seem to have Project Mudslinging from the Shitpit.
As I said earlier it's their only approach to hiding their (the SNP Government's) disasters / mistakes. And remarkably it still works.
Always enlightening to get views from little England.
Presumably you think it's a supine, uniformly pro SNP media that let's the SNP off with it?
Scottish media is reflective of the general brain drain Southwards.
I hesitate to bring down the 'exception that proves the rule' cliche hammer...
To show how rapid the change is Nordstrom opened their new 7 floor 320,000 sq ft New York flagship store on October 25th.
John Lewis looks to be in Deep Trouble as well. Pity.
If it means that we stop getting lengthy Christmas adverts in early November soundtracked by wistful chantoosies massacring slowed-down versions of classic songs, there will be compensations.
I'll chip in on the Cheltenham Festival because I was there.
The weather was quite good, mercifully, so as usual it was very largely an outdoor occasion for the majority of racegoers. It's true the bars and restaurants were packed, as they always are, but the kind of people who spend most of their time in them would probably have been doing something similar elsewhere anyway. That's the point really. Why pick on Cheltenham when there was no general prohibition on public life?
I've looked at the distribution of C-19 cases around the country and Gloucestershire does not appear to be out of line with nearby and comparable counties. That actually surprises me because as any local resident can tell you, the Festival has a huge impact on the local population within a radius of about 100 miles. You might have thought there would be some measurable impact on Ireland too in view of the numbers that travel over. There doesn't seem to have been.
The argument then is not so much about whether the Festival should have gone ahead but whether the lockdown encompassing all such activity should have kicked in sooner. The answer to that is almost certainly yes, but hindsight is a wonderful thing. In hindsight, I shouldn't have gone but I made a judgement call that it was ok. Like most people, in hindsight I've made a lot of bad calls in my life and I don't mind admitting it.
At least we can add you to the list of people who aren't SeanT
China’s coronavirus diplomacy has finally pushed Europe too far https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/04/22/asia-pacific/politics-diplomacy-asia-pacific/china-coronavirus-diplomacy-europe/ .... With stock prices tumbling on the coronavirus crisis, countries including Germany that have investment screening regulations have tightened them and extended their scope in response to concerns that China, among others, could take controlling stakes in companies suddenly made vulnerable. EU Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager suggested in a Financial Times interview that governments go further and buy stakes in companies themselves to stave off the threat of Chinese takeovers.
More far-reaching still are proposals to curb dependence on China, not just for medical supplies but in areas such as battery technology for electric vehicles. EU Trade Commissioner Phil Hogan said last week there’s a need for a discussion “on what it means to be strategically autonomous,” including building “resilient supply chains, based on diversification, acknowledging the simple fact that we will not be able to manufacture everything locally.” Japan already earmarked $2.2 billion from its $1 trillion stimulus package to help its manufacturers shift production away from China.
Without mentioning China, EU trade ministers agreed in an April 16 call on the importance of diversifying to “reduce the reliance on individual countries of supply.” As a first step, Berlin plans state funds and purchase guarantees to start industrial production of millions of surgical and face masks by late summer. China currently exports 25 percent of the world’s face masks....
Excellent. China has next to zero trust in its bank account, and is fundamentally dishonest and manipulative.
Time to choke off the basis of its economic success until it politically reforms.
That is unrealistic, given that they're likely more economically self-sufficient than we are. Increasing our (or Europe's) self-sufficiency is a more realistic and likely fruitful aim. In any event, cutting off trade will harm everyone. Being more hard headed won't.
Perhaps the general public are less critical of the government over PPE because they have direct ongoing experience of the bog-roll crisis and realise there are no simple solutions. If you can't get a 4-pack of Andrex from Sainsburys how is Hancock expected to get a plane-load of equally sought-after stuff from Turkey?
Leadership (Especially setting realistic objectives) Decision making (timely, good judgement, accountable) Representing the electorates priorities inside government Unblocking political problems (using authority to get thing moving) Communication
Not sure we can give any of them a great score.
objectives have been unrealistic Decision making has been hesitant and accountability delegated to scientists civil servants seems to have a better grip on the electorates priorities critical equipment keeps getting blocked, money has been slow to arrive and ministerial clout seems ineffective communication has at times been very confused and counter productive
Some ministers are better than others. Some you have to ask, what is the point.
Why would you expect people to get a great score during one of the most challenging crises of our lifetime?
The key objective was to stop the NHS being overwhelmed to the point of it not being able to function - achieved. What would the response have been if the govt overruled the scientists? Criticial equipment gets blocked because other countries are chasing the same stuff and people are looking to make quick bucks exploiting the situation. On the business side, money hasnt been slow imo, we have received a grant already and should get the furlough money by the end of the month. Its an extremely generous scheme given the circumstances and delivered on time. Communication has been confused because people arent very good at dealing with uncertainty.
Its amazing the number of people sitting at home having a free paid holiday who think they could do better.
Has the NHS coped? Yes, easily Have the health systems in other countries coped eg Spain,USA, Italy and now Japan? No Is there food in the supermarkets? Yes the shelves are fully stocked Are the population following the lockdown rules? Yes Are people still being paid? Yes
The above are the key points of the Governments response so far and they have passed them all.
Now we have a "scandal" of the UK not signing up to a EU PPE procurement scheme which has so far delivered not a single item of equipment.
The press and posters on PB just need something to criticise the Government about. This is a once in a 100 year pandemic and the UK is coping well.
"Coping well" would surely imply not heading for one on the highest deaths per capita in the world despite having more warning than many countries of the impending problem. "Coping relatively badly" would be a more accurate description.
You realise that there is no treatment for Covid-19?
Of course there is treatment for Covid-19. That's what all the ventilators are for. There is not yet a vaccine, but work is under way to develop one.
So you think that we should stay locked down until a vaccine is found (which probably will be nowhere near 100% effective) for an indefinite period regardless of the destruction it is doing? Do you have a political agenda?
I think we should have locked down more rapidly and more strictly from the start. Then it's likely that we would have already passed a much lower peak in deaths and could have been cautiously easing our lockdown. We could then have continued to tune the lockdown as our understanding of the virus improved, gradually lessening the economic impact while keeping new infections at a low level. This could have then continued indefinitely until either a vaccine was found or herd immunity was reached. Note also that as more people become immune, the degree of lockdown required lessens.
If we had locked down earlier our herd immunity would be lower.
Leadership (Especially setting realistic objectives) Decision making (timely, good judgement, accountable) Representing the electorates priorities inside government Unblocking political problems (using authority to get thing moving) Communication
Not sure we can give any of them a great score.
objectives have been unrealistic Decision making has been hesitant and accountability delegated to scientists civil servants seems to have a better grip on the electorates priorities critical equipment keeps getting blocked, money has been slow to arrive and ministerial clout seems ineffective communication has at times been very confused and counter productive
Some ministers are better than others. Some you have to ask, what is the point.
Why would you expect people to get a great score during one of the most challenging crises of our lifetime?
The key objective was to stop the NHS being overwhelmed to the point of it not being able to function - achieved. What would the response have been if the govt overruled the scientists? Criticial equipment gets blocked because other countries are chasing the same stuff and people are looking to make quick bucks exploiting the situation. On the business side, money hasnt been slow imo, we have received a grant already and should get the furlough money by the end of the month. Its an extremely generous scheme given the circumstances and delivered on time. Communication has been confused because people arent very good at dealing with uncertainty.
Its amazing the number of people sitting at home having a free paid holiday who think they could do better.
Has the NHS coped? Yes, easily Have the health systems in other countries coped eg Spain,USA, Italy and now Japan? No Is there food in the supermarkets? Yes the shelves are fully stocked Are the population following the lockdown rules? Yes Are people still being paid? Yes
The above are the key points of the Governments response so far and they have passed them all.
Now we have a "scandal" of the UK not signing up to a EU PPE procurement scheme which has so far delivered not a single item of equipment.
The press and posters on PB just need something to criticise the Government about. This is a once in a 100 year pandemic and the UK is coping well.
"Coping well" would surely imply not heading for one on the highest deaths per capita in the world despite having more warning than many countries of the impending problem. "Coping relatively badly" would be a more accurate description.
You realise that there is no treatment for Covid-19?
Of course there is treatment for Covid-19. That's what all the ventilators are for. There is not yet a vaccine, but work is under way to develop one.
So you think that we should stay locked down until a vaccine is found (which probably will be nowhere near 100% effective) for an indefinite period regardless of the destruction it is doing? Do you have a political agenda?
I think we should have locked down more rapidly and more strictly from the start. Then it's likely that we would have already passed a much lower peak in deaths and could have been cautiously easing our lockdown. We could then have continued to tune the lockdown as our understanding of the virus improved, gradually lessening the economic impact while keeping new infections at a low level. This could have then continued indefinitely until either a vaccine was found or herd immunity was reached. Note also that as more people become immune, the degree of lockdown required lessens.
If we had locked down earlier our herd immunity would be lower.
No win game.
And the object of using the additional resources provided to the NHS effectively would not have been achieved with the result that the demands would be higher when other demands are greater in the winter. The government was quite explicit about this. On one view, in many parts of the country, the lockdown came too soon but I appreciate that it would have been too complicated to have different rules in different places and London was getting close to the edge.
Different rules by area is probably the optimum strategy, both on the way in and out of the lockdown.
The problems being that it needs a lot more policing to stop people moving between areas, and the impact of the media reporting the differences (think “postcode lottery” for job losses).
Leadership (Especially setting realistic objectives) Decision making (timely, good judgement, accountable) Representing the electorates priorities inside government Unblocking political problems (using authority to get thing moving) Communication
Not sure we can give any of them a great score.
objectives have been unrealistic Decision making has been hesitant and accountability delegated to scientists civil servants seems to have a better grip on the electorates priorities critical equipment keeps getting blocked, money has been slow to arrive and ministerial clout seems ineffective communication has at times been very confused and counter productive
Some ministers are better than others. Some you have to ask, what is the point.
Why would you expect people to get a great score during one of the most challenging crises of our lifetime?
The key objective was to stop the NHS being overwhelmed to the point of it not being able to function - achieved. What would the response have been if the govt overruled the scientists? Criticial equipment gets blocked because other countries are chasing the same stuff and people are looking to make quick bucks exploiting the situation. On the business side, money hasnt been slow imo, we have received a grant already and should get the furlough money by the end of the month. Its an extremely generous scheme given the circumstances and delivered on time. Communication has been confused because people arent very good at dealing with uncertainty.
Its amazing the number of people sitting at home having a free paid holiday who think they could do better.
Has the NHS coped? Yes, easily Have the health systems in other countries coped eg Spain,USA, Italy and now Japan? No Is there food in the supermarkets? Yes the shelves are fully stocked Are the population following the lockdown rules? Yes Are people still being paid? Yes
The above are the key points of the Governments response so far and they have passed them all.
Now we have a "scandal" of the UK not signing up to a EU PPE procurement scheme which has so far delivered not a single item of equipment.
The press and posters on PB just need something to criticise the Government about. This is a once in a 100 year pandemic and the UK is coping well.
"Coping well" would surely imply not heading for one on the highest deaths per capita in the world despite having more warning than many countries of the impending problem. "Coping relatively badly" would be a more accurate description.
You realise that there is no treatment for Covid-19?
Of course there is treatment for Covid-19. That's what all the ventilators are for. There is not yet a vaccine, but work is under way to develop one.
So you think that we should stay locked down until a vaccine is found (which probably will be nowhere near 100% effective) for an indefinite period regardless of the destruction it is doing? Do you have a political agenda?
I think we should have locked down more rapidly and more strictly from the start. Then it's likely that we would have already passed a much lower peak in deaths and could have been cautiously easing our lockdown. We could then have continued to tune the lockdown as our understanding of the virus improved, gradually lessening the economic impact while keeping new infections at a low level. This could have then continued indefinitely until either a vaccine was found or herd immunity was reached. Note also that as more people become immune, the degree of lockdown required lessens.
If we had locked down earlier our herd immunity would be lower.
No win game.
The Govt had to take a UK approach. Here, in the north of Scotland, COVID has hardly got started. Locking down even earlier would have been very difficult to make work.
Good morning everyone. And a fine bright one it is here. I might not the best one to comment on Conservative ministers, since I've never voted Tory, but am I the only one to be irritated by the constant assertion, implied or overt, that on all occasions the best possible decisions have been made?
No. Irritated is an understatement; it's effectively claiming infallibility, both on behalf of themselves and their advisers, which is quite obviously nonsense.
There are 2 separate questions here that are being confused: (1) did we make the best decision on the information that was available at the time based upon the advice we were getting then; (2) would we make the same decision now in light of what we know now and the current advice? I think that the government is only claiming (1). The best demolition of this I have seen was by the CMO, I think. He explained that when they did case reviews they always discussed whether things could have been done differently in hindsight. This is how medicine and practice evolves.
Of course, inevitably, the government spokesmen sometimes slip into (2). That is just daft.
Leadership (Especially setting realistic objectives) Decision making (timely, good judgement, accountable) Representing the electorates priorities inside government Unblocking political problems (using authority to get thing moving) Communication
Not sure we can give any of them a great score.
objectives have been unrealistic Decision making has been hesitant and accountability delegated to scientists civil servants seems to have a better grip on the electorates priorities critical equipment keeps getting blocked, money has been slow to arrive and ministerial clout seems ineffective communication has at times been very confused and counter productive
Some ministers are better than others. Some you have to ask, what is the point.
Why would you expect people to get a great score during one of the most challenging crises of our lifetime?
The key objective was to stop the NHS being overwhelmed to the point of it not being able to function - achieved. What would the response have been if the govt overruled the scientists? Criticial equipment gets blocked because other countries are chasing the same stuff and people are looking to make quick bucks exploiting the situation. On the business side, money hasnt been slow imo, we have received a grant already and should get the furlough money by the end of the month. Its an extremely generous scheme given the circumstances and delivered on time. Communication has been confused because people arent very good at dealing with uncertainty.
Its amazing the number of people sitting at home having a free paid holiday who think they could do better.
Has the NHS coped? Yes, easily Have the health systems in other countries coped eg Spain,USA, Italy and now Japan? No Is there food in the supermarkets? Yes the shelves are fully stocked Are the population following the lockdown rules? Yes Are people still being paid? Yes
The above are the key points of the Governments response so far and they have passed them all.
Now we have a "scandal" of the UK not signing up to a EU PPE procurement scheme which has so far delivered not a single item of equipment.
The press and posters on PB just need something to criticise the Government about. This is a once in a 100 year pandemic and the UK is coping well.
"Coping well" would surely imply not heading for one on the highest deaths per capita in the world despite having more warning than many countries of the impending problem. "Coping relatively badly" would be a more accurate description.
You realise that there is no treatment for Covid-19?
Of course there is treatment for Covid-19. That's what all the ventilators are for. There is not yet a vaccine, but work is underway to develop one.
Ventilators are not a treatment of the disease. They are an attempt to prevent one of the symptoms of the disease killing the patient. Buying time for the patient to recover, basically.
The issue with them is that using them is a major medical procedure with inflicts a great deal of physical stress on the patient. Hence the interest in non-ventilation assisted breathing systems.
What is a treatment if not an attempt to prevent one of the symptoms of the disease killing the patient? That's practically the definition of treatment!
I think the time for giving the government the benefit of the doubt is over. There have been so many unforced errors - the decision to allow Cheltenham to go ahead was mystifying to me even at the time - that will undoubtedly have cost lives. I suspect that Johnson's illness bought them some breathing space, but now that he has thankfully recovered it is time to hold his administration to account for its dire performance.
