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?
More likely the innate human ability/curse to look for and find patterns, whether they exist or not. There are an awful lot of countries to choose from, it would be odd if there weren't any coincidental alignments of anomalies (or, more correctly, random variation on daily data) between any of them.
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?
“Highest outlier day”!!!
Last week of the not-quite-shutdown would have been 3 weeks earlier?
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 ?
They aren't going to be selling much stuff for the foreseeable future, whereas PPE is going to be needed by the tonne.
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...
The lockdown has to be cancelled sooner than later. It is a bandaid while we build up capacities to fight this it can't be permanent.
If this lasted years how many would die due to the lockdown? How many in the future due to the NHS not being able to get as much funds in the future? It's not zero.
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?
More likely the innate human ability/curse to look for and find patterns, whether they exist or not. There are an awful lot of countries to choose from, it would be odd if there weren't any coincidental alignments of anomalies (or, more correctly, random variation on daily data) between any of them.
As I've said before, the Sweden data are very interesting. Sure, there's social distancing happening, but some things different to here. May help us all learn a lot about what is and is not important to limit spread.
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.
What matters is getting production up AND ensuring that it can remain at the required level.
While this country remains dependent upon imported PPE we continue to be at higher risk than we would be if we had sufficient production facilities to meet demand.
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.
What matters is getting production up AND ensuring that it can remain at the required level.
While this country remains dependent upon imported PPE we continue to be at higher risk than we would be if we had sufficient production facilities to meet demand.
And the former is happening, and they are working on the latter. Part of Lord Deighton's remit is to increase the domestic manufacturing base.
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 ?
if the businesses have switched it is because they wanted to. Past tense not future if.
After the factories processes are changed to be PPE based, PPE will be it's normal production.
Why would the factory wish to switch away from producing PPE which is highly in demand before the point where it is no longer demanded?
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...
Karel Sikoria reckons 50,000 cancer patients will go undiagnosed as we abandon many we are supposed to be treating in our obsession with this illness.
But as you say, sacrificing other people's family isn't an issue.
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 ?
They aren't going to be selling much stuff for the foreseeable future, whereas PPE is going to be needed by the tonne.
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.
What matters is getting production up AND ensuring that it can remain at the required level.
While this country remains dependent upon imported PPE we continue to be at higher risk than we would be if we had sufficient production facilities to meet demand.
Indeed and it isn't foreign factories that are getting switched to PPE it is domestic ones.
For those interested, a useful description of the Oxford vaccine trials and the vaccine approach from one of the participating partners, University of Bristol:
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 ?
They aren't going to be selling much stuff for the foreseeable future, whereas PPE is going to be needed by the tonne.
You're back to choosing hope over security.
Which is how the problem originated.
No, I'm being a realist. It's not possible to create new factories out of thin air in an instant, which you appear to want. Short-term solutions like this are needed to increase supply now, not in six to twelve months. If the government keeps buying stuff, they will keep selling. That, or they can be compelled to do so.
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.
I don't disagree but let's carry on because I think the imbalance in size creates an issue. Assume the following (although perhaps neither of us believes it to be true) -
(i) If England leaves, the UK would fracture into 4 pieces. Eng, Sco, Wal, NI. (ii) And Sco, Wal, and NI would all now be poorer than they were. (iii) And ONLY England wants to leave.
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.
What matters is getting production up AND ensuring that it can remain at the required level.
While this country remains dependent upon imported PPE we continue to be at higher risk than we would be if we had sufficient production facilities to meet demand.
And the former is happening, and they are working on the latter. Part of Lord Deighton's remit is to increase the domestic manufacturing base.
Well I hope it is but as I said I have my doubts.
And I said if there are still issues with PPE in a few months time then the government will have no excuses.
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?
Buddha's birthday - maybe its propitious for reincarnation?
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.
What matters is getting production up AND ensuring that it can remain at the required level.
While this country remains dependent upon imported PPE we continue to be at higher risk than we would be if we had sufficient production facilities to meet demand.
And the former is happening, and they are working on the latter. Part of Lord Deighton's remit is to increase the domestic manufacturing base.
Well I hope it is but as I said I have my doubts.
And I said if there are still issues with PPE in a few months time then the government will have no excuses.
Of course, but you seemed incredulous at the suggestion that the government was doing anything at all.
How would I describe Tony Blair? "A political pragmatist who offered people a hand up rather than a hand out to win back to back landslides and a 3rd big election win - which is better than that two-time loser Jeremy Corbyn"
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...
That is always the tension between public health/good and private outcomes: what is good for the whole is not necessarily good for the individual. It (along with freeloading) is at the very heart of the anti-vaxxer issue.
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...
Karel Sikoria reckons 50,000 cancer patients will go undiagnosed as we abandon many we are supposed to be treating in our obsession with this illness.
But as you say, sacrificing other people's family isn't an issue.
Would that be a late diagnosis, or completely undiagnosed? I suspect that has a dramatic difference in outcomes.
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 ?
They aren't going to be selling much stuff for the foreseeable future, whereas PPE is going to be needed by the tonne.
You're back to choosing hope over security.
Which is how the problem originated.
No, I'm being a realist. It's not possible to create new factories out of thin air in an instant, which you appear to want. Short-term solutions like this are needed to increase supply now, not in six to twelve months. If the government keeps buying stuff, they will keep selling. That, or they can be compelled to do so.
Not only that but they have trained staff.
Is this an exercise to build up domestic PPE capacity or domestic manufacturing capacity? Richard seems to really want the latter but under the guise of the former.
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 ?
They aren't going to be selling much stuff for the foreseeable future, whereas PPE is going to be needed by the tonne.
You're back to choosing hope over security.
Which is how the problem originated.
No, I'm being a realist. It's not possible to create new factories out of thin air in an instant, which you appear to want. Short-term solutions like this are needed to increase supply now, not in six to twelve months. If the government keeps buying stuff, they will keep selling. That, or they can be compelled to do so.
We're not talking 'in an instant' we're talking months - the months that the government has already had and the months that are to come.
Now we're trapped in a circular argument so I'll stop now.
But I will say again that if there are PPE issues in a few months then the government will deserve the blame it gets.
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.
I don't disagree but let's carry on because I think the imbalance in size creates an issue. Assume the following (although perhaps neither of us believes it to be true) -
(i) If England leaves, the UK would fracture into 4 pieces. Eng, Sco, Wal, NI. (ii) And Sco, Wal, and NI would all now be poorer than they were. (iii) And ONLY England wants to leave.
