Yep, we have missed his decisive scientific brain at these crucial times.
We have been assured, implicitly, by people who hate him, that he is a titanic presence and that the government is incapable of deciding anything even with a clear instruction of who is deputising for him without his firm hand on the tilller. So you jest, but people who dislike him the most seem to be clear we have missed him.
I don't hate him. He isn't worth the effort. He is just one of the over entitled, over confident, underskilled, public school bluffers that we so often get inflicted with in this country. Just a cork in a storm, tossed by the waves.
I didn't say you hated him. And I'm not a fan of his, though I am forced to concede he has proven me wrong on various occasions. But many people do hate him, and I think I am not a million miles away in speculating that there will be significant overlap with those people and those who panicked at his being out of action (not that questions about government decision-making and precedence in the circumstances was unreasonable, but more than a week of asking in a flap 'but who will make an urgent decision' was not that)and thus quite seriously missing his leadership even if they do not use that expression.
And I'd contest we are inflicted with such people. That makes it sound like it's something done to us. We choose them, repeatedly (collectively at any rate).
If hairdressers are closed for 6 month then a lot of people are going to never return. Buy clipper shares .
My wife has sheered me with the dog grooming clippers....
It looks bad...very bad....I mean very fucking bad....but she said I was a much better behaved specimen than my dog, Trotsky, throughout the ordeal.....
Mrs Foxy is threatening me with the dog shears. I suppose I should be grateful to have that much hair. Not going to take the risk though. She can loan me an Alice band.
I heard at some hospitals they have set up temporary hair salons to give NHS workers free hair cuts.
Yep, we have missed his decisive scientific brain at these crucial times.
We have been assured, implicitly, by people who hate him, that he is a titanic presence and that the government is incapable of deciding anything even with a clear instruction of who is deputising for him without his firm hand on the tilller. So you jest, but people who dislike him the most seem to be clear we have missed him.
Have we missed him because of his supreme ability to draw the nation together with his cheery optimism, or because he deliberately overpromoted those with limited talent to ensure he was seldom eclipsed? A bit of both perhaps.
If hairdressers are closed for 6 month then a lot of people are going to never return. Buy clipper shares .
My wife has sheered me with the dog grooming clippers....
It looks bad...very bad....I mean very fucking bad....but she said I was a much better behaved specimen than my dog, Trotsky, throughout the ordeal.....
Mrs Foxy is threatening me with the dog shears. I suppose I should be grateful to have that much hair. Not going to take the risk though. She can loan me an Alice band.
I heard at some hospitals they have set up temporary hair salons to give NHS workers free hair cuts.
They are sticking to their plan. Most Swedes (75%) support the plan. Partly relies on some sensible social distancing without force. Schools still open. Restaurants open with gap between tables. Health service ok, deaths higher than they would hope, but care homes is the issue there.
When asked what evidence there was that this would work, the response is what evidence do the rest of the world have that their plans will work.
If hairdressers are closed for 6 month then a lot of people are going to never return. Buy clipper shares .
My wife has sheered me with the dog grooming clippers....
It looks bad...very bad....I mean very fucking bad....but she said I was a much better behaved specimen than my dog, Trotsky, throughout the ordeal.....
Mrs Foxy is threatening me with the dog shears. I suppose I should be grateful to have that much hair. Not going to take the risk though. She can loan me an Alice band.
I heard at some hospitals they have set up temporary hair salons to give NHS workers free hair cuts.
Yep, we have missed his decisive scientific brain at these crucial times.
We have been assured, implicitly, by people who hate him, that he is a titanic presence and that the government is incapable of deciding anything even with a clear instruction of who is deputising for him without his firm hand on the tilller. So you jest, but people who dislike him the most seem to be clear we have missed him.
Have we missed him because of his supreme ability to draw the nation together with his cheery optimism, or because he deliberately overpromoted those with limited talent to ensure he was seldom eclipsed?
Neither or both are both possible. I don't think the reason was relevant.
I think all reasonable people will of course be glad his health is on the mend, and some people will be thrilled he is properly in charge, and others will be glad of the clarity of decision-making precedence that provides even as they continue to dislike him and decry the actions of his government in facing this challenge as wholly inadequate.
The point was that sarcasm about the qualities he brings to the position or this situation, whilst amusing, does not disguise that plenty of the arguments since he took ill do indicate his qualities have been missed. So the sarcasm rings rather hollow.
I find it hard to believe it has made all that much of a difference, particularly given the emphasis on scientific advice, though I would hope it would quell any potential mutterings of factioning in the Cabinet.
If hairdressers are closed for 6 month then a lot of people are going to never return. Buy clipper shares .
My wife has sheered me with the dog grooming clippers....
It looks bad...very bad....I mean very fucking bad....but she said I was a much better behaved specimen than my dog, Trotsky, throughout the ordeal.....
Mrs Foxy is threatening me with the dog shears. I suppose I should be grateful to have that much hair. Not going to take the risk though. She can loan me an Alice band.
I heard at some hospitals they have set up temporary hair salons to give NHS workers free hair cuts.
Maybe the Army could set up tempora.....
