Point of order on the Survation poll is that it is the first the company has done since the GE, so comparisons are with then - not since Starmer took over. His personal rating is plus 16.
That is quite bizarre. If I was thinking of doing one of my silly satirical type posts lampooning 'Hancock's Target' I would probably do something like that - liken it in deadpan language to JFK and the moonshot and things equally OTT and absurd and ridiculous. And here we have a supposedly loyal Tory MP taking the piss out of it in just that way! Is Freeman for the chop now, I wonder? And does it indicate a growing contempt for Hancock on the backbenches?
Oh, come on. He's not saying that Hancock's achievement is comparable to the moon landings, just that the principle is that same. He set what looked like an almost impossible target and has effectively met it under difficult circumstances.
Millions of self-help books are sold every year on the principle that you can learn from the techniques used by great leaders. I don't think Freeman is suggesting anything beyond that.
We must have different absurdity thresholds, you and I. My genuine initial reaction was to look for the blue tick because it must surely be a piss take.
Pleased for Matt though. I do like him. Not sure how effective he is but I do like him.
Did you even bother to read the article? It is well written.
I confess I didn't. But "well written" always helps.
And what did you make of that definition of what constitutes sound public finances? -
The TFEU obliges EU Member States to comply with budgetary discipline by respecting two criteria: a deficit to GDP ratio and a debt to GDP ratio not exceeding reference values of 3% and 60% respectively, as defined in the Protocol on the EDP annexed to the TFEU.
Sound broadly reasonable?
That's the TFEU definition and no it does not.
It says that you can be running a 2.9% deficit during a boom time so long as your debt isn't high without giving any thought as to what happens when the next inevitable recession comes after the boom - which is precisely what happened in 2007/08.
This may be breaking news to you but I don't agree 100% with everything in the TFEU
More the overall concept is what I thought might be interesting - how when assessing the state of a nation's public finances one looks at the level of deficit and of debt as a % of GDP.
I suppose it's pretty obvious but, you know, I thought why not circulate because one or two people on here might not have a handle on this stuff like you and I have.
That's the problem its too prescriptive and putting thresholds like that causes politicians to try to game the system by saying "we are within the rules" during the boom time then acting shocked there's a crisis afterwards. Or it means there's a crisis and the threshold gets breached and people just ignore it.
The reality is much simpler and more vague. The reality is booms and busts happen, there is nothing you can do to prevent it.
The reality is there needs to be if possible stability over an economic cycle so that during boom times you either reduce the deficit or run a surplus, and during recessions you run a deficit. That is what matters more. Simple numbers can't work and that is where the European Union failed in trying to assign numbers.
Gordon Brown himself when he came in said this with his "Golden Rule" but then kept manipulating the rule to break it. Given that 2002/03 to 2007/08 were all during the UK's boom time and a long time after the last recession the budget should have been a surplus and we'd have been well placed to face the GFC when it hit.
We should have learned from the Blair era that the problem with simplistic targets is always that they can be achieved in easier ways than that intended. Soviet hospitals wheeling patients into the street to die, redux.
Or we could have just read Freakonomics. Targets create distortions. It is inevitable.
We should have learned from the Blair era that the problem with simplistic targets is always that they can be achieved in easier ways than that intended. Soviet hospitals wheeling patients into the street to die, redux.
Taking people for fools is not a sustainable strategy.
Agreeing to mail is a bit dodgy but if the tests have been sent out after people have applied for them and are therefore presumably motivated what is the problem with that exactly?
Agreeing to mail is a bit dodgy but if the tests have been sent out after people have applied for them and are therefore presumably motivated what is the problem with that exactly?
They are still desperate to play gotcha?
There is no interest if these tests are being used effectively. It's all about the number now. Now without the pressure of having to meet the target, perhaps the resources can be deployed more effectively with the enhanced capacity they now have.
Agreeing to mail is a bit dodgy but if the tests have been sent out after people have applied for them and are therefore presumably motivated what is the problem with that exactly?
The test hasn't actually been processed by the lab, so there's no result from the test. There's no meaningful sense in which the test can be said to have happened yet.
