I see in the land of Covid Data Wranglers Sweden is absolutely 100% definitely past it's peak
I plotted Swdish deaths over April until the 16th and then put a trendline through it
Of course I have not actual clue what is going on because I'm not an expert in the field, but what I am good at spotting is people pushing bullshit number manipulation to fit a preconceived agenda. Don't trust aynoe putting a trend line through anything without a description (with maths) of what the trend line is.
Speaking without any agenda on Sweden, this isn't the right way to do a trendline if you're trying to answer the question of whether they're past the peak. The problem is that- imagining for simplicity that the actual rate of infection follows a smooth, symmetrical inverted-U shape- you'd only see a downward-sloping linear trend line if you included more data points after the peak than before.
The curve probably isn't exactly an inverted-U, but the more general point stands that the shape of your line will be very sensitive to how far back in time you include data- even adding more days with 0 cases before the outbreak began would push back how long it'd be until we start to see a peak.
Ultimately you're making two incompatible assumptions: 1. that you should fit a linear trendline to the data, 2. that the data will have a peak (and therefore not be linear)
I am indeed posting bullshit number manipulation.
I'm trying to demonstrate you can make the same figures say whatever the hell you want by placing a 'trend line' over them. As if a trend line is some kind of neutral statement about the data rather than an active choice by the person preparing the graph.
The linear line I stuck through it is of course totally bogus, there is zero justification for putting that line on the chart. But just as justified as the trend lines I am seeing littering twitter.
Ah I see, I misunderstood your point. Well hopefully if anyone else made the same mistake as me they'll see my response.
The U.S. government had never mounted a better interagency response to a crisis, Mr. Azar told the president in a meeting held eight days after the U.S. announced its first case, according to administration officials. At the time, the administration’s focus was on containing the virus.
When other officials asked about diagnostic testing, Dr. Robert Redfield, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, began to answer. Mr. Azar cut him off, telling the president it was “the fastest we’ve ever created a test,” the officials recalled, and that more than one million tests would be available within weeks.
That didn’t happen. The CDC began shipping tests the following week, only to discover a flaw that forced it to recall the test from state public-health laboratories. When White House advisers later in February criticized Mr. Azar for the delays caused by the recall, he lashed out at Dr. Redfield, accusing the CDC director of misleading him on the timing of a fix. “Did you lie to me?” one of the officials recalled him yelling....
The most surprising thing about the current US administration is Dr Anthony Fauci who seems to be talking sense.
We know why he is there - a previous appointment. But usually Trump has binned all the competent people...
Fauci is an exceptional diplomat.
Also, he's not afraid of Trump, one of whose talents learned over a lifetime is sensing fear in others.
"Anthony fauci has been different from any other prominent official Donald Trump has dealt with in his time as president. The difference is that Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, is not afraid. To put it in terms Trump might recognize: What the hell does he have to lose?"
And the American people like and trust him. He's probably unsackable, which gives him great power. I'm hoping that at some point he uses it to further the one cause more noble than fighting Covid-19 - the removal from office of President Donald Trump.
One thing that does occur is that, having seen Raab in action, the manager of Magnet Kitchens (Esher) is not going to be the next leader of the tory party when the wheels inevitably come off the Johnson project.
Some of us see it as a positive outcome of Brexit rather than an unfortunate consequence. It helps to right a historic wrong.
There's nothing positive about the break-up of the UK - whatsoever.
And I'd be very careful about reaching into history and arguing that your political preferences today help to correct some of those (heavily mythologised) wrongs, particularly where such black & white views could lead to all sorts of unintended consequences.
You might find your political opponents want to do the same when they take office over something they really value too.
I couldn't disagree more. The positive about the break-up of the UK is the EXACT SAME principle as to why we voted for Brexit - that control over laws is better exercised by those who vote for the law.
If the Scots think they can better control their own laws than the English can then the Scots should be free to do so - and I think they could. It isn't healthy to have a union were 90% of the population is in one member, so the other 10% spend more time griping about the actions of politicians of the 90% than they do looking after themselves. If Scotland goes free it will be forced quickly to grow up and look after itself. That's a good thing.
Scottish politics today is infantilised by the union.
A hypothetical for you -
What do you think should happen if England wants to leave the UK but Scotland does not?
That's easy. If England votes to leave the UK then England should leave it. Same if the roles were reversed, then Scotland should leave. If Scotland had voted to leave the UK in its referendum then England not wanting to do so wouldn't have been relevant.
My principle is that if its not a prison anyone can choose to leave freely if that is their choice.
What's the government doing to increase UK production of PPE ?
Unfortunately, this is not something you can do on short notice. It probably takes months to get new production lines up and running.
I have to say, more than slightly worried about this. Germany saying it will take them until August to get up to making 50 million masks a week. This is Germany, whose specialist subject is mass production of higher end stuff, and they are saying it is going to be several months to get this in place.
And the UK, we are only just tip-toeing towards masks might be a good idea, use a scarf. This isn't going to wash for very long and we need a plan, and fast.
The masks the plebs will wear will be the most basic ones imaginable. Anything the covers the nose and mouth, effectively. I wouldn't be surprised if the government banned the general sale of the high-end stuff.
One thing that does occur is that, having seen Raab in action, the manager of Magnet Kitchens (Esher) is not going to be the next leader of the tory party when the wheels inevitably come off the Johnson project.
What's the government doing to increase UK production of PPE ?
Unfortunately, this is not something you can do on short notice. It probably takes months to get new production lines up and running.
I have to say, more than slightly worried about this. Germany saying it will take them until August to get up to making 50 million masks a week. This is Germany, whose specialist subject is mass production of higher end stuff, and they are saying it is going to be several months to get this sort of capacity in place.
And the UK, we are only just tip-toeing towards masks might be a good idea, use a scarf. This isn't going to wash for very long and we need a plan, and fast. Otherwise, it will be like drive-through testing roll-out all over again.
We should have been looking into it for at least two months.
What's the government doing to increase UK production of PPE ?
Unfortunately, this is not something you can do on short notice. It probably takes months to get new production lines up and running.
I have to say, more than slightly worried about this. Germany saying it will take them until August to get up to making 50 million masks a week. This is Germany, whose specialist subject is mass production of higher end stuff, and they are saying it is going to be several months to get this sort of capacity in place.
And the UK, we are only just tip-toeing towards masks might be a good idea, use a scarf. This isn't going to wash for very long and we need a plan, and fast. Otherwise, it will be like drive-through testing roll-out all over again.
We should have been looking into it for at least two months.
Have we ?
If not then people should be sacked.
It has undoubtedly been looked at for the last two months.
Some of us see it as a positive outcome of Brexit rather than an unfortunate consequence. It helps to right a historic wrong.
There's nothing positive about the break-up of the UK - whatsoever.
And I'd be very careful about reaching into history and arguing that your political preferences today help to correct some of those (heavily mythologised) wrongs, particularly where such black & white views could lead to all sorts of unintended consequences.
You might find your political opponents want to do the same when they take office over something they really value too.
I couldn't disagree more. The positive about the break-up of the UK is the EXACT SAME principle as to why we voted for Brexit - that control over laws is better exercised by those who vote for the law.
If the Scots think they can better control their own laws than the English can then the Scots should be free to do so - and I think they could. It isn't healthy to have a union were 90% of the population is in one member, so the other 10% spend more time griping about the actions of politicians of the 90% than they do looking after themselves. If Scotland goes free it will be forced quickly to grow up and look after itself. That's a good thing.
Scottish politics today is infantilised by the union.
Surprisingly I agree with this completely and could not have worded it better, even though I am very pro EU. I believe in devolution to the greatest extent possible and self determination and a 9:1 ratio in the partnership is not healthy.
I had no strong feelings either way re the vote on independence and would have been happy if successful.
Ideally I would have liked to see an independent Scotland with both countries in the EU. I like the idea of their being a federation of countries working together but with maximum devolution. It is not a contradiction.
Yes, wouldn't it be great to have a rag tag collection of small countries within a vast putative superstate, 'maximum devolution' would surely be the outcome. Thank God we've got thinkers like you on the case.
I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
The EU currently has a lot of small States in it who value their membership and devolution is encouraged across all those states. Decisions should be taken at the appropriate level and devolved down to the lowest level possible but clearly on certain issues States should work together eg standards, climate change, etc.
In the UK we did have a tendency to gold plate rules and then say it is the EUs fault when invariably it wasn't.
You seem to have (unpleasantly) suggested I have stated something stupid when in fact it is exactly how it currently works(ish) (so clearly not) and which was certainly Scotland's ambition (are they all stupid as well?)
PS tried to change typo in last post: their/there but couldn't seem to edit.
An awful lot of those coronavirus suckers out there. Been around, evolving in bats, for millions of years.
Bat coronavirus phylogeography in the Western Indian Ocean https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-63799-7 ...The islands of the Western Indian Ocean are identified as a major biodiversity hotspot, with more than 50 bat species. In this study, we tested 1,013 bats belonging to 36 species from Mozambique, Madagascar, Mauritius, Mayotte, Reunion Island and Seychelles, based on molecular screening and partial sequencing of the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase gene. In total, 88 bats (8.7%) tested positive for coronaviruses, with higher prevalence in Mozambican bats (20.5% ± 4.9%) as compared to those sampled on islands (4.5% ± 1.5%). Phylogenetic analyses revealed a large diversity of α- and β-CoVs and a strong signal of co-evolution between CoVs and their bat host species, with limited evidence for host-switching, except for bat species sharing day roost sites. These results highlight that strong variation between islands does exist and is associated with the composition of the bat species community on each island. Future studies should investigate whether CoVs detected in these bats have a potential for spillover in other hosts...
Some of us see it as a positive outcome of Brexit rather than an unfortunate consequence. It helps to right a historic wrong.
There's nothing positive about the break-up of the UK - whatsoever.
And I'd be very careful about reaching into history and arguing that your political preferences today help to correct some of those (heavily mythologised) wrongs, particularly where such black & white views could lead to all sorts of unintended consequences.
You might find your political opponents want to do the same when they take office over something they really value too.
I couldn't disagree more. The positive about the break-up of the UK is the EXACT SAME principle as to why we voted for Brexit - that control over laws is better exercised by those who vote for the law.
