The government are sending out the who the hell are they team today...
It will be led by Environment Secretary George Eustice, who has previously updated us on food supplies to supermarkets during the pandemic. He'll be joined by NHS England's national medical director Prof Stephen Powis, who also attended yesterday's briefing.
Cant be as bad as Pritti.
Yesterdays classic was that shoplifting is down. Shocked!!
"Testing for coronavirus remains a particular problem in Wales. A reader, who did not want to be named, emailed a photo of an empty testing centre at Cardiff Stadium at 1.45pm on Sunday.
The Welsh government has scraped a target for 5,000 tests per day blaming problems with obtaining supplies."
Mr. Eagles, I'm going shopping for food regularly. Hundreds of times more often than I vote.
If this is still an issue at the time, then a combination of postal voting and having multi-day ballots would make more sense than the insanity of online voting.
It'd be wide open to hacking shenanigans and severely damage faith in the result. Leaping from the best system (in person) to the worst without considering the middle way of postal voting is crackers.
Mr. kinabalu, the great warm embrace of online voting is such that even participants not usually invited to democratic events get to take part.
Mr. Urquhart, making something mandatory when it seems about to run out is sub-optimal.
But which hypothetically is worse -
5m people voting twice or 5m people not able to vote?
The winning margin at Scottish Referendum '79 was very similar to EU Ref.
EU Ref = 3.8% Devolution Ref '79 = 3.2%
Except that the turnout meant that fewer than 40% of the electorate supported Devolution.
It was assumed that any dead voters were agin Devolution!
Tbf the ones that died of old age probably were.
Next cunning plan from Unionists, bequeathed indy ref votes, to be valid post mortem for a generation.
May not be that far-fetched in reality. Dealing with a relative's estate recently, I was quite surprised to discover that political parties were treated like charities for IHT purposes. Leave money to the Raving Loonies, don't have to pay IHT on it ... of course, it's possible to put forward a convincing hypothesis as to which party benefits far more than the others, given the demographic and so on.
The concept of online voting perfectly highlights a good way of telling if something is a good idea or a bad idea. Merely ask yourself before positing an idea...."Does Donald Trump think this is a good idea?" If the answer is yes then you can save yourself looking a fool by suggesting it.
We don't agree on much but I fully endorse that general rule.
Would you go out and vote if you and your family might get a deadly virus?
I'm struggling to understand what is wrong with postal voting. Your vote is delivered to you by the mailman, you walk it 100 yards (or drive 500) to the postbox, stick it in the post, no contact. It is then delivered to the place where it is counted, where social distancing can be observed.
It is also quite hard for the Russians to interfere with. Online voting, on the other hand...
Yes, postal voting is the way to go.
The envelopes can be made self-sealing, so no saliva need be involved, and you could potentially work something out with the royal mail for the collection of votes for those shielding, or with local party members - though your choice of which party you trust to collect your vote may give a clue to the way in which you chose to vote. Relatively easy to leave the votes for however long it takes for the virus to die before counting them.
Local activists handling postal votes like that is already very close to an offence, since it raises the clear possibility of several, and is strongly discouraged.
Much of the country has average temp ma between 23 and 27 degrees C.
Yeah, but the actual province the excess deaths were counted in was around Guayaquil on the coast. Doesn't seem to be helping much at all, unfortunately.
Mind you we are forever being told that there are 2000 noxious substances in tobacco smoke, so why nicotione should be the key ingredient isn't clear. If it is I'm not going to start smoking again but this vaping thing might be worth looking at.
Wouldn't smoking or vaping carry respiratory droplets further than 2 metres?
Why "carry," when the droplets are airborne in their own right? In fact smoking could be beneficial to others if the smoke disperses in the same way as the droplets, because it acts as a marker while non-smokers create exactly the samr danger, only invisibly.
I'm sitting on my patio nonchalantly, or I'm helping Mum with the gardening and the neighbours' smoke wafts over the garden fence. What then? The neighbours might be physically over 2 metres away (on their own property, natch), but the smoke doesn't obey that rule, does it?
I do feel your pain. The smoke doesn't obey the two metre rule *but neither does the virus, which spreads independently of the smoke.* I don't know whether droplets behave differently from smoke particles, but the default assumption is that they do, roughly, being small and light and airborne. Here
Mr. Eagles, I'm going shopping for food regularly. Hundreds of times more often than I vote.
If this is still an issue at the time, then a combination of postal voting and having multi-day ballots would make more sense than the insanity of online voting.
It'd be wide open to hacking shenanigans and severely damage faith in the result. Leaping from the best system (in person) to the worst without considering the middle way of postal voting is crackers.
Mr. kinabalu, the great warm embrace of online voting is such that even participants not usually invited to democratic events get to take part.
Mr. Urquhart, making something mandatory when it seems about to run out is sub-optimal.
But which hypothetically is worse -
5m people voting twice or 5m people not able to vote?
This seems a little pertinent for all those who were yesteday claiming that Cummings was as silent as a SPAD can be during SAGE meetings. Unless he is fluent in sign langauage as well as Russian I doubt he would have been able to make an 'active' contribution otherwise.
However, the two other Sage attendees the Guardian spoke to painted a different picture to that presented by No 10, which has been striving to play down the influence of the two advisers. Both Sage attendees declined to be named.
“I have been concerned sometimes that Sage has become too operational, so we’ve ended up looking as though we are making decisions,” one of them said, making clear that Cummings had been involved on those occasions. “It contravenes previous guidelines about how you make sure you get impartial scientific advice going through to politicians, who make the decisions.”
Referring to both Cummings and Warner, the Sage attendee added: “When a very senior civil servant or a very well-connected person interrupts, then I don’t think anyone in the room feels the power to stop it. When you get to discussing where advice might be going, there have been occasions where they have been involved, and a couple of times I’ve thought: that’s not what we are supposed to be doing.”
A second Sage attendee said Cummings had played an active role meetings from February onwards. They said they were initially shocked to discover Cummings was taking part in a meeting of supposedly independent scientific experts.
“He was not just an observer, he’s listed as an active participant,” the source said. “He was engaging in conversation and not sitting silently.” The second attendee said Cumming’s involvement was worrying because of his reputation in Whitehall and the questions his participation raises about Sage’s role as a neutral body of expert advisers.
Cummings wouldn't have wasted his time being there if he didn't think he could have an influence. Sitting at the back and quietly listening to the others is not in his DNA
Would you go out and vote if you and your family might get a deadly virus?
I'm struggling to understand what is wrong with postal voting. Your vote is delivered to you by the mailman, you walk it 100 yards (or drive 500) to the postbox, stick it in the post, no contact. It is then delivered to the place where it is counted, where social distancing can be observed.
It is also quite hard for the Russians to interfere with. Online voting, on the other hand...
All of the voting scandals of recent times have been related to postal voting. Such things as the head of the household or community leaders collecting ballot papers and filling them or one bedroom flats which apparently have 21 people registered to vote living there.
Yes, I'm aware of that. And if it were possible, I'd do away with postal voting and make each person present themselves at a polling booth with photo ID, unless they had a medical reason to apply for a postal vote.
However, postal voting already happens. It is widespread, known and, while flawed, is considerably better than online voting during a pandemic (or any other time).