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
Obviously this is the very opposite of what you hope to see - England wishing to leave the UK and Scotland not - but leaving this aside, do you think that Scotland, Wales and NI could form a feasible entity? I've always assumed not.
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 ?
They aren't going to be selling much stuff for the foreseeable future, whereas PPE is going to be needed by the tonne.
You're back to choosing hope over security.
Which is how the problem originated.
No, I'm being a realist. It's not possible to create new factories out of thin air in an instant, which you appear to want. Short-term solutions like this are needed to increase supply now, not in six to twelve months. If the government keeps buying stuff, they will keep selling. That, or they can be compelled to do so.
Not only that but they have trained staff.
Is this an exercise to build up domestic PPE capacity or domestic manufacturing capacity? Richard seems to really want the latter but under the guise of the former.
Having domestic supply of strategic goods is undoubtedly a good thing. We just hadn't realised that PPE was a strategic good before this crisis.
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
Obviously this is the very opposite of what you hope to see - England wishing to leave the UK and Scotland not - but leaving this aside, do you think that Scotland, Wales and NI could form a feasible entity? I've always assumed not.
Yes if they wanted to. No reason whatsoever why not. Stranger entities exist.
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.
I don't disagree but let's carry on because I think the imbalance in size creates an issue. Assume the following (although perhaps neither of us believes it to be true) -
(i) If England leaves, the UK would fracture into 4 pieces. Eng, Sco, Wal, NI. (ii) And Sco, Wal, and NI would all now be poorer than they were. (iii) And ONLY England wants to leave.
Do you not see at least a problem there?
What happens if various parts of England wish to remain within the UK? Would England then break up into its component parts - Anglia - Wessex - Mercia - Northumbria - Cornwall etc?
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...
Karel Sikoria reckons 50,000 cancer patients will go undiagnosed as we abandon many we are supposed to be treating in our obsession with this illness.
But as you say, sacrificing other people's family isn't an issue.
Would that be a late diagnosis, or completely undiagnosed? I suspect that has a dramatic difference in outcomes.
It would be both. People are not turning up to, or even seeking, screening appointments. And for some cancers, a late diagnosis is as serious as lack of diagnosis.
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?
Happened already:
Austria, Germany, and Slovenia confirmed they would not extradite their nationals to the UK during the 11-month transition period which starts tomorrow.
All three countries are forbidden by their own constitutions to extradite their own citizens to non-EU countries, which the UK will became on Thursday, and each country would likely to have to change its constitution in order to close the potential loophole.
It raises the prospect that a German, Austrian, or Slovenian national could commit a crime in the UK before fleeing to their respective home country, thereby escaping criminal prosecution in the UK during this year.
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...
Karel Sikoria reckons 50,000 cancer patients will go undiagnosed as we abandon many we are supposed to be treating in our obsession with this illness.
But as you say, sacrificing other people's family isn't an issue.
Would that be a late diagnosis, or completely undiagnosed? I suspect that has a dramatic difference in outcomes.
It would be both. People are not turning up to, or even seeking, screening appointments. And for some cancers, a late diagnosis is as serious as lack of diagnosis.
Yeah, very serious implications for some. Thankfully they seem to be resuming some normal operations. But to argue that those 50,000 would not be impacted without a lockdown is fanciful. The NHS would be currently overwhelmed with coronavirus patients.
For those interested, a useful description of the Oxford vaccine trials and the vaccine approach from one of the participating partners, University of Bristol:
I'm not in one of the areas, but that's interesting, thanks.
Someone was asking the other day if vaccine trial participants would be warned about the dangers of ADE. If you click though to the information sheet, you can see that they are:
https://covid19vaccinetrial.co.uk/files/pisimperialv4pdf ...Theoretical Concerns – could this vaccine make COVID-19 disease worse? In the past, experimental vaccines were developed by different research groups against the SARS virus, which is in the same family as the COVID-19 virus and also infects the lungs. In some cases, animals that received certain types of experimental SARS vaccines appeared to develop more severe lung inflammation when they were later infected with SARS compared with unvaccinated animals. There has also been one report of this increased disease-associated inflammation being seen in a mouse study for a vaccine against MERS-CoV (another related virus) but this has not been observed in any other reported animal studies. These problems were not seen in animal studies with ChAdOx1- MersCoV vaccine, which is very similar to the vaccine being used in this study, when the animals were exposed to the wild virus. Studies of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in animals are currently ongoing but: we do not yet know whether this could also be a side effect of exposure to the pandemic COVID- 19 virus in this COVID-19 vaccine study, whether this effect could occur in humans or whether this might lead to more severe COVID-19 disease in some cases...
FWIW, I think this risk, while possible, pretty remote.
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...
Karel Sikoria reckons 50,000 cancer patients will go undiagnosed as we abandon many we are supposed to be treating in our obsession with this illness.
But as you say, sacrificing other people's family isn't an issue.
Would that be a late diagnosis, or completely undiagnosed? I suspect that has a dramatic difference in outcomes.
I don;t know
What I do know is that disease and pestilence has cut swathes through the British population down the centuries in far worse ways than Corona and the government of the day has never, ever responded in this insane way.
Why? because private sector prosperity is the only way to human progress and progress is the only way to fight disease better.
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...
Karel Sikoria reckons 50,000 cancer patients will go undiagnosed as we abandon many we are supposed to be treating in our obsession with this illness.
But as you say, sacrificing other people's family isn't an issue.
Would that be a late diagnosis, or completely undiagnosed? I suspect that has a dramatic difference in outcomes.
It would be both. People are not turning up to, or even seeking, screening appointments. And for some cancers, a late diagnosis is as serious as lack of diagnosis.
Yeah, very serious implications for some. Thankfully they seem to be resuming some normal operations. But to argue that those 50,000 would not be impacted without a lockdown is fanciful. The NHS would be currently overwhelmed with coronavirus patients.
Maybe. Maybe not. We don't know.
But once capacity is up and the Nightingale's are up and running and there is adequate PPE and testing then the lockdown must end.
Temporary to build capacity makes sense, ongoing does not.
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...
Karel Sikoria reckons 50,000 cancer patients will go undiagnosed as we abandon many we are supposed to be treating in our obsession with this illness.
But as you say, sacrificing other people's family isn't an issue.
Would that be a late diagnosis, or completely undiagnosed? I suspect that has a dramatic difference in outcomes.
It would be both. People are not turning up to, or even seeking, screening appointments. And for some cancers, a late diagnosis is as serious as lack of diagnosis.