If you were closing Cheltenham why would you allow the tube to run?
Presumably because the tube is essential for getting people to work, whereas Cheltenham is not essential for anything.
And people are at Cheltenham for considerably longer than the typical tube journey, and shooting and cheering loudly, whereas on the tube at least everyone keeps their mouth firmly closed.
Circumstantial evidence but until Irish doctors say they have seen a spike amongst 15 to 20,000 Irish racegoers returning home from Cheltenham, that is all it is. And while there is cheering at Cheltenham, it is not like at a football match. Seven races a day, a roar at the start, some cheering at the end, and that is it...
Which ignores use of enclosed communal facilities like toilets and bars.
Interesting thread on music, with The Waterboys mentioned (I'll have to have a listen).
Can I offer up another 90s band? Mansun shone brightly for a few years from 1996. First album "Attack of the Grey Lantern" was a concept album about a gender-fluid stripper vicar. Second album was "Six", another concept album which featured a spoken part by Tom Baker in an operatic interlude between two long long arcs. Then "Little Kix" which at the behest of the record label ditched the epic soundscape prog/indie sound but kept the sharp songwriting and clever lyrics. And then they folded.
The first two albums were remastered last year and are on Spotify - I put Six up alongside other modern Prog concept classics (like Porcupine Tree's "The Incident") as utterly indispensible.
I think the time for giving the government the benefit of the doubt is over. There have been so many unforced errors - the decision to allow Cheltenham to go ahead was mystifying to me even at the time - that will undoubtedly have cost lives. I suspect that Johnson's illness bought them some breathing space, but now that he has thankfully recovered it is time to hold his administration to account for its dire performance.
If you were closing Cheltenham why would you allow the tube to run?
Perhaps because one was essential to get nurses etc to work and the other wasn't? Can you really not see the difference?
Already answered. Nurses get to work fine on the tube now under lockdown, if closing Cheltenham was so important why not do the same for the tube where there are far far more people.
Locking down the country on a different date would have had a significant impact. Locking down Cheltenham a couple of days before the country, a tiny impact.
I think the time for giving the government the benefit of the doubt is over. There have been so many unforced errors - the decision to allow Cheltenham to go ahead was mystifying to me even at the time - that will undoubtedly have cost lives. I suspect that Johnson's illness bought them some breathing space, but now that he has thankfully recovered it is time to hold his administration to account for its dire performance.
If you were closing Cheltenham why would you allow the tube to run?
Perhaps because one was essential to get nurses etc to work and the other wasn't? Can you really not see the difference?
Pre-lockdown it was not just key workers using the tube. But leaving that to one side, why would you stop Cheltenham and allow a full Premier League programme and the rugby internationals (one of which Boris actually attended) to go ahead, not to mention the Liverpool vs Atletico Madrid game given Spain was already a hotspot?
I'll chip in on the Cheltenham Festival because I was there.
The weather was quite good, mercifully, so as usual it was very largely an outdoor occasion for the majority of racegoers. It's true the bars and restaurants were packed, as they always are, but the kind of people who spend most of their time in them would probably have been doing something similar elsewhere anyway. That's the point really. Why pick on Cheltenham when there was no general prohibition on public life?
I've looked at the distribution of C-19 cases around the country and Gloucestershire does not appear to be out of line with nearby and comparable counties. That actually surprises me because as any local resident can tell you, the Festival has a huge impact on the local population within a radius of about 100 miles. You might have thought there would be some measurable impact on Ireland too in view of the numbers that travel over. There doesn't seem to have been.
The argument then is not so much about whether the Festival should have gone ahead but whether the lockdown encompassing all such activity should have kicked in sooner. The answer to that is almost certainly yes, but hindsight is a wonderful thing. In hindsight, I shouldn't have gone but I made a judgement call that it was ok. Like most people, in hindsight I've made a lot of bad calls in my life and I don't mind admitting it.
The antiaircraft gunners often refused to engage tanks - an important point, since heavy AA guns at that time had a secondary capability against tanks. The famous German 88 was originally an AA gun.
If you didn't have AP rounds, I very much doubt the efficacy of firing on armour with AA ones.
Afaik the British 3.7 AA gun (the direct equivalent of the 88) was never used in an AT role, certainly not 1939-40.
Wiki
Like other British guns, the 3.7 had a secondary direct fire role for defending its position against tank attack. During the North African Campaign, the 3.7 was considered for use explicitly as an anti-tank weapon due to the shortage of suitable anti-tank guns. Sighting arrangements were improved for the anti-tank role, but the weapon was far from ideal. Its size and weight - two tons heavier than the German 8.8 cm - made it tactically unsuitable for use in forward areas. The mounting and recuperating gear were also not designed to handle the strain of prolonged firing at low elevations.
The 3.7 found little use as a dedicated anti-tank gun except in emergencies. There were few 3.7-equipped heavy anti-aircraft regiments in the field army and most were not subordinate to divisions where the anti-tank capability was required.
Dad was a gunner in the North Africa Campaign, mostly on Anti-Aircraft duties. He reckoned it was mostly like trying to shoot flies with a handgun. His gun only made two direct hits he was sure of. One was a bomber that got its timing and navigation wrong and flew low and slow over his unit just as dawn broke. Dad's gun was not the only one that got it.
The other was a fluke. A fighter plane pulled out of its climb at high altitude thinking it was out of range. It was a million to one chance and very bad luck for the crew.
As regards tanks, his crew certainly used them against Italian tanks which was so flimsy he reckons the shells sometimes passed straight through them. It was a different matter when the Germans arrived. Then the problem was you couldn't normally get close enough to hit them without being blasted yourself, and if you did hit them the shell was apt to bounce off the armour.
These are my recollections from what he told me when I was a child. I don't know how it squares with other reports.
I think the time for giving the government the benefit of the doubt is over. There have been so many unforced errors - the decision to allow Cheltenham to go ahead was mystifying to me even at the time - that will undoubtedly have cost lives. I suspect that Johnson's illness bought them some breathing space, but now that he has thankfully recovered it is time to hold his administration to account for its dire performance.
If you were closing Cheltenham why would you allow the tube to run?
Perhaps because one was essential to get nurses etc to work and the other wasn't? Can you really not see the difference?
Pre-lockdown it was not just key workers using the tube. But leaving that to one side, why would you stop Cheltenham and allow a full Premier League programme and the rugby internationals (one of which Boris actually attended) to go ahead, not to mention the Liverpool vs Atletico Madrid game given Spain was already a hotspot?
Leadership (Especially setting realistic objectives) Decision making (timely, good judgement, accountable) Representing the electorates priorities inside government Unblocking political problems (using authority to get thing moving) Communication
Not sure we can give any of them a great score.
objectives have been unrealistic Decision making has been hesitant and accountability delegated to scientists civil servants seems to have a better grip on the electorates priorities critical equipment keeps getting blocked, money has been slow to arrive and ministerial clout seems ineffective communication has at times been very confused and counter productive
Some ministers are better than others. Some you have to ask, what is the point.
Why would you expect people to get a great score during one of the most challenging crises of our lifetime?
The key objective was to stop the NHS being overwhelmed to the point of it not being able to function - achieved. What would the response have been if the govt overruled the scientists? Criticial equipment gets blocked because other countries are chasing the same stuff and people are looking to make quick bucks exploiting the situation. On the business side, money hasnt been slow imo, we have received a grant already and should get the furlough money by the end of the month. Its an extremely generous scheme given the circumstances and delivered on time. Communication has been confused because people arent very good at dealing with uncertainty.
Its amazing the number of people sitting at home having a free paid holiday who think they could do better.
Has the NHS coped? Yes, easily Have the health systems in other countries coped eg Spain,USA, Italy and now Japan? No Is there food in the supermarkets? Yes the shelves are fully stocked Are the population following the lockdown rules? Yes Are people still being paid? Yes
The above are the key points of the Governments response so far and they have passed them all.
Now we have a "scandal" of the UK not signing up to a EU PPE procurement scheme which has so far delivered not a single item of equipment.
The press and posters on PB just need something to criticise the Government about. This is a once in a 100 year pandemic and the UK is coping well.
"Coping well" would surely imply not heading for one on the highest deaths per capita in the world despite having more warning than many countries of the impending problem. "Coping relatively badly" would be a more accurate description.
You realise that there is no treatment for Covid-19?
Of course there is treatment for Covid-19. That's what all the ventilators are for. There is not yet a vaccine, but work is underway to develop one.
Ventilators are not a treatment of the disease. They are an attempt to prevent one of the symptoms of the disease killing the patient. Buying time for the patient to recover, basically.
The issue with them is that using them is a major medical procedure with inflicts a great deal of physical stress on the patient. Hence the interest in non-ventilation assisted breathing systems.
What is a treatment if not an attempt to prevent one of the symptoms of the disease killing the patient? That's practically the definition of treatment!
That difficult third album where all the best tunes have been used up twice and the band have nothing new to say. Meanwhile, the audience starts to get restless.
The government was ridiculously overpraised at the outset and some of its early poor decisions are coming under belated scrutiny. The public is willing the government to succeed, being personally invested in its success, so it has a lot of support to draw upon. A lot, but not limitless.
Did you watch the Oasis documentary the other day? Noel Gallagher admits to exactly that!
He wrote all the songs for the first three albums before the first one was recorded, that’s why the third one was not all that.
Is not the standard music industry term the contractual obligation album?
Radiohead’s third album was the seminal, highly lauded OK Computer...
An experiment (as they had no songs) that work...
No songs?! Have you seen the track list?
Also Blur’s Parklife. Nirvana‘s In Utero, far superior to Nevermind.
I’m showing my 90s vintage here.
Roxy Music's third album, "Stranded", is just great. The prospects were not good. Brian Eno, who contributed the cutting-edge electronica, had left after a fall-out with Bryan Ferry. But Ferry pulled out the song-writing stops ("Mother of Pearl", "A Song for Europe") and even Eno, rather graciously, was moved to say it was their best album yet.
Spot on. For my money Mother of Pearl and Psalm, both off Stranded, are probably the two best tracks Roxy Music ever did.
One of Ferry's gifts is being able to write narratives into his songs. Relatively few, certainly early on, rely on choruses. That holds even for singles like "Virginia Plain" and "Pyjamarama".
The antiaircraft gunners often refused to engage tanks - an important point, since heavy AA guns at that time had a secondary capability against tanks. The famous German 88 was originally an AA gun.
If you didn't have AP rounds, I very much doubt the efficacy of firing on armour with AA ones.
Afaik the British 3.7 AA gun (the direct equivalent of the 88) was never used in an AT role, certainly not 1939-40.
Wiki
Like other British guns, the 3.7 had a secondary direct fire role for defending its position against tank attack. During the North African Campaign, the 3.7 was considered for use explicitly as an anti-tank weapon due to the shortage of suitable anti-tank guns. Sighting arrangements were improved for the anti-tank role, but the weapon was far from ideal. Its size and weight - two tons heavier than the German 8.8 cm - made it tactically unsuitable for use in forward areas. The mounting and recuperating gear were also not designed to handle the strain of prolonged firing at low elevations.
The 3.7 found little use as a dedicated anti-tank gun except in emergencies. There were few 3.7-equipped heavy anti-aircraft regiments in the field army and most were not subordinate to divisions where the anti-tank capability was required.
Dad was a gunner in the North Africa Campaign, mostly on Anti-Aircraft duties. He reckoned it was mostly like trying to shoot flies with a handgun. His gun only made two direct hits he was sure of. One was bomber that got its timing and navigation wrong and flew low and slow over his unit just as dawn broke. Dad's gun was not the only one that got it.
The other was fluke. A fighter plane pulled out of its climb at high altitude thinking it was out of range. It was a million to one chance and very bad luck for the crew.
As regards tanks, his crew certainly used them against Italian tanks which was so flimsy he reckons the shells sometimes passed straight through them. It was a different matter when the germans arrived. Then the problem was you couldn't normally get close enough to hit them without being blasted yourself, and if you did hit them the shell was apt to bounce off the armour.
These are my recollections from what he told me when I was a child. I don't know how it squares with other reports.
Thanks, that's interesting.
I suppose in emergencies you use what you have against tanks, down to Molotov cocktails or mounted lancers* if necessary.
*I know that's semi mythical before anyone jumps in.
The government’s main problem is that most of its members are just not up to the job. Sunak may be - we’ll see how he handles the sftermath of the crisis - but as hard as they sre undoubtedly trying most others aren’t. You would not put people like Hancock, Raab, Williamson or Patel anywhere near a crisis like this if you didn’t have to, or a PM like Johnson for that matter. I have no doubt thry are doing the best they can and working incredibly hard, but they are not first-rate operators. That, though, is the nature of democratic politics. You have to get very lucky to have the right people in thecright olace at the right time when a crisis like this breaks.
The problem is that the cabinet was chosen mainly from the small gene pool not only of Brexiteers but of those brexiteers who were willing/keen to exit with No Deal. It certainly isn't a cabinet off the best talents available.
For sure they weren't to know this was coming but it is cruelly exposing the lack of depth and experience and I still want to know why, after 2 weeks in the Caribbean at Christmas Boris thought it was OK to disappear to Chevening for 2 weeks in February with his girlfriend when his mind should have been firmly focussed on the clear threat that was already becoming apparent.
Leadership (Especially setting realistic objectives) Decision making (timely, good judgement, accountable) Representing the electorates priorities inside government Unblocking political problems (using authority to get thing moving) Communication
Not sure we can give any of them a great score.
objectives have been unrealistic Decision making has been hesitant and accountability delegated to scientists civil servants seems to have a better grip on the electorates priorities critical equipment keeps getting blocked, money has been slow to arrive and ministerial clout seems ineffective communication has at times been very confused and counter productive
Some ministers are better than others. Some you have to ask, what is the point.
Why would you expect people to get a great score during one of the most challenging crises of our lifetime?
The key objective was to stop the NHS being overwhelmed to the point of it not being able to function - achieved. What would the response have been if the govt overruled the scientists? Criticial equipment gets blocked because other countries are chasing the same stuff and people are looking to make quick bucks exploiting the situation. On the business side, money hasnt been slow imo, we have received a grant already and should get the furlough money by the end of the month. Its an extremely generous scheme given the circumstances and delivered on time. Communication has been confused because people arent very good at dealing with uncertainty.
Its amazing the number of people sitting at home having a free paid holiday who think they could do better.
Has the NHS coped? Yes, easily Have the health systems in other countries coped eg Spain,USA, Italy and now Japan? No Is there food in the supermarkets? Yes the shelves are fully stocked Are the population following the lockdown rules? Yes Are people still being paid? Yes
The above are the key points of the Governments response so far and they have passed them all.
Now we have a "scandal" of the UK not signing up to a EU PPE procurement scheme which has so far delivered not a single item of equipment.
The press and posters on PB just need something to criticise the Government about. This is a once in a 100 year pandemic and the UK is coping well.
The rest of the world is looking at us with envious eyes. "If only we were in Britain," everyone is thinking.
There is a place between utter failure and envy of the world. Clearly things have not gone perfectly, but even failures must be seen in context. In some cases the context might make us look worse, others better, or merely provide explanation for failure.
Of course there is - and we occupy it. The attitude of those who seem to believe government is beyond criticism is as ridiculous as that of those who criticise every move it makes.
What concerns me is that our government appear both reluctant to recognise mistakes, and very slow to learn from them.