A really dedicated postal-vote-rigger might try granny farming or forge a few signatures. But at best they might be able to influence a small number of votes. And there is a literal paper trail to investigate.
A hacker gaining control of an online system has the potential to change 100% of the votes in their favour, and if they do it correctly, to do it without anyone ever being able to prove the election has been rigged.
Online voting will ALWAYS be subject to questioning about its integrity. Because the security is is too complex for the lay person to understand. Think about all the hoo-hah about Russian influence on Brexit. Now imagine a knife edge vote like that, if it could never be proven that the vote was hacked. It is a recipe for calling into question the legitimacy of every vote you disagree with. For that reason alone, it should never, ever be allowed to happen.
We trust computers to move billions and fly planes.
"Testing for coronavirus remains a particular problem in Wales. A reader, who did not want to be named, emailed a photo of an empty testing centre at Cardiff Stadium at 1.45pm on Sunday.
The Welsh government has scraped a target for 5,000 tests per day blaming problems with obtaining supplies."
Could this be a Chapel, testing on the Sabbath is immoral kind of thing?
» show previous quotes How's your wife doing by the way? I know its a (more than normally) worrying time for those with underlying health issues. I've got one 64 year old friend who's had an NHS "do not cross your threshold" letter.
She is improving but cannot go to hospital for x-rays or any other stuff at present. She is on the 12 week lockdown so I am same , been out twice for prescriptions since she came home 30th January. Both consultant and GP phoned and said do not go out at all. Government have finally sorted out stuff and prescriptions get delivered and hopefully will now be able to get slots at supermarkets. Think realistically we will be in for a good while. Thanks for asking.
Would you go out and vote if you and your family might get a deadly virus?
I'm struggling to understand what is wrong with postal voting. Your vote is delivered to you by the mailman, you walk it 100 yards (or drive 500) to the postbox, stick it in the post, no contact. It is then delivered to the place where it is counted, where social distancing can be observed.
It is also quite hard for the Russians to interfere with. Online voting, on the other hand...
All of the voting scandals of recent times have been related to postal voting. Such things as the head of the household or community leaders collecting ballot papers and filling them or one bedroom flats which apparently have 21 people registered to vote living there.
Yes, I'm aware of that. And if it were possible, I'd do away with postal voting and make each person present themselves at a polling booth with photo ID, unless they had a medical reason to apply for a postal vote.
However, postal voting already happens. It is widespread, known and, while flawed, is considerably better than online voting during a pandemic (or any other time).
A really dedicated postal-vote-rigger might try granny farming or forge a few signatures. But at best they might be able to influence a small number of votes. And there is a literal paper trail to investigate.
A hacker gaining control of an online system has the potential to change 100% of the votes in their favour, and if they do it correctly, to do it without anyone ever being able to prove the election has been rigged.
Online voting will ALWAYS be subject to questioning about its integrity. Because the security is is too complex for the lay person to understand. Think about all the hoo-hah about Russian influence on Brexit. Now imagine a knife edge vote like that, if it could never be proven that the vote was hacked. It is a recipe for calling into question the legitimacy of every vote you disagree with. For that reason alone, it should never, ever be allowed to happen.
I thought quantum cryptography could be used to verify that Alice's vote is not tampered with between her and Bob.
Would you go out and vote if you and your family might get a deadly virus?
I'm struggling to understand what is wrong with postal voting. Your vote is delivered to you by the mailman, you walk it 100 yards (or drive 500) to the postbox, stick it in the post, no contact. It is then delivered to the place where it is counted, where social distancing can be observed.
It is also quite hard for the Russians to interfere with. Online voting, on the other hand...
All of the voting scandals of recent times have been related to postal voting. Such things as the head of the household or community leaders collecting ballot papers and filling them or one bedroom flats which apparently have 21 people registered to vote living there.
Yes, I'm aware of that. And if it were possible, I'd do away with postal voting and make each person present themselves at a polling booth with photo ID, unless they had a medical reason to apply for a postal vote.
However, postal voting already happens. It is widespread, known and, while flawed, is considerably better than online voting during a pandemic (or any other time).
A really dedicated postal-vote-rigger might try granny farming or forge a few signatures. But at best they might be able to influence a small number of votes. And there is a literal paper trail to investigate.
A hacker gaining control of an online system has the potential to change 100% of the votes in their favour, and if they do it correctly, to do it without anyone ever being able to prove the election has been rigged.
Online voting will ALWAYS be subject to questioning about its integrity. Because the security is is too complex for the lay person to understand. Think about all the hoo-hah about Russian influence on Brexit. Now imagine a knife edge vote like that, if it could never be proven that the vote was hacked. It is a recipe for calling into question the legitimacy of every vote you disagree with. For that reason alone, it should never, ever be allowed to happen.
We trust computers to move billions and fly planes.
Those are things that happen all the time, so the befits of automation are huge.
We vote once a year (if that) and if it’s not broke then don’t fix it. I think TSE is looking for a problem where none exists.
And today I have been informed about a study in Paris showing the same thing. With results so striking as to trigger the interest in nicotine as a treatment.
Probably bollox - but as a smoker I have skin in the game.
I think the hypothesis is that nicotine stimulates the nicotinic acetylcholine receptors and thereby alter the ACE2 receptor protein. This then makes viral entry into the cell more difficult.
Studies show that smokers are less likely to get it but more likely to die when they do. A sort of double or quits.
Would you go out and vote if you and your family might get a deadly virus?
I'm struggling to understand what is wrong with postal voting. Your vote is delivered to you by the mailman, you walk it 100 yards (or drive 500) to the postbox, stick it in the post, no contact. It is then delivered to the place where it is counted, where social distancing can be observed.
It is also quite hard for the Russians to interfere with. Online voting, on the other hand...
All of the voting scandals of recent times have been related to postal voting. Such things as the head of the household or community leaders collecting ballot papers and filling them or one bedroom flats which apparently have 21 people registered to vote living there.
Yes, I'm aware of that. And if it were possible, I'd do away with postal voting and make each person present themselves at a polling booth with photo ID, unless they had a medical reason to apply for a postal vote.
However, postal voting already happens. It is widespread, known and, while flawed, is considerably better than online voting during a pandemic (or any other time).
A really dedicated postal-vote-rigger might try granny farming or forge a few signatures. But at best they might be able to influence a small number of votes. And there is a literal paper trail to investigate.
A hacker gaining control of an online system has the potential to change 100% of the votes in their favour, and if they do it correctly, to do it without anyone ever being able to prove the election has been rigged.
Online voting will ALWAYS be subject to questioning about its integrity. Because the security is is too complex for the lay person to understand. Think about all the hoo-hah about Russian influence on Brexit. Now imagine a knife edge vote like that, if it could never be proven that the vote was hacked. It is a recipe for calling into question the legitimacy of every vote you disagree with. For that reason alone, it should never, ever be allowed to happen.
I thought quantum cryptography could be used to verify that Alice's vote is not tampered with between her and Bob.
While it's an interesting idea, and there are quite a few blockchains dedicated to verifying the authenticity of a product (I believe VeChain does this - but not my area of expertise) I think the problems with such a system are
1) How would votes remain anonymous under such a system?