#2 all over being the only option.
Tyson would take that in a heartbeat!
Conincidentally, I have some clippers with only a #2 setting. Another week or so, and I might be desperate enough to use them.
If hairdressers are closed for 6 month then a lot of people are going to never return. Buy clipper shares .
My wife has sheered me with the dog grooming clippers....
It looks bad...very bad....I mean very fucking bad....but she said I was a much better behaved specimen than my dog, Trotsky, throughout the ordeal.....
Mrs Foxy is threatening me with the dog shears. I suppose I should be grateful to have that much hair. Not going to take the risk though. She can loan me an Alice band.
I heard at some hospitals they have set up temporary hair salons to give NHS workers free hair cuts.
My wife cut my hair the other day. I’m hardly an expert in these matters but I couldn’t tell the difference from my usual barber. Another £20 saved.
Yep, we have missed his decisive scientific brain at these crucial times.
We have been assured, implicitly, by people who hate him, that he is a titanic presence and that the government is incapable of deciding anything even with a clear instruction of who is deputising for him without his firm hand on the tilller. So you jest, but people who dislike him the most seem to be clear we have missed him.
Have we missed him because of his supreme ability to draw the nation together with his cheery optimism, or because he deliberately overpromoted those with limited talent to ensure he was seldom eclipsed?
Neither or both are both possible.
I think all reasonable people will of course be glad his health is on the mend, and some people will be thrilled he is properly in charge, and others will be glad of the clarity of decision-making precedence that provides even as they continue to dislike him and decry the actions of his government in facing this challenge as wholly inadequate.
The point was that sarcasm about the qualities he brings to the position or this situation, whilst amusing, does not disguise that plenty of the arguments since he took ill do indicate his qualities have been missed.
I find it hard to believe it has made all that much of a difference, particularly given the emphasis on scientific advice, though I would hope it would quell any potential mutterings of factioning in the Cabinet.
I am relieved Mr Johnson is making a full recovery. I would also have liked the brave medical staff who have succumbed to this dreadful virus to have made it out the other side, sadly they haven't. So I am, like Nurse Jenny giving Mr Johnson no special treatment.
For the moment I would like to give Mr Johnson my full support to get us through this crisis. I hope he does a fantastic job.
I do not want Mr Johnson to base his judgements on the more populist alternatives that are presented to him, primarily for political advantage. He has done that in the past, I sincerely hope he will not revert to that type for the remainder of the pandemic.
Once it is all over, and I want him to succeed with as few casualties, as is possible, he will nonetheless have some questions on the decisions he has already made and is yet to make.
Yeah, that was an utterly pathetic display from him.
Both times he interviewed her were cringeworthy efforts by him. I think accusing politicians of not caring/laughing about old people in care homes dying is really pathetic. There can’t be anyone who actually believes it, Piers Morgamncertainly doesn’t, he just wants social media clicks/likes
Sweden’s strategy depends on a very cohesive social structure in which the people trust the government. How does that fit with the narrative of Sweden falling apart on the back of societal breakdown caused by sky high immigration?
...well they do say at the point when one is about to meet their maker they see a bright white light.
On the second point haven't there been fatalities in America from people 'cleansing' their bodies by ingesting neat bleach? Don't try this at home kids!
I think my mother may have a complete meltdown in the morning when sees The Sun is reporting that she won't be able to have her hair done until October!
I reckon if the govt are doing 100,000 tests a day by the end of the month there will be a few clowns saying it was because Starmer put the heat on them!
I think my mother may have a complete meltdown in the morning when sees The Sun is reporting that she won't be able to have her hair done until October!
Was it Denmark that opened these this week and tattoo parlours...I mean really...tatto's...it that really necessary.
On the second point haven't there been fatalities in America from people 'cleansing' their bodies by ingesting neat bleach? Don't try this at home kids!
There was a "Church of Bleach" that claimed its sacred product could cure cv19 (as well as AIDS, for good measure).
What is the betting they will try and make us contribute as fees in the transition period are calculated on the budget
from the agreement
EU annual budgets commit to some future spending without making payments to recipients at the time. The commitments will become payments in the future. The UK will contribute towards the EU’s outstanding commitmentsas at 31 December 2020
Trump is a classic case of taking one concept and extending it way beyond the realistic
1. Products that may be considered useable, ie not going to injure you like drinking bleach are likely to have some kind of impact on Sars Cov 2 in the mouth and throat, which is a potentially useful part of a layered prevention of spread
2. There is growing evidence that sunlight and humidity do reduce the half life of the virus
Trump has probably picked up on these and frankensteined it
On the plus side if the latter is true the two weeks down in Benidorm is still on....
Dukakis was averaging 10% national poll leads after the 1984 Dem Convention.....
There is a long way to go...and the GOP are going to fight dirty...
True but Biden is tougher than Dukakis and more of a bruiser and Bush Snr was more centrist than Trump is.
I agree it will be close though, the Trump campaign will likely go negative over the summer
I don't think there has ever been a time when the Trump campaign was not going negative.
This is going to be the ugliest, horrible, depressing, fight-in-the gutter election campaign in history.