I really hope this is a misunderstanding because if it's true it makes a complete mockery of the numbers being published.
He would have been well advised to have stuck with his long cultivated image of someone who’s jackshit opinions were based on nothing more than the last thing he had happened to read, with a half life of a day or two at best. Rather than resorting to hindsight bias to claim to have been the next Nostradamus.
Agreeing to mail is a bit dodgy but if the tests have been sent out after people have applied for them and are therefore presumably motivated what is the problem with that exactly?
The % positive for a certain day can't be analysed at all if we've got tests coming back into the system at a later date that are not from that particular date.
The data of test taken date, test reported date needs reporting like deaths so at least someone has a chance to do a Prof Cricket on them.
Season 12... the battle between the Moderate Centrists and their new rivals, the Centrist Moderates.
A later series on intra Scandi relations during the virus would be interesting. I'd imagine some reference to Swedish smugness getting its comeuppance would be unavoidable, if a little tasteless.
You are making an assumption here that tax is all that incentivises people to forgo income.
for example My job my take home pay is Y, for a shelf stacker it is X The extra money I get paid (Y-X) incentivises me to keep in my job and not quit and become a shelf stacker.
However my job also involves unpaid overtime, stress, support rota's, longer commutes probably as most shelf stackers will live closer to work. If the value Y-X becomes small enough that I don't think the extra pay is worth all that extra angst I definitely go sod this I will go shelf stacking instead. Your progressive taxation lowers the value of Y-X as I will be paying a larger portion of tax than currently thus lowering the value of Y and possibly raising the value of X.
No, it's the other way round. The proposal I described is designed to reduce the perverse incentive not to take the increased pay, which you get at the moment because of various tax band effects (and benefits as well). At no point in the system I'm describing would you be heavily penalised for earning extra pay.
You miss my point entirely, I am not talking about not taking extra pay I am talking about the effect on take home pay differentials let me illustrate with some figures
A earns 20k he pays currently 20% tax of 29pounds a week and takes home 332 B earns 40k he pays currently 20% tax of 106pounds a week and takes home 529
B considers that the extra 197£ a week is reasonable compensation for the unpaid overtime , the commute costs, the stress and the support rota
under your system A now pays for example 5% and b pays 35%
A now pays tax of 7£ a week and takes home 354£ b now pays tax of 185$ a week and takes home 450£
Now B is wondering if the 96 pounds extra is worth it for the unpaid overtime , the commute costs, the stress and the support rota
No, your figure of 35% at £40K is far, far too high. I haven't done the full sums (and of course it could be calibrated at whatever rate the Chancellor wanted), but I'd guess it would probably be around 15% at that level.
It's about 20% at the moment. Anyone who pays a net rate of 35% is earning six figures.
Also the 35% corresponds to Richards new sliding scale scheme not net taxation where the percent tax you pay depends where you are on the scale between minium wage and 150k
Yes, it's why I don't understand Richard's proposal. Our tax system works very much like he says it should already, just without having multiple rates.
You haven't understood at all. The current system does have multiple rates, barmy ones: excluding NI, rates of 20%, 40%, 59.7% in the Child Benefit withdrawal region for parents, then 40% again up to £100K, then 60% as the personal allowances is tapered out, then 40% again, then 45% over £150K. It's made even more complicated by NI, and at the lower end by benefits withdrawals, and at the higher end potentially by the tapered annual allowance for pension contributions.
Ii the proposal I mentioned there would be no sudden changes in marginal rates, let alone barmy ones as we currently have. Instead the marginal rate would start very low and smoothly increase up to a maximum value. So it is progressive, but without the distorting effects of irrationally high marginal rates at certain points in the curve.
I read today that the records are still being indexed by the University of Delaware, a project, which won't be finished until next year at the earliest, so there's currently no way to conduct such a search.
Point of order on the Survation poll is that it is the first the company has done since the GE, so comparisons are with then - not since Starmer took over. His personal rating is plus 16.