2) How could such a system gain the confidence of the lay person, most of whom do not understand crypto at all (remember, the general public thinks pencils in polling stations are a conspiracy).
3) What if the system as set up were built with a backdoor or a flaw in the code that was exploitable?
Would you go out and vote if you and your family might get a deadly virus?
I'm struggling to understand what is wrong with postal voting. Your vote is delivered to you by the mailman, you walk it 100 yards (or drive 500) to the postbox, stick it in the post, no contact. It is then delivered to the place where it is counted, where social distancing can be observed.
It is also quite hard for the Russians to interfere with. Online voting, on the other hand...
All of the voting scandals of recent times have been related to postal voting. Such things as the head of the household or community leaders collecting ballot papers and filling them or one bedroom flats which apparently have 21 people registered to vote living there.
Yes, I'm aware of that. And if it were possible, I'd do away with postal voting and make each person present themselves at a polling booth with photo ID, unless they had a medical reason to apply for a postal vote.
However, postal voting already happens. It is widespread, known and, while flawed, is considerably better than online voting during a pandemic (or any other time).
A really dedicated postal-vote-rigger might try granny farming or forge a few signatures. But at best they might be able to influence a small number of votes. And there is a literal paper trail to investigate.
A hacker gaining control of an online system has the potential to change 100% of the votes in their favour, and if they do it correctly, to do it without anyone ever being able to prove the election has been rigged.
Online voting will ALWAYS be subject to questioning about its integrity. Because the security is is too complex for the lay person to understand. Think about all the hoo-hah about Russian influence on Brexit. Now imagine a knife edge vote like that, if it could never be proven that the vote was hacked. It is a recipe for calling into question the legitimacy of every vote you disagree with. For that reason alone, it should never, ever be allowed to happen.
We trust computers to move billions and fly planes.
Yes, like the computer-assisted flight of the 737 max. I rest my case.
This is a problem of their own devising. They can't redirect people to listen to real news, because Dom says they are lying Democrat whiners, and they can't redirect people to the neutral advice because Dom writes their scripts.
The winning margin at Scottish Referendum '79 was very similar to EU Ref.
EU Ref = 3.8% Devolution Ref '79 = 3.2%
Except that the turnout meant that fewer than 40% of the electorate supported Devolution.
It was assumed that any dead voters were agin Devolution!
Tbf the ones that died of old age probably were.
Next cunning plan from Unionists, bequeathed indy ref votes, to be valid post mortem for a generation.
May not be that far-fetched in reality. Dealing with a relative's estate recently, I was quite surprised to discover that political parties were treated like charities for IHT purposes. Leave money to the Raving Loonies, don't have to pay IHT on it ... of course, it's possible to put forward a convincing hypothesis as to which party benefits far more than the others, given the demographic and so on.
Let's hope Her Maj hangs on for a bit yet, the bequest to the Better Together parties could be massive.
And today I have been informed about a study in Paris showing the same thing. With results so striking as to trigger the interest in nicotine as a treatment.
Probably bollox - but as a smoker I have skin in the game.
Where can I get a pack of Navy Cut or Senior Service - if we're gonna do it we gotta go strong!
The government use data from Apple Maps....who the hell uses Apple maps for directions? I actually want to get where I am looking to go quickly and easily....
The government use data from Apple Maps....who the hell uses Apple maps for directions? I actually want to get where I am looking to go quickly and easily....
Mind you we are forever being told that there are 2000 noxious substances in tobacco smoke, so why nicotione should be the key ingredient isn't clear. If it is I'm not going to start smoking again but this vaping thing might be worth looking at.
Wouldn't smoking or vaping carry respiratory droplets further than 2 metres?
Why "carry," when the droplets are airborne in their own right? In fact smoking could be beneficial to others if the smoke disperses in the same way as the droplets, because it acts as a marker while non-smokers create exactly the samr danger, only invisibly.
I'm sitting on my patio nonchalantly, or I'm helping Mum with the gardening and the neighbours' smoke wafts over the garden fence. What then? The neighbours might be physically over 2 metres away (on their own property, natch), but the smoke doesn't obey that rule, does it?
I do feel your pain. The smoke doesn't obey the two metre rule *but neither does the virus, which spreads independently of the smoke.* I don't know whether droplets behave differently from smoke particles, but the default assumption is that they do, roughly, being small and light and airborne. Here
Would you go out and vote if you and your family might get a deadly virus?
I'm struggling to understand what is wrong with postal voting. Your vote is delivered to you by the mailman, you walk it 100 yards (or drive 500) to the postbox, stick it in the post, no contact. It is then delivered to the place where it is counted, where social distancing can be observed.
It is also quite hard for the Russians to interfere with. Online voting, on the other hand...
Yes, postal voting is the way to go.
The envelopes can be made self-sealing, so no saliva need be involved, and you could potentially work something out with the royal mail for the collection of votes for those shielding, or with local party members - though your choice of which party you trust to collect your vote may give a clue to the way in which you chose to vote. Relatively easy to leave the votes for however long it takes for the virus to die before counting them.
Local activists handling postal votes like that is already very close to an offence, since it raises the clear possibility of several, and is strongly discouraged.
I can see why that would have been the case, pre-Covid, when it would be easy for people to post their votes themselves, or for pretty much anyone to do it on their behalf, so the involvement of a local activist raises suspicion, but I would have thought that in a virus-hit world, where there is much more reason for large numbers of people to be discouraged from going to a postbox, that it would make it less likely that someone handling postal votes in such a way was doing so nefariously.
The government use data from Apple Maps....who the hell uses Apple maps for directions? I actually want to get where I am looking to go quickly and easily....
Apple da best.
Waze is by far and away the best app. Its not even close.
Mind you we are forever being told that there are 2000 noxious substances in tobacco smoke, so why nicotione should be the key ingredient isn't clear. If it is I'm not going to start smoking again but this vaping thing might be worth looking at.
Wouldn't smoking or vaping carry respiratory droplets further than 2 metres?
Why "carry," when the droplets are airborne in their own right? In fact smoking could be beneficial to others if the smoke disperses in the same way as the droplets, because it acts as a marker while non-smokers create exactly the samr danger, only invisibly.
I'm sitting on my patio nonchalantly, or I'm helping Mum with the gardening and the neighbours' smoke wafts over the garden fence. What then? The neighbours might be physically over 2 metres away (on their own property, natch), but the smoke doesn't obey that rule, does it?
I do feel your pain. The smoke doesn't obey the two metre rule *but neither does the virus, which spreads independently of the smoke.* I don't know whether droplets behave differently from smoke particles, but the default assumption is that they do, roughly, being small and light and airborne. Here
The phased relaxation of lockdown is starting in earnest in Spain. The Andalucian leader proposing May 11th for small shops and businesses and May 25th for bars and restaurants. After a phone conversation with the Spanish PM so I suspect it's a goer. Almost certainly in Almeria and Huelva the 2 provinces on the east and west of the region and both with very low incidence of CV-19. Most of us content if somewhat nervous.
And today I have been informed about a study in Paris showing the same thing. With results so striking as to trigger the interest in nicotine as a treatment.
Probably bollox - but as a smoker I have skin in the game.
Where can I get a pack of Navy Cut or Senior Service - if we're gonna do it we gotta go strong!