And Joe is up for it I reckon.
Push him in the chest and he'll kick you in the balls soon as look at you. He may not be able to remember his own name, but I reckon the Dems have picked the right, indeed the only, candidate for the situation.
On the plus side if the latter is true the two weeks down in Benidorm is still on...
Is there any speculation in your circles about countries whose regimes might topple during this crisis?
Directly related to Coronavirus? Too early unless someone at the top croaks it.
Its the next year knock on of economic hardship that would do damage to some regimes but none of the major actors that the world has an eye on looks in immediate danger.
From a non-expert point of view, the very strict lockdowns in Spain, Italy and France don't seem to be producing noticeably different results to countries with less stringent lockdowns like the UK.
From a non-expert point of view, the very strict lockdowns in Spain, Italy and France don't seem to be producing noticeably different results to countries with less stringent lockdowns like the UK.
The problem is that lockdowns happened at different stages. Italy and Spain (like NYC) didn't lockdown until the virus was very widespread.
From a non-expert point of view, the very strict lockdowns in Spain, Italy and France don't seem to be producing noticeably different results to countries with less stringent lockdowns like the UK.
If you take the standard idea that the only way you can sort this is by infection or vaccine based immunity then it wont anyway, all you are doing is managing the period in which deaths occur and maybe top slicing a percentage off the total that would die if the health systems are overwhelmed.
The question is what is the acceptable additional loss if the health system did struggle with demand if you took less societal and economically impactful measures to slow infection rates. If you saved a thousand lives, two thousand..ten thousand when does the stricter lockdown become worth it?
What is the betting they will try and make us contribute as fees in the transition period are calculated on the budget
from the agreement
EU annual budgets commit to some future spending without making payments to recipients at the time. The commitments will become payments in the future. The UK will contribute towards the EU’s outstanding commitmentsas at 31 December 2020
From a non-expert point of view, the very strict lockdowns in Spain, Italy and France don't seem to be producing noticeably different results to countries with less stringent lockdowns like the UK.
If you take the standard idea that the only way you can sort this is by infection or vaccine based immunity then it wont anyway, all you are doing is managing the period in which deaths occur and maybe top slicing a percentage off the total that would die if the health systems are overwhelmed.
"Vaccine" and "infection" are completely different things, and I think it's fair to say that the second of those, "manage it by letting everyone getting infected until herd immunity", is now a *fringe* idea, not a *standard* one, although that may change as we get more data.
If you get a vaccine then you're not managing the period in which deaths occur, you're preventing the deaths from occurring.
From a non-expert point of view, the very strict lockdowns in Spain, Italy and France don't seem to be producing noticeably different results to countries with less stringent lockdowns like the UK.
The problem is that lockdowns happened at different stages. Italy and Spain (like NYC) didn't lockdown until the virus was very widespread.
What’s your guess as to why there is an East/West divide in Europe regarding covid deaths?
What is the betting they will try and make us contribute as fees in the transition period are calculated on the budget
from the agreement
EU annual budgets commit to some future spending without making payments to recipients at the time. The commitments will become payments in the future. The UK will contribute towards the EU’s outstanding commitmentsas at 31 December 2020
It might be cheaper to rejoin?
It seems that some countries budget contributions will be at least doubling.
From a non-expert point of view, the very strict lockdowns in Spain, Italy and France don't seem to be producing noticeably different results to countries with less stringent lockdowns like the UK.
The problem is that lockdowns happened at different stages. Italy and Spain (like NYC) didn't lockdown until the virus was very widespread.
What’s your guess as to why there is an East/West divide in Europe regarding covid deaths?
Care homes.
In Eastern Europe, old people stay at home. In Western Europe they get dumped into care homes which get utterly ravaged by CV-19.
What is the betting they will try and make us contribute as fees in the transition period are calculated on the budget
from the agreement
EU annual budgets commit to some future spending without making payments to recipients at the time. The commitments will become payments in the future. The UK will contribute towards the EU’s outstanding commitmentsas at 31 December 2020
It might be cheaper to rejoin?
It seems that some countries budget contributions will be at least doubling.
Which countries? And from what levels?
If you were contributing 5% of GDP and it goes to 10%, that's massive. But if you were contributing 0.1% of GDP and it goes to 0.2%, you probably won't even notice.
From a non-expert point of view, the very strict lockdowns in Spain, Italy and France don't seem to be producing noticeably different results to countries with less stringent lockdowns like the UK.
The problem is that lockdowns happened at different stages. Italy and Spain (like NYC) didn't lockdown until the virus was very widespread.
And also we don't have the culture of hugging, kissing and heavily living in multi generational houses or popping round Grandmas to be fed late into your 30s.
The plan is for the ECB to pay for it. (Not joking.)
What I have seen reported so far seems to indicate that one part of the plan relies on the ECB paying for some things, but that the overall plan has several other elements as well, some of them having more prosperous countries paying much more directly for less prosperous countries.
On the "ECB paying for it" part I have two questions:
a) is that wrong to begin with, given the current circumstances, and
b) do you think the BOE will pay proportionally less for HMG's plans?