If the Scots think they can better control their own laws than the English can then the Scots should be free to do so - and I think they could. It isn't healthy to have a union were 90% of the population is in one member, so the other 10% spend more time griping about the actions of politicians of the 90% than they do looking after themselves. If Scotland goes free it will be forced quickly to grow up and look after itself. That's a good thing.
Scottish politics today is infantilised by the union.
A hypothetical for you -
What do you think should happen if England wants to leave the UK but Scotland does not?
That's easy. If England votes to leave the UK then England should leave it. Same if the roles were reversed, then Scotland should leave. If Scotland had voted to leave the UK in its referendum then England not wanting to do so wouldn't have been relevant.
My principle is that if its not a prison anyone can choose to leave freely if that is their choice.
England can't leave the UK because the UK is just an extension of England. What England could do is initiate legislation to give sovereignty back to the other countries.
What's the government doing to increase UK production of PPE ?
Unfortunately, this is not something you can do on short notice. It probably takes months to get new production lines up and running.
I have to say, more than slightly worried about this. Germany saying it will take them until August to get up to making 50 million masks a week. This is Germany, whose specialist subject is mass production of higher end stuff, and they are saying it is going to be several months to get this sort of capacity in place.
And the UK, we are only just tip-toeing towards masks might be a good idea, use a scarf. This isn't going to wash for very long and we need a plan, and fast. Otherwise, it will be like drive-through testing roll-out all over again.
We should have been looking into it for at least two months.
Have we ?
If not then people should be sacked.
It has undoubtedly been looked at for the last two months.
Has it ?
I'll believe that the government has done something when new PPE factories start to be fitted out.
Some of us see it as a positive outcome of Brexit rather than an unfortunate consequence. It helps to right a historic wrong.
There's nothing positive about the break-up of the UK - whatsoever.
And I'd be very careful about reaching into history and arguing that your political preferences today help to correct some of those (heavily mythologised) wrongs, particularly where such black & white views could lead to all sorts of unintended consequences.
You might find your political opponents want to do the same when they take office over something they really value too.
I couldn't disagree more. The positive about the break-up of the UK is the EXACT SAME principle as to why we voted for Brexit - that control over laws is better exercised by those who vote for the law.
If the Scots think they can better control their own laws than the English can then the Scots should be free to do so - and I think they could. It isn't healthy to have a union were 90% of the population is in one member, so the other 10% spend more time griping about the actions of politicians of the 90% than they do looking after themselves. If Scotland goes free it will be forced quickly to grow up and look after itself. That's a good thing.
Scottish politics today is infantilised by the union.
Surprisingly I agree with this completely and could not have worded it better, even though I am very pro EU. I believe in devolution to the greatest extent possible and self determination and a 9:1 ratio in the partnership is not healthy.
I had no strong feelings either way re the vote on independence and would have been happy if successful.
Ideally I would have liked to see an independent Scotland with both countries in the EU. I like the idea of their being a federation of countries working together but with maximum devolution. It is not a contradiction.
Yes, wouldn't it be great to have a rag tag collection of small countries within a vast putative superstate, 'maximum devolution' would surely be the outcome. Thank God we've got thinkers like you on the case.
I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
The EU currently has a lot of small States in it who value their membership and devolution is encouraged across all those states. Decisions should be taken at the appropriate level and devolved down to the lowest level possible but clearly on certain issues States should work together eg standards, climate change, etc.
In the UK we did have a tendency to gold plate rules and then say it is the EUs fault when invariably it wasn't.
You seem to have (unpleasantly) suggested I have stated something stupid when in fact it is exactly how it currently works(ish) (so clearly not) and which was certainly Scotland's ambition (are they all stupid as well?)
PS tried to change typo in last post: their/there but couldn't seem to edit.
Also is this not the structure of the USA. Not exactly a basket case economically (although who knows with Trump)
I see in the land of Covid Data Wranglers Sweden is absolutely 100% definitely past it's peak
I plotted Swdish deaths over April until the 16th and then put a trendline through it
Of course I have not actual clue what is going on because I'm not an expert in the field, but what I am good at spotting is people pushing bullshit number manipulation to fit a preconceived agenda. Don't trust aynoe putting a trend line through anything without a description (with maths) of what the trend line is.
From your data it 100% definitely doesn't look like exponential growth does it? So looks like they've successfully plateaued without a lockdown. Glad for them.
Sweden has a voluntary lockdown. Their economy is in the same shit as everywhere else.
Yes, the Swedish government have announced similar economic support measures to most other Western countries - a furlough scheme for the government to pay employee salaries, etc. This wouldn't be necessary if the economy was still open in the way that the virus vs economy argument is normally presented.
The difference between Sweden and other countries is much exaggerated.
The difference is that the Swedes are treating people as adults and giving them the choice to behave as they wish. The advice is there, the support is there, but the force is not.
By and large the Swedes seem sensible enough to voluntarily do what we needed to be compelled to do?
Are you seriously telling me that if the UK had done the same as Sweden that Brits would have voluntarily behaved responsibly? I honestly don't see it.
Do we have stats on that question pre 2015 though?
I’m a mainland unionist who thinks it would be a shame but it’s up to them and if they decide to go I won’t really care. Nothing t do with Brexit though.
Interesting question.
I want to see NI and Scotland leave the Union not because of Brexit but because I think it is the right thing for them. I firmly think that NI and Scotland will develop better once they leave the Union so why would I back it?
I voted Leave, but that doesn't mean I want them to Leave because of Brexit. My opinions predate Brexit. However my philosophy that nations develop better if they take responsibility for their own actions underpins both my Brexit vote and my belief they'll do better if they leave - its the same logic for both.
If you believe in independence why would you deny it to others? Mr Meeks is wrong to assume that independence is a negative or bad thing.
I take the other approach: the Union is a family of nations, and like any family it is only sustainable with the willing accession of the parties
These islands are far stronger together and on the world stage when its constituent countries are united together.
We share so much history, language, culture and values - and the same decidedly mixed climate and landmass.
We would be far weaker apart. Just look at the internecine squabbles we used to have prior to the 17/18th Century, and what's been achieved since.
Why should the union stop at the English Channel?
You may not have noticed, but the government asked for consent for a wide union and it was withheld
I didn't notice England ever being asked if it wanted to be part of the UK.
You’ve always viewed the UK and the EU as equivalent.
They are not. There are far greater cultural and linguistic entropies within the UK than across the English Channel.
That’s why the UK has worked but it’s membership of the EU hasn’t. You need a shared identity and demos.
It's not that I view them as equivalent, more that I think it exposes the cognitive dissonance of unionist Brexiteers.
The UK hasn't worked - it led to civil war and partition.
So you are anti EU now?
Of course not......
The EU isn't constructed on an imperial basis like the UK was.
Alya Abutayah Alhwaiti told the BBC the threats were made in a phone call and on Twitter after she raised international awareness about a Saudi government plan to evict members of her tribe to make way for a 21st Century high-tech city on the shores of the Red Sea.
"We can get you in London," Ms Alhwaiti said she was warned in the call. "You think you are safe there, but you are not."
Some of us see it as a positive outcome of Brexit rather than an unfortunate consequence. It helps to right a historic wrong.
There's nothing positive about the break-up of the UK - whatsoever.
And I'd be very careful about reaching into history and arguing that your political preferences today help to correct some of those (heavily mythologised) wrongs, particularly where such black & white views could lead to all sorts of unintended consequences.
You might find your political opponents want to do the same when they take office over something they really value too.
I couldn't disagree more. The positive about the break-up of the UK is the EXACT SAME principle as to why we voted for Brexit - that control over laws is better exercised by those who vote for the law.
If the Scots think they can better control their own laws than the English can then the Scots should be free to do so - and I think they could. It isn't healthy to have a union were 90% of the population is in one member, so the other 10% spend more time griping about the actions of politicians of the 90% than they do looking after themselves. If Scotland goes free it will be forced quickly to grow up and look after itself. That's a good thing.
Scottish politics today is infantilised by the union.
A hypothetical for you -
What do you think should happen if England wants to leave the UK but Scotland does not?
That's easy. If England votes to leave the UK then England should leave it. Same if the roles were reversed, then Scotland should leave. If Scotland had voted to leave the UK in its referendum then England not wanting to do so wouldn't have been relevant.
My principle is that if its not a prison anyone can choose to leave freely if that is their choice.
England can't leave the UK because the UK is just an extension of England. What England could to is initiate legislation to give sovereignty back to the other countries.
I don't think the Acts of Union involved Scoland/Ireland joined England, they merged. Britain was an extension of Scotland and England, so if Scotland can leave why can't England?
Wales was part of England historically but has adopted its own identity more in modern times. If Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland wished to continue as a united nation without England they should be able to do so. That won't be "giving sovereignty back" to anyone but England.
Do we have stats on that question pre 2015 though?
I’m a mainland unionist who thinks it would be a shame but it’s up to them and if they decide to go I won’t really care. Nothing t do with Brexit though.
Interesting question.
I want to see NI and Scotland leave the Union not because of Brexit but because I think it is the right thing for them. I firmly think that NI and Scotland will develop better once they leave the Union so why would I back it?
I voted Leave, but that doesn't mean I want them to Leave because of Brexit. My opinions predate Brexit. However my philosophy that nations develop better if they take responsibility for their own actions underpins both my Brexit vote and my belief they'll do better if they leave - its the same logic for both.
If you believe in independence why would you deny it to others? Mr Meeks is wrong to assume that independence is a negative or bad thing.
I take the other approach: the Union is a family of nations, and like any family it is only sustainable with the willing accession of the parties
These islands are far stronger together and on the world stage when its constituent countries are united together.
We share so much history, language, culture and values - and the same decidedly mixed climate and landmass.
We would be far weaker apart. Just look at the internecine squabbles we used to have prior to the 17/18th Century, and what's been achieved since.
Why should the union stop at the English Channel?
You may not have noticed, but the government asked for consent for a wide union and it was withheld
I didn't notice England ever being asked if it wanted to be part of the UK.
You’ve always viewed the UK and the EU as equivalent.