Yes they are Class A. Pure poison. The mark of a man.
Mind you we are forever being told that there are 2000 noxious substances in tobacco smoke, so why nicotione should be the key ingredient isn't clear. If it is I'm not going to start smoking again but this vaping thing might be worth looking at.
Wouldn't smoking or vaping carry respiratory droplets further than 2 metres?
Why "carry," when the droplets are airborne in their own right? In fact smoking could be beneficial to others if the smoke disperses in the same way as the droplets, because it acts as a marker while non-smokers create exactly the samr danger, only invisibly.
I'm sitting on my patio nonchalantly, or I'm helping Mum with the gardening and the neighbours' smoke wafts over the garden fence. What then? The neighbours might be physically over 2 metres away (on their own property, natch), but the smoke doesn't obey that rule, does it?
I do feel your pain. The smoke doesn't obey the two metre rule *but neither does the virus, which spreads independently of the smoke.* I don't know whether droplets behave differently from smoke particles, but the default assumption is that they do, roughly, being small and light and airborne. Here
is a graphic of how droplets spread. It is therefore very possible that your neighbours endanger you by simply breathing just as much as by smoking.
Smoke particles are typically much smaller than the water droplets people exhale or produce when talking or coughing.
Does that mean they disperse further? And can they latch on to droplets and increase the droplet's range, as Sunil fears?
It means that can be carried further passively in the air. But larger particles and droplets tend to settle under gravity, so if a smoke particle combined with a larger droplet they would just settle together.
The winning margin at Scottish Referendum '79 was very similar to EU Ref.
EU Ref = 3.8% Devolution Ref '79 = 3.2%
Except that the turnout meant that fewer than 40% of the electorate supported Devolution.
It was assumed that any dead voters were agin Devolution!
Tbf the ones that died of old age probably were.
Next cunning plan from Unionists, bequeathed indy ref votes, to be valid post mortem for a generation.
May not be that far-fetched in reality. Dealing with a relative's estate recently, I was quite surprised to discover that political parties were treated like charities for IHT purposes. Leave money to the Raving Loonies, don't have to pay IHT on it ... of course, it's possible to put forward a convincing hypothesis as to which party benefits far more than the others, given the demographic and so on.
Let's hope Her Maj hangs on for a bit yet, the bequest to the Better Together parties could be massive.
And today I have been informed about a study in Paris showing the same thing. With results so striking as to trigger the interest in nicotine as a treatment.
Probably bollox - but as a smoker I have skin in the game.
Where can I get a pack of Navy Cut or Senior Service - if we're gonna do it we gotta go strong!
Yes they are Class A. Pure poison. The mark of a man.
Gotta be Capstan Full Strength (but Boyards acceptable across the Channel).
And today I have been informed about a study in Paris showing the same thing. With results so striking as to trigger the interest in nicotine as a treatment.
Probably bollox - but as a smoker I have skin in the game.
Where can I get a pack of Navy Cut or Senior Service - if we're gonna do it we gotta go strong!
Yes they are Class A. Pure poison. The mark of a man.
So we started with a shortage toilet rolls, then eggs and next fags?
Of all the failings that's probably the worst. Simply no excuse not to test every patient being discharged from hospital heading to a care home.
Whilst I agree that more care should be taken, what percentage of infected care homes do you think have been infected in this way?
Indeed. What steps were care homes taking in early March to protect their residents? They must all have an infectious disease protocol... don't they? After all a bad flu year comes round every few years. Or is the tacit assumption that elderly care is just a form of palliative care for the not *yet* dying
Q: From where you stand, how is the UK handling the situation? A: It’s clear that testing was implemented a little bit too late in the UK. Public Health England was in a position to diagnose the disease very early on – we worked with them to make the diagnostic test – but rollout in Germany was driven in part by market forces, which made it fast, and that wasn’t the case in the UK. Now, though, I have the impression that the UK is really gaining momentum in this regard, and that it is coordinating testing efforts better than Germany.
Q: What keeps you awake at night? A: In Germany, people see that the hospitals are not overwhelmed, and they don’t understand why their shops have to shut. They only look at what’s happening here, not at the situation in, say, New York or Spain. This is the prevention paradox, and for many Germans I’m the evil guy who is crippling the economy. I get death threats, which I pass on to the police. More worrying to me are the other emails, the ones from people who say they have three kids and they’re worried about the future. It’s not my fault, but those ones keep me awake at night..
And today I have been informed about a study in Paris showing the same thing. With results so striking as to trigger the interest in nicotine as a treatment.
Probably bollox - but as a smoker I have skin in the game.
Where can I get a pack of Navy Cut or Senior Service - if we're gonna do it we gotta go strong!
Yes they are Class A. Pure poison. The mark of a man.
So we started with a shortage toilet rolls, then eggs and next fags?
Hmm I'm not convinced to rush out and buy a nicotine patch just yet with the rather poor side effects it has. Definitely one for more research though.
O/T - We've discussed models with pretty wide error bars and ranges in general, not quite the same but Vodafone are quite impressive with their coverage map.
I decided to check out the places I normally frequent and this is the result.
Bit of a lottery if my speed could be between 3.8 Mbps and 60 Mbps.
Would you go out and vote if you and your family might get a deadly virus?
I'm struggling to understand what is wrong with postal voting. Your vote is delivered to you by the mailman, you walk it 100 yards (or drive 500) to the postbox, stick it in the post, no contact. It is then delivered to the place where it is counted, where social distancing can be observed.
It is also quite hard for the Russians to interfere with. Online voting, on the other hand...
All of the voting scandals of recent times have been related to postal voting. Such things as the head of the household or community leaders collecting ballot papers and filling them or one bedroom flats which apparently have 21 people registered to vote living there.
Yes, I'm aware of that. And if it were possible, I'd do away with postal voting and make each person present themselves at a polling booth with photo ID, unless they had a medical reason to apply for a postal vote.
However, postal voting already happens. It is widespread, known and, while flawed, is considerably better than online voting during a pandemic (or any other time).
A really dedicated postal-vote-rigger might try granny farming or forge a few signatures. But at best they might be able to influence a small number of votes. And there is a literal paper trail to investigate.
A hacker gaining control of an online system has the potential to change 100% of the votes in their favour, and if they do it correctly, to do it without anyone ever being able to prove the election has been rigged.
Online voting will ALWAYS be subject to questioning about its integrity. Because the security is is too complex for the lay person to understand. Think about all the hoo-hah about Russian influence on Brexit. Now imagine a knife edge vote like that, if it could never be proven that the vote was hacked. It is a recipe for calling into question the legitimacy of every vote you disagree with. For that reason alone, it should never, ever be allowed to happen.
We trust computers to move billions and fly planes.
Yeah, saying that so shortly after the 787MAX debacle isn't as great an argument as it once was.
Also there is still a staring amount of human reconciliation in large scale money transfer.
Was bored so ran the daily ICL model updates - estimate is currently 20k daily infections. That compares to 250k (!!!) pre lockdown, and about 85k just after.
If 0.5% IFR, that means down to 100 deaths/day in 2.5(?) weeks.
They announced them at the start of the press conference. 29,xxx tests.
There is bugger all sign they are going to get even remotely close to 100,000. The media are going to roast Hancock in the way your average Tory does to those babies.