From a non-expert point of view, the very strict lockdowns in Spain, Italy and France don't seem to be producing noticeably different results to countries with less stringent lockdowns like the UK.
If you take the standard idea that the only way you can sort this is by infection or vaccine based immunity then it wont anyway, all you are doing is managing the period in which deaths occur and maybe top slicing a percentage off the total that would die if the health systems are overwhelmed.
"Vaccine" and "infection" are completely different things, and I think it's fair to say that the second of those, "manage it by letting everyone getting infected until herd immunity", is now a *fringe* idea, not a *standard* one, although that may change as we get more data.
If you get a vaccine then you're not managing the period in which deaths occur, you're preventing the deaths from occurring.
Yes and as it stands there is no vaccine so the semantics are not relevant to the reality. Right now all you are doing is managing spread not truly suppressing the virus. Herd immunity through infection as a strategy is indeed not widely adopted but it doesn't mean that's not where you end up in the absence of a vaccine because there is no other deliberate strategy to suppress the virus as an entity.
What is the betting they will try and make us contribute as fees in the transition period are calculated on the budget
from the agreement
EU annual budgets commit to some future spending without making payments to recipients at the time. The commitments will become payments in the future. The UK will contribute towards the EU’s outstanding commitmentsas at 31 December 2020
It might be cheaper to rejoin?
It seems that some countries budget contributions will be at least doubling.
Which countries? And from what levels?
If you were contributing 5% of GDP and it goes to 10%, that's massive. But if you were contributing 0.1% of GDP and it goes to 0.2%, you probably won't even notice.
I have heard that there's a proposal to raise contributions to the MFF from ca 1% to 1,9%. Net contributions will vary, of course.
Maybe this is the sort of report that explains why journalists are held in such low regard by the public. Do they really expect people to believe that there hasn't been a single death from coronavirus in a country bordering the nation where the epidemic started? (Or even just a handful, if we're not supposed to take it so literally).
"Vietnam lifts lockdown: How a country of 95m bordering China recorded zero coronavirus deaths"
From a non-expert point of view, the very strict lockdowns in Spain, Italy and France don't seem to be producing noticeably different results to countries with less stringent lockdowns like the UK.
If you take the standard idea that the only way you can sort this is by infection or vaccine based immunity then it wont anyway, all you are doing is managing the period in which deaths occur and maybe top slicing a percentage off the total that would die if the health systems are overwhelmed.
"Vaccine" and "infection" are completely different things, and I think it's fair to say that the second of those, "manage it by letting everyone getting infected until herd immunity", is now a *fringe* idea, not a *standard* one, although that may change as we get more data.
If you get a vaccine then you're not managing the period in which deaths occur, you're preventing the deaths from occurring.
Yes and as it stands there is no vaccine so the semantics are not relevant to the reality. Right now all you are doing is managing spread not truly suppressing the virus. Herd immunity through infection as a strategy is indeed not widely adopted but it doesn't mean that's not where you end up in the absence of a vaccine because there is no other deliberate strategy to suppress the virus as an entity.
Since there may be a vaccine in future this difference is extremely relevant to policy and not semantics.
There absolutely is a suppression strategy - it's to keep the average infection rate below 1, using test-and-isolate to quickly stop infected people from infecting other people, and if that's not enough on its own, continue social distancing as far as required - which has a huge spectrum from improving ventilation in high-risk places to closing some of those places all the way to Wuhan-style lockdown.
It may well turn out that the suppression strategy isn't worth the costs, and that's a totally legitimate argument, but there's tendency among some of the herd immunity proponents to pretend that there is *no alternative* letting widespread infection happen. The dishonesty of this is much more obvious from East Asia, where governments acted faster to suppress.
From a non-expert point of view, the very strict lockdowns in Spain, Italy and France don't seem to be producing noticeably different results to countries with less stringent lockdowns like the UK.
If you take the standard idea that the only way you can sort this is by infection or vaccine based immunity then it wont anyway, all you are doing is managing the period in which deaths occur and maybe top slicing a percentage off the total that would die if the health systems are overwhelmed.
"Vaccine" and "infection" are completely different things, and I think it's fair to say that the second of those, "manage it by letting everyone getting infected until herd immunity", is now a *fringe* idea, not a *standard* one, although that may change as we get more data.
If you get a vaccine then you're not managing the period in which deaths occur, you're preventing the deaths from occurring.
Yes and as it stands there is no vaccine so the semantics are not relevant to the reality. Right now all you are doing is managing spread not truly suppressing the virus. Herd immunity through infection as a strategy is indeed not widely adopted but it doesn't mean that's not where you end up in the absence of a vaccine because there is no other deliberate strategy to suppress the virus as an entity.
Since there may be a vaccine in future this difference is extremely relevant to policy and not semantics.
There absolutely is a suppression strategy - it's to keep the average infection rate below 1, using test-and-isolate to quickly stop infected people from infecting other people, and if that's not enough on its own, continue social distancing as far as required - which has a huge spectrum from improving ventilation in high-risk places to closing some of those places all the way to Wuhan-style lockdown.