They are not. There are far greater cultural and linguistic entropies within the UK than across the English Channel.
That’s why the UK has worked but it’s membership of the EU hasn’t. You need a shared identity and demos.
It's not that I view them as equivalent, more that I think it exposes the cognitive dissonance of unionist Brexiteers.
The UK hasn't worked - it led to civil war and partition.
So you are anti EU now?
Of course not......
The EU isn't constructed on an imperial basis like the UK was.
A megalomaniacal war criminal who squandered the greatest opportunity in decades to replace Thatcherism with a new 21st century consensus; instead launching wars of aggression, increasing landlordism, marketising vital public services, and enacting authoritarian legislation.
I see in the land of Covid Data Wranglers Sweden is absolutely 100% definitely past it's peak
I plotted Swdish deaths over April until the 16th and then put a trendline through it
Of course I have not actual clue what is going on because I'm not an expert in the field, but what I am good at spotting is people pushing bullshit number manipulation to fit a preconceived agenda. Don't trust aynoe putting a trend line through anything without a description (with maths) of what the trend line is.
From your data it 100% definitely doesn't look like exponential growth does it? So looks like they've successfully plateaued without a lockdown. Glad for them.
Sweden has a voluntary lockdown. Their economy is in the same shit as everywhere else.
Yes, the Swedish government have announced similar economic support measures to most other Western countries - a furlough scheme for the government to pay employee salaries, etc. This wouldn't be necessary if the economy was still open in the way that the virus vs economy argument is normally presented.
The difference between Sweden and other countries is much exaggerated.
The difference is that the Swedes are treating people as adults and giving them the choice to behave as they wish. The advice is there, the support is there, but the force is not.
By and large the Swedes seem sensible enough to voluntarily do what we needed to be compelled to do?
Are you seriously telling me that if the UK had done the same as Sweden that Brits would have voluntarily behaved responsibly? I honestly don't see it.
I think the overwhelming majority would have yes. Especially with a furlough scheme etc
Do we have stats on that question pre 2015 though?
I’m a mainland unionist who thinks it would be a shame but it’s up to them and if they decide to go I won’t really care. Nothing t do with Brexit though.
Interesting question.
I want to see NI and Scotland leave the Union not because of Brexit but because I think it is the right thing for them. I firmly think that NI and Scotland will develop better once they leave the Union so why would I back it?
I voted Leave, but that doesn't mean I want them to Leave because of Brexit. My opinions predate Brexit. However my philosophy that nations develop better if they take responsibility for their own actions underpins both my Brexit vote and my belief they'll do better if they leave - its the same logic for both.
If you believe in independence why would you deny it to others? Mr Meeks is wrong to assume that independence is a negative or bad thing.
I take the other approach: the Union is a family of nations, and like any family it is only sustainable with the willing accession of the parties
These islands are far stronger together and on the world stage when its constituent countries are united together.
We share so much history, language, culture and values - and the same decidedly mixed climate and landmass.
We would be far weaker apart. Just look at the internecine squabbles we used to have prior to the 17/18th Century, and what's been achieved since.
Why should the union stop at the English Channel?
You may not have noticed, but the government asked for consent for a wide union and it was withheld
I didn't notice England ever being asked if it wanted to be part of the UK.
You’ve always viewed the UK and the EU as equivalent.
They are not. There are far greater cultural and linguistic entropies within the UK than across the English Channel.
That’s why the UK has worked but it’s membership of the EU hasn’t. You need a shared identity and demos.
It's not that I view them as equivalent, more that I think it exposes the cognitive dissonance of unionist Brexiteers.
The UK hasn't worked - it led to civil war and partition.
So you are anti EU now?
Of course not......
The EU isn't constructed on an imperial basis like the UK was.
The plan also emphasises the need to ramp up domestic production of PPE. The government is calling on industry to join forces to manufacture more protective equipment to support the national effort.
Already companies such as Burberry, Rolls-Royce, McLaren, Ineos and Diageo have started work to produce equipment including gowns, visors and hand hygiene products.
German politicians seeking to make petty points at the price of restricting their own police's access to UK records. What pointless gesture is next, suspending extradition treaties perhaps?
German politicians seeking to make petty points at the price of restricting their own police's access to UK records. What pointless gesture is next, suspending extradition treaties perhaps?
I remember when the UK putting security on the negotiating table was utterly outrageous and that we should be ashamed of our government.
I see in the land of Covid Data Wranglers Sweden is absolutely 100% definitely past it's peak
I plotted Swdish deaths over April until the 16th and then put a trendline through it
Of course I have not actual clue what is going on because I'm not an expert in the field, but what I am good at spotting is people pushing bullshit number manipulation to fit a preconceived agenda. Don't trust aynoe putting a trend line through anything without a description (with maths) of what the trend line is.
From your data it 100% definitely doesn't look like exponential growth does it? So looks like they've successfully plateaued without a lockdown. Glad for them.
Sweden has a voluntary lockdown. Their economy is in the same shit as everywhere else.
Yes, the Swedish government have announced similar economic support measures to most other Western countries - a furlough scheme for the government to pay employee salaries, etc. This wouldn't be necessary if the economy was still open in the way that the virus vs economy argument is normally presented.
The difference between Sweden and other countries is much exaggerated.
The difference is that the Swedes are treating people as adults and giving them the choice to behave as they wish. The advice is there, the support is there, but the force is not.
By and large the Swedes seem sensible enough to voluntarily do what we needed to be compelled to do?
Are you seriously telling me that if the UK had done the same as Sweden that Brits would have voluntarily behaved responsibly? I honestly don't see it.
I think the overwhelming majority would have yes. Especially with a furlough scheme etc
The stats on CityMapper suggest that prior to the lockdown, when we were just being advised to socially distance,
I see in the land of Covid Data Wranglers Sweden is absolutely 100% definitely past it's peak
I plotted Swdish deaths over April until the 16th and then put a trendline through it
Of course I have not actual clue what is going on because I'm not an expert in the field, but what I am good at spotting is people pushing bullshit number manipulation to fit a preconceived agenda. Don't trust aynoe putting a trend line through anything without a description (with maths) of what the trend line is.
From your data it 100% definitely doesn't look like exponential growth does it? So looks like they've successfully plateaued without a lockdown. Glad for them.
Sweden has a voluntary lockdown. Their economy is in the same shit as everywhere else.
Yes, the Swedish government have announced similar economic support measures to most other Western countries - a furlough scheme for the government to pay employee salaries, etc. This wouldn't be necessary if the economy was still open in the way that the virus vs economy argument is normally presented.
The difference between Sweden and other countries is much exaggerated.
The difference is that the Swedes are treating people as adults and giving them the choice to behave as they wish. The advice is there, the support is there, but the force is not.
By and large the Swedes seem sensible enough to voluntarily do what we needed to be compelled to do?
Are you seriously telling me that if the UK had done the same as Sweden that Brits would have voluntarily behaved responsibly? I honestly don't see it.
The stats on CityMapper, suggest that the UK did behave pretty much the same as Sweden.
The level of activity in UK cities when we'd only been advised to socially distance, pretty much matches what Stockholm is seeing now (around 30% of usual).
Since the lockdown, the levels have diverged so the UK cities are down to around 10%.
The plan also emphasises the need to ramp up domestic production of PPE. The government is calling on industry to join forces to manufacture more protective equipment to support the national effort.
Already companies such as Burberry, Rolls-Royce, McLaren, Ineos and Diageo have started work to produce equipment including gowns, visors and hand hygiene products.
Your link did not mention setting up new PPE factories but asking businesses to switch to making PPE.
I see in the land of Covid Data Wranglers Sweden is absolutely 100% definitely past it's peak
I plotted Swdish deaths over April until the 16th and then put a trendline through it
Of course I have not actual clue what is going on because I'm not an expert in the field, but what I am good at spotting is people pushing bullshit number manipulation to fit a preconceived agenda. Don't trust aynoe putting a trend line through anything without a description (with maths) of what the trend line is.
From your data it 100% definitely doesn't look like exponential growth does it? So looks like they've successfully plateaued without a lockdown. Glad for them.
Sweden has a voluntary lockdown. Their economy is in the same shit as everywhere else.
Yes, the Swedish government have announced similar economic support measures to most other Western countries - a furlough scheme for the government to pay employee salaries, etc. This wouldn't be necessary if the economy was still open in the way that the virus vs economy argument is normally presented.
The difference between Sweden and other countries is much exaggerated.
The difference is that the Swedes are treating people as adults and giving them the choice to behave as they wish. The advice is there, the support is there, but the force is not.
By and large the Swedes seem sensible enough to voluntarily do what we needed to be compelled to do?
Are you seriously telling me that if the UK had done the same as Sweden that Brits would have voluntarily behaved responsibly? I honestly don't see it.
I think the overwhelming majority would have yes. Especially with a furlough scheme etc
Let's see what happens when the lockdown is slightly eased. I think the US and UK to a lesser extent are significantly more self-centred societies than the rest of Europe. US had barely been in lockdown for a week before the gun-toting loonies were out protesting and breaking the rules. We are not as bad but we are closer to the US in that respect than we are to most of Europe.
The plan also emphasises the need to ramp up domestic production of PPE. The government is calling on industry to join forces to manufacture more protective equipment to support the national effort.
Already companies such as Burberry, Rolls-Royce, McLaren, Ineos and Diageo have started work to produce equipment including gowns, visors and hand hygiene products.
Your link did not mention setting up new PPE factories but asking businesses to switch to making PPE.
A totally different thing.
One is quicker, which is why it is being highlighted. But the other link did mention setting up new industry to support production. Anyway, who cares if the production is done in existing factories that are changed to produce PPE or completely new factories? The end product is exactly the same.
Do we have stats on that question pre 2015 though?
I’m a mainland unionist who thinks it would be a shame but it’s up to them and if they decide to go I won’t really care. Nothing t do with Brexit though.
Interesting question.
I want to see NI and Scotland leave the Union not because of Brexit but because I think it is the right thing for them. I firmly think that NI and Scotland will develop better once they leave the Union so why would I back it?