And today I have been informed about a study in Paris showing the same thing. With results so striking as to trigger the interest in nicotine as a treatment.
Probably bollox - but as a smoker I have skin in the game.
Where can I get a pack of Navy Cut or Senior Service - if we're gonna do it we gotta go strong!
Yes they are Class A. Pure poison. The mark of a man.
Gotta be Capstan Full Strength (but Boyards acceptable across the Channel).
Even in my heyday I could barely finish a packet of those. A kick like a mule and bits of tobacco stuck between your teeth for good measure. Impressed the girls though. Well the sort you wanted to impress anyway. All different now of course. And rightly so.
And today I have been informed about a study in Paris showing the same thing. With results so striking as to trigger the interest in nicotine as a treatment.
Probably bollox - but as a smoker I have skin in the game.
Where can I get a pack of Navy Cut or Senior Service - if we're gonna do it we gotta go strong!
Yes they are Class A. Pure poison. The mark of a man.
Gotta be Capstan Full Strength (but Boyards acceptable across the Channel).
Even in my heyday I could barely finish a packet of those. A kick like a mule and bits of tobacco stuck between your teeth for good measure. Impressed the girls though. Well the sort you wanted to impress anyway. All different now of course. And rightly so.
I’m only aware of them because of the song ‘Saturdays Kids’ by The Jam, which brings to my mind... Leave voters!
And today I have been informed about a study in Paris showing the same thing. With results so striking as to trigger the interest in nicotine as a treatment.
Probably bollox - but as a smoker I have skin in the game.
Where can I get a pack of Navy Cut or Senior Service - if we're gonna do it we gotta go strong!
Yes they are Class A. Pure poison. The mark of a man.
So we started with a shortage toilet rolls, then eggs and next fags?
Hmm I'm not convinced to rush out and buy a nicotine patch just yet with the rather poor side effects it has. Definitely one for more research though.
No. You do NOT want to get hooked on nicotine. It's not especially harmful but it's highly addictive and expensive too. You can end up a slave to it.
Mind you we are forever being told that there are 2000 noxious substances in tobacco smoke, so why nicotione should be the key ingredient isn't clear. If it is I'm not going to start smoking again but this vaping thing might be worth looking at.
Wouldn't smoking or vaping carry respiratory droplets further than 2 metres?
Why "carry," when the droplets are airborne in their own right? In fact smoking could be beneficial to others if the smoke disperses in the same way as the droplets, because it acts as a marker while non-smokers create exactly the samr danger, only invisibly.
I'm sitting on my patio nonchalantly, or I'm helping Mum with the gardening and the neighbours' smoke wafts over the garden fence. What then? The neighbours might be physically over 2 metres away (on their own property, natch), but the smoke doesn't obey that rule, does it?
I do feel your pain. The smoke doesn't obey the two metre rule *but neither does the virus, which spreads independently of the smoke.* I don't know whether droplets behave differently from smoke particles, but the default assumption is that they do, roughly, being small and light and airborne. Here
is a graphic of how droplets spread. It is therefore very possible that your neighbours endanger you by simply breathing just as much as by smoking.
Smoke particles are typically much smaller than the water droplets people exhale or produce when talking or coughing.
Does that mean they disperse further? And can they latch on to droplets and increase the droplet's range, as Sunil fears?
It means that can be carried further passively in the air. But larger particles and droplets tend to settle under gravity, so if a smoke particle combined with a larger droplet they would just settle together.
There was some Italian research published the other day that showed that the virus can travel much further when particulate pollution is in the air. The droplet combines with the particle making less dense so it goes much further. Perhaps the same can happen with cigarette smoke?
Would you go out and vote if you and your family might get a deadly virus?
I'm struggling to understand what is wrong with postal voting. Your vote is delivered to you by the mailman, you walk it 100 yards (or drive 500) to the postbox, stick it in the post, no contact. It is then delivered to the place where it is counted, where social distancing can be observed.
It is also quite hard for the Russians to interfere with. Online voting, on the other hand...
All of the voting scandals of recent times have been related to postal voting. Such things as the head of the household or community leaders collecting ballot papers and filling them or one bedroom flats which apparently have 21 people registered to vote living there.
Yes, I'm aware of that. And if it were possible, I'd do away with postal voting and make each person present themselves at a polling booth with photo ID, unless they had a medical reason to apply for a postal vote.
However, postal voting already happens. It is widespread, known and, while flawed, is considerably better than online voting during a pandemic (or any other time).
A really dedicated postal-vote-rigger might try granny farming or forge a few signatures. But at best they might be able to influence a small number of votes. And there is a literal paper trail to investigate.
A hacker gaining control of an online system has the potential to change 100% of the votes in their favour, and if they do it correctly, to do it without anyone ever being able to prove the election has been rigged.
Online voting will ALWAYS be subject to questioning about its integrity. Because the security is is too complex for the lay person to understand. Think about all the hoo-hah about Russian influence on Brexit. Now imagine a knife edge vote like that, if it could never be proven that the vote was hacked. It is a recipe for calling into question the legitimacy of every vote you disagree with. For that reason alone, it should never, ever be allowed to happen.
We trust computers to move billions and fly planes.
Yeah, saying that so shortly after the 787MAX debacle isn't as great an argument as it once was.
Also there is still a staring amount of human reconciliation in large scale money transfer.
Yes I can appreciate that we are quite a way off online being safe enough for voting.
But when it is I don't see why we wouldn't use it.
And today I have been informed about a study in Paris showing the same thing. With results so striking as to trigger the interest in nicotine as a treatment.
Probably bollox - but as a smoker I have skin in the game.
Where can I get a pack of Navy Cut or Senior Service - if we're gonna do it we gotta go strong!
Yes they are Class A. Pure poison. The mark of a man.
Gotta be Capstan Full Strength (but Boyards acceptable across the Channel).
Even in my heyday I could barely finish a packet of those. A kick like a mule and bits of tobacco stuck between your teeth for good measure. Impressed the girls though. Well the sort you wanted to impress anyway. All different now of course. And rightly so.
I’m only aware of them because of the song ‘Saturdays Kids’ by The Jam, which brings to my mind... Leave voters!
And so it should. Capstan are the No Deal Brexit of cigarettes. They feel good but fuck you up something terrible.
Mind you we are forever being told that there are 2000 noxious substances in tobacco smoke, so why nicotione should be the key ingredient isn't clear. If it is I'm not going to start smoking again but this vaping thing might be worth looking at.
Wouldn't smoking or vaping carry respiratory droplets further than 2 metres?
Why "carry," when the droplets are airborne in their own right? In fact smoking could be beneficial to others if the smoke disperses in the same way as the droplets, because it acts as a marker while non-smokers create exactly the samr danger, only invisibly.
I'm sitting on my patio nonchalantly, or I'm helping Mum with the gardening and the neighbours' smoke wafts over the garden fence. What then? The neighbours might be physically over 2 metres away (on their own property, natch), but the smoke doesn't obey that rule, does it?
I do feel your pain. The smoke doesn't obey the two metre rule *but neither does the virus, which spreads independently of the smoke.* I don't know whether droplets behave differently from smoke particles, but the default assumption is that they do, roughly, being small and light and airborne. Here
is a graphic of how droplets spread. It is therefore very possible that your neighbours endanger you by simply breathing just as much as by smoking.