Yeah, very serious implications for some. Thankfully they seem to be resuming some normal operations. But to argue that those 50,000 would not be impacted without a lockdown is fanciful. The NHS would be currently overwhelmed with coronavirus patients.
Yep, merely changing the lockdown rules will not necessarily change individuals' willingness to set up and go to screening appointments - we'll see the same with reopening schools with parents not letting children go. And, as you say, easing lockdowns too early could undermine the system's capacity to deal with non-COVID patients. But, for the most part, I'd be surprised if screening technicians and oncologists are busy at the moment as I doubt they are being diverted to COVID care.
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 ?
They aren't going to be selling much stuff for the foreseeable future, whereas PPE is going to be needed by the tonne.
You're back to choosing hope over security.
Which is how the problem originated.
No, I'm being a realist. It's not possible to create new factories out of thin air in an instant, which you appear to want. Short-term solutions like this are needed to increase supply now, not in six to twelve months. If the government keeps buying stuff, they will keep selling. That, or they can be compelled to do so.
Not only that but they have trained staff.
Is this an exercise to build up domestic PPE capacity or domestic manufacturing capacity? Richard seems to really want the latter but under the guise of the former.
Having domestic supply of strategic goods is undoubtedly a good thing. We just hadn't realised that PPE was a strategic good before this crisis.
I think one of the lasting impacts of this pandemic will be a whole revisiting of the vulnerability of global supply chains. I think China's behaviour on access to rare earth elements previously had primed the pumps for that discussion - this has given it urgency.
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.
PPE factories in the North...Boris wants level up the North. Perfectly opportunity. And even if we won't need 50 billion masks and gowns a week in a year or two time, having our own manufacturing base of PPE, rather than from places like China, Turky and Burma can only be a good thing.
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!
I'm interested in this aspect because of something I've noticed about a certain type of Englishman who I've come across from time to time. These types will hold both of the following views -
(i) Scotland would sink as an independent country.
(ii) Scotland should be an independent country.
In other words they are English "Scottish Nationalists" who are driven by antipathy towards Scotland.
And what these people always say is that Scottish independence should be voted on by the whole of the UK. They want to have a vote on it themselves. Their ideal (in such a referendum) is that Scotland votes No but England votes Yes - meaning the overall result is Yes because England is miles bigger.
Upshot is that rather than Scotland "gaining independence" they are "kicked out".
This is IMO not a good outcome. And it is (effectively) the same outcome that one would get in my hypothetical where England votes to leave the UK, thus breaking up the UK, with Scotland not wanting to be independent.
Hence why I think that, on balance and despite the arguments the other way, only the smaller nations can decide to leave. England can't. Or at least, it's deeply problematical if it does.
For those interested, a useful description of the Oxford vaccine trials and the vaccine approach from one of the participating partners, University of Bristol:
I'm not in one of the areas, but that's interesting, thanks.
Someone was asking the other day if vaccine trial participants would be warned about the dangers of ADE. If you click though to the information sheet, you can see that they are:
https://covid19vaccinetrial.co.uk/files/pisimperialv4pdf ...Theoretical Concerns – could this vaccine make COVID-19 disease worse? In the past, experimental vaccines were developed by different research groups against the SARS virus, which is in the same family as the COVID-19 virus and also infects the lungs. In some cases, animals that received certain types of experimental SARS vaccines appeared to develop more severe lung inflammation when they were later infected with SARS compared with unvaccinated animals. There has also been one report of this increased disease-associated inflammation being seen in a mouse study for a vaccine against MERS-CoV (another related virus) but this has not been observed in any other reported animal studies. These problems were not seen in animal studies with ChAdOx1- MersCoV vaccine, which is very similar to the vaccine being used in this study, when the animals were exposed to the wild virus. Studies of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in animals are currently ongoing but: we do not yet know whether this could also be a side effect of exposure to the pandemic COVID- 19 virus in this COVID-19 vaccine study, whether this effect could occur in humans or whether this might lead to more severe COVID-19 disease in some cases...
FWIW, I think this risk, while possible, pretty remote.
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...
Karel Sikoria reckons 50,000 cancer patients will go undiagnosed as we abandon many we are supposed to be treating in our obsession with this illness.
But as you say, sacrificing other people's family isn't an issue.
Would that be a late diagnosis, or completely undiagnosed? I suspect that has a dramatic difference in outcomes.
I don;t know
What I do know is that disease and pestilence has cut swathes through the British population down the centuries in far worse ways than Corona and the government of the day has never, ever responded in this insane way.
Why? because private sector prosperity is the only way to human progress and progress is the only way to fight disease better.
This is from Wikipedia, on "preventative measures" during the Great Plague of London:
Reports of plague around Europe began to reach England in the 1660s, causing the Privy Council to consider what steps might be taken to prevent it crossing to England. Quarantining of ships had been used during previous outbreaks and was again introduced for ships coming to London in November 1663, following outbreaks in Amsterdam and Hamburg. Two naval ships were assigned to intercept any vessels entering the Thames estuary. Ships from infected ports were required to moor at Hole Haven on Canvey Island for a period of 30 days before being allowed to travel upriver. Ships from ports free of plague or completing their quarantine were given a certificate of health and allowed to travel on. A second inspection line was established between the forts on opposite banks of the Thames at Tilbury and Gravesend with instructions only to pass ships with a certificate.
The quarantine duration was increased to forty days in May 1664 as the continental plague worsened, and the areas subject to quarantine changed with the news of the spread of plague to include all of Holland, Zeeland and Friesland (all regions of the Dutch Republic); restrictions on Hamburg were removed in November. Quarantine measures against ships coming from the Dutch Republic were put in place in 29 other ports from May, starting with Great Yarmouth. The Dutch ambassador objected at the constraint of trade with his country, but England responded that it had been one of the last countries introducing such restrictions. Regulations were enforced quite strictly, so that people or houses where voyagers had come ashore without serving their quarantine were also subjected to 40 days of quarantine.
That's well before the height of the outbreak, by the way.
From the same page:
As plague spread, a system of quarantine was introduced, whereby any house where someone had died from plague would be locked up and no one allowed to enter or leave for 40 days. This frequently led to the deaths of the other inhabitants, by neglect if not from the plague, and provided ample incentive not to report the disease.
I call bullshit on your claim. If they'd known what we know now, they'd have done exactly the same. As it was, they had to guess, got it sort of right, and lots of people died despite their actions.
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...