I voted Leave, but that doesn't mean I want them to Leave because of Brexit. My opinions predate Brexit. However my philosophy that nations develop better if they take responsibility for their own actions underpins both my Brexit vote and my belief they'll do better if they leave - its the same logic for both.
If you believe in independence why would you deny it to others? Mr Meeks is wrong to assume that independence is a negative or bad thing.
I take the other approach: the Union is a family of nations, and like any family it is only sustainable with the willing accession of the parties
These islands are far stronger together and on the world stage when its constituent countries are united together.
We share so much history, language, culture and values - and the same decidedly mixed climate and landmass.
We would be far weaker apart. Just look at the internecine squabbles we used to have prior to the 17/18th Century, and what's been achieved since.
Why should the union stop at the English Channel?
You may not have noticed, but the government asked for consent for a wide union and it was withheld
I didn't notice England ever being asked if it wanted to be part of the UK.
You’ve always viewed the UK and the EU as equivalent.
They are not. There are far greater cultural and linguistic entropies within the UK than across the English Channel.
That’s why the UK has worked but it’s membership of the EU hasn’t. You need a shared identity and demos.
It's not that I view them as equivalent, more that I think it exposes the cognitive dissonance of unionist Brexiteers.
The UK hasn't worked - it led to civil war and partition.
So you are anti EU now?
Of course not......
The EU isn't constructed on an imperial basis like the UK was.
Presumably you oppose Germany on the same basis?
No, Germany is a federal republic.
Hanover was conquered by Prussia in war over a century after the Acts of Union which didn't involve war between England and Scotland.
The plan also emphasises the need to ramp up domestic production of PPE. The government is calling on industry to join forces to manufacture more protective equipment to support the national effort.
Already companies such as Burberry, Rolls-Royce, McLaren, Ineos and Diageo have started work to produce equipment including gowns, visors and hand hygiene products.
Your link did not mention setting up new PPE factories but asking businesses to switch to making PPE.
A totally different thing.
One is quicker, which is why it is being highlighted. But the other link did mention setting up new industry to support production. Anyway, who cares if the production is done in existing factories that are changed to produce PPE or completely new factories? The end product is exactly the same.
Because the greater the potential production capacity the more secure the supply.
That's why you should care.
The casual attitude you're displaying is why there is a problem to begin with.
I see in the land of Covid Data Wranglers Sweden is absolutely 100% definitely past it's peak
I plotted Swdish deaths over April until the 16th and then put a trendline through it
Of course I have not actual clue what is going on because I'm not an expert in the field, but what I am good at spotting is people pushing bullshit number manipulation to fit a preconceived agenda. Don't trust aynoe putting a trend line through anything without a description (with maths) of what the trend line is.
From your data it 100% definitely doesn't look like exponential growth does it? So looks like they've successfully plateaued without a lockdown. Glad for them.
Sweden has a voluntary lockdown. Their economy is in the same shit as everywhere else.
Yes, the Swedish government have announced similar economic support measures to most other Western countries - a furlough scheme for the government to pay employee salaries, etc. This wouldn't be necessary if the economy was still open in the way that the virus vs economy argument is normally presented.
The difference between Sweden and other countries is much exaggerated.
The difference is that the Swedes are treating people as adults and giving them the choice to behave as they wish. The advice is there, the support is there, but the force is not.
By and large the Swedes seem sensible enough to voluntarily do what we needed to be compelled to do?
Are you seriously telling me that if the UK had done the same as Sweden that Brits would have voluntarily behaved responsibly? I honestly don't see it.
I think the overwhelming majority would have yes. Especially with a furlough scheme etc
Let's see what happens when the lockdown is slightly eased. I think the US and UK to a lesser extent are significantly more self-centred societies than the rest of Europe. US had barely been in lockdown for a week before the gun-toting loonies were out protesting and breaking the rules. We are not as bad but we are closer to the US in that respect than we are to most of Europe.
Of course once the lockdown is eased that sends the signal that the worst is over and can get back to normal. Even if we ease restrictions to the same as Sweden for instance you'd expect the Swedes to potentially take those restrictions more seriously because they hadn't been loosened.
I agree that the UK is more individualistic, thankfully, than Europe. But it doesn't mean people can't do the right thing when they know what it is - there will always be high profile idiots doing the opposite but that doesn't make them the norm. The gun-toting loonies don't even represent the average American let alone the average Brit.
Some of us see it as a positive outcome of Brexit rather than an unfortunate consequence. It helps to right a historic wrong.
There's nothing positive about the break-up of the UK - whatsoever.
And I'd be very careful about reaching into history and arguing that your political preferences today help to correct some of those (heavily mythologised) wrongs, particularly where such black & white views could lead to all sorts of unintended consequences.
You might find your political opponents want to do the same when they take office over something they really value too.
I couldn't disagree more. The positive about the break-up of the UK is the EXACT SAME principle as to why we voted for Brexit - that control over laws is better exercised by those who vote for the law.
If the Scots think they can better control their own laws than the English can then the Scots should be free to do so - and I think they could. It isn't healthy to have a union were 90% of the population is in one member, so the other 10% spend more time griping about the actions of politicians of the 90% than they do looking after themselves. If Scotland goes free it will be forced quickly to grow up and look after itself. That's a good thing.
Scottish politics today is infantilised by the union.
A hypothetical for you -
What do you think should happen if England wants to leave the UK but Scotland does not?
That's easy. If England votes to leave the UK then England should leave it. Same if the roles were reversed, then Scotland should leave. If Scotland had voted to leave the UK in its referendum then England not wanting to do so wouldn't have been relevant.
My principle is that if its not a prison anyone can choose to leave freely if that is their choice.
OK. But make the (reasonable) assumption that England leaving means the total breakup of the UK.
Are you not (in our hypothetical) forcing 3 nations to be independent against their will?
Do we have stats on that question pre 2015 though?
I’m a mainland unionist who thinks it would be a shame but it’s up to them and if they decide to go I won’t really care. Nothing t do with Brexit though.
Interesting question.
I want to see NI and Scotland leave the Union not because of Brexit but because I think it is the right thing for them. I firmly think that NI and Scotland will develop better once they leave the Union so why would I back it?
I voted Leave, but that doesn't mean I want them to Leave because of Brexit. My opinions predate Brexit. However my philosophy that nations develop better if they take responsibility for their own actions underpins both my Brexit vote and my belief they'll do better if they leave - its the same logic for both.
If you believe in independence why would you deny it to others? Mr Meeks is wrong to assume that independence is a negative or bad thing.
I take the other approach: the Union is a family of nations, and like any family it is only sustainable with the willing accession of the parties
These islands are far stronger together and on the world stage when its constituent countries are united together.
We share so much history, language, culture and values - and the same decidedly mixed climate and landmass.
We would be far weaker apart. Just look at the internecine squabbles we used to have prior to the 17/18th Century, and what's been achieved since.
Why should the union stop at the English Channel?
You may not have noticed, but the government asked for consent for a wide union and it was withheld
I didn't notice England ever being asked if it wanted to be part of the UK.
You’ve always viewed the UK and the EU as equivalent.
They are not. There are far greater cultural and linguistic entropies within the UK than across the English Channel.
That’s why the UK has worked but it’s membership of the EU hasn’t. You need a shared identity and demos.
It's not that I view them as equivalent, more that I think it exposes the cognitive dissonance of unionist Brexiteers.
The UK hasn't worked - it led to civil war and partition.
So you are anti EU now?
Of course not......
The EU isn't constructed on an imperial basis like the UK was.
Presumably you oppose Germany on the same basis?
No, Germany is a federal republic.
Hanover was conquered by Prussia in war over a century after the Acts of Union which didn't involve war between England and Scotland.
And the rest of the German Empire was acquired by an interesting combination of threats, opportunism, more threats and im-not-threatening-you-but-look-at-the-size-of-my-army
The plan also emphasises the need to ramp up domestic production of PPE. The government is calling on industry to join forces to manufacture more protective equipment to support the national effort.
Already companies such as Burberry, Rolls-Royce, McLaren, Ineos and Diageo have started work to produce equipment including gowns, visors and hand hygiene products.
Your link did not mention setting up new PPE factories but asking businesses to switch to making PPE.
A totally different thing.
One is quicker, which is why it is being highlighted. But the other link did mention setting up new industry to support production. Anyway, who cares if the production is done in existing factories that are changed to produce PPE or completely new factories? The end product is exactly the same.
Because the greater the potential production capacity the more secure the supply.
That's why you should care.
The casual attitude you're displaying is why there is a problem to begin with.
What makes the supply from those factories less secure? They are perfectly fine until additional sources come online. And I don't think my attitude has anything to do with the problem, to be honest.
Some of us see it as a positive outcome of Brexit rather than an unfortunate consequence. It helps to right a historic wrong.
There's nothing positive about the break-up of the UK - whatsoever.
And I'd be very careful about reaching into history and arguing that your political preferences today help to correct some of those (heavily mythologised) wrongs, particularly where such black & white views could lead to all sorts of unintended consequences.
You might find your political opponents want to do the same when they take office over something they really value too.
I couldn't disagree more. The positive about the break-up of the UK is the EXACT SAME principle as to why we voted for Brexit - that control over laws is better exercised by those who vote for the law.
If the Scots think they can better control their own laws than the English can then the Scots should be free to do so - and I think they could. It isn't healthy to have a union were 90% of the population is in one member, so the other 10% spend more time griping about the actions of politicians of the 90% than they do looking after themselves. If Scotland goes free it will be forced quickly to grow up and look after itself. That's a good thing.
Scottish politics today is infantilised by the union.
Philip, you are nearly correct , we would be well able to look after ourselves I am sure and certainly would be much better off than the diehard unionists insist. Hopefully we are at a point where most of the brainwashed are either gone or have woken from their stupor and once this crisis is over it will be sorted out and we can get on with independence. As you rightly say a union where it is at least 90% on one side is no union at all it is subjugation only as the 90% will never ever vote in the interests of the 10%.
The plan also emphasises the need to ramp up domestic production of PPE. The government is calling on industry to join forces to manufacture more protective equipment to support the national effort.
Already companies such as Burberry, Rolls-Royce, McLaren, Ineos and Diageo have started work to produce equipment including gowns, visors and hand hygiene products.