Smoke particles are typically much smaller than the water droplets people exhale or produce when talking or coughing.
Does that mean they disperse further? And can they latch on to droplets and increase the droplet's range, as Sunil fears?
It means that can be carried further passively in the air. But larger particles and droplets tend to settle under gravity, so if a smoke particle combined with a larger droplet they would just settle together.
There was some Italian research published the other day that showed that the virus can travel much further when particulate pollution is in the air. The droplet combines with the particle making less dense so it goes much further. Perhaps the same can happen with cigarette smoke?
I've just had a look at a report of that. It seems they are suggesting that sub-micron water droplets carrying the virus could combine with larger, lighter particles, up to 10 microns in size, to travel further.
From what I've seen the sub-micron droplets are only a very small fraction of what's produced by humans, so it's a bit difficult to believe it's a major route of transmission. And I don't think it would work anyway for cigarette smoke, whose particles are heavier than water.
They announced them at the start of the press conference. 29,xxx tests.
There is bugger all sign they are going to get even remotely close to 100,000. The media are going to roast Hancock in the way your average Tory does to those babies.
Thanks - numbers now updated!
Tests 29,058
People tested 25,577
Positive 4,463
That means % positive = 17.4% which I think is probably the lowest so far by quite a wide margin.
All data today very encouraging - in particular this and number in hospital.
O/T - We've discussed models with pretty wide error bars and ranges in general, not quite the same but Vodafone are quite impressive with their coverage map.
I decided to check out the places I normally frequent and this is the result.
Bit of a lottery if my speed could be between 3.8 Mbps and 60 Mbps.
Inside / outside will have a significant impact as will the building material used when the building was built.
The example I always used was John Lewis on Oxford Street which is almost a Faraday Cage for mobile signals.
They announced them at the start of the press conference. 29,xxx tests.
There is bugger all sign they are going to get even remotely close to 100,000. The media are going to roast Hancock in the way your average Tory does to those babies.
Thanks - numbers now updated!
Tests 29,058
People tested 25,577
Positive 4,463
That means % positive = 17.4% which I think is probably the lowest so far by quite a wide margin.
All data today very encouraging - in particular this and number in hospital.
Pretty clear going strongly in right direction.
I'd argue that the positive percentage is meaningless, especially as they now want everyone and their mother to get a test, regardless of whether it is useful in a clinical sense.
Encouragingly fewer deaths announced today for the UK (413 compared with 813 yesterday), but what will we see tomorrow and Tuesday with the now customary lag from the weekend's figures?
Mind you we are forever being told that there are 2000 noxious substances in tobacco smoke, so why nicotione should be the key ingredient isn't clear. If it is I'm not going to start smoking again but this vaping thing might be worth looking at.
Wouldn't smoking or vaping carry respiratory droplets further than 2 metres?
Why "carry," when the droplets are airborne in their own right? In fact smoking could be beneficial to others if the smoke disperses in the same way as the droplets, because it acts as a marker while non-smokers create exactly the samr danger, only invisibly.
I'm sitting on my patio nonchalantly, or I'm helping Mum with the gardening and the neighbours' smoke wafts over the garden fence. What then? The neighbours might be physically over 2 metres away (on their own property, natch), but the smoke doesn't obey that rule, does it?
I do feel your pain. The smoke doesn't obey the two metre rule *but neither does the virus, which spreads independently of the smoke.* I don't know whether droplets behave differently from smoke particles, but the default assumption is that they do, roughly, being small and light and airborne. Here
is a graphic of how droplets spread. It is therefore very possible that your neighbours endanger you by simply breathing just as much as by smoking.
Smoke particles are typically much smaller than the water droplets people exhale or produce when talking or coughing.
Does that mean they disperse further? And can they latch on to droplets and increase the droplet's range, as Sunil fears?
It means that can be carried further passively in the air. But larger particles and droplets tend to settle under gravity, so if a smoke particle combined with a larger droplet they would just settle together.
There was some Italian research published the other day that showed that the virus can travel much further when particulate pollution is in the air. The droplet combines with the particle making less dense so it goes much further. Perhaps the same can happen with cigarette smoke?
I've just had a look at a report of that. It seems they are suggesting that sub-micron water droplets carrying the virus could combine with larger, lighter particles, up to 10 microns in size, to travel further.
From what I've seen the sub-micron droplets are only a very small fraction of what's produced by humans, so it's a bit difficult to believe it's a major route of transmission. And I don't think it would work anyway for cigarette smoke, whose particles are heavier than water.
It would not be well received by the rest of the population if it turned out that smokers were both protected from the virus AND instrumental in spreading it.
They announced them at the start of the press conference. 29,xxx tests.
There is bugger all sign they are going to get even remotely close to 100,000. The media are going to roast Hancock in the way your average Tory does to those babies.
Thanks - numbers now updated!
Tests 29,058
People tested 25,577
Positive 4,463
That means % positive = 17.4% which I think is probably the lowest so far by quite a wide margin.
All data today very encouraging - in particular this and number in hospital.
Pretty clear going strongly in right direction.
I'd argue that the positive percentage is meaningless, especially as they now want everyone and their mother to get a test, regardless of whether it is useful in a clinical sense.
Insofar as it appears that they have to test more people to find the same number of cases I think it has some value - more than the raw number anyway.
They announced them at the start of the press conference. 29,xxx tests.
There is bugger all sign they are going to get even remotely close to 100,000. The media are going to roast Hancock in the way your average Tory does to those babies.
Thanks - numbers now updated!
Tests 29,058
People tested 25,577
Positive 4,463
That means % positive = 17.4% which I think is probably the lowest so far by quite a wide margin.
All data today very encouraging - in particular this and number in hospital.
Pretty clear going strongly in right direction.
I'd argue that the positive percentage is meaningless, especially as they now want everyone and their mother to get a test, regardless of whether it is useful in a clinical sense.
Fair(ish!) point - remember you do have to have symptoms to get a test.
So yes, you would expect % to come down as more people are tested but it's still encouraging it's coming down as much as it is.
Encouragingly fewer deaths announced today for the UK (413 compared with 813 yesterday), but what will we see tomorrow and Tuesday with the now customary lag from the weekend's figures?
Tomorrow's report will be Sunday's numbers which should be similar to today - last week Sunday was lower than Saturday.
David Paton's spreadsheet now shows very clear, consistent downward trend.
They announced them at the start of the press conference. 29,xxx tests.
There is bugger all sign they are going to get even remotely close to 100,000. The media are going to roast Hancock in the way your average Tory does to those babies.
Thanks - numbers now updated!
Tests 29,058
People tested 25,577
Positive 4,463
That means % positive = 17.4% which I think is probably the lowest so far by quite a wide margin.
All data today very encouraging - in particular this and number in hospital.
Pretty clear going strongly in right direction.
I'd argue that the positive percentage is meaningless, especially as they now want everyone and their mother to get a test, regardless of whether it is useful in a clinical sense.
Fair(ish!) point - remember you do have to have symptoms to get a test.
So yes, you would expect % to come down as more people are tested but it's still encouraging it's coming down as much as it is.