It may well turn out that the suppression strategy isn't worth the costs, and that's a totally legitimate argument, but there's tendency among some of the herd immunity proponents to pretend that there is *no alternative* letting widespread infection happen. The dishonesty of this is much more obvious from East Asia, where governments acted faster to suppress.
Bear in mind I'm asking a question rather than expressing an opinion, whats the cost worth in additional lost lives if you are less restrictive in your measures and potentially stretching your healthcare system.
I wish Sweden would invade the UK so we could get rid of the lockdown.
Glorious Revolution 2.0.
They’re going to make us disperse around the country as far as apart as Swedes are? Will we even fit? At least it’d stop the planks who can’t do their own social distancing,
From a non-expert point of view, the very strict lockdowns in Spain, Italy and France don't seem to be producing noticeably different results to countries with less stringent lockdowns like the UK.
If you take the standard idea that the only way you can sort this is by infection or vaccine based immunity then it wont anyway, all you are doing is managing the period in which deaths occur and maybe top slicing a percentage off the total that would die if the health systems are overwhelmed.
"Vaccine" and "infection" are completely different things, and I think it's fair to say that the second of those, "manage it by letting everyone getting infected until herd immunity", is now a *fringe* idea, not a *standard* one, although that may change as we get more data.
If you get a vaccine then you're not managing the period in which deaths occur, you're preventing the deaths from occurring.
Yes and as it stands there is no vaccine so the semantics are not relevant to the reality. Right now all you are doing is managing spread not truly suppressing the virus. Herd immunity through infection as a strategy is indeed not widely adopted but it doesn't mean that's not where you end up in the absence of a vaccine because there is no other deliberate strategy to suppress the virus as an entity.
Since there may be a vaccine in future this difference is extremely relevant to policy and not semantics.
There absolutely is a suppression strategy - it's to keep the average infection rate below 1, using test-and-isolate to quickly stop infected people from infecting other people, and if that's not enough on its own, continue social distancing as far as required - which has a huge spectrum from improving ventilation in high-risk places to closing some of those places all the way to Wuhan-style lockdown.
It may well turn out that the suppression strategy isn't worth the costs, and that's a totally legitimate argument, but there's tendency among some of the herd immunity proponents to pretend that there is *no alternative* letting widespread infection happen. The dishonesty of this is much more obvious from East Asia, where governments acted faster to suppress.
Bear in mind I'm asking a question rather than expressing an opinion, whats the cost worth in additional lost lives if you are less restrictive in your measures and potentially stretching your healthcare system.
That question is fine, but the premises you keep stating to it aren't.
Swedish government: we trust people. All other governments: we don't trust people.
Japan is also voluntary, likewise I think quite a few US states?
And some fun data for libertarian-minded people:
In most countries people waited for their government to tell them what to do. However, in Hong Kong (admittedly lots of SARS experience), the people are at war with their government, so they didn't wait for it to lead. They acted faster than anyone else.
From a non-expert point of view, the very strict lockdowns in Spain, Italy and France don't seem to be producing noticeably different results to countries with less stringent lockdowns like the UK.
The problem is that lockdowns happened at different stages. Italy and Spain (like NYC) didn't lockdown until the virus was very widespread.
What’s your guess as to why there is an East/West divide in Europe regarding covid deaths?
They acted pretty fast and brought in strict lockdowns before the virus took hold.
A lot of the early stages of spread were connected to travel and mass gatherings. Italy and the UK fared badly.
From a non-expert point of view, the very strict lockdowns in Spain, Italy and France don't seem to be producing noticeably different results to countries with less stringent lockdowns like the UK.
The problem is that lockdowns happened at different stages. Italy and Spain (like NYC) didn't lockdown until the virus was very widespread.
What’s your guess as to why there is an East/West divide in Europe regarding covid deaths?
Countries at different stages of the outbreak, all locking down at roughly the same time. Look at curves not just numbers
From a non-expert point of view, the very strict lockdowns in Spain, Italy and France don't seem to be producing noticeably different results to countries with less stringent lockdowns like the UK.
The problem is that lockdowns happened at different stages. Italy and Spain (like NYC) didn't lockdown until the virus was very widespread.
What’s your guess as to why there is an East/West divide in Europe regarding covid deaths?
They acted pretty fast and brought in strict lockdowns before the virus took hold.
A lot of the early stages of spread were connected to travel and mass gatherings. Italy and the UK fared badly.
And a week is a long time in an uncontrolled Covid outbreak...
From a non-expert point of view, the very strict lockdowns in Spain, Italy and France don't seem to be producing noticeably different results to countries with less stringent lockdowns like the UK.
If you take the standard idea that the only way you can sort this is by infection or vaccine based immunity then it wont anyway, all you are doing is managing the period in which deaths occur and maybe top slicing a percentage off the total that would die if the health systems are overwhelmed.
"Vaccine" and "infection" are completely different things, and I think it's fair to say that the second of those, "manage it by letting everyone getting infected until herd immunity", is now a *fringe* idea, not a *standard* one, although that may change as we get more data.
If you get a vaccine then you're not managing the period in which deaths occur, you're preventing the deaths from occurring.