Your link did not mention setting up new PPE factories but asking businesses to switch to making PPE.
A totally different thing.
One is quicker, which is why it is being highlighted. But the other link did mention setting up new industry to support production. Anyway, who cares if the production is done in existing factories that are changed to produce PPE or completely new factories? The end product is exactly the same.
Because the greater the potential production capacity the more secure the supply.
That's why you should care.
The casual attitude you're displaying is why there is a problem to begin with.
That's a logical fallacy, setting up new PPE factories doesn't mean greater capacity necessarily though.
Getting existing businesses to switch to PPE can mean greater capacity and in a timely fashion. We need businesses operating within weeks and months more than we do in years from now.
The plan also emphasises the need to ramp up domestic production of PPE. The government is calling on industry to join forces to manufacture more protective equipment to support the national effort.
Already companies such as Burberry, Rolls-Royce, McLaren, Ineos and Diageo have started work to produce equipment including gowns, visors and hand hygiene products.
Your link did not mention setting up new PPE factories but asking businesses to switch to making PPE.
A totally different thing.
One is quicker, which is why it is being highlighted. But the other link did mention setting up new industry to support production. Anyway, who cares if the production is done in existing factories that are changed to produce PPE or completely new factories? The end product is exactly the same.
Because the greater the potential production capacity the more secure the supply.
That's why you should care.
The casual attitude you're displaying is why there is a problem to begin with.
That's a logical fallacy, setting up new PPE factories doesn't mean greater capacity necessarily though.
Getting existing businesses to switch to PPE can mean greater capacity and in a timely fashion. We need businesses operating within weeks and months more than we do in years from now.
Yeah, he's in perfection being the enemy of progress territory.
Some of us see it as a positive outcome of Brexit rather than an unfortunate consequence. It helps to right a historic wrong.
There's nothing positive about the break-up of the UK - whatsoever.
And I'd be very careful about reaching into history and arguing that your political preferences today help to correct some of those (heavily mythologised) wrongs, particularly where such black & white views could lead to all sorts of unintended consequences.
You might find your political opponents want to do the same when they take office over something they really value too.
I couldn't disagree more. The positive about the break-up of the UK is the EXACT SAME principle as to why we voted for Brexit - that control over laws is better exercised by those who vote for the law.
If the Scots think they can better control their own laws than the English can then the Scots should be free to do so - and I think they could. It isn't healthy to have a union were 90% of the population is in one member, so the other 10% spend more time griping about the actions of politicians of the 90% than they do looking after themselves. If Scotland goes free it will be forced quickly to grow up and look after itself. That's a good thing.
Scottish politics today is infantilised by the union.
A hypothetical for you -
What do you think should happen if England wants to leave the UK but Scotland does not?
Scotland can rue the day it didn't express it's love for the Union....
That day would never come, you have never ever seen any of the shedload of countries that got out from under the yoke asking to be part of England again.
Do we have stats on that question pre 2015 though?
I’m a mainland unionist who thinks it would be a shame but it’s up to them and if they decide to go I won’t really care. Nothing t do with Brexit though.
Interesting question.
I want to see NI and Scotland leave the Union not because of Brexit but because I think it is the right thing for them. I firmly think that NI and Scotland will develop better once they leave the Union so why would I back it?
I voted Leave, but that doesn't mean I want them to Leave because of Brexit. My opinions predate Brexit. However my philosophy that nations develop better if they take responsibility for their own actions underpins both my Brexit vote and my belief they'll do better if they leave - its the same logic for both.
If you believe in independence why would you deny it to others? Mr Meeks is wrong to assume that independence is a negative or bad thing.
I take the other approach: the Union is a family of nations, and like any family it is only sustainable with the willing accession of the parties
These islands are far stronger together and on the world stage when its constituent countries are united together.
We share so much history, language, culture and values - and the same decidedly mixed climate and landmass.
We would be far weaker apart. Just look at the internecine squabbles we used to have prior to the 17/18th Century, and what's been achieved since.
Why should the union stop at the English Channel?
You may not have noticed, but the government asked for consent for a wide union and it was withheld
I didn't notice England ever being asked if it wanted to be part of the UK.
You’ve always viewed the UK and the EU as equivalent.
They are not. There are far greater cultural and linguistic entropies within the UK than across the English Channel.
That’s why the UK has worked but it’s membership of the EU hasn’t. You need a shared identity and demos.
It's not that I view them as equivalent, more that I think it exposes the cognitive dissonance of unionist Brexiteers.
The UK hasn't worked - it led to civil war and partition.
So you are anti EU now?
Of course not......
The EU isn't constructed on an imperial basis like the UK was.
Presumably you oppose Germany on the same basis?
No, Germany is a federal republic.
Hanover was conquered by Prussia in war over a century after the Acts of Union which didn't involve war between England and Scotland.
And the rest of the German Empire was acquired by an interesting combination of threats, opportunism, more threats and im-not-threatening-you-but-look-at-the-size-of-my-army
Indeed. Imperial Germany was constructed on an imperial basis far more than Britain was (Ireland's union with the UK is similar to how Germany was constructed).
Its all ancient history now, but to object to the "imperial" construction of the UK but not Germany is farcical.
More than 100,000 people are grieving in isolation as a result of the pandemic, a bereavement charity has said.
(Guardian blog)
That is grimly awful.
It is utter crap.
Is it? I'd have thought it's a bit of an underestimate if anything.
There have been about 70k deaths in the past month from all causes in the UK (noting that people don't just grieve coronavirus deaths). 100,000 people very closely affected by that is a very conservative estimate (and many more who knew these people and are affected to a greater or lesser extent).
There are debates you can have about how bad it is, of course. Many people are "isolated" with close family or friends, communication methods are still available short of face to face contact etc. In a sense we also always grieve alone - there comes a moment when there isn't someone there to distract you and you need to face it.
But I can see why the lockdown makes it harder to provide the recently bereaved with support, and think the 100,000 estimate is rather low if anything.
The plan also emphasises the need to ramp up domestic production of PPE. The government is calling on industry to join forces to manufacture more protective equipment to support the national effort.
Already companies such as Burberry, Rolls-Royce, McLaren, Ineos and Diageo have started work to produce equipment including gowns, visors and hand hygiene products.
Your link did not mention setting up new PPE factories but asking businesses to switch to making PPE.
A totally different thing.
One is quicker, which is why it is being highlighted. But the other link did mention setting up new industry to support production. Anyway, who cares if the production is done in existing factories that are changed to produce PPE or completely new factories? The end product is exactly the same.
Because the greater the potential production capacity the more secure the supply.
That's why you should care.
The casual attitude you're displaying is why there is a problem to begin with.
That's a logical fallacy, setting up new PPE factories doesn't mean greater capacity necessarily though.
Getting existing businesses to switch to PPE can mean greater capacity and in a timely fashion. We need businesses operating within weeks and months more than we do in years from now.
We need both and getting new production facilities set up and running can be done within months if some urgency is shown.
I see in the land of Covid Data Wranglers Sweden is absolutely 100% definitely past it's peak
I plotted Swdish deaths over April until the 16th and then put a trendline through it
Of course I have not actual clue what is going on because I'm not an expert in the field, but what I am good at spotting is people pushing bullshit number manipulation to fit a preconceived agenda. Don't trust aynoe putting a trend line through anything without a description (with maths) of what the trend line is.
From your data it 100% definitely doesn't look like exponential growth does it? So looks like they've successfully plateaued without a lockdown. Glad for them.
Sweden has a voluntary lockdown. Their economy is in the same shit as everywhere else.
Yes, the Swedish government have announced similar economic support measures to most other Western countries - a furlough scheme for the government to pay employee salaries, etc. This wouldn't be necessary if the economy was still open in the way that the virus vs economy argument is normally presented.
The difference between Sweden and other countries is much exaggerated.
The difference is that the Swedes are treating people as adults and giving them the choice to behave as they wish. The advice is there, the support is there, but the force is not.
By and large the Swedes seem sensible enough to voluntarily do what we needed to be compelled to do?
Are you seriously telling me that if the UK had done the same as Sweden that Brits would have voluntarily behaved responsibly? I honestly don't see it.
I think the overwhelming majority would have yes. Especially with a furlough scheme etc
Let's see what happens when the lockdown is slightly eased. I think the US and UK to a lesser extent are significantly more self-centred societies than the rest of Europe. US had barely been in lockdown for a week before the gun-toting loonies were out protesting and breaking the rules. We are not as bad but we are closer to the US in that respect than we are to most of Europe.
I find the Spanish remarkably similar to the British. It's easy to exaggerate differences based upon stereotyping.
I think you exaggerate a little there. I find many Spanish acquaintances pretty much the same as those in England.
The plan also emphasises the need to ramp up domestic production of PPE. The government is calling on industry to join forces to manufacture more protective equipment to support the national effort.
Already companies such as Burberry, Rolls-Royce, McLaren, Ineos and Diageo have started work to produce equipment including gowns, visors and hand hygiene products.
Your link did not mention setting up new PPE factories but asking businesses to switch to making PPE.
A totally different thing.
One is quicker, which is why it is being highlighted. But the other link did mention setting up new industry to support production. Anyway, who cares if the production is done in existing factories that are changed to produce PPE or completely new factories? The end product is exactly the same.
Because the greater the potential production capacity the more secure the supply.
That's why you should care.
The casual attitude you're displaying is why there is a problem to begin with.
That's a logical fallacy, setting up new PPE factories doesn't mean greater capacity necessarily though.
Getting existing businesses to switch to PPE can mean greater capacity and in a timely fashion. We need businesses operating within weeks and months more than we do in years from now.
We need both and getting new production facilities set up and running can be done within months if some urgency is shown.
New production has come online, you just seem to be overly concerned about where it is coming from. New factories being constructed from scratch takes far longer, and while that is likely to be part of the national PPE strategy going forward, it won't be a major component of supply for some time.
The plan also emphasises the need to ramp up domestic production of PPE. The government is calling on industry to join forces to manufacture more protective equipment to support the national effort.
Already companies such as Burberry, Rolls-Royce, McLaren, Ineos and Diageo have started work to produce equipment including gowns, visors and hand hygiene products.