Perhaps surprisingly, the % positives of those tested because they are admitted to hospital (Pillar I) is 18.6% today and Pillar II (essential workers) was 16.0%, so quite similar. The Pillar I numbers were dominating the data until recently so even given the increased testing of essential workers, the % does still seem to be decreasing like-for-like.
Mind you we are forever being told that there are 2000 noxious substances in tobacco smoke, so why nicotione should be the key ingredient isn't clear. If it is I'm not going to start smoking again but this vaping thing might be worth looking at.
Wouldn't smoking or vaping carry respiratory droplets further than 2 metres?
Why "carry," when the droplets are airborne in their own right? In fact smoking could be beneficial to others if the smoke disperses in the same way as the droplets, because it acts as a marker while non-smokers create exactly the samr danger, only invisibly.
I'm sitting on my patio nonchalantly, or I'm helping Mum with the gardening and the neighbours' smoke wafts over the garden fence. What then? The neighbours might be physically over 2 metres away (on their own property, natch), but the smoke doesn't obey that rule, does it?
I do feel your pain. The smoke doesn't obey the two metre rule *but neither does the virus, which spreads independently of the smoke.* I don't know whether droplets behave differently from smoke particles, but the default assumption is that they do, roughly, being small and light and airborne. Here
is a graphic of how droplets spread. It is therefore very possible that your neighbours endanger you by simply breathing just as much as by smoking.
So really, Sunil's neighbours are doing him a favour, making their breathing avoidable by giving it an odour and form. It's actually Sunil who is putting his neighbours in danger by NOT smoking. Selfish and anti-social - are we still handing out ASBOs?
On topic I am afraid electronic voting is a complete non starter. We know it is not secure or foolproof and if we think we are worried about Russian interference in our elections now it will be as nothing compared to what it will be like with electronic voting. No one will trust the results and all faith in democracy will be destroyed.
World Cup questions: Were England robbed by Argentina at Mexico 86?
I was shocked to discover that the author thought that Argentina were the better team so it doesn’t matter what that ******* ******** ********* got away with.
Now, you won’t hear me arguing in favour of the prehistoric approach to the game in England around the time, but it still angers me that superior footballers like Maradona and Koeman got away with blatant cheating.
Unfortunately there is an element of the footballing press who think England deserve to be cheated. Compare how the same paper reacted to another handball against a more deserving nation:
At least Maradona had the decency to score one of the World Cup's greatest goals once he had fisted Argentina into the lead against Bobby Robson's England in the 1986 quarter-finals, dribbling half the length of the pitch, past player after player, to find the net then repeating the feat in miniature against Belgium in the semi-finals.
Mind you we are forever being told that there are 2000 noxious substances in tobacco smoke, so why nicotione should be the key ingredient isn't clear. If it is I'm not going to start smoking again but this vaping thing might be worth looking at.
Wouldn't smoking or vaping carry respiratory droplets further than 2 metres?
Why "carry," when the droplets are airborne in their own right? In fact smoking could be beneficial to others if the smoke disperses in the same way as the droplets, because it acts as a marker while non-smokers create exactly the samr danger, only invisibly.
I'm sitting on my patio nonchalantly, or I'm helping Mum with the gardening and the neighbours' smoke wafts over the garden fence. What then? The neighbours might be physically over 2 metres away (on their own property, natch), but the smoke doesn't obey that rule, does it?
I do feel your pain. The smoke doesn't obey the two metre rule *but neither does the virus, which spreads independently of the smoke.* I don't know whether droplets behave differently from smoke particles, but the default assumption is that they do, roughly, being small and light and airborne. Here
is a graphic of how droplets spread. It is therefore very possible that your neighbours endanger you by simply breathing just as much as by smoking.
So really, Sunil's neighbours are doing him a favour, making their breathing avoidable by giving it an odour and form. It's actually Sunil who is putting his neighbours in danger by NOT smoking. Selfish and anti-social - are we still handing out ASBOs?
Correct. And if I understand previous responses coorectly, when a smoke particle meets a droplet it wrestles it out of the way.
Mind you we are forever being told that there are 2000 noxious substances in tobacco smoke, so why nicotione should be the key ingredient isn't clear. If it is I'm not going to start smoking again but this vaping thing might be worth looking at.
Wouldn't smoking or vaping carry respiratory droplets further than 2 metres?
Why "carry," when the droplets are airborne in their own right? In fact smoking could be beneficial to others if the smoke disperses in the same way as the droplets, because it acts as a marker while non-smokers create exactly the samr danger, only invisibly.
I'm sitting on my patio nonchalantly, or I'm helping Mum with the gardening and the neighbours' smoke wafts over the garden fence. What then? The neighbours might be physically over 2 metres away (on their own property, natch), but the smoke doesn't obey that rule, does it?
I do feel your pain. The smoke doesn't obey the two metre rule *but neither does the virus, which spreads independently of the smoke.* I don't know whether droplets behave differently from smoke particles, but the default assumption is that they do, roughly, being small and light and airborne. Here
is a graphic of how droplets spread. It is therefore very possible that your neighbours endanger you by simply breathing just as much as by smoking.
Smoke particles are typically much smaller than the water droplets people exhale or produce when talking or coughing.
Does that mean they disperse further? And can they latch on to droplets and increase the droplet's range, as Sunil fears?
It means that can be carried further passively in the air. But larger particles and droplets tend to settle under gravity, so if a smoke particle combined with a larger droplet they would just settle together.
There was some Italian research published the other day that showed that the virus can travel much further when particulate pollution is in the air. The droplet combines with the particle making less dense so it goes much further. Perhaps the same can happen with cigarette smoke?
I've just had a look at a report of that. It seems they are suggesting that sub-micron water droplets carrying the virus could combine with larger, lighter particles, up to 10 microns in size, to travel further.
From what I've seen the sub-micron droplets are only a very small fraction of what's produced by humans, so it's a bit difficult to believe it's a major route of transmission. And I don't think it would work anyway for cigarette smoke, whose particles are heavier than water.
Maybe a stupid questions, but is it possible they were looking at submicron droplets because they are the ones that might anyway spread the virus RNA furthest?
And why are cigarette smoke particles denser than water but other particulate pollution particles less dense?
Great thread TSE. Knocking on doors with the land army that winning campaigns are built on won't be a feature of next year's on time / delayed elections. Which forces party hacks to find new ways of reaching punters, and once they crack that the need to go door to door won't be something that will be voluntarily brought back. The solution will indeed be digital.
And the count? I do hope they retain some of its theatre - there is something truly special about the process we have now, however manual and outdated it may be. I can see how a digital platform could work - a website and an app, with a government tax break to get even the oldest / refusiest a device to participate on.
As for the lockdown, let's start on a plan. For our kids. That schools will have a phased reopening though May so that at the very least the year 6 / 10 / 12 kids get back for the critical weeks they need. We also need urgently to get vulnerable kids back into school where they are supposed to be. God alone knows what they are having to endure at home
Would you go out and vote if you and your family might get a deadly virus?
I'm struggling to understand what is wrong with postal voting. Your vote is delivered to you by the mailman, you walk it 100 yards (or drive 500) to the postbox, stick it in the post, no contact. It is then delivered to the place where it is counted, where social distancing can be observed.
It is also quite hard for the Russians to interfere with. Online voting, on the other hand...