While we're in lockdown, the consequences of that aren't particularly visible. How well we have prepared for what happens when that's relaxed is the worry.
Interesting thread on music, with The Waterboys mentioned (I'll have to have a listen).
Can I offer up another 90s band? Mansun shone brightly for a few years from 1996. First album "Attack of the Grey Lantern" was a concept album about a gender-fluid stripper vicar. Second album was "Six", another concept album which featured a spoken part by Tom Baker in an operatic interlude between two long long arcs. Then "Little Kix" which at the behest of the record label ditched the epic soundscape prog/indie sound but kept the sharp songwriting and clever lyrics. And then they folded.
The first two albums were remastered last year and are on Spotify - I put Six up alongside other modern Prog concept classics (like Porcupine Tree's "The Incident") as utterly indispensible.
The Waterboys had a huge number of different players, one of them Livingstone Brown, who is still very much around - now a music impressario and the most charismatic figure in our sleepy Surrey community. http://www.livingstonebrown.com/
Six years ago Alex Salmond (remember him?) was promising us, north of the border, a rosy economic future based on oil at $100 per barrel. As a former oil economist who could gainsay him.
Today, Nicola Sturgeon is seeking urgent talks with the UK Government and the industry in order to save thousands of jobs as the price has totally collapsed.
No doubt those nice Dutch and Germans would have stepped in to help had we voted the other way six years ago.
Project Fear I was the original and best album that everyone listened to. Project Fear III is warmed over dribble that only Scottish Tories are going out to buy.
We just need Project Remember.
That'll do the trick.
Unfortunately the Nats only seem to have Project Mudslinging from the Shitpit.
As I said earlier it's their only approach to hiding their (the SNP Government's) disasters / mistakes. And remarkably it still works.
Always enlightening to get views from little England.
Presumably you think it's a supine, uniformly pro SNP media that let's the SNP off with it?
It's not so much that the media is pro-SNP its just that the national broadcast UK media tends to genuflect and takes them at their own estimation largely because they are English, don't wish to seem condescending and are under-briefed . The one notable exception is Andrew Neil - a working-class Scot - who rattled Nicola's cage when he got the chance. No wonder Boris avoided contact.
The government’s main problem is that most of its members are just not up to the job. Sunak may be - we’ll see how he handles the sftermath of the crisis - but as hard as they sre undoubtedly trying most others aren’t. You would not put people like Hancock, Raab, Williamson or Patel anywhere near a crisis like this if you didn’t have to, or a PM like Johnson for that matter. I have no doubt thry are doing the best they can and working incredibly hard, but they are not first-rate operators. That, though, is the nature of democratic politics. You have to get very lucky to have the right people in thecright olace at the right time when a crisis like this breaks.
It is perhaps worth reflecting that in 1939 the War Cabinet consisted of these luminaries:
Neville Chamberlain – Prime Minister and Leader of the House of Commons Sir Samuel Hoare – Lord Privy Seal (previously Sacked over the Hoare-Laval pact) Sir John Simon – Chancellor of the Exchequer (a former Liberal described by his own friends as a corrupt, dishonest and treacherous slimeball) Lord Halifax – Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs Leslie Hore-Belisha – Secretary of State for War (spent most of his time trying to get all his top generals sacked) Sir Kingsley Wood – Secretary of State for Air (opposed to the idea of bombing Germany’s industrial centres, although ironically he was arguably right about that) Winston Churchill – First Lord of the Admiralty (unstable and racist adventurer who had just happened to be right about Hitler) Lord Chatfield – Minister for Coordination of Defence (former admiral who believed the key weapon of war was the battleship, supported by cruisers) Lord Hankey – Minister without Portfolio (former Civil Servant who had advised Lloyd George).
What a bunch of luminaries, eh?
To be fair, between 1939 and the summer of 1940, things did not go well and many errors were made. Things only got better after the opposition parties were incorporated. Even then mistakes were made, notably the diasastrous Malaysian campaign, Greek and Crete battles, Dieppe raid etc.
1939-40 wasn't even the end of the beginning of the mistakes.
It could be said that Britain under Churchill was somewhat reckless and made many mistakes, but won the war.
The French carefully, cautiously and quite definitely lost the war in months.
Surely the key distinction, regardless of any other differences, was the English Channel.
Yes, that argument can be made.
A vital difference, was the attitude in the UK system vs the French system.
The French concept of warfare was based on using fixed defences (massively built) to pin the enemy and then punch him when he staggered back. The problem was the Germans (unsportingly) changed the game. The French C&C system had a loop of 12-24 hours. The Germans were looping in minutes, in some cases. The French system showed no interest in adapting - when asked why new fighters were on the ground, the commander explained that he was waiting for the guns to be delivered. And he waited and waited.
The antiaircraft gunners often refused to engage tanks - an important point, since heavy AA guns at that time had a secondary capability against tanks. The famous German 88 was originally an AA gun.
In the UK, defences were improvised on the basis of stop lines and strong points - individually rated to hold the enemy for a certain period of time and create a level of casualties. Defense in depth.
In addition, there was an attitude on intelligent improvisation. For example - an anti-aircraft commander for (forget which city) stated that his command had already setup to use his heavy stuff for anti-tank work, and also to use as long range group artillery. Firezones and radio callsigns ready to be distributed.... all without even being asked.
In short, the French had a plan - it didn't work. They lost.
The UK had a plan. Parts didn't work. They changed it. Stuff didn't work. They changed it.....
I'm a very keen student of the second world war, but I'm better on the grand sweep of the whole thing, rather than tactics. Your level of knowledge is deeply impressive.
Leadership (Especially setting realistic objectives) Decision making (timely, good judgement, accountable) Representing the electorates priorities inside government Unblocking political problems (using authority to get thing moving) Communication
Not sure we can give any of them a great score.
objectives have been unrealistic Decision making has been hesitant and accountability delegated to scientists civil servants seems to have a better grip on the electorates priorities critical equipment keeps getting blocked, money has been slow to arrive and ministerial clout seems ineffective communication has at times been very confused and counter productive
Some ministers are better than others. Some you have to ask, what is the point.
Why would you expect people to get a great score during one of the most challenging crises of our lifetime?
The key objective was to stop the NHS being overwhelmed to the point of it not being able to function - achieved. What would the response have been if the govt overruled the scientists? Criticial equipment gets blocked because other countries are chasing the same stuff and people are looking to make quick bucks exploiting the situation. On the business side, money hasnt been slow imo, we have received a grant already and should get the furlough money by the end of the month. Its an extremely generous scheme given the circumstances and delivered on time. Communication has been confused because people arent very good at dealing with uncertainty.
Its amazing the number of people sitting at home having a free paid holiday who think they could do better.
Has the NHS coped? Yes, easily Have the health systems in other countries coped eg Spain,USA, Italy and now Japan? No Is there food in the supermarkets? Yes the shelves are fully stocked Are the population following the lockdown rules? Yes Are people still being paid? Yes
The above are the key points of the Governments response so far and they have passed them all.
Now we have a "scandal" of the UK not signing up to a EU PPE procurement scheme which has so far delivered not a single item of equipment.
The press and posters on PB just need something to criticise the Government about. This is a once in a 100 year pandemic and the UK is coping well.
"Coping well" would surely imply not heading for one on the highest deaths per capita in the world despite having more warning than many countries of the impending problem. "Coping relatively badly" would be a more accurate description.
You realise that there is no treatment for Covid-19?
So Boris really didn't survive Covid-19 but was subsequently resurrected by divine intervention on Easter Sunday as reported on PB.
Helen Whatley is apparently a government minister and not, as her demeanor suggests, a woman at Stansted Airport telling you your first choice of hire car is not available. She is on Sky News veering dangerously close to 'disgruntled civil servant' territory while explaining the EU ventilator nonsense.
The antiaircraft gunners often refused to engage tanks - an important point, since heavy AA guns at that time had a secondary capability against tanks. The famous German 88 was originally an AA gun.
If you didn't have AP rounds, I very much doubt the efficacy of firing on armour with AA ones.
Afaik the British 3.7 AA gun (the direct equivalent of the 88) was never used in an AT role, certainly not 1939-40.
Wiki
Like other British guns, the 3.7 had a secondary direct fire role for defending its position against tank attack. During the North African Campaign, the 3.7 was considered for use explicitly as an anti-tank weapon due to the shortage of suitable anti-tank guns. Sighting arrangements were improved for the anti-tank role, but the weapon was far from ideal. Its size and weight - two tons heavier than the German 8.8 cm - made it tactically unsuitable for use in forward areas. The mounting and recuperating gear were also not designed to handle the strain of prolonged firing at low elevations.
The 3.7 found little use as a dedicated anti-tank gun except in emergencies. There were few 3.7-equipped heavy anti-aircraft regiments in the field army and most were not subordinate to divisions where the anti-tank capability was required.
Dad was a gunner in the North Africa Campaign, mostly on Anti-Aircraft duties. He reckoned it was mostly like trying to shoot flies with a handgun. His gun only made two direct hits he was sure of. One was a bomber that got its timing and navigation wrong and flew low and slow over his unit just as dawn broke. Dad's gun was not the only one that got it.
The other was a fluke. A fighter plane pulled out of its climb at high altitude thinking it was out of range. It was a million to one chance and very bad luck for the crew.
As regards tanks, his crew certainly used them against Italian tanks which was so flimsy he reckons the shells sometimes passed straight through them. It was a different matter when the Germans arrived. Then the problem was you couldn't normally get close enough to hit them without being blasted yourself, and if you did hit them the shell was apt to bounce off the armour.
These are my recollections from what he told me when I was a child. I don't know how it squares with other reports.
The 3.7" had pretty good performance vs armour - it formed the basis for the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordnance_QF_32-pounder. Which was cancelled largely because it was too heavy and too powerful. Yes, in the world of the Tiger II, it was not needed. Apparently, in testing against Tiger hulks, a significant number of shots passed through the glassis, the fighting compartment, the engine compartment and out the back....
Mollins (the cigarette machine company) built an auto-loader for the 32lbr. Installed on a Mosquito and test fired post war. Not sure why anyone thought a round every 1.5 seconds from a gun twice as powerful as an 88 was needed, but hey...
A 3.7 - if it hit - would probably get a one-shot kill vs a Tiger I (pretty rare in N. Africa). The problem was (as the source above mentions) the sights and the mount weren't very good for ground use.
Leadership (Especially setting realistic objectives) Decision making (timely, good judgement, accountable) Representing the electorates priorities inside government Unblocking political problems (using authority to get thing moving) Communication
Not sure we can give any of them a great score.
objectives have been unrealistic Decision making has been hesitant and accountability delegated to scientists civil servants seems to have a better grip on the electorates priorities critical equipment keeps getting blocked, money has been slow to arrive and ministerial clout seems ineffective communication has at times been very confused and counter productive
Some ministers are better than others. Some you have to ask, what is the point.
Why would you expect people to get a great score during one of the most challenging crises of our lifetime?
The key objective was to stop the NHS being overwhelmed to the point of it not being able to function - achieved. What would the response have been if the govt overruled the scientists? Criticial equipment gets blocked because other countries are chasing the same stuff and people are looking to make quick bucks exploiting the situation. On the business side, money hasnt been slow imo, we have received a grant already and should get the furlough money by the end of the month. Its an extremely generous scheme given the circumstances and delivered on time. Communication has been confused because people arent very good at dealing with uncertainty.
Its amazing the number of people sitting at home having a free paid holiday who think they could do better.
Has the NHS coped? Yes, easily Have the health systems in other countries coped eg Spain,USA, Italy and now Japan? No Is there food in the supermarkets? Yes the shelves are fully stocked Are the population following the lockdown rules? Yes Are people still being paid? Yes
The above are the key points of the Governments response so far and they have passed them all.
Now we have a "scandal" of the UK not signing up to a EU PPE procurement scheme which has so far delivered not a single item of equipment.
The press and posters on PB just need something to criticise the Government about. This is a once in a 100 year pandemic and the UK is coping well.
"Coping well" would surely imply not heading for one on the highest deaths per capita in the world despite having more warning than many countries of the impending problem. "Coping relatively badly" would be a more accurate description.
The UK has the 3rd highest population in Europe but only the 5th highest deaths per capita in Europe
That is both factually and logically wrong. The UK has the 2nd highest population in Europe (not counting Russia, since a lot of it lies in Asia), but there is no logical reason to link population and deaths per capita.
Wrong, Germany and France have bigger populations than the UK.
However despite having the 3rd biggest population in Europe, the UK only has the 4th highest number of deaths in Europe
France does not have a bigger population than the UK.
UK population 66.6 million, France population 67 million
It is disingenuous to compare data complied in different ways like that. Your second source and almost every other table of population size (including the one on Worldometers - see below) indicates that the UK currently has a slightly higher population than France.
My view is that it is not population that matters in this crisis but population density. A selection below
Netherlands 1316 people per square mile Belgium 991 UK 727 (England 1010) Germany 623 Italy 533 France 310 Spain 243
It is not surprising that Netherlands, Belgium and England are all suffering badly on that basis. Clearly Germany is doing a lot better than its density would imply but France is doing very, very badly.
Good morning everyone. And a fine bright one it is here. I might not the best one to comment on Conservative ministers, since I've never voted Tory, but am I the only one to be irritated by the constant assertion, implied or overt, that on all occasions the best possible decisions have been made?
No. Irritated is an understatement; it's effectively claiming infallibility, both on behalf of themselves and their advisers, which is quite obviously nonsense.
There are 2 separate questions here that are being confused: (1) did we make the best decision on the information that was available at the time based upon the advice we were getting then; (2) would we make the same decision now in light of what we know now and the current advice? I think that the government is only claiming (1). The best demolition of this I have seen was by the CMO, I think. He explained that when they did case reviews they always discussed whether things could have been done differently in hindsight. This is how medicine and practice evolves.
Of course, inevitably, the government spokesmen sometimes slip into (2). That is just daft.
The CMO approach is very sensible - though I'm far from convinced that is practiced at an organisational level. I'll believe it when Public Health England admit the policy of discharging patients directly into care homes was (and is) mistaken.
Six years ago Alex Salmond (remember him?) was promising us, north of the border, a rosy economic future based on oil at $100 per barrel. As a former oil economist who could gainsay him.
Today, Nicola Sturgeon is seeking urgent talks with the UK Government and the industry in order to save thousands of jobs as the price has totally collapsed.
No doubt those nice Dutch and Germans would have stepped in to help had we voted the other way six years ago.
Project Fear I was the original and best album that everyone listened to. Project Fear III is warmed over dribble that only Scottish Tories are going out to buy.
We just need Project Remember.
That'll do the trick.
Unfortunately the Nats only seem to have Project Mudslinging from the Shitpit.
As I said earlier it's their only approach to hiding their (the SNP Government's) disasters / mistakes. And remarkably it still works.
Always enlightening to get views from little England.
Presumably you think it's a supine, uniformly pro SNP media that let's the SNP off with it?
It's not so much that the media is pro-SNP its just that the national broadcast UK media tends to genuflect and takes them at their own estimation largely because they are English, don't wish to seem condescending and are under-briefed . The one notable exception is Andrew Neil - a working-class Scot - who rattled Nicola's cage when he got the chance. No wonder Boris avoided contact.
National broadcast media? I certainly don't recognise that description of BBC Scotland.
Six years ago Alex Salmond (remember him?) was promising us, north of the border, a rosy economic future based on oil at $100 per barrel. As a former oil economist who could gainsay him.