A vaccine is the holy grail but could easily never be reached. We've been trying to vaccinate against coronaviruses for years.
From a non-expert point of view, the very strict lockdowns in Spain, Italy and France don't seem to be producing noticeably different results to countries with less stringent lockdowns like the UK.
I think that's right. France and Spain perhaps couldn't resist the jackboot, but it wasn't necessary.
From a non-expert point of view, the very strict lockdowns in Spain, Italy and France don't seem to be producing noticeably different results to countries with less stringent lockdowns like the UK.
I think that's right. France and Spain perhaps couldn't resist the jackboot, but it wasn't necessary.
That's probably right, although TBF it would have been hard for them to know that at the time. The same goes for the *scale* of a lot of the recommended restrictions; People are probably enduring a lot of disruption to avoid doing things that didn't really matter, but you can't quite be sure, and the later your government left the response the more you have to err on the side of caution.
From a non-expert point of view, the very strict lockdowns in Spain, Italy and France don't seem to be producing noticeably different results to countries with less stringent lockdowns like the UK.
If you take the standard idea that the only way you can sort this is by infection or vaccine based immunity then it wont anyway, all you are doing is managing the period in which deaths occur and maybe top slicing a percentage off the total that would die if the health systems are overwhelmed.
"Vaccine" and "infection" are completely different things, and I think it's fair to say that the second of those, "manage it by letting everyone getting infected until herd immunity", is now a *fringe* idea, not a *standard* one, although that may change as we get more data.
If you get a vaccine then you're not managing the period in which deaths occur, you're preventing the deaths from occurring.
A vaccine is the holy grail but could easily never be reached. We've been trying to vaccinate against coronaviruses for years.
So we shouldn't put all our bets on that.
No but the whole scientific world is on this one whereas previously it has been a fraction.
The Oxford Uni team seem remarkably confident theirs is going to work and be ready by early autumn.
EiT - what is actually going on in Japan? There’s the fact they declared a “national emergency”. The very low levels of testing. “Reports” that hospitals are being overwhelmed with sick patients. Lack of PPE. And yet the numbers of recorded COVID deaths continue to bump along at pretty low levels.
Misreporting, or misrecording (or stricter definitions for recording)? Or a bit of both?
From a non-expert point of view, the very strict lockdowns in Spain, Italy and France don't seem to be producing noticeably different results to countries with less stringent lockdowns like the UK.
I think that's right. France and Spain perhaps couldn't resist the jackboot, but it wasn't necessary.
It saved a lot of lives. How many, we don’t know. But it was plenty. In Spain, at least, the high incidence of people living in cramped apartment blocks and the nature of familial relationships meant a pretty stringent lockdown was probably necessary given how slow the initial response was. In France, they have been very successful in restricting the geographical spread of the virus.
Swedish government: we trust people. All other governments: we don't trust people.
I’m old enough to remember when we were being told that high immigration and political correctness was driving Sweden to the point of societal breakdown.
From a non-expert point of view, the very strict lockdowns in Spain, Italy and France don't seem to be producing noticeably different results to countries with less stringent lockdowns like the UK.
I think that's right. France and Spain perhaps couldn't resist the jackboot, but it wasn't necessary.
That's probably right, although TBF it would have been hard for them to know that at the time. The same goes for the *scale* of a lot of the recommended restrictions; People are probably enduring a lot of disruption to avoid doing things that didn't really matter, but you can't quite be sure, and the later your government left the response the more you have to err on the side of caution.
Personally I wonder if ultimately the problem may come to be seen on the possibility that Governments have been too focussed on what needed to be done to prevent large numbers of cases, and not specifically on large numbers of deaths. It is very difficult it seems to me to reconcile the relative deaths rate per positive test in some countries with others. (outside of countries which, as far as we know, aren’t being “overwhelmed). It just seems far too great to explain by different standards of health care treatment. The “iceberg” testing theory doesn’t make sense unless there are enormous numbers of hidden cases in the worst affected countries.
Which tentatively suggests that in some countries people are catching it “safely” and in others not. Or the differences in the way deaths are recorded is too different to construct any meaningful comparison.
From a non-expert point of view, the very strict lockdowns in Spain, Italy and France don't seem to be producing noticeably different results to countries with less stringent lockdowns like the UK.
I think that's right. France and Spain perhaps couldn't resist the jackboot, but it wasn't necessary.
That's probably right, although TBF it would have been hard for them to know that at the time. The same goes for the *scale* of a lot of the recommended restrictions; People are probably enduring a lot of disruption to avoid doing things that didn't really matter, but you can't quite be sure, and the later your government left the response the more you have to err on the side of caution.
To be honest, just as the lockdown kind of voluntarily started a week before the Government made it official in the UK I expect it to end unofficially earlier too.
There's a steady drift of shops and businesses reopening and people are going out more and further, but still obeying social distancing.
My client is planning on the assumption they go back to work properly on 1st June, in the absence of any official announcement, and will only cancel those remobilisation plans if told explicitly not to do so.