Yes, the last Survation poll had Labour on 34, so they’re down 3 from that
I read today that the records are still being indexed by the University of Delaware, a project, which won't be finished until next year at the earliest, so there's currently no way to conduct such a search.
Agreeing to mail is a bit dodgy but if the tests have been sent out after people have applied for them and are therefore presumably motivated what is the problem with that exactly?
The test hasn't actually been processed by the lab, so there's no result from the test. There's no meaningful sense in which the test can be said to have happened yet.
I really hope this is a misunderstanding because if it's true it makes a complete mockery of the numbers being published.
The report also says the methodology for counting tests was changed to get a higher number. If that’s true, it’s just taking people for fools at a time when trust in the government is vital.
Agreeing to mail is a bit dodgy but if the tests have been sent out after people have applied for them and are therefore presumably motivated what is the problem with that exactly?
I read today that the records are still being indexed by the University of Delaware, a project, which won't be finished until next year at the earliest, so there's currently no way to conduct such a search.
What a convenient excuse!
His Senate records there are blocked from any access.
The 31% who ‘know’ aliens don’t exist are the stupid ones. The universe contains 100 BILLION galaxies each with 100 BILLION stars, so there are trillions of planets.
It is extremely improbable ours is the only planet showing signs of life.
And of course there may be trillions of parallel universes. Or an infinite number.
Eadric is being a little unfair. The unbelievers are only 'thinking' not 'knowing' they don't exist; they may regard 'aliens' as meaning little green men of some sort; and they may think that if the hypothesis that intelligent life is common in the universe is correct then there would by now be an intelligent way of letting us know, and that in this case the absence of evidence must be taken into account.
Point of order on the Survation poll is that it is the first the company has done since the GE, so comparisons are with then - not since Starmer took over. His personal rating is plus 16.
Yes, the last Survation poll had Labour on 34, so they’re down 3 from that
Indeed - and the latest one is since Starmer took over - presumably Labour would have dropped even lower if JC was still in charge. Not sure I'm buying it either.
One of the results I am anticipating from this virus episode is putting the Green Party back to a respectable showing.
Yes but at the expense of the Limpdems by the looks.
Honestly I think the Lib Dem brand is now twice tarnished, and worthless in large swathes of the country. First it was tuition fees, second it was Brexit.
In GE 2019 we had life-long LDers (who showed as that on our canvassing and confessed as such at the time) saying how they would be voting Conservative because the revoke policy was utterly undemocratic.
Remember, SW LDs used to be more eurosceptic than the Tories. I don't see many seats in the SW going Yellow again anytime soon.
That is quite bizarre. If I was thinking of doing one of my silly satirical type posts lampooning 'Hancock's Target' I would probably do something like that - liken it in deadpan language to JFK and the moonshot and things equally OTT and absurd and ridiculous. And here we have a supposedly loyal Tory MP taking the piss out of it in just that way! Is Freeman for the chop now, I wonder? And does it indicate a growing contempt for Hancock on the backbenches?
Oh, come on. He's not saying that Hancock's achievement is comparable to the moon landings, just that the principle is that same. He set what looked like an almost impossible target and has effectively met it under difficult circumstances.
Millions of self-help books are sold every year on the principle that you can learn from the techniques used by great leaders. I don't think Freeman is suggesting anything beyond that.
We must have different absurdity thresholds, you and I. My genuine initial reaction was to look for the blue tick because it must surely be a piss take.
Pleased for Matt though. I do like him. Not sure how effective he is but I do like him.
Did you even bother to read the article? It is well written.
I confess I didn't. But "well written" always helps.
And what did you make of that definition of what constitutes sound public finances? -
The TFEU obliges EU Member States to comply with budgetary discipline by respecting two criteria: a deficit to GDP ratio and a debt to GDP ratio not exceeding reference values of 3% and 60% respectively, as defined in the Protocol on the EDP annexed to the TFEU.
Sound broadly reasonable?
That's the TFEU definition and no it does not.
It says that you can be running a 2.9% deficit during a boom time so long as your debt isn't high without giving any thought as to what happens when the next inevitable recession comes after the boom - which is precisely what happened in 2007/08.