Today, Nicola Sturgeon is seeking urgent talks with the UK Government and the industry in order to save thousands of jobs as the price has totally collapsed.
No doubt those nice Dutch and Germans would have stepped in to help had we voted the other way six years ago.
Project Fear I was the original and best album that everyone listened to. Project Fear III is warmed over dribble that only Scottish Tories are going out to buy.
We just need Project Remember.
That'll do the trick.
Unfortunately the Nats only seem to have Project Mudslinging from the Shitpit.
As I said earlier it's their only approach to hiding their (the SNP Government's) disasters / mistakes. And remarkably it still works.
Always enlightening to get views from little England.
Presumably you think it's a supine, uniformly pro SNP media that let's the SNP off with it?
It's not so much that the media is pro-SNP its just that the national broadcast UK media tends to genuflect and takes them at their own estimation largely because they are English, don't wish to seem condescending and are under-briefed . The one notable exception is Andrew Neil - a working-class Scot - who rattled Nicola's cage when he got the chance. No wonder Boris avoided contact.
I'm not sure if the UK media is particularly inclined to give the SNP an easy ride or if in the end it makes much difference to what the average Scot thinks.
D'ye think Carlaw's formal complaint against the BBC for pro SNP bias is either wise or well judged?
Leadership (Especially setting realistic objectives) Decision making (timely, good judgement, accountable) Representing the electorates priorities inside government Unblocking political problems (using authority to get thing moving) Communication
Not sure we can give any of them a great score.
objectives have been unrealistic Decision making has been hesitant and accountability delegated to scientists civil servants seems to have a better grip on the electorates priorities critical equipment keeps getting blocked, money has been slow to arrive and ministerial clout seems ineffective communication has at times been very confused and counter productive
Some ministers are better than others. Some you have to ask, what is the point.
Why would you expect people to get a great score during one of the most challenging crises of our lifetime?
The key objective was to stop the NHS being overwhelmed to the point of it not being able to function - achieved. What would the response have been if the govt overruled the scientists? Criticial equipment gets blocked because other countries are chasing the same stuff and people are looking to make quick bucks exploiting the situation. On the business side, money hasnt been slow imo, we have received a grant already and should get the furlough money by the end of the month. Its an extremely generous scheme given the circumstances and delivered on time. Communication has been confused because people arent very good at dealing with uncertainty.
Its amazing the number of people sitting at home having a free paid holiday who think they could do better.
Has the NHS coped? Yes, easily Have the health systems in other countries coped eg Spain,USA, Italy and now Japan? No Is there food in the supermarkets? Yes the shelves are fully stocked Are the population following the lockdown rules? Yes Are people still being paid? Yes
The above are the key points of the Governments response so far and they have passed them all.
Now we have a "scandal" of the UK not signing up to a EU PPE procurement scheme which has so far delivered not a single item of equipment.
The press and posters on PB just need something to criticise the Government about. This is a once in a 100 year pandemic and the UK is coping well.
"Coping well" would surely imply not heading for one on the highest deaths per capita in the world despite having more warning than many countries of the impending problem. "Coping relatively badly" would be a more accurate description.
The UK has the 3rd highest population in Europe but only the 5th highest deaths per capita in Europe
That is both factually and logically wrong. The UK has the 2nd highest population in Europe (not counting Russia, since a lot of it lies in Asia), but there is no logical reason to link population and deaths per capita.
Wrong, Germany and France have bigger populations than the UK.
However despite having the 3rd biggest population in Europe, the UK only has the 4th highest number of deaths in Europe
France does not have a bigger population than the UK.
UK population 66.6 million, France population 67 million
It is disingenuous to compare data complied in different ways like that. Your second source and almost every other table of population size (including the one on Worldometers - see below) indicates that the UK currently has a slightly higher population than France.
My view is that it is not population that matters in this crisis but population density. A selection below
Netherlands 1316 people per square mile Belgium 991 UK 727 (England 1010) Germany 623 Italy 533 France 310 Spain 243
It is not surprising that Netherlands, Belgium and England are all suffering badly on that basis. Clearly Germany is doing a lot better than its density would imply but France is doing very, very badly.
France has some very dense urban areas - but also sections of the countryside that are empty in a way that you rarely see in the UK.
That difficult third album where all the best tunes have been used up twice and the band have nothing new to say. Meanwhile, the audience starts to get restless.
The government was ridiculously overpraised at the outset and some of its early poor decisions are coming under belated scrutiny. The public is willing the government to succeed, being personally invested in its success, so it has a lot of support to draw upon. A lot, but not limitless.
Did you watch the Oasis documentary the other day? Noel Gallagher admits to exactly that!
He wrote all the songs for the first three albums before the first one was recorded, that’s why the third one was not all that.
Is not the standard music industry term the contractual obligation album?
Radiohead’s third album was the seminal, highly lauded OK Computer...
An experiment (as they had no songs) that work...
No songs?! Have you seen the track list?
Also Blur’s Parklife. Nirvana‘s In Utero, far superior to Nevermind.
I’m showing my 90s vintage here.
Wow I love Nirvana, but would have In Utero as their worst album by quite a distance. Nevermind might be relatively overproduced but I think it’s almost perfect for the kind of music I like... melodic hard rock
I went to blur at Mile End but left before they came on because it was raining, and had a ticket for Oasis at Earls Court but fell asleep round my girlfriends and missed the train.
In Utero is an uncompromising work of genius, IMHO. It's the sound of Cobain crumbling mentally, gripped by addiction and resentful of the success he got. It's not pretty but it is brilliant. I was 15 when it came out, I loved the alienation. Now I'm older and wiser I wish he could've got through it. I'd love to see what he'd be doing now.
The antiaircraft gunners often refused to engage tanks - an important point, since heavy AA guns at that time had a secondary capability against tanks. The famous German 88 was originally an AA gun.
If you didn't have AP rounds, I very much doubt the efficacy of firing on armour with AA ones.
Afaik the British 3.7 AA gun (the direct equivalent of the 88) was never used in an AT role, certainly not 1939-40.
Wiki
Like other British guns, the 3.7 had a secondary direct fire role for defending its position against tank attack. During the North African Campaign, the 3.7 was considered for use explicitly as an anti-tank weapon due to the shortage of suitable anti-tank guns. Sighting arrangements were improved for the anti-tank role, but the weapon was far from ideal. Its size and weight - two tons heavier than the German 8.8 cm - made it tactically unsuitable for use in forward areas. The mounting and recuperating gear were also not designed to handle the strain of prolonged firing at low elevations.
The 3.7 found little use as a dedicated anti-tank gun except in emergencies. There were few 3.7-equipped heavy anti-aircraft regiments in the field army and most were not subordinate to divisions where the anti-tank capability was required.
Dad was a gunner in the North Africa Campaign, mostly on Anti-Aircraft duties. He reckoned it was mostly like trying to shoot flies with a handgun. His gun only made two direct hits he was sure of. One was a bomber that got its timing and navigation wrong and flew low and slow over his unit just as dawn broke. Dad's gun was not the only one that got it.
The other was a fluke. A fighter plane pulled out of its climb at high altitude thinking it was out of range. It was a million to one chance and very bad luck for the crew.
As regards tanks, his crew certainly used them against Italian tanks which was so flimsy he reckons the shells sometimes passed straight through them. It was a different matter when the Germans arrived. Then the problem was you couldn't normally get close enough to hit them without being blasted yourself, and if you did hit them the shell was apt to bounce off the armour.
These are my recollections from what he told me when I was a child. I don't know how it squares with other reports.
The 3.7" had pretty good performance vs armour - it formed the basis for the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordnance_QF_32-pounder. Which was cancelled largely because it was too heavy and too powerful. Yes, in the world of the Tiger II, it was not needed. Apparently, in testing against Tiger hulks, a significant number of shots passed through the glassis, the fighting compartment, the engine compartment and out the back....
Mollins (the cigarette machine company) built an auto-loader for the 32lbr. Installed on a Mosquito and test fired post war. Not sure why anyone thought a round every 1.5 seconds from a gun twice as powerful as an 88 was needed, but hey...
A 3.7 - if it hit - would probably get a one-shot kill vs a Tiger I (pretty rare in N. Africa). The problem was (as the source above mentions) the sights and the mount weren't very good for ground use.
This has been really interesting, especially P-t-P's paternal reminiscences.
To be pedantic, the Mosquito mounting was a 6 pounder (57mm calibre). Are you possibly thinking of Project Ratefixer or Green Mace, the automated AA guns developed late war or postwar? I saw the latter at Woolwich artillerty museum before it was closed to allow commercial redevelopment - massive thing.
Leadership (Especially setting realistic objectives) Decision making (timely, good judgement, accountable) Representing the electorates priorities inside government Unblocking political problems (using authority to get thing moving) Communication
Not sure we can give any of them a great score.
objectives have been unrealistic Decision making has been hesitant and accountability delegated to scientists civil servants seems to have a better grip on the electorates priorities critical equipment keeps getting blocked, money has been slow to arrive and ministerial clout seems ineffective communication has at times been very confused and counter productive
Some ministers are better than others. Some you have to ask, what is the point.
Why would you expect people to get a great score during one of the most challenging crises of our lifetime?
The key objective was to stop the NHS being overwhelmed to the point of it not being able to function - achieved. What would the response have been if the govt overruled the scientists? Criticial equipment gets blocked because other countries are chasing the same stuff and people are looking to make quick bucks exploiting the situation. On the business side, money hasnt been slow imo, we have received a grant already and should get the furlough money by the end of the month. Its an extremely generous scheme given the circumstances and delivered on time. Communication has been confused because people arent very good at dealing with uncertainty.
Its amazing the number of people sitting at home having a free paid holiday who think they could do better.
Has the NHS coped? Yes, easily Have the health systems in other countries coped eg Spain,USA, Italy and now Japan? No Is there food in the supermarkets? Yes the shelves are fully stocked Are the population following the lockdown rules? Yes Are people still being paid? Yes
The above are the key points of the Governments response so far and they have passed them all.
Now we have a "scandal" of the UK not signing up to a EU PPE procurement scheme which has so far delivered not a single item of equipment.
The press and posters on PB just need something to criticise the Government about. This is a once in a 100 year pandemic and the UK is coping well.
"Coping well" would surely imply not heading for one on the highest deaths per capita in the world despite having more warning than many countries of the impending problem. "Coping relatively badly" would be a more accurate description.
The UK has the 3rd highest population in Europe but only the 5th highest deaths per capita in Europe
That is both factually and logically wrong. The UK has the 2nd highest population in Europe (not counting Russia, since a lot of it lies in Asia), but there is no logical reason to link population and deaths per capita.
Wrong, Germany and France have bigger populations than the UK.
However despite having the 3rd biggest population in Europe, the UK only has the 4th highest number of deaths in Europe
France does not have a bigger population than the UK.
UK population 66.6 million, France population 67 million
It is disingenuous to compare data complied in different ways like that. Your second source and almost every other table of population size (including the one on Worldometers - see below) indicates that the UK currently has a slightly higher population than France.
My view is that it is not population that matters in this crisis but population density. A selection below
Netherlands 1316 people per square mile Belgium 991 UK 727 (England 1010) Germany 623 Italy 533 France 310 Spain 243
It is not surprising that Netherlands, Belgium and England are all suffering badly on that basis. Clearly Germany is doing a lot better than its density would imply but France is doing very, very badly.
Raw pop density can be misleading. In Spain citizens live a very high pop density.
Leadership (Especially setting realistic objectives) Decision making (timely, good judgement, accountable) Representing the electorates priorities inside government Unblocking political problems (using authority to get thing moving) Communication
Not sure we can give any of them a great score.
objectives have been unrealistic Decision making has been hesitant and accountability delegated to scientists civil servants seems to have a better grip on the electorates priorities critical equipment keeps getting blocked, money has been slow to arrive and ministerial clout seems ineffective communication has at times been very confused and counter productive
Some ministers are better than others. Some you have to ask, what is the point.
Why would you expect people to get a great score during one of the most challenging crises of our lifetime?
The key objective was to stop the NHS being overwhelmed to the point of it not being able to function - achieved. What would the response have been if the govt overruled the scientists? Criticial equipment gets blocked because other countries are chasing the same stuff and people are looking to make quick bucks exploiting the situation. On the business side, money hasnt been slow imo, we have received a grant already and should get the furlough money by the end of the month. Its an extremely generous scheme given the circumstances and delivered on time. Communication has been confused because people arent very good at dealing with uncertainty.
Its amazing the number of people sitting at home having a free paid holiday who think they could do better.
Has the NHS coped? Yes, easily Have the health systems in other countries coped eg Spain,USA, Italy and now Japan? No Is there food in the supermarkets? Yes the shelves are fully stocked Are the population following the lockdown rules? Yes Are people still being paid? Yes
The above are the key points of the Governments response so far and they have passed them all.
Now we have a "scandal" of the UK not signing up to a EU PPE procurement scheme which has so far delivered not a single item of equipment.
The press and posters on PB just need something to criticise the Government about. This is a once in a 100 year pandemic and the UK is coping well.
"Coping well" would surely imply not heading for one on the highest deaths per capita in the world despite having more warning than many countries of the impending problem. "Coping relatively badly" would be a more accurate description.
The UK has the 3rd highest population in Europe but only the 5th highest deaths per capita in Europe
That is both factually and logically wrong. The UK has the 2nd highest population in Europe (not counting Russia, since a lot of it lies in Asia), but there is no logical reason to link population and deaths per capita.
Wrong, Germany and France have bigger populations than the UK.
However despite having the 3rd biggest population in Europe, the UK only has the 4th highest number of deaths in Europe
France does not have a bigger population than the UK.
UK population 66.6 million, France population 67 million
It is disingenuous to compare data complied in different ways like that. Your second source and almost every other table of population size (including the one on Worldometers - see below) indicates that the UK currently has a slightly higher population than France.
My view is that it is not population that matters in this crisis but population density. A selection below
Netherlands 1316 people per square mile Belgium 991 UK 727 (England 1010) Germany 623 Italy 533 France 310 Spain 243
It is not surprising that Netherlands, Belgium and England are all suffering badly on that basis. Clearly Germany is doing a lot better than its density would imply but France is doing very, very badly.
It's possible. But I think at present the only sensible thing to do is keep an open mind about a variety of theories. In 10 years' time the answer will be an "of course" answer because the data will be clear. We're not at that point yet and I expect various plausible theories remain broadly consistent with the data for now.
Interesting thread on music, with The Waterboys mentioned (I'll have to have a listen).
Can I offer up another 90s band? Mansun shone brightly for a few years from 1996. First album "Attack of the Grey Lantern" was a concept album about a gender-fluid stripper vicar. Second album was "Six", another concept album which featured a spoken part by Tom Baker in an operatic interlude between two long long arcs. Then "Little Kix" which at the behest of the record label ditched the epic soundscape prog/indie sound but kept the sharp songwriting and clever lyrics. And then they folded.
The first two albums were remastered last year and are on Spotify - I put Six up alongside other modern Prog concept classics (like Porcupine Tree's "The Incident") as utterly indispensible.
The intro to The Chad who loved me (first track on Attack of the Grey Lantern) is one of my favourite bits of music.