From a non-expert point of view, the very strict lockdowns in Spain, Italy and France don't seem to be producing noticeably different results to countries with less stringent lockdowns like the UK.
I think that's right. France and Spain perhaps couldn't resist the jackboot, but it wasn't necessary.
That's probably right, although TBF it would have been hard for them to know that at the time. The same goes for the *scale* of a lot of the recommended restrictions; People are probably enduring a lot of disruption to avoid doing things that didn't really matter, but you can't quite be sure, and the later your government left the response the more you have to err on the side of caution.
Personally I wonder if ultimately the problem may come to be seen on the possibility that Governments have been too focussed on what needed to be done to prevent large numbers of cases, and not specifically on large numbers of deaths. It is very difficult it seems to me to reconcile the relative deaths rate per positive test in some countries with others. (outside of countries which, as far as we know, aren’t being “overwhelmed). It just seems far too great to explain by different standards of health care treatment. The “iceberg” testing theory doesn’t make sense unless there are enormous numbers of hidden cases in the worst affected countries.
Which tentatively suggests that in some countries people are catching it “safely” and in others not. Or the differences in the way deaths are recorded is too different to construct any meaningful comparison.
A lot of that might simply be lies, damned lies and statistics.
Applying Occam's razor: some states will simply be poor at counting tests, they may also lack the national statistics infrastructure and bureaucracy to do it, or those who report them may be corrupt with warped incentives to under report and the national government may have an overtly political agenda in reporting/ not reporting cases.
You have to be very careful in comparing country by country stats. They are not equivalent and you're not comparing apples with apples.
Swedish government: we trust people. All other governments: we don't trust people.
I’m old enough to remember when we were being told that high immigration and political correctness was driving Sweden to the point of societal breakdown.
From a non-expert point of view, the very strict lockdowns in Spain, Italy and France don't seem to be producing noticeably different results to countries with less stringent lockdowns like the UK.
I think that's right. France and Spain perhaps couldn't resist the jackboot, but it wasn't necessary.
It saved a lot of lives. How many, we don’t know. But it was plenty. In Spain, at least, the high incidence of people living in cramped apartment blocks and the nature of familial relationships meant a pretty stringent lockdown was probably necessary given how slow the initial response was. In France, they have been very successful in restricting the geographical spread of the virus.
Nah, that's retrospective justification. The rates are very similar to the UK where, we have just as much high density living in our inner cities. In fact, higher than Spain in many places.
Spain and France had much more stringent lockdowns because that's simply how policing is done in those countries and because of their culture.
Either you have a serious lockdown or none at all.
From a non-expert point of view, the very strict lockdowns in Spain, Italy and France don't seem to be producing noticeably different results to countries with less stringent lockdowns like the UK.
If you take the standard idea that the only way you can sort this is by infection or vaccine based immunity then it wont anyway, all you are doing is managing the period in which deaths occur and maybe top slicing a percentage off the total that would die if the health systems are overwhelmed.
"Vaccine" and "infection" are completely different things, and I think it's fair to say that the second of those, "manage it by letting everyone getting infected until herd immunity", is now a *fringe* idea, not a *standard* one, although that may change as we get more data.
If you get a vaccine then you're not managing the period in which deaths occur, you're preventing the deaths from occurring.
A vaccine is the holy grail but could easily never be reached. We've been trying to vaccinate against coronaviruses for years.
So we shouldn't put all our bets on that.
No but the whole scientific world is on this one whereas previously it has been a fraction.
The Oxford Uni team seem remarkably confident theirs is going to work and be ready by early autumn.
And yet we have our own CMO saying the chances of a vaccine in the next calendar year are "incredibly low".
The truth is we just don't know. And the scientific community isn't as one. This isn't an exact physics - it's much more like economics with lots of competing forecasts.
Comments
And I'd contest we are inflicted with such people. That makes it sound like it's something done to us. We choose them, repeatedly (collectively at any rate).
When asked what evidence there was that this would work, the response is what evidence do the rest of the world have that their plans will work.
"Come back in a year" is the key message.
I think all reasonable people will of course be glad his health is on the mend, and some people will be thrilled he is properly in charge, and others will be glad of the clarity of decision-making precedence that provides even as they continue to dislike him and decry the actions of his government in facing this challenge as wholly inadequate.
The point was that sarcasm about the qualities he brings to the position or this situation, whilst amusing, does not disguise that plenty of the arguments since he took ill do indicate his qualities have been missed. So the sarcasm rings rather hollow.
I find it hard to believe it has made all that much of a difference, particularly given the emphasis on scientific advice, though I would hope it would quell any potential mutterings of factioning in the Cabinet.
Pleasant night to all.
Another week or so, and I might be desperate enough to use them.
For the moment I would like to give Mr Johnson my full support to get us through this crisis. I hope he does a fantastic job.
I do not want Mr Johnson to base his judgements on the more populist alternatives that are presented to him, primarily for political advantage. He has done that in the past, I sincerely hope he will not revert to that type for the remainder of the pandemic.
Once it is all over, and I want him to succeed with as few casualties, as is possible, he will nonetheless have some questions on the decisions he has already made and is yet to make.
https://twitter.com/abbydphillip/status/1253447919551885314
And Joe is up for it I reckon.