Karel Sikoria reckons 50,000 cancer patients will go undiagnosed as we abandon many we are supposed to be treating in our obsession with this illness.
But as you say, sacrificing other people's family isn't an issue.
Would that be a late diagnosis, or completely undiagnosed? I suspect that has a dramatic difference in outcomes.
It would be both. People are not turning up to, or even seeking, screening appointments. And for some cancers, a late diagnosis is as serious as lack of diagnosis.
Yeah, very serious implications for some. Thankfully they seem to be resuming some normal operations. But to argue that those 50,000 would not be impacted without a lockdown is fanciful. The NHS would be currently overwhelmed with coronavirus patients.
Maybe. Maybe not. We don't know.
But once capacity is up and the Nightingale's are up and running and there is adequate PPE and testing then the lockdown must end.
Temporary to build capacity makes sense, ongoing does not.
Agreed. I've always viewed these periods as buying time to build up capacity so it's possible to go through another wave without having the same kind of shut down of non-coronavirus care.
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!
I'm interested in this aspect because of something I've noticed about a certain type of Englishman who I've come across from time to time. These types will hold both of the following views -
(i) Scotland would sink as an independent country.
(ii) Scotland should be an independent country.
In other words they are English "Scottish Nationalists" who are driven by antipathy towards Scotland.
And what these people always say is that Scottish independence should be voted on by the whole of the UK. They want to have a vote on it themselves. Their ideal (in such a referendum) is that Scotland votes No but England votes Yes - meaning the overall result is Yes because England is miles bigger.
Upshot is that rather than Scotland "gaining independence" they are "kicked out".
This is IMO not a good outcome. And it is (effectively) the same outcome that one would get in my hypothetical where England votes to leave the UK, thus breaking up the UK, with Scotland not wanting to be independent.
Hence why I think that, on balance and despite the arguments the other way, only the smaller nations can decide to leave. England can't. Or at least, it's deeply problematical if it does.
I disagree.
If it's problematic if England leaves then the only fair and reasonable solution is for English voters to be convinced of the value of not leaving. If Scotland wishes to keep England then they would in that hypocritical need to do whatever it takes to convince English voters to vote down leaving. Squeaky wheel gets the grease.
If after all that English voters decide they still wish to leave that's their choice. So be it.
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...
Karel Sikoria reckons 50,000 cancer patients will go undiagnosed as we abandon many we are supposed to be treating in our obsession with this illness.
But as you say, sacrificing other people's family isn't an issue.
Would that be a late diagnosis, or completely undiagnosed? I suspect that has a dramatic difference in outcomes.
I don;t know
What I do know is that disease and pestilence has cut swathes through the British population down the centuries in far worse ways than Corona and the government of the day has never, ever responded in this insane way.
Why? because private sector prosperity is the only way to human progress and progress is the only way to fight disease better.
This is from Wikipedia, on "preventative measures" during the Great Plague of London:
Reports of plague around Europe began to reach England in the 1660s, causing the Privy Council to consider what steps might be taken to prevent it crossing to England. Quarantining of ships had been used during previous outbreaks and was again introduced for ships coming to London in November 1663, following outbreaks in Amsterdam and Hamburg. Two naval ships were assigned to intercept any vessels entering the Thames estuary. Ships from infected ports were required to moor at Hole Haven on Canvey Island for a period of 30 days before being allowed to travel upriver. Ships from ports free of plague or completing their quarantine were given a certificate of health and allowed to travel on. A second inspection line was established between the forts on opposite banks of the Thames at Tilbury and Gravesend with instructions only to pass ships with a certificate.
The quarantine duration was increased to forty days in May 1664 as the continental plague worsened, and the areas subject to quarantine changed with the news of the spread of plague to include all of Holland, Zeeland and Friesland (all regions of the Dutch Republic); restrictions on Hamburg were removed in November. Quarantine measures against ships coming from the Dutch Republic were put in place in 29 other ports from May, starting with Great Yarmouth. The Dutch ambassador objected at the constraint of trade with his country, but England responded that it had been one of the last countries introducing such restrictions. Regulations were enforced quite strictly, so that people or houses where voyagers had come ashore without serving their quarantine were also subjected to 40 days of quarantine.
That's well before the height of the outbreak, by the way.
From the same page:
As plague spread, a system of quarantine was introduced, whereby any house where someone had died from plague would be locked up and no one allowed to enter or leave for 40 days. This frequently led to the deaths of the other inhabitants, by neglect if not from the plague, and provided ample incentive not to report the disease.
I call bullshit on your claim. If they'd known what we know now, they'd have done exactly the same. As it was, they had to guess, got it sort of right, and lots of people died despite their actions.
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.
Made all the more tragic that it is basically a disease that kills retired people who are no longer of working age.
It would be perfectly possible to lock down the oldies (a voluntary lockdown, at that) while the rest of us get on with our business.
It wouldn't be a complete return to normal, large events and gatherings would still be cancelled, people wearing masks on public transport etc. Things to reduce the spread.
But the economy could re-open tomorrow, starting with the under 45s and moving to the under 65s as we build up NHS capacity.
It is a completely unnecessary self-inflicted immolation of the economy which we will all end up paying for. For many years.
For now we are in the phony war. People are on furlough, still being paid. But as the money runs out, the redundancies happen, the businesses collapse, the social security bill becomes overwhelming and the tax base shrinks to a fraction of its former size, plenty of us will be here to say "I told you so".
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?
"The German Green party said Britain could only hope to take part in data-sharing schemes if it accepted the EU’s standards for data protection, and therefore the jurisdiction of the European court of justice."
So we *can* take part, just as long as we don't engage in Cakeism.
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...
Karel Sikoria reckons 50,000 cancer patients will go undiagnosed as we abandon many we are supposed to be treating in our obsession with this illness.
But as you say, sacrificing other people's family isn't an issue.
Would that be a late diagnosis, or completely undiagnosed? I suspect that has a dramatic difference in outcomes.
I don;t know
What I do know is that disease and pestilence has cut swathes through the British population down the centuries in far worse ways than Corona and the government of the day has never, ever responded in this insane way.
Why? because private sector prosperity is the only way to human progress and progress is the only way to fight disease better.