The government’s main problem is that most of its members are just not up to the job. Sunak may be - we’ll see how he handles the sftermath of the crisis - but as hard as they sre undoubtedly trying most others aren’t. You would not put people like Hancock, Raab, Williamson or Patel anywhere near a crisis like this if you didn’t have to, or a PM like Johnson for that matter. I have no doubt thry are doing the best they can and working incredibly hard, but they are not first-rate operators. That, though, is the nature of democratic politics. You have to get very lucky to have the right people in thecright olace at the right time when a crisis like this breaks.
The root of the government’s failings was hubris. Having won what Johnson described as a “stonking” victory in last December’s general election, the government’s focus was on extracting the UK from the European Union as fast as possible. But even as it celebrated our formal departure with parties and light shows on 31 January, the first coronavirus cases were being confirmed on these shores.
On 13 February, Johnson conducted a ministerial reshuffle that completed the purge of experienced “grown-ups” from the government and backbenches that began at the end of the last parliament. He instead awarded top jobs to relative mediocrities whose top qualifications were their loyalty to the Prime Minister and commitment to Brexit. In Johnson’s absence, the likes of Dominic Raab, Matthew Hancock and Priti Patel have found themselves running the country.
Johnson then departed on a 12-day “working holiday” with Carrie Symonds at Chevening, his grace and favour mansion, notwithstanding the fact they had spent ten days in Mustique together over New Year. His chief strategist, Dominic Cummings, was meanwhile pursuing his destructive vendettas against the civil service, the BBC, the judiciary and the establishment in general.
Conservative PM has lost the New Statesman. It’s all over
Even many Tories knew Johnson'sr reputation for laziness, lying and lack of attention to detail before he was elected leader, they chose to overlook the flaws because Brexit trumped everything at the time.
Leadership (Especially setting realistic objectives) Decision making (timely, good judgement, accountable) Representing the electorates priorities inside government Unblocking political problems (using authority to get thing moving) Communication
Not sure we can give any of them a great score.
objectives have been unrealistic Decision making has been hesitant and accountability delegated to scientists civil servants seems to have a better grip on the electorates priorities critical equipment keeps getting blocked, money has been slow to arrive and ministerial clout seems ineffective communication has at times been very confused and counter productive
Some ministers are better than others. Some you have to ask, what is the point.
Why would you expect people to get a great score during one of the most challenging crises of our lifetime?
The key objective was to stop the NHS being overwhelmed to the point of it not being able to function - achieved. What would the response have been if the govt overruled the scientists? Criticial equipment gets blocked because other countries are chasing the same stuff and people are looking to make quick bucks exploiting the situation. On the business side, money hasnt been slow imo, we have received a grant already and should get the furlough money by the end of the month. Its an extremely generous scheme given the circumstances and delivered on time. Communication has been confused because people arent very good at dealing with uncertainty.
Its amazing the number of people sitting at home having a free paid holiday who think they could do better.
Has the NHS coped? Yes, easily Have the health systems in other countries coped eg Spain,USA, Italy and now Japan? No Is there food in the supermarkets? Yes the shelves are fully stocked Are the population following the lockdown rules? Yes Are people still being paid? Yes
The above are the key points of the Governments response so far and they have passed them all.
Now we have a "scandal" of the UK not signing up to a EU PPE procurement scheme which has so far delivered not a single item of equipment.
The press and posters on PB just need something to criticise the Government about. This is a once in a 100 year pandemic and the UK is coping well.
"Coping well" would surely imply not heading for one on the highest deaths per capita in the world despite having more warning than many countries of the impending problem. "Coping relatively badly" would be a more accurate description.
The UK has the 3rd highest population in Europe but only the 5th highest deaths per capita in Europe
That is both factually and logically wrong. The UK has the 2nd highest population in Europe (not counting Russia, since a lot of it lies in Asia), but there is no logical reason to link population and deaths per capita.
Wrong, Germany and France have bigger populations than the UK.
However despite having the 3rd biggest population in Europe, the UK only has the 4th highest number of deaths in Europe
France does not have a bigger population than the UK.
UK population 66.6 million, France population 67 million
It is disingenuous to compare data complied in different ways like that. Your second source and almost every other table of population size (including the one on Worldometers - see below) indicates that the UK currently has a slightly higher population than France.
My view is that it is not population that matters in this crisis but population density. A selection below
Netherlands 1316 people per square mile Belgium 991 UK 727 (England 1010) Germany 623 Italy 533 France 310 Spain 243
It is not surprising that Netherlands, Belgium and England are all suffering badly on that basis. Clearly Germany is doing a lot better than its density would imply but France is doing very, very badly.
Yes, but it's the local population density that counts.
The average density for the US is... 87. That means nothing when you look at New York.
In the letter, published by the foreign affairs select committee, Sir Simon said: ‘Unfortunately, due to a misunderstanding, I inadvertently and wrongly told the committee, that ministers were briefed by UKMIS on the EU’s joint procurement scheme and took a political decision not to participate in it. ‘This is incorrect. Ministers were not briefed by our mission in Brussels about the scheme and a political decision was not taken on whether or not to participate,’ he added. ‘The facts of the situation are as previously set out. Owing to an initial communications problem, the UK did not receive an invitation in time to join in four joint Covid EU procurement schemes. As those four initial schemes had already gone out to tender we were unable to take part.’
Leadership (Especially setting realistic objectives) Decision making (timely, good judgement, accountable) Representing the electorates priorities inside government Unblocking political problems (using authority to get thing moving) Communication
Not sure we can give any of them a great score.
objectives have been unrealistic Decision making has been hesitant and accountability delegated to scientists civil servants seems to have a better grip on the electorates priorities critical equipment keeps getting blocked, money has been slow to arrive and ministerial clout seems ineffective communication has at times been very confused and counter productive
Some ministers are better than others. Some you have to ask, what is the point.
Why would you expect people to get a great score during one of the most challenging crises of our lifetime?
The key objective was to stop the NHS being overwhelmed to the point of it not being able to function - achieved. What would the response have been if the govt overruled the scientists? Criticial equipment gets blocked because other countries are chasing the same stuff and people are looking to make quick bucks exploiting the situation. On the business side, money hasnt been slow imo, we have received a grant already and should get the furlough money by the end of the month. Its an extremely generous scheme given the circumstances and delivered on time. Communication has been confused because people arent very good at dealing with uncertainty.
Its amazing the number of people sitting at home having a free paid holiday who think they could do better.
Has the NHS coped? Yes, easily Have the health systems in other countries coped eg Spain,USA, Italy and now Japan? No Is there food in the supermarkets? Yes the shelves are fully stocked Are the population following the lockdown rules? Yes Are people still being paid? Yes
The above are the key points of the Governments response so far and they have passed them all.
Now we have a "scandal" of the UK not signing up to a EU PPE procurement scheme which has so far delivered not a single item of equipment.
The press and posters on PB just need something to criticise the Government about. This is a once in a 100 year pandemic and the UK is coping well.
"Coping well" would surely imply not heading for one on the highest deaths per capita in the world despite having more warning than many countries of the impending problem. "Coping relatively badly" would be a more accurate description.
You realise that there is no treatment for Covid-19?
So Boris really didn't survive Covid-19 but was subsequently resurrected by divine intervention on Easter Sunday as reported on PB.
While there are a number of things that have been tried, there is nothing specific for helping the body eliminate COVID19. Providing extra oxygen while the patient struggles with the disease is, primarily, what is being done.
Leadership (Especially setting realistic objectives) Decision making (timely, good judgement, accountable) Representing the electorates priorities inside government Unblocking political problems (using authority to get thing moving) Communication
Not sure we can give any of them a great score.
objectives have been unrealistic Decision making has been hesitant and accountability delegated to scientists civil servants seems to have a better grip on the electorates priorities critical equipment keeps getting blocked, money has been slow to arrive and ministerial clout seems ineffective communication has at times been very confused and counter productive
Some ministers are better than others. Some you have to ask, what is the point.
Why would you expect people to get a great score during one of the most challenging crises of our lifetime?
The key objective was to stop the NHS being overwhelmed to the point of it not being able to function - achieved. What would the response have been if the govt overruled the scientists? Criticial equipment gets blocked because other countries are chasing the same stuff and people are looking to make quick bucks exploiting the situation. On the business side, money hasnt been slow imo, we have received a grant already and should get the furlough money by the end of the month. Its an extremely generous scheme given the circumstances and delivered on time. Communication has been confused because people arent very good at dealing with uncertainty.
Its amazing the number of people sitting at home having a free paid holiday who think they could do better.
Has the NHS coped? Yes, easily Have the health systems in other countries coped eg Spain,USA, Italy and now Japan? No Is there food in the supermarkets? Yes the shelves are fully stocked Are the population following the lockdown rules? Yes Are people still being paid? Yes
The above are the key points of the Governments response so far and they have passed them all.
Now we have a "scandal" of the UK not signing up to a EU PPE procurement scheme which has so far delivered not a single item of equipment.
The press and posters on PB just need something to criticise the Government about. This is a once in a 100 year pandemic and the UK is coping well.
"Coping well" would surely imply not heading for one on the highest deaths per capita in the world despite having more warning than many countries of the impending problem. "Coping relatively badly" would be a more accurate description.
The UK has the 3rd highest population in Europe but only the 5th highest deaths per capita in Europe
That is both factually and logically wrong. The UK has the 2nd highest population in Europe (not counting Russia, since a lot of it lies in Asia), but there is no logical reason to link population and deaths per capita.
Wrong, Germany and France have bigger populations than the UK.
However despite having the 3rd biggest population in Europe, the UK only has the 4th highest number of deaths in Europe
France does not have a bigger population than the UK.
UK population 66.6 million, France population 67 million
It is disingenuous to compare data complied in different ways like that. Your second source and almost every other table of population size (including the one on Worldometers - see below) indicates that the UK currently has a slightly higher population than France.
Six years ago Alex Salmond (remember him?) was promising us, north of the border, a rosy economic future based on oil at $100 per barrel. As a former oil economist who could gainsay him.
Today, Nicola Sturgeon is seeking urgent talks with the UK Government and the industry in order to save thousands of jobs as the price has totally collapsed.
No doubt those nice Dutch and Germans would have stepped in to help had we voted the other way six years ago.
Project Fear I was the original and best album that everyone listened to. Project Fear III is warmed over dribble that only Scottish Tories are going out to buy.
We just need Project Remember.
That'll do the trick.
Unfortunately the Nats only seem to have Project Mudslinging from the Shitpit.
As I said earlier it's their only approach to hiding their (the SNP Government's) disasters / mistakes. And remarkably it still works.
Always enlightening to get views from little England.
Presumably you think it's a supine, uniformly pro SNP media that let's the SNP off with it?
Oh the irony. Scots Nat accuses someone of being a "little Englander". If a "Little Englander" is an English person who espouses a small minded backward and nationalistic view of England, what should we call their counterparts in Scotland who generally vote SNP and also hold on to the misguided and backward looking "philosophy" of nationalism? Got it; Tiny, or maybe Wee Scotlanders! lol!
Leadership (Especially setting realistic objectives) Decision making (timely, good judgement, accountable) Representing the electorates priorities inside government Unblocking political problems (using authority to get thing moving) Communication
Not sure we can give any of them a great score.
objectives have been unrealistic Decision making has been hesitant and accountability delegated to scientists civil servants seems to have a better grip on the electorates priorities critical equipment keeps getting blocked, money has been slow to arrive and ministerial clout seems ineffective communication has at times been very confused and counter productive
Some ministers are better than others. Some you have to ask, what is the point.
Why would you expect people to get a great score during one of the most challenging crises of our lifetime?
The key objective was to stop the NHS being overwhelmed to the point of it not being able to function - achieved. What would the response have been if the govt overruled the scientists? Criticial equipment gets blocked because other countries are chasing the same stuff and people are looking to make quick bucks exploiting the situation. On the business side, money hasnt been slow imo, we have received a grant already and should get the furlough money by the end of the month. Its an extremely generous scheme given the circumstances and delivered on time. Communication has been confused because people arent very good at dealing with uncertainty.
Its amazing the number of people sitting at home having a free paid holiday who think they could do better.
Has the NHS coped? Yes, easily Have the health systems in other countries coped eg Spain,USA, Italy and now Japan? No Is there food in the supermarkets? Yes the shelves are fully stocked Are the population following the lockdown rules? Yes Are people still being paid? Yes
The above are the key points of the Governments response so far and they have passed them all.
Now we have a "scandal" of the UK not signing up to a EU PPE procurement scheme which has so far delivered not a single item of equipment.
The press and posters on PB just need something to criticise the Government about. This is a once in a 100 year pandemic and the UK is coping well.
"Coping well" would surely imply not heading for one on the highest deaths per capita in the world despite having more warning than many countries of the impending problem. "Coping relatively badly" would be a more accurate description.
You realise that there is no treatment for Covid-19?
So Boris really didn't survive Covid-19 but was subsequently resurrected by divine intervention on Easter Sunday as reported on PB.
Your body either kills the virus or the virus kills you. They give "treatments" such as oxygen which they hope will keep you going to give your body time to kill the virus, but as yet, there is no treatment that is proven to work that will chemically assist your body to kill the virus such as an antibiotic for a bacterial infection.
So getting back to the original in terms of the NHS coping, if the medical team determines that a ventilator is required to keep you alive then a patient can have one. There is no shortage of beds, ventilators, oxygen etc so therefore the NHS is coping. In other countries that is not happening.
Leadership (Especially setting realistic objectives) Decision making (timely, good judgement, accountable) Representing the electorates priorities inside government Unblocking political problems (using authority to get thing moving) Communication
Not sure we can give any of them a great score.
objectives have been unrealistic Decision making has been hesitant and accountability delegated to scientists civil servants seems to have a better grip on the electorates priorities critical equipment keeps getting blocked, money has been slow to arrive and ministerial clout seems ineffective communication has at times been very confused and counter productive
Some ministers are better than others. Some you have to ask, what is the point.
Why would you expect people to get a great score during one of the most challenging crises of our lifetime?
The key objective was to stop the NHS being overwhelmed to the point of it not being able to function - achieved. What would the response have been if the govt overruled the scientists? Criticial equipment gets blocked because other countries are chasing the same stuff and people are looking to make quick bucks exploiting the situation. On the business side, money hasnt been slow imo, we have received a grant already and should get the furlough money by the end of the month. Its an extremely generous scheme given the circumstances and delivered on time. Communication has been confused because people arent very good at dealing with uncertainty.
Its amazing the number of people sitting at home having a free paid holiday who think they could do better.
Has the NHS coped? Yes, easily Have the health systems in other countries coped eg Spain,USA, Italy and now Japan? No Is there food in the supermarkets? Yes the shelves are fully stocked Are the population following the lockdown rules? Yes Are people still being paid? Yes
The above are the key points of the Governments response so far and they have passed them all.
Now we have a "scandal" of the UK not signing up to a EU PPE procurement scheme which has so far delivered not a single item of equipment.
The press and posters on PB just need something to criticise the Government about. This is a once in a 100 year pandemic and the UK is coping well.
"Coping well" would surely imply not heading for one on the highest deaths per capita in the world despite having more warning than many countries of the impending problem. "Coping relatively badly" would be a more accurate description.
The UK has the 3rd highest population in Europe but only the 5th highest deaths per capita in Europe
That is both factually and logically wrong. The UK has the 2nd highest population in Europe (not counting Russia, since a lot of it lies in Asia), but there is no logical reason to link population and deaths per capita.
Wrong, Germany and France have bigger populations than the UK.
However despite having the 3rd biggest population in Europe, the UK only has the 4th highest number of deaths in Europe
France does not have a bigger population than the UK.