All of the voting scandals of recent times have been related to postal voting. Such things as the head of the household or community leaders collecting ballot papers and filling them or one bedroom flats which apparently have 21 people registered to vote living there.
Yes, I'm aware of that. And if it were possible, I'd do away with postal voting and make each person present themselves at a polling booth with photo ID, unless they had a medical reason to apply for a postal vote.
However, postal voting already happens. It is widespread, known and, while flawed, is considerably better than online voting during a pandemic (or any other time).
A really dedicated postal-vote-rigger might try granny farming or forge a few signatures. But at best they might be able to influence a small number of votes. And there is a literal paper trail to investigate.
A hacker gaining control of an online system has the potential to change 100% of the votes in their favour, and if they do it correctly, to do it without anyone ever being able to prove the election has been rigged.
Online voting will ALWAYS be subject to questioning about its integrity. Because the security is is too complex for the lay person to understand. Think about all the hoo-hah about Russian influence on Brexit. Now imagine a knife edge vote like that, if it could never be proven that the vote was hacked. It is a recipe for calling into question the legitimacy of every vote you disagree with. For that reason alone, it should never, ever be allowed to happen.
We trust computers to move billions and fly planes.
Yeah, saying that so shortly after the 787MAX debacle isn't as great an argument as it once was.
Also there is still a staring amount of human reconciliation in large scale money transfer.
Yes I can appreciate that we are quite a way off online being safe enough for voting.
But when it is I don't see why we wouldn't use it.
Comments
"Testing for coronavirus remains a particular problem in Wales. A reader, who did not want to be named, emailed a photo of an empty testing centre at Cardiff Stadium at 1.45pm on Sunday.
The Welsh government has scraped a target for 5,000 tests per day blaming problems with obtaining supplies."
(And take the evens on a Labour MP winning. It's Twitter.)
https://twitter.com/StarSports_Bet/status/1254413828663709698
https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-3d-model-reveals-how-covid-19-can-spread-in-supermarket-11971373
is a graphic of how droplets spread. It is therefore very possible that your neighbours endanger you by simply breathing just as much as by smoking.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000h2pc
CarlottaVance said:
» show previous quotes
How's your wife doing by the way? I know its a (more than normally) worrying time for those with underlying health issues. I've got one 64 year old friend who's had an NHS "do not cross your threshold" letter.
She is improving but cannot go to hospital for x-rays or any other stuff at present. She is on the 12 week lockdown so I am same , been out twice for prescriptions since she came home 30th January. Both consultant and GP phoned and said do not go out at all. Government have finally sorted out stuff and prescriptions get delivered and hopefully will now be able to get slots at supermarkets. Think realistically we will be in for a good while. Thanks for asking.
We vote once a year (if that) and if it’s not broke then don’t fix it. I think TSE is looking for a problem where none exists.
Studies show that smokers are less likely to get it but more likely to die when they do. A sort of double or quits.
1) How would votes remain anonymous under such a system?
2) How could such a system gain the confidence of the lay person, most of whom do not understand crypto at all (remember, the general public thinks pencils in polling stations are a conspiracy).
3) What if the system as set up were built with a backdoor or a flaw in the code that was exploitable?
You'll miss subtlety, nuance, and great wordplay.
The great unwashed are both the voters and activists who do not engage in good hygiene.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVi__r6iim0
China put pressure on EU to soften coronavirus disinformation report
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/25/china-put-pressure-on-eu-to-soften-coronavirus-disinformation-report-207797
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/24/world/europe/disinformation-china-eu-coronavirus.html
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/26/virologist-christian-drosten-germany-coronavirus-expert-interview
Q: From where you stand, how is the UK handling the situation?
A: It’s clear that testing was implemented a little bit too late in the UK. Public Health England was in a position to diagnose the disease very early on – we worked with them to make the diagnostic test – but rollout in Germany was driven in part by market forces, which made it fast, and that wasn’t the case in the UK. Now, though, I have the impression that the UK is really gaining momentum in this regard, and that it is coordinating testing efforts better than Germany.
Q: What keeps you awake at night?
A: In Germany, people see that the hospitals are not overwhelmed, and they don’t understand why their shops have to shut. They only look at what’s happening here, not at the situation in, say, New York or Spain. This is the prevention paradox, and for many Germans I’m the evil guy who is crippling the economy. I get death threats, which I pass on to the police. More worrying to me are the other emails, the ones from people who say they have three kids and they’re worried about the future. It’s not my fault, but those ones keep me awake at night..
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8258201/El-Salvador-ignores-social-distancing-jailhouse-lockdowns-nation-sees-22-murders-day.html
I decided to check out the places I normally frequent and this is the result.
Bit of a lottery if my speed could be between 3.8 Mbps and 60 Mbps.
Also there is still a staring amount of human reconciliation in large scale money transfer.
If 0.5% IFR, that means down to 100 deaths/day in 2.5(?) weeks.
No tweet from DHSC.
Gov.uk website not updated.
https://twitter.com/DHSCgovuk
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/coronavirus-covid-19-information-for-the-public#number-of-cases-and-deaths
There is bugger all sign they are going to get even remotely close to 100,000. The media are going to roast Hancock in the way your average Tory does to those babies.
But when it is I don't see why we wouldn't use it.
From what I've seen the sub-micron droplets are only a very small fraction of what's produced by humans, so it's a bit difficult to believe it's a major route of transmission. And I don't think it would work anyway for cigarette smoke, whose particles are heavier than water.
Tests 29,058
People tested 25,577
Positive 4,463
That means % positive = 17.4% which I think is probably the lowest so far by quite a wide margin.
All data today very encouraging - in particular this and number in hospital.
Pretty clear going strongly in right direction.
The example I always used was John Lewis on Oxford Street which is almost a Faraday Cage for mobile signals.
So yes, you would expect % to come down as more people are tested but it's still encouraging it's coming down as much as it is.
David Paton's spreadsheet now shows very clear, consistent downward trend.
https://twitter.com/cricketwyvern/status/1254407147238182913/photo/1
World Cup questions: Were England robbed by Argentina at Mexico 86?
I was shocked to discover that the author thought that Argentina were the better team so it doesn’t matter what that ******* ******** ********* got away with.
Now, you won’t hear me arguing in favour of the prehistoric approach to the game in England around the time, but it still angers me that superior footballers like Maradona and Koeman got away with blatant cheating.
Unfortunately there is an element of the footballing press who think England deserve to be cheated. Compare how the same paper reacted to another handball against a more deserving nation:
https://amp.theguardian.com/football/blog/2009/nov/21/thierry-henry-handball-france-ireland
At least Maradona had the decency to score one of the World Cup's greatest goals once he had fisted Argentina into the lead against Bobby Robson's England in the 1986 quarter-finals, dribbling half the length of the pitch, past player after player, to find the net then repeating the feat in miniature against Belgium in the semi-finals.
https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet/status/1254425221974589440?s=20
And why are cigarette smoke particles denser than water but other particulate pollution particles less dense?
And the count? I do hope they retain some of its theatre - there is something truly special about the process we have now, however manual and outdated it may be. I can see how a digital platform could work - a website and an app, with a government tax break to get even the oldest / refusiest a device to participate on.