This is from Wikipedia, on "preventative measures" during the Great Plague of London:
Reports of plague around Europe began to reach England in the 1660s, causing the Privy Council to consider what steps might be taken to prevent it crossing to England. Quarantining of ships had been used during previous outbreaks and was again introduced for ships coming to London in November 1663, following outbreaks in Amsterdam and Hamburg. Two naval ships were assigned to intercept any vessels entering the Thames estuary. Ships from infected ports were required to moor at Hole Haven on Canvey Island for a period of 30 days before being allowed to travel upriver. Ships from ports free of plague or completing their quarantine were given a certificate of health and allowed to travel on. A second inspection line was established between the forts on opposite banks of the Thames at Tilbury and Gravesend with instructions only to pass ships with a certificate.
The quarantine duration was increased to forty days in May 1664 as the continental plague worsened, and the areas subject to quarantine changed with the news of the spread of plague to include all of Holland, Zeeland and Friesland (all regions of the Dutch Republic); restrictions on Hamburg were removed in November. Quarantine measures against ships coming from the Dutch Republic were put in place in 29 other ports from May, starting with Great Yarmouth. The Dutch ambassador objected at the constraint of trade with his country, but England responded that it had been one of the last countries introducing such restrictions. Regulations were enforced quite strictly, so that people or houses where voyagers had come ashore without serving their quarantine were also subjected to 40 days of quarantine.
That's well before the height of the outbreak, by the way.
From the same page:
As plague spread, a system of quarantine was introduced, whereby any house where someone had died from plague would be locked up and no one allowed to enter or leave for 40 days. This frequently led to the deaths of the other inhabitants, by neglect if not from the plague, and provided ample incentive not to report the disease.
I call bullshit on your claim. If they'd known what we know now, they'd have done exactly the same. As it was, they had to guess, got it sort of right, and lots of people died despite their actions.
Oh please, please
You only prove my point. Plague was far more deadly than Corona, the means of fighting it at the time was non-existent and the yet the system of quarantine centred on the infected not the healthy and as such was much, much less draconian than what we have now.
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.
I don't disagree but let's carry on because I think the imbalance in size creates an issue. Assume the following (although perhaps neither of us believes it to be true) -
(i) If England leaves, the UK would fracture into 4 pieces. Eng, Sco, Wal, NI. (ii) And Sco, Wal, and NI would all now be poorer than they were. (iii) And ONLY England wants to leave.
Do you not see at least a problem there?
What happens if various parts of England wish to remain within the UK? Would England then break up into its component parts - Anglia - Wessex - Mercia - Northumbria - Cornwall etc?
That's another layer of complexity. Hadn't thought about that. So now we have a new UK comprising Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the "Remain" regions of England. Yes, I can picture that. Could be quite an interesting place.
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...
Karel Sikoria reckons 50,000 cancer patients will go undiagnosed as we abandon many we are supposed to be treating in our obsession with this illness.
But as you say, sacrificing other people's family isn't an issue.
Would that be a late diagnosis, or completely undiagnosed? I suspect that has a dramatic difference in outcomes.
I don;t know
What I do know is that disease and pestilence has cut swathes through the British population down the centuries in far worse ways than Corona and the government of the day has never, ever responded in this insane way.
Why? because private sector prosperity is the only way to human progress and progress is the only way to fight disease better.
This is from Wikipedia, on "preventative measures" during the Great Plague of London:
Reports of plague around Europe began to reach England in the 1660s, causing the Privy Council to consider what steps might be taken to prevent it crossing to England. Quarantining of ships had been used during previous outbreaks and was again introduced for ships coming to London in November 1663, following outbreaks in Amsterdam and Hamburg. Two naval ships were assigned to intercept any vessels entering the Thames estuary. Ships from infected ports were required to moor at Hole Haven on Canvey Island for a period of 30 days before being allowed to travel upriver. Ships from ports free of plague or completing their quarantine were given a certificate of health and allowed to travel on. A second inspection line was established between the forts on opposite banks of the Thames at Tilbury and Gravesend with instructions only to pass ships with a certificate.
The quarantine duration was increased to forty days in May 1664 as the continental plague worsened, and the areas subject to quarantine changed with the news of the spread of plague to include all of Holland, Zeeland and Friesland (all regions of the Dutch Republic); restrictions on Hamburg were removed in November. Quarantine measures against ships coming from the Dutch Republic were put in place in 29 other ports from May, starting with Great Yarmouth. The Dutch ambassador objected at the constraint of trade with his country, but England responded that it had been one of the last countries introducing such restrictions. Regulations were enforced quite strictly, so that people or houses where voyagers had come ashore without serving their quarantine were also subjected to 40 days of quarantine.
That's well before the height of the outbreak, by the way.
From the same page:
As plague spread, a system of quarantine was introduced, whereby any house where someone had died from plague would be locked up and no one allowed to enter or leave for 40 days. This frequently led to the deaths of the other inhabitants, by neglect if not from the plague, and provided ample incentive not to report the disease.
I call bullshit on your claim. If they'd known what we know now, they'd have done exactly the same. As it was, they had to guess, got it sort of right, and lots of people died despite their actions.
Oh please, please
You only prove my point. Plague was far more deadly than Corona, the means of fighting it at the time was non-existent and the yet the system of quarantine centred on the infected not the healthy and as such was much, much less draconian than what we have now.
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.
Made all the more tragic that it is basically a disease that kills retired people who are no longer of working age.
It would be perfectly possible to lock down the oldies (a voluntary lockdown, at that) while the rest of us get on with our business.
It wouldn't be a complete return to normal, large events and gatherings would still be cancelled, people wearing masks on public transport etc. Things to reduce the spread.
But the economy could re-open tomorrow, starting with the under 45s and moving to the under 65s as we build up NHS capacity.
It is a completely unnecessary self-inflicted immolation of the economy which we will all end up paying for. For many years.
For now we are in the phony war. People are on furlough, still being paid. But as the money runs out, the redundancies happen, the businesses collapse, the social security bill becomes overwhelming and the tax base shrinks to a fraction of its former size, plenty of us will be here to say "I told you so".
I tend to be on the end the lockdown sooner rather than later but also, perhaps primarily because of the mental health issues.
I would say the majority of us here on PB are doing ok. I'm going to go with strongly, perhaps overwhelmingly ABC1 (Mike's advertisers please note).
We might have houses and gardens and access to the big outdoors.
Not so many, many others. Plus however many acres one might be able to amble around, the children (and I am taking the UN definition here of <18yrs old) must be suffering tremendously. Many have been wrenched from their schools, friends, exams, support networks.
For the most part, they can't jump onto chatrooms and have diverting and in depth conversations around train guages or R*d**h**d or, you know, what to put on pizzas.
For these people it must end and I realise I am committing the ultimate internet offence of won't someone think of the children but in this case I think they must.