UK population 66.6 million, France population 67 million
It is disingenuous to compare data complied in different ways like that. Your second source and almost every other table of population size (including the one on Worldometers - see below) indicates that the UK currently has a slightly higher population than France.
My view is that it is not population that matters in this crisis but population density. A selection below
Netherlands 1316 people per square mile Belgium 991 UK 727 (England 1010) Germany 623 Italy 533 France 310 Spain 243
It is not surprising that Netherlands, Belgium and England are all suffering badly on that basis. Clearly Germany is doing a lot better than its density would imply but France is doing very, very badly.
The bigger most connected cities have been hit hardest in Europe so population density is likely to be a very significant factor.
Helen Whatley is apparently a government minister and not, as her demeanor suggests, a woman at Stansted Airport telling you your first choice of hire car is not available. She is on Sky News veering dangerously close to 'disgruntled civil servant' territory while explaining the EU ventilator nonsense.
In her defence, she did have to listen to Piers Morgan interview her earlier this morning
Six years ago Alex Salmond (remember him?) was promising us, north of the border, a rosy economic future based on oil at $100 per barrel. As a former oil economist who could gainsay him.
Today, Nicola Sturgeon is seeking urgent talks with the UK Government and the industry in order to save thousands of jobs as the price has totally collapsed.
No doubt those nice Dutch and Germans would have stepped in to help had we voted the other way six years ago.
Project Fear I was the original and best album that everyone listened to. Project Fear III is warmed over dribble that only Scottish Tories are going out to buy.
We just need Project Remember.
That'll do the trick.
Unfortunately the Nats only seem to have Project Mudslinging from the Shitpit.
As I said earlier it's their only approach to hiding their (the SNP Government's) disasters / mistakes. And remarkably it still works.
Always enlightening to get views from little England.
Presumably you think it's a supine, uniformly pro SNP media that let's the SNP off with it?
Oh the irony. Scots Nat accuses someone of being a "little Englander". If a "Little Englander" is an English person who espouses a small minded backward and nationalistic view of England, what should we call their counterparts in Scotland who generally vote SNP and also hold on to the misguided and backward looking "philosophy" of nationalism? Got it; Tiny, or maybe Wee Scotlanders! lol!
Leadership (Especially setting realistic objectives) Decision making (timely, good judgement, accountable) Representing the electorates priorities inside government Unblocking political problems (using authority to get thing moving) Communication
Not sure we can give any of them a great score.
objectives have been unrealistic Decision making has been hesitant and accountability delegated to scientists civil servants seems to have a better grip on the electorates priorities critical equipment keeps getting blocked, money has been slow to arrive and ministerial clout seems ineffective communication has at times been very confused and counter productive
Some ministers are better than others. Some you have to ask, what is the point.
Why would you expect people to get a great score during one of the most challenging crises of our lifetime?
The key objective was to stop the NHS being overwhelmed to the point of it not being able to function - achieved. What would the response have been if the govt overruled the scientists? Criticial equipment gets blocked because other countries are chasing the same stuff and people are looking to make quick bucks exploiting the situation. On the business side, money hasnt been slow imo, we have received a grant already and should get the furlough money by the end of the month. Its an extremely generous scheme given the circumstances and delivered on time. Communication has been confused because people arent very good at dealing with uncertainty.
Its amazing the number of people sitting at home having a free paid holiday who think they could do better.
Has the NHS coped? Yes, easily Have the health systems in other countries coped eg Spain,USA, Italy and now Japan? No Is there food in the supermarkets? Yes the shelves are fully stocked Are the population following the lockdown rules? Yes Are people still being paid? Yes
The above are the key points of the Governments response so far and they have passed them all.
Now we have a "scandal" of the UK not signing up to a EU PPE procurement scheme which has so far delivered not a single item of equipment.
The press and posters on PB just need something to criticise the Government about. This is a once in a 100 year pandemic and the UK is coping well.
"Coping well" would surely imply not heading for one on the highest deaths per capita in the world despite having more warning than many countries of the impending problem. "Coping relatively badly" would be a more accurate description.
The UK has the 3rd highest population in Europe but only the 5th highest deaths per capita in Europe
That is both factually and logically wrong. The UK has the 2nd highest population in Europe (not counting Russia, since a lot of it lies in Asia), but there is no logical reason to link population and deaths per capita.
Wrong, Germany and France have bigger populations than the UK.
However despite having the 3rd biggest population in Europe, the UK only has the 4th highest number of deaths in Europe
France does not have a bigger population than the UK.
UK population 66.6 million, France population 67 million
It is disingenuous to compare data complied in different ways like that. Your second source and almost every other table of population size (including the one on Worldometers - see below) indicates that the UK currently has a slightly higher population than France.
My view is that it is not population that matters in this crisis but population density. A selection below
Netherlands 1316 people per square mile Belgium 991 UK 727 (England 1010) Germany 623 Italy 533 France 310 Spain 243
It is not surprising that Netherlands, Belgium and England are all suffering badly on that basis. Clearly Germany is doing a lot better than its density would imply but France is doing very, very badly.
Yes, but it's the local population density that counts.
The average density for the US is... 87. That means nothing when you look at New York.
Agreed. That is why I included England separately from the UK. It is also worth adding that Italy and Spain of course look bad because they were first in the firing line. Although it may not look like it, other countries did learn a lot from that unfortunate situation.
Helen Whatley is apparently a government minister and not, as her demeanor suggests, a woman at Stansted Airport telling you your first choice of hire car is not available. She is on Sky News veering dangerously close to 'disgruntled civil servant' territory while explaining the EU ventilator nonsense.
So no comment on the gigantic U-turn said civil servant has just made? What a surprise.
I see the BBC are back on the EU procurement schemes, those ones that haven't delivered a single bit of kit yet, while an RAF planes lands with new PPE from Turkey.
Leadership (Especially setting realistic objectives) Decision making (timely, good judgement, accountable) Representing the electorates priorities inside government Unblocking political problems (using authority to get thing moving) Communication
Not sure we can give any of them a great score.
objectives have been unrealistic Decision making has been hesitant and accountability delegated to scientists civil servants seems to have a better grip on the electorates priorities critical equipment keeps getting blocked, money has been slow to arrive and ministerial clout seems ineffective communication has at times been very confused and counter productive
Some ministers are better than others. Some you have to ask, what is the point.
Why would you expect people to get a great score during one of the most challenging crises of our lifetime?
The key objective was to stop the NHS being overwhelmed to the point of it not being able to function - achieved. What would the response have been if the govt overruled the scientists? Criticial equipment gets blocked because other countries are chasing the same stuff and people are looking to make quick bucks exploiting the situation. On the business side, money hasnt been slow imo, we have received a grant already and should get the furlough money by the end of the month. Its an extremely generous scheme given the circumstances and delivered on time. Communication has been confused because people arent very good at dealing with uncertainty.
Its amazing the number of people sitting at home having a free paid holiday who think they could do better.
Has the NHS coped? Yes, easily Have the health systems in other countries coped eg Spain,USA, Italy and now Japan? No Is there food in the supermarkets? Yes the shelves are fully stocked Are the population following the lockdown rules? Yes Are people still being paid? Yes
The above are the key points of the Governments response so far and they have passed them all.
Now we have a "scandal" of the UK not signing up to a EU PPE procurement scheme which has so far delivered not a single item of equipment.
The press and posters on PB just need something to criticise the Government about. This is a once in a 100 year pandemic and the UK is coping well.
"Coping well" would surely imply not heading for one on the highest deaths per capita in the world despite having more warning than many countries of the impending problem. "Coping relatively badly" would be a more accurate description.
The UK has the 3rd highest population in Europe but only the 5th highest deaths per capita in Europe
That is both factually and logically wrong. The UK has the 2nd highest population in Europe (not counting Russia, since a lot of it lies in Asia), but there is no logical reason to link population and deaths per capita.
Wrong, Germany and France have bigger populations than the UK.
However despite having the 3rd biggest population in Europe, the UK only has the 4th highest number of deaths in Europe
France does not have a bigger population than the UK.
UK population 66.6 million, France population 67 million
It is disingenuous to compare data complied in different ways like that. Your second source and almost every other table of population size (including the one on Worldometers - see below) indicates that the UK currently has a slightly higher population than France.
My view is that it is not population that matters in this crisis but population density. A selection below
Netherlands 1316 people per square mile Belgium 991 UK 727 (England 1010) Germany 623 Italy 533 France 310 Spain 243
It is not surprising that Netherlands, Belgium and England are all suffering badly on that basis. Clearly Germany is doing a lot better than its density would imply but France is doing very, very badly.
The bigger most connected cities have been hit hardest in Europe so population density is likely to be a very significant factor.
Perhaps more interesting to look at European regions (sorry Europhobes, not espousing it as a system I promise!). England, for example has greatly varying pop densities, from London to Lincolnshire. How is London doing compared to Paris, Berlin, Madrid etc.?
The antiaircraft gunners often refused to engage tanks - an important point, since heavy AA guns at that time had a secondary capability against tanks. The famous German 88 was originally an AA gun.
If you didn't have AP rounds, I very much doubt the efficacy of firing on armour with AA ones.
Afaik the British 3.7 AA gun (the direct equivalent of the 88) was never used in an AT role, certainly not 1939-40.
Wiki
Like other British guns, the 3.7 had a secondary direct fire role for defending its position against tank attack. During the North African Campaign, the 3.7 was considered for use explicitly as an anti-tank weapon due to the shortage of suitable anti-tank guns. Sighting arrangements were improved for the anti-tank role, but the weapon was far from ideal. Its size and weight - two tons heavier than the German 8.8 cm - made it tactically unsuitable for use in forward areas. The mounting and recuperating gear were also not designed to handle the strain of prolonged firing at low elevations.
The 3.7 found little use as a dedicated anti-tank gun except in emergencies. There were few 3.7-equipped heavy anti-aircraft regiments in the field army and most were not subordinate to divisions where the anti-tank capability was required.
Dad was a gunner in the North Africa Campaign, mostly on Anti-Aircraft duties. He reckoned it was mostly like trying to shoot flies with a handgun. His gun only made two direct hits he was sure of. One was a bomber that got its timing and navigation wrong and flew low and slow over his unit just as dawn broke. Dad's gun was not the only one that got it.
The other was a fluke. A fighter plane pulled out of its climb at high altitude thinking it was out of range. It was a million to one chance and very bad luck for the crew.
As regards tanks, his crew certainly used them against Italian tanks which was so flimsy he reckons the shells sometimes passed straight through them. It was a different matter when the Germans arrived. Then the problem was you couldn't normally get close enough to hit them without being blasted yourself, and if you did hit them the shell was apt to bounce off the armour.
These are my recollections from what he told me when I was a child. I don't know how it squares with other reports.
I understood that the approach to flak was to aim at an area, rather than aim at a particular target. The box around Valletta Harbour for instance. This creates a wall effect that the planes must fly through, getting significant numbers of hits, or driving the planes so high that they were innaccurate. In effect as an area denying weapon. Perhaps small units took a different tactic.
I see the BBC are back on the EU procurement schemes, those ones that haven't delivered a single bit of kit yet, while an RAF planes lands with new PPE from Turkey.
Very much the media bubble. This is all very strange we now live in a country where for the first time in my life it seems the government are trusted more than the media.
Interesting thread on music, with The Waterboys mentioned (I'll have to have a listen).
Can I offer up another 90s band? Mansun shone brightly for a few years from 1996. First album "Attack of the Grey Lantern" was a concept album about a gender-fluid stripper vicar. Second album was "Six", another concept album which featured a spoken part by Tom Baker in an operatic interlude between two long long arcs. Then "Little Kix" which at the behest of the record label ditched the epic soundscape prog/indie sound but kept the sharp songwriting and clever lyrics. And then they folded.
The first two albums were remastered last year and are on Spotify - I put Six up alongside other modern Prog concept classics (like Porcupine Tree's "The Incident") as utterly indispensible.
I really like Attack of the Grey Lantern, I bought it when it came out. I never listened to Six at the time but funnily enough I gave it a few listens a few weeks ago, but it didn't grab me at all. I'll give Little Kix a whirl - thanks
I think the time for giving the government the benefit of the doubt is over. There have been so many unforced errors - the decision to allow Cheltenham to go ahead was mystifying to me even at the time - that will undoubtedly have cost lives. I suspect that Johnson's illness bought them some breathing space, but now that he has thankfully recovered it is time to hold his administration to account for its dire performance.
If you were closing Cheltenham why would you allow the tube to run?
Perhaps because one was essential to get nurses etc to work and the other wasn't? Can you really not see the difference?
Already answered. Nurses get to work fine on the tube now under lockdown, if closing Cheltenham was so important why not do the same for the tube where there are far far more people.
Locking down the country on a different date would have had a significant impact. Locking down Cheltenham a couple of days before the country, a tiny impact.
Indeed I 100% agree.
People keep highlighting things like Cheltenham or Liverpool v Atheltico because they view the sport as a frippery and it's something that could have been done. But it's nonsense.
If there should be a lockdown it should apply to the whole country not a tiny minescule fraction of it. If there should be a stop on tourism it should apply to all not just a tiny number. These events are inconsequential.
There's a reason the real hotspot in this country isn't Merseyside or Cheltenham it's London.
That difficult third album where all the best tunes have been used up twice and the band have nothing new to say. Meanwhile, the audience starts to get restless.
The government was ridiculously overpraised at the outset and some of its early poor decisions are coming under belated scrutiny. The public is willing the government to succeed, being personally invested in its success, so it has a lot of support to draw upon. A lot, but not limitless.
Did you watch the Oasis documentary the other day? Noel Gallagher admits to exactly that!
He wrote all the songs for the first three albums before the first one was recorded, that’s why the third one was not all that.
Is not the standard music industry term the contractual obligation album?
Radiohead’s third album was the seminal, highly lauded OK Computer...
An experiment (as they had no songs) that work...
No songs?! Have you seen the track list?
Also Blur’s Parklife. Nirvana‘s In Utero, far superior to Nevermind.
I’m showing my 90s vintage here.
Wow I love Nirvana, but would have In Utero as their worst album by quite a distance. Nevermind might be relatively overproduced but I think it’s almost perfect for the kind of music I like... melodic hard rock
I went to blur at Mile End but left before they came on because it was raining, and had a ticket for Oasis at Earls Court but fell asleep round my girlfriends and missed the train.
In Utero is an uncompromising work of genius, IMHO. It's the sound of Cobain crumbling mentally, gripped by addiction and resentful of the success he got. It's not pretty but it is brilliant. I was 15 when it came out, I loved the alienation. Now I'm older and wiser I wish he could've got through it. I'd love to see what he'd be doing now.
It’s interesting for the reasons you say, but I don’t really like listening to it much. I like ‘Very Ape’, and the opening chords to ‘Heart Shaped Box’ was how I tried to convey to people how depression, or whatever it was I was feeling at the time, felt like. He sounds bored though, and going through the motions (“verse chorus verse”)
I reckon he’d have never been as successful as he was already’, even had he lived. I reckon self indulgent, unlistenable experiments beckoned, because he hated himself for being successful. Scott Walker ‘music’ for example.
...The opposite is true. We should have more [globalization]. Bringing all supply chains back home only increases risks. I thought that we had diversified risks by having factories in more than 40 countries, but I failed to think fully about supply chains for parts. I deeply regret that. We will think about how to respond if coronavirus infections spread again, and we will realign our posture over the next several years.