On the second point haven't there been fatalities in America from people 'cleansing' their bodies by ingesting neat bleach? Don't try this at home kids!
Superb news if so.
Light and heat are the cure.
There it is. He still thinks this is The Apprentice show.
https://twitter.com/Mij_Europe/status/1253384073151733766?s=20
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Light_Source
Ooops, no, that can't be it. That's across the border in enemy Canada.
Strangely enough, the FDA wasn't quite convinced.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-52405458
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-asia-52400084/coronavirus-tokyo-hospitals-trying-to-stay-ahead
Not enough PPE to even able to send the required people in. Perhaps Labour could give them the number of Delboy and Arthur Daley.
from the agreement
EU annual budgets commit to some future spending without making payments to recipients at the time. The commitments will become payments in the future. The UK will contribute towards the EU’s outstanding commitmentsas at 31 December 2020
1. Products that may be considered useable, ie not going to injure you like drinking bleach are likely to have some kind of impact on Sars Cov 2 in the mouth and throat, which is a potentially useful part of a layered prevention of spread
2. There is growing evidence that sunlight and humidity do reduce the half life of the virus
Trump has probably picked up on these and frankensteined it
On the plus side if the latter is true the two weeks down in Benidorm is still on....
Its the next year knock on of economic hardship that would do damage to some regimes but none of the major actors that the world has an eye on looks in immediate danger.
The question is what is the acceptable additional loss if the health system did struggle with demand if you took less societal and economically impactful measures to slow infection rates. If you saved a thousand lives, two thousand..ten thousand when does the stricter lockdown become worth it?
If you get a vaccine then you're not managing the period in which deaths occur, you're preventing the deaths from occurring.
In Eastern Europe, old people stay at home. In Western Europe they get dumped into care homes which get utterly ravaged by CV-19.
If you were contributing 5% of GDP and it goes to 10%, that's massive. But if you were contributing 0.1% of GDP and it goes to 0.2%, you probably won't even notice.
On the "ECB paying for it" part I have two questions:
a) is that wrong to begin with, given the current circumstances, and
b) do you think the BOE will pay proportionally less for HMG's plans?
"Vietnam lifts lockdown: How a country of 95m bordering China recorded zero coronavirus deaths"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/04/23/vietnam-lifts-lockdown-country-97-million-bordering-china-recorded
There absolutely is a suppression strategy - it's to keep the average infection rate below 1, using test-and-isolate to quickly stop infected people from infecting other people, and if that's not enough on its own, continue social distancing as far as required - which has a huge spectrum from improving ventilation in high-risk places to closing some of those places all the way to Wuhan-style lockdown.
It may well turn out that the suppression strategy isn't worth the costs, and that's a totally legitimate argument, but there's tendency among some of the herd immunity proponents to pretend that there is *no alternative* letting widespread infection happen. The dishonesty of this is much more obvious from East Asia, where governments acted faster to suppress.
All other governments: we don't trust people.
And some fun data for libertarian-minded people:
In most countries people waited for their government to tell them what to do. However, in Hong Kong (admittedly lots of SARS experience), the people are at war with their government, so they didn't wait for it to lead. They acted faster than anyone else.
https://comotionnews.com/2020/04/17/from-apples-mobility-trends-reports-charting-the-impact-of-divergent-coronavirus-policy-responses/
Norwegian government: "36/million".
Finnish government: "31/million".
https://twitter.com/rarsaurusrex/status/1253458648661135360?s=20
A lot of the early stages of spread were connected to travel and mass gatherings. Italy and the UK fared badly.
Two or three doublings of cases.
So we shouldn't put all our bets on that.
The Oxford Uni team seem remarkably confident theirs is going to work and be ready by early autumn.
This site is tremendous:
https://www.av.co/covid?fbclid=IwAR12tpEaSKH_c5xBZSmaEnw53BLVrdAn-MNf7tmtqqUubQtmrVzsyaO3ZS8
Misreporting, or misrecording (or stricter definitions for recording)? Or a bit of both?
Which tentatively suggests that in some countries people are catching it “safely” and in others not. Or the differences in the way deaths are recorded is too different to construct any meaningful comparison.
There's a steady drift of shops and businesses reopening and people are going out more and further, but still obeying social distancing.
My client is planning on the assumption they go back to work properly on 1st June, in the absence of any official announcement, and will only cancel those remobilisation plans if told explicitly not to do so.
Applying Occam's razor: some states will simply be poor at counting tests, they may also lack the national statistics infrastructure and bureaucracy to do it, or those who report them may be corrupt with warped incentives to under report and the national government may have an overtly political agenda in reporting/ not reporting cases.
You have to be very careful in comparing country by country stats. They are not equivalent and you're not comparing apples with apples.
Spain and France had much more stringent lockdowns because that's simply how policing is done in those countries and because of their culture.
Either you have a serious lockdown or none at all.
The truth is we just don't know. And the scientific community isn't as one. This isn't an exact physics - it's much more like economics with lots of competing forecasts.