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?
"The German Green party said Britain could only hope to take part in data-sharing schemes if it accepted the EU’s standards for data protection, and therefore the jurisdiction of the European court of justice."
So we *can* take part, just as long as we don't engage in Cakeism.
Any negotiation is Cakeism. That's the whole purpose of negotiations.
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
Obviously this is the very opposite of what you hope to see - England wishing to leave the UK and Scotland not - but leaving this aside, do you think that Scotland, Wales and NI could form a feasible entity? I've always assumed not.
Yes if they wanted to. No reason whatsoever why not. Stranger entities exist.
You think? OK. It strikes me as a rather odd configuration, I have to say.
But anyway, pls see my post to @Carnyx for a clearer version of the issue I'm grappling with.
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...
Karel Sikoria reckons 50,000 cancer patients will go undiagnosed as we abandon many we are supposed to be treating in our obsession with this illness.
But as you say, sacrificing other people's family isn't an issue.
Would that be a late diagnosis, or completely undiagnosed? I suspect that has a dramatic difference in outcomes.
I don;t know
What I do know is that disease and pestilence has cut swathes through the British population down the centuries in far worse ways than Corona and the government of the day has never, ever responded in this insane way.
Why? because private sector prosperity is the only way to human progress and progress is the only way to fight disease better.
This is from Wikipedia, on "preventative measures" during the Great Plague of London:
Reports of plague around Europe began to reach England in the 1660s, causing the Privy Council to consider what steps might be taken to prevent it crossing to England. Quarantining of ships had been used during previous outbreaks and was again introduced for ships coming to London in November 1663, following outbreaks in Amsterdam and Hamburg. Two naval ships were assigned to intercept any vessels entering the Thames estuary. Ships from infected ports were required to moor at Hole Haven on Canvey Island for a period of 30 days before being allowed to travel upriver. Ships from ports free of plague or completing their quarantine were given a certificate of health and allowed to travel on. A second inspection line was established between the forts on opposite banks of the Thames at Tilbury and Gravesend with instructions only to pass ships with a certificate.
The quarantine duration was increased to forty days in May 1664 as the continental plague worsened, and the areas subject to quarantine changed with the news of the spread of plague to include all of Holland, Zeeland and Friesland (all regions of the Dutch Republic); restrictions on Hamburg were removed in November. Quarantine measures against ships coming from the Dutch Republic were put in place in 29 other ports from May, starting with Great Yarmouth. The Dutch ambassador objected at the constraint of trade with his country, but England responded that it had been one of the last countries introducing such restrictions. Regulations were enforced quite strictly, so that people or houses where voyagers had come ashore without serving their quarantine were also subjected to 40 days of quarantine.
That's well before the height of the outbreak, by the way.
From the same page:
As plague spread, a system of quarantine was introduced, whereby any house where someone had died from plague would be locked up and no one allowed to enter or leave for 40 days. This frequently led to the deaths of the other inhabitants, by neglect if not from the plague, and provided ample incentive not to report the disease.
I call bullshit on your claim. If they'd known what we know now, they'd have done exactly the same. As it was, they had to guess, got it sort of right, and lots of people died despite their actions.
If anything we are doing less than before.
I tend to agree. 40 days vs 7/14, and total quarantine on all incoming trade ships.
Against that, you have the focus on known outbreaks rather than a blanket house arrest. The question is, if they'd known that the former would be nowhere near enough and the latter was necessary to control the outbreak, would they have acted differently? I think there's a very simple answer.
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
Obviously this is the very opposite of what you hope to see - England wishing to leave the UK and Scotland not - but leaving this aside, do you think that Scotland, Wales and NI could form a feasible entity? I've always assumed not.
Yes if they wanted to. No reason whatsoever why not. Stranger entities exist.
You think? OK. It strikes me as a rather odd configuration, I have to say.
But anyway, pls see my post to @Carnyx for a clearer version of the issue I'm grappling with.
If you think it isn't an issue - fair enough.
I don't see an issue. If all parties want unification then good. If any don't so be it. If any do and don't want the others to leave the onus is on them to make them want to stay. What's the problem?
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?
"The German Green party said Britain could only hope to take part in data-sharing schemes if it accepted the EU’s standards for data protection, and therefore the jurisdiction of the European court of justice."
So we *can* take part, just as long as we don't engage in Cakeism.
And we will let Germany access our data so long as they accept the jurisdiction of the UK Supreme Court. Fair?
Hence why I think that, on balance and despite the arguments the other way, only the smaller nations can decide to leave. England can't. Or at least, it's deeply problematical if it does.
In 1991, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan all voted in referendums to remain in the USSR.
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?
More likely the innate human ability/curse to look for and find patterns, whether they exist or not. There are an awful lot of countries to choose from, it would be odd if there weren't any coincidental alignments of anomalies (or, more correctly, random variation on daily data) between any of them.
Speaking of the curse of perpetual pattern recognition both Sweden and the UK have a "jump" in the number of deaths at approach the same time too, at the end of March. There's a gradual rise before hand, a step jump and then a gradual rise after.
Scottish Government discussion document on "next steps"
While we hope that scientific advances, such as treatments and a vaccine, will provide solutions in the longer term, in the more immediate future we will need to learn to live with this virus, possibly for some time to come. Our challenge therefore is to work out if and how we can continue to suppress it and minimise its harms, while restoring some semblance of normality to our everyday lives. We will always take a careful approach that seeks to protect life and reduce harm.
These decisions will not be easy. The challenge and necessary change that lie ahead of us will require us to adapt how we live our lives. That will require a concerted effort from all parts of Scottish society. Individual and collective responsibility will be needed to keep our country safe and we will need to draw on the collective ingenuity, innovation, creativity and perseverance that Scotland’s people have at their core.
Hence why I think that, on balance and despite the arguments the other way, only the smaller nations can decide to leave. England can't. Or at least, it's deeply problematical if it does.
In 1991, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan all voted in referendums to remain in the USSR.
The Soviet Union collapsed with dramatic speed in the last quarter of 1991. Between August and December, 10 republics declared their independence, largely out of fear of another coup. As earlier stated, Ukraine was the first of the republics of break ties with the Union. By the end of September, Gorbachev no longer had the authority to influence events outside of Moscow. He was challenged even there by Yeltsin, who had begun taking over what remained of the Soviet government, including the Kremlin.