I hope that the coronavirus will weaken the "my country first" ideology and lead to a better way. To develop drugs for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19, we are going to need international cooperation. After listening to what world leaders are saying, I believe that they are doing some soul-searching...
...For 50 years, I did business by believing that my methods were all correct. But the current situation made me realize that I was wrong. I did not trust telework. But now I want to make the company a worker-friendly one where employees are happy, even if profit temporarily declines. I thought of about 50 things to change to achieve that goal. I hope that other Japanese business managers come up with their own methods, using the time they have now to reflect....
Helen Whatley is apparently a government minister and not, as her demeanor suggests, a woman at Stansted Airport telling you your first choice of hire car is not available. She is on Sky News veering dangerously close to 'disgruntled civil servant' territory while explaining the EU ventilator nonsense.
So no comment on the gigantic U-turn said civil servant has just made? What a surprise.
Plenty of comments downthread. The letter seems to be drafted very carefully to be formally true. It seems highly likely to be misleading.
I expect it will come up for further discussion in Parliament in 90 minutes' time, where we may learn more.
Apropos of nothing, probably the only vaguely interesting thing I'll discover today is that Christopher Walken's (pbuh) mum is from Clydebank.
I read yesterday that ciabatta was invented in 1982. I still can't quite believe it.
Tbf that is quite mindblowing.
Surprised me too
Ciabatta is an Italian bread that was first produced back in 1982 by Arnaldo Cavallari, a miller and baker in a small town close to Venice.
At the time bakers in Italy were concerned by the popularity in the country with French baguettes and were afraid that they would endanger their business.
I think the time for giving the government the benefit of the doubt is over. There have been so many unforced errors - the decision to allow Cheltenham to go ahead was mystifying to me even at the time - that will undoubtedly have cost lives. I suspect that Johnson's illness bought them some breathing space, but now that he has thankfully recovered it is time to hold his administration to account for its dire performance.
If you were closing Cheltenham why would you allow the tube to run?
Presumably because the tube is essential for getting people to work, whereas Cheltenham is not essential for anything.
And people are at Cheltenham for considerably longer than the typical tube journey, and shooting and cheering loudly, whereas on the tube at least everyone keeps their mouth firmly closed.
Circumstantial evidence but until Irish doctors say they have seen a spike amongst 15 to 20,000 Irish racegoers returning home from Cheltenham, that is all it is. And while there is cheering at Cheltenham, it is not like at a football match. Seven races a day, a roar at the start, some cheering at the end, and that is it...
Which ignores use of enclosed communal facilities like toilets and bars.
The point was about cheering at Cheltenham as opposed to on the tube. An estimated 5 to 10 minutes a day. It is not like a football match where there is singing and chanting through much of the game.
Interesting thread on music, with The Waterboys mentioned (I'll have to have a listen).
Can I offer up another 90s band? Mansun shone brightly for a few years from 1996. First album "Attack of the Grey Lantern" was a concept album about a gender-fluid stripper vicar. Second album was "Six", another concept album which featured a spoken part by Tom Baker in an operatic interlude between two long long arcs. Then "Little Kix" which at the behest of the record label ditched the epic soundscape prog/indie sound but kept the sharp songwriting and clever lyrics. And then they folded.
The first two albums were remastered last year and are on Spotify - I put Six up alongside other modern Prog concept classics (like Porcupine Tree's "The Incident") as utterly indispensible.
The intro to The Chad who loved me (first track on Attack of the Grey Lantern) is one of my favourite bits of music.
And I now know what I'm listening to all day.
The remasters are Bloody Good. Make sure you listen to the correct version of the albums on Spotify!
Well as I showed with 10 minutes research, the Guardian story on PPE doesn't pass the smell test. Unlike the Telegraph story where at least the reality tv show contest contestant did actually have a legit operating properly development company, the two firms mentioned have no online presence and don't appear to do much more business every year than a car booter.
And i dont think many people would order 10 million masks from a business who has no website, no social media, etc or a defunct eco-paint stripping company.
It reminds me of that Seaborne Freight thing last year.
Helen Whatley is apparently a government minister and not, as her demeanor suggests, a woman at Stansted Airport telling you your first choice of hire car is not available. She is on Sky News veering dangerously close to 'disgruntled civil servant' territory while explaining the EU ventilator nonsense.
So no comment on the gigantic U-turn said civil servant has just made? What a surprise.
Plenty of comments downthread. The letter seems to be drafted very carefully to be formally true. It seems highly likely to be misleading.
I expect it will come up for further discussion in Parliament in 90 minutes' time, where we may learn more.
Some interesting discussion by commentators being picked up on the Graun UK covid-19 feed too.
The antiaircraft gunners often refused to engage tanks - an important point, since heavy AA guns at that time had a secondary capability against tanks. The famous German 88 was originally an AA gun.
If you didn't have AP rounds, I very much doubt the efficacy of firing on armour with AA ones.
Afaik the British 3.7 AA gun (the direct equivalent of the 88) was never used in an AT role, certainly not 1939-40.
Wiki
Like other British guns, the 3.7 had a secondary direct fire role for defending its position against tank attack. During the North African Campaign, the 3.7 was considered for use explicitly as an anti-tank weapon due to the shortage of suitable anti-tank guns. Sighting arrangements were improved for the anti-tank role, but the weapon was far from ideal. Its size and weight - two tons heavier than the German 8.8 cm - made it tactically unsuitable for use in forward areas. The mounting and recuperating gear were also not designed to handle the strain of prolonged firing at low elevations.
The 3.7 found little use as a dedicated anti-tank gun except in emergencies. There were few 3.7-equipped heavy anti-aircraft regiments in the field army and most were not subordinate to divisions where the anti-tank capability was required.
Dad was a gunner in the North Africa Campaign, mostly on Anti-Aircraft duties. He reckoned it was mostly like trying to shoot flies with a handgun. His gun only made two direct hits he was sure of. One was a bomber that got its timing and navigation wrong and flew low and slow over his unit just as dawn broke. Dad's gun was not the only one that got it.
The other was a fluke. A fighter plane pulled out of its climb at high altitude thinking it was out of range. It was a million to one chance and very bad luck for the crew.
As regards tanks, his crew certainly used them against Italian tanks which was so flimsy he reckons the shells sometimes passed straight through them. It was a different matter when the Germans arrived. Then the problem was you couldn't normally get close enough to hit them without being blasted yourself, and if you did hit them the shell was apt to bounce off the armour.
These are my recollections from what he told me when I was a child. I don't know how it squares with other reports.
I understood that the approach to flak was to aim at an area, rather than aim at a particular target. The box around Valletta Harbour for instance. This creates a wall effect that the planes must fly through, getting significant numbers of hits, or driving the planes so high that they were innaccurate. In effect as an area denying weapon. Perhaps small units took a different tactic.
Yes, I think that's right. Dad's gun would have been on the move a lot of the time and they dug in when and where they could.
I think the time for giving the government the benefit of the doubt is over. There have been so many unforced errors - the decision to allow Cheltenham to go ahead was mystifying to me even at the time - that will undoubtedly have cost lives. I suspect that Johnson's illness bought them some breathing space, but now that he has thankfully recovered it is time to hold his administration to account for its dire performance.
If you were closing Cheltenham why would you allow the tube to run?
Perhaps because one was essential to get nurses etc to work and the other wasn't? Can you really not see the difference?
Pre-lockdown it was not just key workers using the tube. But leaving that to one side, why would you stop Cheltenham and allow a full Premier League programme and the rugby internationals (one of which Boris actually attended) to go ahead, not to mention the Liverpool vs Atletico Madrid game given Spain was already a hotspot?
Agreed I was highly critical of the Liverpool v Madrid game going ahead.
By the time those events took place we didn't need hindsight to know that mass gatherings were a bad idea, we just needed to look what was happening elsewhere.
Unfortunately Johnson's mind wasn't on it. He was sorting out his private life on a two week "working" holiday with his girlfriend at Chevening for the latter half of February. But hey ho we all knew what Boris was like, still he is laugh isn't he?
Leadership (Especially setting realistic objectives) Decision making (timely, good judgement, accountable) Representing the electorates priorities inside government Unblocking political problems (using authority to get thing moving) Communication
Not sure we can give any of them a great score.
objectives have been unrealistic Decision making has been hesitant and accountability delegated to scientists civil servants seems to have a better grip on the electorates priorities critical equipment keeps getting blocked, money has been slow to arrive and ministerial clout seems ineffective communication has at times been very confused and counter productive
Some ministers are better than others. Some you have to ask, what is the point.
Why would you expect people to get a great score during one of the most challenging crises of our lifetime?
The key objective was to stop the NHS being overwhelmed to the point of it not being able to function - achieved. What would the response have been if the govt overruled the scientists? Criticial equipment gets blocked because other countries are chasing the same stuff and people are looking to make quick bucks exploiting the situation. On the business side, money hasnt been slow imo, we have received a grant already and should get the furlough money by the end of the month. Its an extremely generous scheme given the circumstances and delivered on time. Communication has been confused because people arent very good at dealing with uncertainty.
Its amazing the number of people sitting at home having a free paid holiday who think they could do better.
Has the NHS coped? Yes, easily Have the health systems in other countries coped eg Spain,USA, Italy and now Japan? No Is there food in the supermarkets? Yes the shelves are fully stocked Are the population following the lockdown rules? Yes Are people still being paid? Yes
The above are the key points of the Governments response so far and they have passed them all.
Now we have a "scandal" of the UK not signing up to a EU PPE procurement scheme which has so far delivered not a single item of equipment.
The press and posters on PB just need something to criticise the Government about. This is a once in a 100 year pandemic and the UK is coping well.
"Coping well" would surely imply not heading for one on the highest deaths per capita in the world despite having more warning than many countries of the impending problem. "Coping relatively badly" would be a more accurate description.
The UK has the 3rd highest population in Europe but only the 5th highest deaths per capita in Europe
That is both factually and logically wrong. The UK has the 2nd highest population in Europe (not counting Russia, since a lot of it lies in Asia), but there is no logical reason to link population and deaths per capita.
Wrong, Germany and France have bigger populations than the UK.
However despite having the 3rd biggest population in Europe, the UK only has the 4th highest number of deaths in Europe
France does not have a bigger population than the UK.
UK population 66.6 million, France population 67 million
It is disingenuous to compare data complied in different ways like that. Your second source and almost every other table of population size (including the one on Worldometers - see below) indicates that the UK currently has a slightly higher population than France.
My view is that it is not population that matters in this crisis but population density. A selection below
Netherlands 1316 people per square mile Belgium 991 UK 727 (England 1010) Germany 623 Italy 533 France 310 Spain 243
It is not surprising that Netherlands, Belgium and England are all suffering badly on that basis. Clearly Germany is doing a lot better than its density would imply but France is doing very, very badly.
I agree that population itself isn't important - it was HYFUD who implying that it was - but, as others have mentioned, it's not so much population density as the degree of urbanisation that seems to be important. If the citizens of a sparsely populated country are mostly crowded into a few cities, then the virus will spread well there too.
I think the time for giving the government the benefit of the doubt is over. There have been so many unforced errors - the decision to allow Cheltenham to go ahead was mystifying to me even at the time - that will undoubtedly have cost lives. I suspect that Johnson's illness bought them some breathing space, but now that he has thankfully recovered it is time to hold his administration to account for its dire performance.
If you were closing Cheltenham why would you allow the tube to run?
Presumably because the tube is essential for getting people to work, whereas Cheltenham is not essential for anything.
And people are at Cheltenham for considerably longer than the typical tube journey, and shooting and cheering loudly, whereas on the tube at least everyone keeps their mouth firmly closed.
Circumstantial evidence but until Irish doctors say they have seen a spike amongst 15 to 20,000 Irish racegoers returning home from Cheltenham, that is all it is. And while there is cheering at Cheltenham, it is not like at a football match. Seven races a day, a roar at the start, some cheering at the end, and that is it...
Which ignores use of enclosed communal facilities like toilets and bars.
There's communal facilities likes toilets and bars up and down the entire country. Why would you care about the bars in Cheltenham while ignoring the bars in actual hotspots like London? What percentage of nationwide bar goers do you think were at Cheltenham?
If you want bars closed then close them all. Cheltenham isn't relevant.
I'm baffled by the apparent fixation some journalists had with it, but we'll see just how rapidly they report this new angle.
Because the mainstream journalists know very little about epidemiology, pandemic planning or supply chains, but know an awful lot about UK/EU relations.
Many of them also instinctively think that the EU can do nothing wrong, and the UK under Johnson can do nothing right.
Gigs were a type of event that should have been stopped way before they were. 1000s of sweaty people rammed into a small room for several hours at a time, all bashing into one another. It makes an academic conference, a known transport vector, look safe. They are apres ski on steroids for coronavirus.
I think the time for giving the government the benefit of the doubt is over. There have been so many unforced errors - the decision to allow Cheltenham to go ahead was mystifying to me even at the time - that will undoubtedly have cost lives. I suspect that Johnson's illness bought them some breathing space, but now that he has thankfully recovered it is time to hold his administration to account for its dire performance.
If you were closing Cheltenham why would you allow the tube to run?
Presumably because the tube is essential for getting people to work, whereas Cheltenham is not essential for anything.
And people are at Cheltenham for considerably longer than the typical tube journey, and shooting and cheering loudly, whereas on the tube at least everyone keeps their mouth firmly closed.
Circumstantial evidence but until Irish doctors say they have seen a spike amongst 15 to 20,000 Irish racegoers returning home from Cheltenham, that is all it is. And while there is cheering at Cheltenham, it is not like at a football match. Seven races a day, a roar at the start, some cheering at the end, and that is it...
Which ignores use of enclosed communal facilities like toilets and bars.
There's communal facilities likes toilets and bars up and down the entire country. Why would you care about the bars in Cheltenham while ignoring the bars in actual hotspots like London? What percentage of nationwide bar goers do you think were at Cheltenham?
If you want bars closed then close them all. Cheltenham isn't relevant.
It is, because the people there came from all over Britain and Ireland, not like the regulars in the Dog and Duck down the road. A major opportunity, like Italian ski resorts, to spread the bug to new areas and seed now local outbreaks. That there is little evidence of its impact is interesting - but this wasn't to be known at the time.
Leadership (Especially setting realistic objectives) Decision making (timely, good judgement, accountable) Representing the electorates priorities inside government Unblocking political problems (using authority to get thing moving) Communication
Not sure we can give any of them a great score.
objectives have been unrealistic Decision making has been hesitant and accountability delegated to scientists civil servants seems to have a better grip on the electorates priorities critical equipment keeps getting blocked, money has been slow to arrive and ministerial clout seems ineffective communication has at times been very confused and counter productive
Some ministers are better than others. Some you have to ask, what is the point.
Why would you expect people to get a great score during one of the most challenging crises of our lifetime?
The key objective was to stop the NHS being overwhelmed to the point of it not being able to function - achieved. What would the response have been if the govt overruled the scientists? Criticial equipment gets blocked because other countries are chasing the same stuff and people are looking to make quick bucks exploiting the situation. On the business side, money hasnt been slow imo, we have received a grant already and should get the furlough money by the end of the month. Its an extremely generous scheme given the circumstances and delivered on time. Communication has been confused because people arent very good at dealing with uncertainty.
Its amazing the number of people sitting at home having a free paid holiday who think they could do better.
Has the NHS coped? Yes, easily Have the health systems in other countries coped eg Spain,USA, Italy and now Japan? No Is there food in the supermarkets? Yes the shelves are fully stocked Are the population following the lockdown rules? Yes Are people still being paid? Yes
The above are the key points of the Governments response so far and they have passed them all.