Your link did not mention setting up new PPE factories but asking businesses to switch to making PPE.
A totally different thing.
One is quicker, which is why it is being highlighted. But the other link did mention setting up new industry to support production. Anyway, who cares if the production is done in existing factories that are changed to produce PPE or completely new factories? The end product is exactly the same.
Because the greater the potential production capacity the more secure the supply.
That's why you should care.
The casual attitude you're displaying is why there is a problem to begin with.
At the moment, the fastest way to get additional PPE capacity in the UK is to re-purpose existing factories, equipment, staff etc.
For the longer term, if you want a domestic PPE industry, simply tender long term contracts for UK only production.
They will quite probably to the same companies who are providing PPE on an ad-hoc basis now.
They will then set up additional facilities, copied from what they are doing now (largely) to provide this capacity.
Before doing so, there needs to be some thought put into the long term. What kind of PPE, storage life time (vital for stockpiles) etc.
For example, I was asking the other day about integrated helmet system, with powered forced air flow. These could be more comfortable and safer that a visor and separate mask. They could also be useful in a fitter pandemic which involves a truly airborne disease - they can be integrated into a fully body covering suit, if required.
Some of us see it as a positive outcome of Brexit rather than an unfortunate consequence. It helps to right a historic wrong.
There's nothing positive about the break-up of the UK - whatsoever.
And I'd be very careful about reaching into history and arguing that your political preferences today help to correct some of those (heavily mythologised) wrongs, particularly where such black & white views could lead to all sorts of unintended consequences.
You might find your political opponents want to do the same when they take office over something they really value too.
I couldn't disagree more. The positive about the break-up of the UK is the EXACT SAME principle as to why we voted for Brexit - that control over laws is better exercised by those who vote for the law.
If the Scots think they can better control their own laws than the English can then the Scots should be free to do so - and I think they could. It isn't healthy to have a union were 90% of the population is in one member, so the other 10% spend more time griping about the actions of politicians of the 90% than they do looking after themselves. If Scotland goes free it will be forced quickly to grow up and look after itself. That's a good thing.
Scottish politics today is infantilised by the union.
A hypothetical for you -
What do you think should happen if England wants to leave the UK but Scotland does not?
That's easy. If England votes to leave the UK then England should leave it. Same if the roles were reversed, then Scotland should leave. If Scotland had voted to leave the UK in its referendum then England not wanting to do so wouldn't have been relevant.
My principle is that if its not a prison anyone can choose to leave freely if that is their choice.
England can't leave the UK because the UK is just an extension of England. What England could do is initiate legislation to give sovereignty back to the other countries.
After nightmarish economic data today BoE policymaker Jan Vleighe says the UK is suffering the fastest and deepest slump in 'possibly several centuries.'
And so I repeat my mantra. Lockdown and its extension is the worst policy decision by any government ever in the history of British government decisions.
The only thing that's changing is the degree to which it is the worst decision.
Some of us see it as a positive outcome of Brexit rather than an unfortunate consequence. It helps to right a historic wrong.
There's nothing positive about the break-up of the UK - whatsoever.
And I'd be very careful about reaching into history and arguing that your political preferences today help to correct some of those (heavily mythologised) wrongs, particularly where such black & white views could lead to all sorts of unintended consequences.
You might find your political opponents want to do the same when they take office over something they really value too.
I couldn't disagree more. The positive about the break-up of the UK is the EXACT SAME principle as to why we voted for Brexit - that control over laws is better exercised by those who vote for the law.
If the Scots think they can better control their own laws than the English can then the Scots should be free to do so - and I think they could. It isn't healthy to have a union were 90% of the population is in one member, so the other 10% spend more time griping about the actions of politicians of the 90% than they do looking after themselves. If Scotland goes free it will be forced quickly to grow up and look after itself. That's a good thing.
Scottish politics today is infantilised by the union.
A hypothetical for you -
What do you think should happen if England wants to leave the UK but Scotland does not?
That's easy. If England votes to leave the UK then England should leave it. Same if the roles were reversed, then Scotland should leave. If Scotland had voted to leave the UK in its referendum then England not wanting to do so wouldn't have been relevant.
My principle is that if its not a prison anyone can choose to leave freely if that is their choice.
OK. But make the (reasonable) assumption that England leaving means the total breakup of the UK.
Are you not (in our hypothetical) forcing 3 nations to be independent against their will?
I see no problem with that.
You might want to be in a union with Angelina Jolie but if she doesn't want the same its not going to happen.
Continuation of the union requires the continued consent of all parties - if one party withdraws its consent it should be free to leave if thats its choice. The left behind nations may not want them gone but they have no right to continue a union against the other parties will.
The plan also emphasises the need to ramp up domestic production of PPE. The government is calling on industry to join forces to manufacture more protective equipment to support the national effort.
Already companies such as Burberry, Rolls-Royce, McLaren, Ineos and Diageo have started work to produce equipment including gowns, visors and hand hygiene products.
Your link did not mention setting up new PPE factories but asking businesses to switch to making PPE.
A totally different thing.
One is quicker, which is why it is being highlighted. But the other link did mention setting up new industry to support production. Anyway, who cares if the production is done in existing factories that are changed to produce PPE or completely new factories? The end product is exactly the same.
Because the greater the potential production capacity the more secure the supply.
That's why you should care.
The casual attitude you're displaying is why there is a problem to begin with.
That's a logical fallacy, setting up new PPE factories doesn't mean greater capacity necessarily though.
Getting existing businesses to switch to PPE can mean greater capacity and in a timely fashion. We need businesses operating within weeks and months more than we do in years from now.
Yeah, he's in perfection being the enemy of progress territory.
On the contrary, setting up new production facilities is progress whereas you're in "it can't be done overnight so lets not bother" territory.
The plan also emphasises the need to ramp up domestic production of PPE. The government is calling on industry to join forces to manufacture more protective equipment to support the national effort.
Already companies such as Burberry, Rolls-Royce, McLaren, Ineos and Diageo have started work to produce equipment including gowns, visors and hand hygiene products.
Your link did not mention setting up new PPE factories but asking businesses to switch to making PPE.
A totally different thing.
One is quicker, which is why it is being highlighted. But the other link did mention setting up new industry to support production. Anyway, who cares if the production is done in existing factories that are changed to produce PPE or completely new factories? The end product is exactly the same.
Because the greater the potential production capacity the more secure the supply.
That's why you should care.
The casual attitude you're displaying is why there is a problem to begin with.
That's a logical fallacy, setting up new PPE factories doesn't mean greater capacity necessarily though.
Getting existing businesses to switch to PPE can mean greater capacity and in a timely fashion. We need businesses operating within weeks and months more than we do in years from now.
We need both and getting new production facilities set up and running can be done within months if some urgency is shown.
Whether its new or existing facilties is moot - either way they'll be new to producing PPE so the capacity will be up.
What matters is getting the capacity up, not whether these are new or retrofitted factories.
The plan also emphasises the need to ramp up domestic production of PPE. The government is calling on industry to join forces to manufacture more protective equipment to support the national effort.
Already companies such as Burberry, Rolls-Royce, McLaren, Ineos and Diageo have started work to produce equipment including gowns, visors and hand hygiene products.
Your link did not mention setting up new PPE factories but asking businesses to switch to making PPE.
A totally different thing.
One is quicker, which is why it is being highlighted. But the other link did mention setting up new industry to support production. Anyway, who cares if the production is done in existing factories that are changed to produce PPE or completely new factories? The end product is exactly the same.
Because the greater the potential production capacity the more secure the supply.
That's why you should care.
The casual attitude you're displaying is why there is a problem to begin with.
That's a logical fallacy, setting up new PPE factories doesn't mean greater capacity necessarily though.
Getting existing businesses to switch to PPE can mean greater capacity and in a timely fashion. We need businesses operating within weeks and months more than we do in years from now.
Yeah, he's in perfection being the enemy of progress territory.
On the contrary, setting up new production facilities is progress whereas you're in "it can't be done overnight so lets not bother" territory.
I have never once said they shouldn't bother. In fact I am the one trying to convince you that they are bothering.
Some of us see it as a positive outcome of Brexit rather than an unfortunate consequence. It helps to right a historic wrong.
There's nothing positive about the break-up of the UK - whatsoever.
And I'd be very careful about reaching into history and arguing that your political preferences today help to correct some of those (heavily mythologised) wrongs, particularly where such black & white views could lead to all sorts of unintended consequences.
You might find your political opponents want to do the same when they take office over something they really value too.
I couldn't disagree more. The positive about the break-up of the UK is the EXACT SAME principle as to why we voted for Brexit - that control over laws is better exercised by those who vote for the law.
If the Scots think they can better control their own laws than the English can then the Scots should be free to do so - and I think they could. It isn't healthy to have a union were 90% of the population is in one member, so the other 10% spend more time griping about the actions of politicians of the 90% than they do looking after themselves. If Scotland goes free it will be forced quickly to grow up and look after itself. That's a good thing.
Scottish politics today is infantilised by the union.
A hypothetical for you -
What do you think should happen if England wants to leave the UK but Scotland does not?
That's easy. If England votes to leave the UK then England should leave it. Same if the roles were reversed, then Scotland should leave. If Scotland had voted to leave the UK in its referendum then England not wanting to do so wouldn't have been relevant.
My principle is that if its not a prison anyone can choose to leave freely if that is their choice.
OK. But make the (reasonable) assumption that England leaving means the total breakup of the UK.
Are you not (in our hypothetical) forcing 3 nations to be independent against their will?
they can stick together if they wish, as said it should not be a prison
The plan also emphasises the need to ramp up domestic production of PPE. The government is calling on industry to join forces to manufacture more protective equipment to support the national effort.
Already companies such as Burberry, Rolls-Royce, McLaren, Ineos and Diageo have started work to produce equipment including gowns, visors and hand hygiene products.
Your link did not mention setting up new PPE factories but asking businesses to switch to making PPE.
A totally different thing.
One is quicker, which is why it is being highlighted. But the other link did mention setting up new industry to support production. Anyway, who cares if the production is done in existing factories that are changed to produce PPE or completely new factories? The end product is exactly the same.