On September 17, 1991, General Assembly resolution numbers 46/4, 46/5, and 46/6 admitted Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania to the United Nations, conforming to Security Council resolution numbers 709, 710, and 711 passed on September 12 without a vote.[112][113]
By 7 November 1991, most newspapers referred to the country as the 'former Soviet Union'.[114]
The final round of the Soviet Union's collapse began with a Ukrainian popular referendum on December 1, 1991, in which 90 percent of voters opted for independence. The secession of Ukraine, long second only to Russia in economic and political power, ended any realistic chance of Gorbachev keeping the Soviet Union together even on a limited scale. The leaders of the three Slavic republics, Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus (formerly Byelorussia), agreed to discuss possible alternatives to the union.
On December 8, the leaders of Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus secretly met in Belavezhskaya Pushcha, in western Belarus, and signed the Belavezha Accords, which proclaimed the Soviet Union had ceased to exist and announced formation of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) as a looser association to take its place. They also invited other republics to join the CIS. Gorbachev called it an unconstitutional coup. However, by this time there was no longer any reasonable doubt that, as the preamble of the Accords put it, "the USSR, as a subject of international law and a geopolitical reality, is ceasing its existence."
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.
I don't disagree but let's carry on because I think the imbalance in size creates an issue. Assume the following (although perhaps neither of us believes it to be true) -
(i) If England leaves, the UK would fracture into 4 pieces. Eng, Sco, Wal, NI. (ii) And Sco, Wal, and NI would all now be poorer than they were. (iii) And ONLY England wants to leave.
Do you not see at least a problem there?
What happens if various parts of England wish to remain within the UK? Would England then break up into its component parts - Anglia - Wessex - Mercia - Northumbria - Cornwall etc?
That's another layer of complexity. Hadn't thought about that. So now we have a new UK comprising Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the "Remain" regions of England. Yes, I can picture that. Could be quite an interesting place.
Serous question, as I really don't recall, but other than London, where were the remain parts of England?
Comments
Loads of Swedish Liverpool and horse racing fans
If this lasted years how many would die due to the lockdown? How many in the future due to the NHS not being able to get as much funds in the future? It's not zero.
While this country remains dependent upon imported PPE we continue to be at higher risk than we would be if we had sufficient production facilities to meet demand.
After the factories processes are changed to be PPE based, PPE will be it's normal production.
Why would the factory wish to switch away from producing PPE which is highly in demand before the point where it is no longer demanded?
Never tried writing a film but rewriting other stuff has always been something I've loathed.
But as you say, sacrificing other people's family isn't an issue.
Which is how the problem originated.
https://www.bristol.ac.uk/news/2020/april/covid-19-vaccine-trials.html
(i) If England leaves, the UK would fracture into 4 pieces. Eng, Sco, Wal, NI.
(ii) And Sco, Wal, and NI would all now be poorer than they were.
(iii) And ONLY England wants to leave.
Do you not see at least a problem there?
And I said if there are still issues with PPE in a few months time then the government will have no excuses.
Is this an exercise to build up domestic PPE capacity or domestic manufacturing capacity? Richard seems to really want the latter but under the guise of the former.
Now we're trapped in a circular argument so I'll stop now.
But I will say again that if there are PPE issues in a few months then the government will deserve the blame it gets.
Austria, Germany, and Slovenia confirmed they would not extradite their nationals to the UK during the 11-month transition period which starts tomorrow.
All three countries are forbidden by their own constitutions to extradite their own citizens to non-EU countries, which the UK will became on Thursday, and each country would likely to have to change its constitution in order to close the potential loophole.
It raises the prospect that a German, Austrian, or Slovenian national could commit a crime in the UK before fleeing to their respective home country, thereby escaping criminal prosecution in the UK during this year.
https://www.businessinsider.com/eu-countries-have-stopped-extraditing-criminals-to-uk-after-brexit-2020-1
Someone was asking the other day if vaccine trial participants would be warned about the dangers of ADE. If you click though to the information sheet, you can see that they are:
https://covid19vaccinetrial.co.uk/files/pisimperialv4pdf
...Theoretical Concerns – could this vaccine make COVID-19 disease worse?
In the past, experimental vaccines were developed by different research groups against the SARS virus, which is in the same family as the COVID-19 virus and also infects the lungs. In some cases, animals that received certain types of experimental SARS vaccines appeared to develop more severe lung inflammation when they were later infected with SARS compared with unvaccinated animals. There has also been one report of this increased disease-associated inflammation being seen in a mouse study for a vaccine against MERS-CoV (another related virus) but this has not been observed in any other reported animal studies. These problems were not seen in animal studies with ChAdOx1- MersCoV vaccine, which is very similar to the vaccine being used in this study, when the animals were exposed to the wild virus. Studies of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in animals are currently ongoing but: we do not yet know whether this could also be a side effect of exposure to the pandemic COVID- 19 virus in this COVID-19 vaccine study, whether this effect could occur in humans or whether this might lead to more severe COVID-19 disease in some cases...
FWIW, I think this risk, while possible, pretty remote.
What I do know is that disease and pestilence has cut swathes through the British population down the centuries in far worse ways than Corona and the government of the day has never, ever responded in this insane way.
Why? because private sector prosperity is the only way to human progress and progress is the only way to fight disease better.
But once capacity is up and the Nightingale's are up and running and there is adequate PPE and testing then the lockdown must end.
Temporary to build capacity makes sense, ongoing does not.
(i) Scotland would sink as an independent country.
(ii) Scotland should be an independent country.
In other words they are English "Scottish Nationalists" who are driven by antipathy towards Scotland.
And what these people always say is that Scottish independence should be voted on by the whole of the UK. They want to have a vote on it themselves. Their ideal (in such a referendum) is that Scotland votes No but England votes Yes - meaning the overall result is Yes because England is miles bigger.
Upshot is that rather than Scotland "gaining independence" they are "kicked out".
This is IMO not a good outcome. And it is (effectively) the same outcome that one would get in my hypothetical where England votes to leave the UK, thus breaking up the UK, with Scotland not wanting to be independent.
Hence why I think that, on balance and despite the arguments the other way, only the smaller nations can decide to leave. England can't. Or at least, it's deeply problematical if it does.
Reports of plague around Europe began to reach England in the 1660s, causing the Privy Council to consider what steps might be taken to prevent it crossing to England. Quarantining of ships had been used during previous outbreaks and was again introduced for ships coming to London in November 1663, following outbreaks in Amsterdam and Hamburg. Two naval ships were assigned to intercept any vessels entering the Thames estuary. Ships from infected ports were required to moor at Hole Haven on Canvey Island for a period of 30 days before being allowed to travel upriver. Ships from ports free of plague or completing their quarantine were given a certificate of health and allowed to travel on. A second inspection line was established between the forts on opposite banks of the Thames at Tilbury and Gravesend with instructions only to pass ships with a certificate.