Now we have a "scandal" of the UK not signing up to a EU PPE procurement scheme which has so far delivered not a single item of equipment.
The press and posters on PB just need something to criticise the Government about. This is a once in a 100 year pandemic and the UK is coping well.
"Coping well" would surely imply not heading for one on the highest deaths per capita in the world despite having more warning than many countries of the impending problem. "Coping relatively badly" would be a more accurate description.
The UK has the 3rd highest population in Europe but only the 5th highest deaths per capita in Europe
That is both factually and logically wrong. The UK has the 2nd highest population in Europe (not counting Russia, since a lot of it lies in Asia), but there is no logical reason to link population and deaths per capita.
Why not count Russia? Most of her population lives in Europe, 110 million in fact. Although I believe Russians do talk about "going to Europe", even if they live in St Petersburg. As do the Ukrainians - and that's an entirely European country.
A couple of days ago, Channel 4 news described Germany as "the largest European country". No it's not, it's the third
I think the time for giving the government the benefit of the doubt is over. There have been so many unforced errors - the decision to allow Cheltenham to go ahead was mystifying to me even at the time - that will undoubtedly have cost lives. I suspect that Johnson's illness bought them some breathing space, but now that he has thankfully recovered it is time to hold his administration to account for its dire performance.
If you were closing Cheltenham why would you allow the tube to run?
Perhaps because one was essential to get nurses etc to work and the other wasn't? Can you really not see the difference?
Pre-lockdown it was not just key workers using the tube. But leaving that to one side, why would you stop Cheltenham and allow a full Premier League programme and the rugby internationals (one of which Boris actually attended) to go ahead, not to mention the Liverpool vs Atletico Madrid game given Spain was already a hotspot?
Agreed I was highly critical of the Liverpool v Madrid game going ahead.
By the time those events took place we didn't need hindsight to know that mass gatherings were a bad idea, we just needed to look what was happening elsewhere.
Unfortunately Johnson's mind wasn't on it. He was sorting out his private life on a two week "working" holiday with his girlfriend at Chevening for the latter half of February. But hey ho we all knew what Boris was like, still he is laugh isn't he?
World Health Organisation Covid-19 advice on Feb 28
Well as I showed with 10 minutes research, the Guardian story on PPE doesn't pass the smell test. Unlike the Telegraph story where at least the reality tv show contest contestant did actually have a legit operating properly development company, the two firms mentioned have no online presence and don't appear to do much more business every year than a car booter.
And i dont think many people would order 10 million masks from a business who has no website, no social media, etc or a defunct eco-paint stripping company.
It reminds me of that Seaborne Freight thing last year.
Was it under Clinton? that a sale of oil from the US Strategic reserve turned out to have been bought (in part) by a clever 14 year old? He'd bullshitted a bank into providing the loan (via phone/email) to do the purchase and then flipped it for a big profit?
Interesting thread on music, with The Waterboys mentioned (I'll have to have a listen).
Can I offer up another 90s band? Mansun shone brightly for a few years from 1996. First album "Attack of the Grey Lantern" was a concept album about a gender-fluid stripper vicar. Second album was "Six", another concept album which featured a spoken part by Tom Baker in an operatic interlude between two long long arcs. Then "Little Kix" which at the behest of the record label ditched the epic soundscape prog/indie sound but kept the sharp songwriting and clever lyrics. And then they folded.
The first two albums were remastered last year and are on Spotify - I put Six up alongside other modern Prog concept classics (like Porcupine Tree's "The Incident") as utterly indispensible.
I really like Attack of the Grey Lantern, I bought it when it came out. I never listened to Six at the time but funnily enough I gave it a few listens a few weeks ago, but it didn't grab me at all. I'll give Little Kix a whirl - thanks
Whereas for me Six is an unadulterated masterpiece - the songs, the sound, the vibe. And the remaster finds a whole pile of parts previously lost in the mix.
Can I offer up another band from that era - Strangelove? Time for the Rest of your Life is a sensational debut album - the hypnotic "I will burn" is mesmerising, and "Is there a place" sung to me when I was a student.
Six years ago Alex Salmond (remember him?) was promising us, north of the border, a rosy economic future based on oil at $100 per barrel. As a former oil economist who could gainsay him.
Today, Nicola Sturgeon is seeking urgent talks with the UK Government and the industry in order to save thousands of jobs as the price has totally collapsed.
No doubt those nice Dutch and Germans would have stepped in to help had we voted the other way six years ago.
Project Fear I was the original and best album that everyone listened to. Project Fear III is warmed over dribble that only Scottish Tories are going out to buy.
We just need Project Remember.
That'll do the trick.
Unfortunately the Nats only seem to have Project Mudslinging from the Shitpit.
As I said earlier it's their only approach to hiding their (the SNP Government's) disasters / mistakes. And remarkably it still works.
Always enlightening to get views from little England.
Presumably you think it's a supine, uniformly pro SNP media that let's the SNP off with it?
It's not so much that the media is pro-SNP its just that the national broadcast UK media tends to genuflect and takes them at their own estimation largely because they are English, don't wish to seem condescending and are under-briefed . The one notable exception is Andrew Neil - a working-class Scot - who rattled Nicola's cage when he got the chance. No wonder Boris avoided contact.
National broadcast media? I certainly don't recognise that description of BBC Scotland.
Yeah, but who bothers with BBC Scotland reporting? UK still predominates. And UK Govt still held accountable for most things in the minds of the voters even if they are devolved. That's why SNP Govt has not suffered metal fatigue like most Govts do after a long spell in office.
Circumstantial evidence but until Irish doctors say they have seen a spike amongst 15 to 20,000 Irish racegoers returning home from Cheltenham, that is all it is. And while there is cheering at Cheltenham, it is not like at a football match. Seven races a day, a roar at the start, some cheering at the end, and that is it...
Which ignores use of enclosed communal facilities like toilets and bars.
The point was about cheering at Cheltenham as opposed to on the tube. An estimated 5 to 10 minutes a day. It is not like a football match where there is singing and chanting through much of the game.
Though from an epidemiological point of view, it was about having lots of people from all over the nation mixing in confined spaces with some from areas (London) with significantly higher rates of infection.
I think we were couple of weeks too late in stopping large events, and a week or so too late in locking down. Some of that is hindsight, of course, but there were plenty saying so at the time. And given the doubling rate of the disease, that has been very costly.
I'm baffled by the apparent fixation some journalists had with it, but we'll see just how rapidly they report this new angle.
Because the mainstream journalists know very little about epidemiology, pandemic planning or supply chains, but know an awful lot about UK/EU relations.
Many of them also instinctively think that the EU can do nothing wrong, and the UK under Johnson can do nothing right.
Given how niave they appear to be to randoms with no official presence making claims, i wonder how many have fallen for online scams?
Comments
And I really do think it will turn out that it was impossible to do things well as the difference between doing well and badly was probably just a single day (although I suspect going forward it will be multiple single days as lockdowns 2 and 3 are unavoidably triggered).
I only saw one face mask, and that was a put-up job by the Telegraph.
Presumably you think it's a supine, uniformly pro SNP media that let's the SNP off with it?
https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/population-by-country/
United Kingdom: 67,886,011
France: 65,273,511
Irritated is an understatement; it's effectively claiming infallibility, both on behalf of themselves and their advisers, which is quite obviously nonsense.
In any event, cutting off trade will harm everyone. Being more hard headed won't.
The problems being that it needs a lot more policing to stop people moving between areas, and the impact of the media reporting the differences (think “postcode lottery” for job losses).
I think that the government is only claiming (1). The best demolition of this I have seen was by the CMO, I think. He explained that when they did case reviews they always discussed whether things could have been done differently in hindsight. This is how medicine and practice evolves.
Of course, inevitably, the government spokesmen sometimes slip into (2). That is just daft.
Can I offer up another 90s band? Mansun shone brightly for a few years from 1996. First album "Attack of the Grey Lantern" was a concept album about a gender-fluid stripper vicar. Second album was "Six", another concept album which featured a spoken part by Tom Baker in an operatic interlude between two long long arcs. Then "Little Kix" which at the behest of the record label ditched the epic soundscape prog/indie sound but kept the sharp songwriting and clever lyrics. And then they folded.
The first two albums were remastered last year and are on Spotify - I put Six up alongside other modern Prog concept classics (like Porcupine Tree's "The Incident") as utterly indispensible.
Locking down the country on a different date would have had a significant impact. Locking down Cheltenham a couple of days before the country, a tiny impact.
https://twitter.com/anneapplebaum/status/1252884110046945285?s=20
The other was a fluke. A fighter plane pulled out of its climb at high altitude thinking it was out of range. It was a million to one chance and very bad luck for the crew.
As regards tanks, his crew certainly used them against Italian tanks which was so flimsy he reckons the shells sometimes passed straight through them. It was a different matter when the Germans arrived. Then the problem was you couldn't normally get close enough to hit them without being blasted yourself, and if you did hit them the shell was apt to bounce off the armour.
These are my recollections from what he told me when I was a child. I don't know how it squares with other reports.
I suppose in emergencies you use what you have against tanks, down to Molotov cocktails or mounted lancers* if necessary.
*I know that's semi mythical before anyone jumps in.
For sure they weren't to know this was coming but it is cruelly exposing the lack of depth and experience and I still want to know why, after 2 weeks in the Caribbean at Christmas Boris thought it was OK to disappear to Chevening for 2 weeks in February with his girlfriend when his mind should have been firmly focussed on the clear threat that was already becoming apparent.
The attitude of those who seem to believe government is beyond criticism is as ridiculous as that of those who criticise every move it makes.
What concerns me is that our government appear both reluctant to recognise mistakes, and very slow to learn from them.
While we're in lockdown, the consequences of that aren't particularly visible. How well we have prepared for what happens when that's relaxed is the worry.
Edit: As is Foxy's too!
Mollins (the cigarette machine company) built an auto-loader for the 32lbr. Installed on a Mosquito and test fired post war. Not sure why anyone thought a round every 1.5 seconds from a gun twice as powerful as an 88 was needed, but hey...
A 3.7 - if it hit - would probably get a one-shot kill vs a Tiger I (pretty rare in N. Africa). The problem was (as the source above mentions) the sights and the mount weren't very good for ground use.
Netherlands 1316 people per square mile
Belgium 991
UK 727
(England 1010)
Germany 623
Italy 533
France 310
Spain 243
It is not surprising that Netherlands, Belgium and England are all suffering badly on that basis. Clearly Germany is doing a lot better than its density would imply but France is doing very, very badly.
D'ye think Carlaw's formal complaint against the BBC for pro SNP bias is either wise or well judged?
To be pedantic, the Mosquito mounting was a 6 pounder (57mm calibre). Are you possibly thinking of Project Ratefixer or Green Mace, the automated AA guns developed late war or postwar? I saw the latter at Woolwich artillerty museum before it was closed to allow commercial redevelopment - massive thing.
And I now know what I'm listening to all day.
The average density for the US is... 87.
That means nothing when you look at New York.
https://metro.co.uk/2020/04/21/top-civil-servant-backtracks-claim-uk-chose-not-join-eu-ventilator-ppe-scheme-12590910/
In the letter, published by the foreign affairs select committee, Sir Simon said: ‘Unfortunately, due to a misunderstanding, I inadvertently and wrongly told the committee, that ministers were briefed by UKMIS on the EU’s joint procurement scheme and took a political decision not to participate in it. ‘This is incorrect. Ministers were not briefed by our mission in Brussels about the scheme and a political decision was not taken on whether or not to participate,’ he added. ‘The facts of the situation are as previously set out. Owing to an initial communications problem, the UK did not receive an invitation in time to join in four joint Covid EU procurement schemes. As those four initial schemes had already gone out to tender we were unable to take part.’
WTAF?
Got it; Tiny, or maybe Wee Scotlanders! lol!
So getting back to the original in terms of the NHS coping, if the medical team determines that a ventilator is required to keep you alive then a patient can have one. There is no shortage of beds, ventilators, oxygen etc so therefore the NHS is coping. In other countries that is not happening.
People keep highlighting things like Cheltenham or Liverpool v Atheltico because they view the sport as a frippery and it's something that could have been done. But it's nonsense.
If there should be a lockdown it should apply to the whole country not a tiny minescule fraction of it. If there should be a stop on tourism it should apply to all not just a tiny number. These events are inconsequential.
There's a reason the real hotspot in this country isn't Merseyside or Cheltenham it's London.
I reckon he’d have never been as successful as he was already’, even had he lived. I reckon self indulgent, unlistenable experiments beckoned, because he hated himself for being successful. Scott Walker ‘music’ for example.
'Don't bring factories home, it only adds to risk,' Nidec chief says
https://asia.nikkei.com/Editor-s-Picks/Interview/Don-t-bring-factories-home-it-only-adds-to-risk-Nidec-chief-says
...The opposite is true. We should have more [globalization]. Bringing all supply chains back home only increases risks. I thought that we had diversified risks by having factories in more than 40 countries, but I failed to think fully about supply chains for parts. I deeply regret that. We will think about how to respond if coronavirus infections spread again, and we will realign our posture over the next several years.
I hope that the coronavirus will weaken the "my country first" ideology and lead to a better way. To develop drugs for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19, we are going to need international cooperation. After listening to what world leaders are saying, I believe that they are doing some soul-searching...
...For 50 years, I did business by believing that my methods were all correct. But the current situation made me realize that I was wrong. I did not trust telework. But now I want to make the company a worker-friendly one where employees are happy, even if profit temporarily declines. I thought of about 50 things to change to achieve that goal. I hope that other Japanese business managers come up with their own methods, using the time they have now to reflect....
I expect it will come up for further discussion in Parliament in 90 minutes' time, where we may learn more.
Ciabatta is an Italian bread that was first produced back in 1982 by Arnaldo Cavallari, a miller and baker in a small town close to Venice.
At the time bakers in Italy were concerned by the popularity in the country with French baguettes and were afraid that they would endanger their business.
https://www.her.ie/life/food-for-thought-a-short-history-of-ciabatta-146594
I'm baffled by the apparent fixation some journalists had with it, but we'll see just how rapidly they report this new angle.
https://www.dailynk.com/english/source-kim-jong-un-recently-received-heart-surgery/
Agreed I was highly critical of the Liverpool v Madrid game going ahead.
By the time those events took place we didn't need hindsight to know that mass gatherings were a bad idea, we just needed to look what was happening elsewhere.
Unfortunately Johnson's mind wasn't on it. He was sorting out his private life on a two week "working" holiday with his girlfriend at Chevening for the latter half of February. But hey ho we all knew what Boris was like, still he is laugh isn't he?
If you want bars closed then close them all. Cheltenham isn't relevant.
Many of them also instinctively think that the EU can do nothing wrong, and the UK under Johnson can do nothing right.
A couple of days ago, Channel 4 news described Germany as "the largest European country". No it's not, it's the third
https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-media-briefing-on-covid-19---28-february-2020
Can I offer up another band from that era - Strangelove? Time for the Rest of your Life is a sensational debut album - the hypnotic "I will burn" is mesmerising, and "Is there a place" sung to me when I was a student.
Ah, music. Whatever happened to you?
I think we were couple of weeks too late in stopping large events, and a week or so too late in locking down.
Some of that is hindsight, of course, but there were plenty saying so at the time. And given the doubling rate of the disease, that has been very costly.