Because the greater the potential production capacity the more secure the supply.
That's why you should care.
The casual attitude you're displaying is why there is a problem to begin with.
That's a logical fallacy, setting up new PPE factories doesn't mean greater capacity necessarily though.
Getting existing businesses to switch to PPE can mean greater capacity and in a timely fashion. We need businesses operating within weeks and months more than we do in years from now.
Yeah, he's in perfection being the enemy of progress territory.
On the contrary, setting up new production facilities is progress whereas you're in "it can't be done overnight so lets not bother" territory.
No. Switching to PPE is a new production facility as far as PPE is concerned.
After nightmarish economic data today BoE policymaker Jan Vleighe says the UK is suffering the fastest and deepest slump in 'possibly several centuries.'
And so I repeat my mantra. Lockdown and its extension is the worst policy decision by any government ever in the history of British government decisions.
The only thing that's changing is the degree to which it is the worst decision.
Surely you want to wait and see what the effects are on the other side before declaring it to be so?
The plan also emphasises the need to ramp up domestic production of PPE. The government is calling on industry to join forces to manufacture more protective equipment to support the national effort.
Already companies such as Burberry, Rolls-Royce, McLaren, Ineos and Diageo have started work to produce equipment including gowns, visors and hand hygiene products.
Your link did not mention setting up new PPE factories but asking businesses to switch to making PPE.
A totally different thing.
One is quicker, which is why it is being highlighted. But the other link did mention setting up new industry to support production. Anyway, who cares if the production is done in existing factories that are changed to produce PPE or completely new factories? The end product is exactly the same.
Because the greater the potential production capacity the more secure the supply.
That's why you should care.
The casual attitude you're displaying is why there is a problem to begin with.
At the moment, the fastest way to get additional PPE capacity in the UK is to re-purpose existing factories, equipment, staff etc.
For the longer term, if you want a domestic PPE industry, simply tender long term contracts for UK only production.
They will quite probably to the same companies who are providing PPE on an ad-hoc basis now.
They will then set up additional facilities, copied from what they are doing now (largely) to provide this capacity.
Before doing so, there needs to be some thought put into the long term. What kind of PPE, storage life time (vital for stockpiles) etc.
For example, I was asking the other day about integrated helmet system, with powered forced air flow. These could be more comfortable and safer that a visor and separate mask. They could also be useful in a fitter pandemic which involves a truly airborne disease - they can be integrated into a fully body covering suit, if required.
That's all true but I get no sense that the government is thinking like that.
We will see as the year progresses - if there are still PPE issues in the autumn then we will know that the government has failed and it will have no justifiable excuses.
“Minimum alcohol pricing will remain in place forever despite being a failure...”
Harry , it affected the alkies only , any reasonable drinker would never even know it was introduced. It got rid of the poor quality moonshine and is for sure a good thing.
After nightmarish economic data today BoE policymaker Jan Vleighe says the UK is suffering the fastest and deepest slump in 'possibly several centuries.'
And so I repeat my mantra. Lockdown and its extension is the worst policy decision by any government ever in the history of British government decisions.
The only thing that's changing is the degree to which it is the worst decision.
Surely you want to wait and see what the effects are on the other side before declaring it to be so?
Everyone is in favour of cancelling the lockdown until it's their parents or grandparents that die. I had a distant cousin who was arguing in favour of getting rid of all measures until her mum was taken into hospital and is now unlikely to survive. Sacrificing other people's family isn't an issue...
I see in the land of Covid Data Wranglers Sweden is absolutely 100% definitely past it's peak
I plotted Swdish deaths over April until the 16th and then put a trendline through it
Of course I have not actual clue what is going on because I'm not an expert in the field, but what I am good at spotting is people pushing bullshit number manipulation to fit a preconceived agenda. Don't trust aynoe putting a trend line through anything without a description (with maths) of what the trend line is.
It is presumably nothing more than a slightly odd coincidence that both the UK and Sweden had outlier-ish looking "peaks" on April 8. Assuming your data is on an occurrence, rather than reported, basis?
Yeah, I've been trying to work out what shared common factor the 8th might have because it is weird how both the UK and Sweden had their highest outlier day at the same time.
Some kind of weird coroner international tradition to get as many death certificated signed on the 8th?
After nightmarish economic data today BoE policymaker Jan Vleighe says the UK is suffering the fastest and deepest slump in 'possibly several centuries.'
And so I repeat my mantra. Lockdown and its extension is the worst policy decision by any government ever in the history of British government decisions.
The only thing that's changing is the degree to which it is the worst decision.
Surely you want to wait and see what the effects are on the other side before declaring it to be so?
Everyone is in favour of cancelling the lockdown until it's their parents or grandparents that die. I had a distant cousin who was arguing in favour of getting rid of all measures until her mum was taken into hospital and is now unlikely to survive. Sacrificing other people's family isn't an issue...
I do think the lockdown argument has merits either side. Economic damage isn't an ephemeral consequence, it directly impacts how affordable contingency plans, preventative measures, relief payments, and medical spending are.
I know someone online whose father's cancer took a turn for the worst. He was unable to go to hospital because of the situation and died shortly thereafter. This is far from a unique case.
After nightmarish economic data today BoE policymaker Jan Vleighe says the UK is suffering the fastest and deepest slump in 'possibly several centuries.'
And so I repeat my mantra. Lockdown and its extension is the worst policy decision by any government ever in the history of British government decisions.
The only thing that's changing is the degree to which it is the worst decision.
Surely you want to wait and see what the effects are on the other side before declaring it to be so?
Everyone is in favour of cancelling the lockdown until it's their parents or grandparents that die. I had a distant cousin who was arguing in favour of getting rid of all measures until her mum was taken into hospital and is now unlikely to survive. Sacrificing other people's family isn't an issue...
What about if your Dad and Uncle have had their cancer treatments postponed because of the lockdown, and you hear of thousands of empty beds in an unused hospital 15 miles away?
I see in the land of Covid Data Wranglers Sweden is absolutely 100% definitely past it's peak
I plotted Swdish deaths over April until the 16th and then put a trendline through it
Of course I have not actual clue what is going on because I'm not an expert in the field, but what I am good at spotting is people pushing bullshit number manipulation to fit a preconceived agenda. Don't trust aynoe putting a trend line through anything without a description (with maths) of what the trend line is.
It is presumably nothing more than a slightly odd coincidence that both the UK and Sweden had outlier-ish looking "peaks" on April 8. Assuming your data is on an occurrence, rather than reported, basis?
Yeah, I've been trying to work out what shared common factor the 8th might have because it is weird how both the UK and Sweden had their highest outlier day at the same time.
Some kind of weird coroner international tradition to get as many death certificated signed on the 8th?
Some of us see it as a positive outcome of Brexit rather than an unfortunate consequence. It helps to right a historic wrong.
There's nothing positive about the break-up of the UK - whatsoever.
And I'd be very careful about reaching into history and arguing that your political preferences today help to correct some of those (heavily mythologised) wrongs, particularly where such black & white views could lead to all sorts of unintended consequences.
You might find your political opponents want to do the same when they take office over something they really value too.
I couldn't disagree more. The positive about the break-up of the UK is the EXACT SAME principle as to why we voted for Brexit - that control over laws is better exercised by those who vote for the law.
If the Scots think they can better control their own laws than the English can then the Scots should be free to do so - and I think they could. It isn't healthy to have a union were 90% of the population is in one member, so the other 10% spend more time griping about the actions of politicians of the 90% than they do looking after themselves. If Scotland goes free it will be forced quickly to grow up and look after itself. That's a good thing.
Scottish politics today is infantilised by the union.
A hypothetical for you -
What do you think should happen if England wants to leave the UK but Scotland does not?
That's easy. If England votes to leave the UK then England should leave it. Same if the roles were reversed, then Scotland should leave. If Scotland had voted to leave the UK in its referendum then England not wanting to do so wouldn't have been relevant.
My principle is that if its not a prison anyone can choose to leave freely if that is their choice.
OK. But make the (reasonable) assumption that England leaving means the total breakup of the UK.
Are you not (in our hypothetical) forcing 3 nations to be independent against their will?
We had similar discussions in 2013-2014. One thing that became very clear was that the English would fight to the end to equate England = United Kingdom (even though the dissolution of the unions with Ireland and Scotland would abolish the UK de jure and de facto), partly because of their self-perception and partly because of such things as the UN Security Council seat. Ergo you would end up with two UKs - neither of which would actually meet that description!
The plan also emphasises the need to ramp up domestic production of PPE. The government is calling on industry to join forces to manufacture more protective equipment to support the national effort.
Already companies such as Burberry, Rolls-Royce, McLaren, Ineos and Diageo have started work to produce equipment including gowns, visors and hand hygiene products.
Your link did not mention setting up new PPE factories but asking businesses to switch to making PPE.
A totally different thing.
One is quicker, which is why it is being highlighted. But the other link did mention setting up new industry to support production. Anyway, who cares if the production is done in existing factories that are changed to produce PPE or completely new factories? The end product is exactly the same.
Because the greater the potential production capacity the more secure the supply.
That's why you should care.
The casual attitude you're displaying is why there is a problem to begin with.
That's a logical fallacy, setting up new PPE factories doesn't mean greater capacity necessarily though.
Getting existing businesses to switch to PPE can mean greater capacity and in a timely fashion. We need businesses operating within weeks and months more than we do in years from now.
Yeah, he's in perfection being the enemy of progress territory.
On the contrary, setting up new production facilities is progress whereas you're in "it can't be done overnight so lets not bother" territory.
I have never once said they shouldn't bother. In fact I am the one trying to convince you that they are bothering.
Well you've failed because the evidence that the government is bothering is too vague to be worth anything.
Now if the government was able to say "we have contracted with X to set up a new PPE production facility in Y which is expected to operate from date Z" then that would be evidence.
The plan also emphasises the need to ramp up domestic production of PPE. The government is calling on industry to join forces to manufacture more protective equipment to support the national effort.
Already companies such as Burberry, Rolls-Royce, McLaren, Ineos and Diageo have started work to produce equipment including gowns, visors and hand hygiene products.