The quarantine duration was increased to forty days in May 1664 as the continental plague worsened, and the areas subject to quarantine changed with the news of the spread of plague to include all of Holland, Zeeland and Friesland (all regions of the Dutch Republic); restrictions on Hamburg were removed in November. Quarantine measures against ships coming from the Dutch Republic were put in place in 29 other ports from May, starting with Great Yarmouth. The Dutch ambassador objected at the constraint of trade with his country, but England responded that it had been one of the last countries introducing such restrictions. Regulations were enforced quite strictly, so that people or houses where voyagers had come ashore without serving their quarantine were also subjected to 40 days of quarantine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Plague_of_London#Preventive_measures
That's well before the height of the outbreak, by the way.
From the same page:
As plague spread, a system of quarantine was introduced, whereby any house where someone had died from plague would be locked up and no one allowed to enter or leave for 40 days. This frequently led to the deaths of the other inhabitants, by neglect if not from the plague, and provided ample incentive not to report the disease.
I call bullshit on your claim. If they'd known what we know now, they'd have done exactly the same. As it was, they had to guess, got it sort of right, and lots of people died despite their actions.
If it's problematic if England leaves then the only fair and reasonable solution is for English voters to be convinced of the value of not leaving. If Scotland wishes to keep England then they would in that hypocritical need to do whatever it takes to convince English voters to vote down leaving. Squeaky wheel gets the grease.
If after all that English voters decide they still wish to leave that's their choice. So be it.
It would be perfectly possible to lock down the oldies (a voluntary lockdown, at that) while the rest of us get on with our business.
It wouldn't be a complete return to normal, large events and gatherings would still be cancelled, people wearing masks on public transport etc. Things to reduce the spread.
But the economy could re-open tomorrow, starting with the under 45s and moving to the under 65s as we build up NHS capacity.
It is a completely unnecessary self-inflicted immolation of the economy which we will all end up paying for. For many years.
For now we are in the phony war. People are on furlough, still being paid. But as the money runs out, the redundancies happen, the businesses collapse, the social security bill becomes overwhelming and the tax base shrinks to a fraction of its former size, plenty of us will be here to say "I told you so".
"The German Green party said Britain could only hope to take part in data-sharing schemes if it accepted the EU’s standards for data protection, and therefore the jurisdiction of the European court of justice."
So we *can* take part, just as long as we don't engage in Cakeism.
You only prove my point. Plague was far more deadly than Corona, the means of fighting it at the time was non-existent and the yet the system of quarantine centred on the infected not the healthy and as such was much, much less draconian than what we have now.
I would say the majority of us here on PB are doing ok. I'm going to go with strongly, perhaps overwhelmingly ABC1 (Mike's advertisers please note).
We might have houses and gardens and access to the big outdoors.
Not so many, many others. Plus however many acres one might be able to amble around, the children (and I am taking the UN definition here of <18yrs old) must be suffering tremendously. Many have been wrenched from their schools, friends, exams, support networks.
For the most part, they can't jump onto chatrooms and have diverting and in depth conversations around train guages or R*d**h**d or, you know, what to put on pizzas.
For these people it must end and I realise I am committing the ultimate internet offence of won't someone think of the children but in this case I think they must.
But anyway, pls see my post to @Carnyx for a clearer version of the issue I'm grappling with.
If you think it isn't an issue - fair enough.
Against that, you have the focus on known outbreaks rather than a blanket house arrest. The question is, if they'd known that the former would be nowhere near enough and the latter was necessary to control the outbreak, would they have acted differently? I think there's a very simple answer.
58 in scotland, 17 in wales
While we hope that scientific advances, such as treatments and a vaccine, will provide solutions in the longer term, in the more immediate future we will need to learn to live with this virus, possibly for some time to come. Our challenge therefore is to work out if and how we can continue to suppress it and minimise its harms, while restoring some semblance of normality to our everyday lives. We will always take a careful approach that seeks to protect life and reduce harm.
These decisions will not be easy. The challenge and necessary change that lie ahead of us will require us to adapt how we live our lives. That will require a concerted effort from all parts of Scottish society. Individual and collective responsibility will be needed to keep our country safe and we will need to draw on the collective ingenuity, innovation, creativity and perseverance that Scotland’s people have at their core.
Everyone in Scotland has a part to play.
https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/strategy-plan/2020/04/coronavirus-covid-19-framework-decision-making/documents/coronavirus-covid-19-framework-decision-making/coronavirus-covid-19-framework-decision-making/govscot:document/coronavirus-covid-19-framework-decision-making.pdf
The Soviet Union collapsed with dramatic speed in the last quarter of 1991. Between August and December, 10 republics declared their independence, largely out of fear of another coup. As earlier stated, Ukraine was the first of the republics of break ties with the Union. By the end of September, Gorbachev no longer had the authority to influence events outside of Moscow. He was challenged even there by Yeltsin, who had begun taking over what remained of the Soviet government, including the Kremlin.
On September 17, 1991, General Assembly resolution numbers 46/4, 46/5, and 46/6 admitted Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania to the United Nations, conforming to Security Council resolution numbers 709, 710, and 711 passed on September 12 without a vote.[112][113]
By 7 November 1991, most newspapers referred to the country as the 'former Soviet Union'.[114]
The final round of the Soviet Union's collapse began with a Ukrainian popular referendum on December 1, 1991, in which 90 percent of voters opted for independence. The secession of Ukraine, long second only to Russia in economic and political power, ended any realistic chance of Gorbachev keeping the Soviet Union together even on a limited scale. The leaders of the three Slavic republics, Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus (formerly Byelorussia), agreed to discuss possible alternatives to the union.
On December 8, the leaders of Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus secretly met in Belavezhskaya Pushcha, in western Belarus, and signed the Belavezha Accords, which proclaimed the Soviet Union had ceased to exist and announced formation of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) as a looser association to take its place. They also invited other republics to join the CIS. Gorbachev called it an unconstitutional coup. However, by this time there was no longer any reasonable doubt that, as the preamble of the Accords put it, "the USSR, as a subject of international law and a geopolitical reality, is ceasing its existence."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_of_the_Soviet_Union#Fall:_August–December_1991
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EWSrByKXkAErU9y?format=png&name=large