Your link did not mention setting up new PPE factories but asking businesses to switch to making PPE.
A totally different thing.
One is quicker, which is why it is being highlighted. But the other link did mention setting up new industry to support production. Anyway, who cares if the production is done in existing factories that are changed to produce PPE or completely new factories? The end product is exactly the same.
Because the greater the potential production capacity the more secure the supply.
That's why you should care.
The casual attitude you're displaying is why there is a problem to begin with.
That's a logical fallacy, setting up new PPE factories doesn't mean greater capacity necessarily though.
Getting existing businesses to switch to PPE can mean greater capacity and in a timely fashion. We need businesses operating within weeks and months more than we do in years from now.
Yeah, he's in perfection being the enemy of progress territory.
On the contrary, setting up new production facilities is progress whereas you're in "it can't be done overnight so lets not bother" territory.
No. Switching to PPE is a new production facility as far as PPE is concerned.
And dependent upon the business wanting to do so - what happens when it wants to switch back to its normal production ?
The plan also emphasises the need to ramp up domestic production of PPE. The government is calling on industry to join forces to manufacture more protective equipment to support the national effort.
Already companies such as Burberry, Rolls-Royce, McLaren, Ineos and Diageo have started work to produce equipment including gowns, visors and hand hygiene products.
Your link did not mention setting up new PPE factories but asking businesses to switch to making PPE.
A totally different thing.
One is quicker, which is why it is being highlighted. But the other link did mention setting up new industry to support production. Anyway, who cares if the production is done in existing factories that are changed to produce PPE or completely new factories? The end product is exactly the same.
Because the greater the potential production capacity the more secure the supply.
That's why you should care.
The casual attitude you're displaying is why there is a problem to begin with.
That's a logical fallacy, setting up new PPE factories doesn't mean greater capacity necessarily though.
Getting existing businesses to switch to PPE can mean greater capacity and in a timely fashion. We need businesses operating within weeks and months more than we do in years from now.
Yeah, he's in perfection being the enemy of progress territory.
On the contrary, setting up new production facilities is progress whereas you're in "it can't be done overnight so lets not bother" territory.
I have never once said they shouldn't bother. In fact I am the one trying to convince you that they are bothering.
Well you've failed because the evidence that the government is bothering is too vague to be worth anything.
Now if the government was able to say "we have contracted with X to set up a new PPE production facility in Y which is expected to operate from date Z" then that would be evidence.
The statement said exactly that, but just without the dates! Just because it's not housed inside new bricks and mortar means it somehow doesn't count?
After nightmarish economic data today BoE policymaker Jan Vleighe says the UK is suffering the fastest and deepest slump in 'possibly several centuries.'
And so I repeat my mantra. Lockdown and its extension is the worst policy decision by any government ever in the history of British government decisions.
The only thing that's changing is the degree to which it is the worst decision.
Surely you want to wait and see what the effects are on the other side before declaring it to be so?
Everyone is in favour of cancelling the lockdown until it's their parents or grandparents that die. I had a distant cousin who was arguing in favour of getting rid of all measures until her mum was taken into hospital and is now unlikely to survive. Sacrificing other people's family isn't an issue...
What about if your Dad and Uncle have had their cancer treatments postponed because of the lockdown, and you hear of thousands of empty beds in an unused hospital 15 miles away?
That was terrible planning on the part of the government. The NHS is returning to normal service for non-virus patients AIUI so hopefully that won't be an issue.
Comments
(Though strictly speaking, that's a verdict.)
My principle is that if its not a prison anyone can choose to leave freely if that is their choice.
Have they ?
https://inews.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-ppe-industry-demand-matt-hancock-2536190
I wouodnt trust him as far as i could throw him.
Heres another
He shoild be on trial.for taking us into an.illegal war.
Have we ?
If not then people should be sacked.
Second and larger wave almost inevitable, partly because we are all too good at observing the lockdown.
The EU currently has a lot of small States in it who value their membership and devolution is encouraged across all those states. Decisions should be taken at the appropriate level and devolved down to the lowest level possible but clearly on certain issues States should work together eg standards, climate change, etc.
In the UK we did have a tendency to gold plate rules and then say it is the EUs fault when invariably it wasn't.
You seem to have (unpleasantly) suggested I have stated something stupid when in fact it is exactly how it currently works(ish) (so clearly not) and which was certainly Scotland's ambition (are they all stupid as well?)
PS tried to change typo in last post: their/there but couldn't seem to edit.
Been around, evolving in bats, for millions of years.
Bat coronavirus phylogeography in the Western Indian Ocean
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-63799-7
...The islands of the Western Indian Ocean are identified as a major biodiversity hotspot, with more than 50 bat species. In this study, we tested 1,013 bats belonging to 36 species from Mozambique, Madagascar, Mauritius, Mayotte, Reunion Island and Seychelles, based on molecular screening and partial sequencing of the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase gene. In total, 88 bats (8.7%) tested positive for coronaviruses, with higher prevalence in Mozambican bats (20.5% ± 4.9%) as compared to those sampled on islands (4.5% ± 1.5%). Phylogenetic analyses revealed a large diversity of α- and β-CoVs and a strong signal of co-evolution between CoVs and their bat host species, with limited evidence for host-switching, except for bat species sharing day roost sites. These results highlight that strong variation between islands does exist and is associated with the composition of the bat species community on each island. Future studies should investigate whether CoVs detected in these bats have a potential for spillover in other hosts...
We're talking about months - the months we've already had and the months that are to come.
"Why is Blair wearing those ball crushing tight jeans?" asked President Bush.
That should be the in media res start of the book.
I'll believe that the government has done something when new PPE factories start to be fitted out.
Are you seriously telling me that if the UK had done the same as Sweden that Brits would have voluntarily behaved responsibly? I honestly don't see it.
Alya Abutayah Alhwaiti told the BBC the threats were made in a phone call and on Twitter after she raised international awareness about a Saudi government plan to evict members of her tribe to make way for a 21st Century high-tech city on the shores of the Red Sea.
"We can get you in London," Ms Alhwaiti said she was warned in the call. "You think you are safe there, but you are not."
Wales was part of England historically but has adopted its own identity more in modern times. If Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland wished to continue as a united nation without England they should be able to do so. That won't be "giving sovereignty back" to anyone but England.
A megalomaniacal war criminal who squandered the greatest opportunity in decades to replace Thatcherism with a new 21st century consensus; instead launching wars of aggression, increasing landlordism, marketising vital public services, and enacting authoritarian legislation.
Sturgeon outlining exit plan.,
43/50
And this:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-sets-out-plan-for-national-effort-on-ppe
The plan also emphasises the need to ramp up domestic production of PPE. The government is calling on industry to join forces to manufacture more protective equipment to support the national effort.
Already companies such as Burberry, Rolls-Royce, McLaren, Ineos and Diageo have started work to produce equipment including gowns, visors and hand hygiene products.
The level of activity in UK cities when we'd only been advised to socially distance, pretty much matches what Stockholm is seeing now (around 30% of usual).
Since the lockdown, the levels have diverged so the UK cities are down to around 10%.
A totally different thing.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/sam_cleal/uk-cities-quiz?utm_source=dynamic&utm_campaign=bfsharecopy&bfsource=bfocompareon&quiz_result=124542009_370425604#124542009
That's why you should care.
The casual attitude you're displaying is why there is a problem to begin with.
I agree that the UK is more individualistic, thankfully, than Europe. But it doesn't mean people can't do the right thing when they know what it is - there will always be high profile idiots doing the opposite but that doesn't make them the norm. The gun-toting loonies don't even represent the average American let alone the average Brit.
Are you not (in our hypothetical) forcing 3 nations to be independent against their will?
Getting existing businesses to switch to PPE can mean greater capacity and in a timely fashion. We need businesses operating within weeks and months more than we do in years from now.
Its all ancient history now, but to object to the "imperial" construction of the UK but not Germany is farcical.
There have been about 70k deaths in the past month from all causes in the UK (noting that people don't just grieve coronavirus deaths). 100,000 people very closely affected by that is a very conservative estimate (and many more who knew these people and are affected to a greater or lesser extent).
There are debates you can have about how bad it is, of course. Many people are "isolated" with close family or friends, communication methods are still available short of face to face contact etc. In a sense we also always grieve alone - there comes a moment when there isn't someone there to distract you and you need to face it.
But I can see why the lockdown makes it harder to provide the recently bereaved with support, and think the 100,000 estimate is rather low if anything.
I find the Spanish remarkably similar to the British. It's easy to exaggerate differences based upon stereotyping.
I think you exaggerate a little there. I find many Spanish acquaintances pretty much the same as those in England.
For the longer term, if you want a domestic PPE industry, simply tender long term contracts for UK only production.
They will quite probably to the same companies who are providing PPE on an ad-hoc basis now.
They will then set up additional facilities, copied from what they are doing now (largely) to provide this capacity.
Before doing so, there needs to be some thought put into the long term. What kind of PPE, storage life time (vital for stockpiles) etc.
For example, I was asking the other day about integrated helmet system, with powered forced air flow. These could be more comfortable and safer that a visor and separate mask. They could also be useful in a fitter pandemic which involves a truly airborne disease - they can be integrated into a fully body covering suit, if required.
And so I repeat my mantra. Lockdown and its extension is the worst policy decision by any government ever in the history of British government decisions.
The only thing that's changing is the degree to which it is the worst decision.
You might want to be in a union with Angelina Jolie but if she doesn't want the same its not going to happen.
Continuation of the union requires the continued consent of all parties - if one party withdraws its consent it should be free to leave if thats its choice. The left behind nations may not want them gone but they have no right to continue a union against the other parties will.
What matters is getting the capacity up, not whether these are new or retrofitted factories.
We will see as the year progresses - if there are still PPE issues in the autumn then we will know that the government has failed and it will have no justifiable excuses.
Some kind of weird coroner international tradition to get as many death certificated signed on the 8th?
I know someone online whose father's cancer took a turn for the worst. He was unable to go to hospital because of the situation and died shortly thereafter. This is far from a unique case.
Now if the government was able to say "we have contracted with X to set up a new PPE production facility in Y which is expected to operate from date Z" then that would be evidence.