This may be breaking news to you but I don't agree 100% with everything in the TFEU
More the overall concept is what I thought might be interesting - how when assessing the state of a nation's public finances one looks at the level of deficit and of debt as a % of GDP.
I suppose it's pretty obvious but, you know, I thought why not circulate because one or two people on here might not have a handle on this stuff like you and I have.
That's the problem its too prescriptive and putting thresholds like that causes politicians to try to game the system by saying "we are within the rules" during the boom time then acting shocked there's a crisis afterwards. Or it means there's a crisis and the threshold gets breached and people just ignore it.
The reality is much simpler and more vague. The reality is booms and busts happen, there is nothing you can do to prevent it.
The reality is there needs to be if possible stability over an economic cycle so that during boom times you either reduce the deficit or run a surplus, and during recessions you run a deficit. That is what matters more. Simple numbers can't work and that is where the European Union failed in trying to assign numbers.
Gordon Brown himself when he came in said this with his "Golden Rule" but then kept manipulating the rule to break it. Given that 2002/03 to 2007/08 were all during the UK's boom time and a long time after the last recession the budget should have been a surplus and we'd have been well placed to face the GFC when it hit.
Mmm. I'm reckon there's some truth there. Thanks for typing all that out.
But the overall concept - that one looks at the size of the deficit and the size of the debt, these two things together, the interplay between them, in order the assess how sound or how fragile the public finances are.
Agreeing to mail is a bit dodgy but if the tests have been sent out after people have applied for them and are therefore presumably motivated what is the problem with that exactly?
Its just a smear. Its George Eaton.
George Eaton and smear and tests is not conjuring up nice images.... "Get in those stirrups, boy..."
“Up to 50,000 of the tests that will be reported as having taken place on 30 April will actually represent the mailing or the agreeing to mail a home testing kit.”
One of the results I am anticipating from this virus episode is putting the Green Party back to a respectable showing.
Yes but at the expense of the Limpdems by the looks.
Honestly I think the Lib Dem brand is now twice tarnished, and worthless in large swathes of the country. First it was tuition fees, second it was Brexit.
In GE 2019 we had life-long LDers (who showed as that on our canvassing and confessed as such at the time) saying how they would be voting Conservative because the revoke policy was utterly undemocratic.
Remember, SW LDs used to be more eurosceptic than the Tories. I don't see many seats in the SW going Yellow again anytime soon.
The LDs are more likely to gain Cities of London and Westminster or Esher and Walton at the next general election now than Torbay or North Cornwall
He would have been well advised to have stuck with his long cultivated image of someone who’s jackshit opinions were based on nothing more than the last thing he had happened to read, with a half life of a day or two at best. Rather than resorting to hindsight bias to claim to have been the next Nostradamus.
Never abandon your USP, is always good advice.
The fact I foresaw this pandemic six weeks before you REALLY pisses you off, doesn’t it? Like, it doesn’t just irritate you, it sends you a bit mental
Have a jam sandwich. You can’t change the past.
It's true. You have forecast 10 out of the last three pandemics/recessions/alien landings which is a great record.
If there are aliens and they exist in this universe, we will never see them. They must be millions of light years away, and with space expanding faster than light can travel, we'll never be able to see them.
Point of order on the Survation poll is that it is the first the company has done since the GE, so comparisons are with then - not since Starmer took over. His personal rating is plus 16.
Yes, the last Survation poll had Labour on 34, so they’re down 3 from that
Indeed - and the latest one is since Starmer took over - presumably Labour would have dropped even lower if JC was still in charge. Not sure I'm buying it either.
Post election polls sees a lot of folk shifting to the 'winning party' so no surprise to see the Tories around 50%. I suspect Lab have gained Libs, lost to the Greens and probably have a slightly lower level of voter enthusiasm.
Starmer is obviously there for the long game and has had a fairly mediocre first few weeks but he is at least better positioned to take Tory votes if and presumably when the Boris factor rubs off. Initial thoughts suggest Starmer and his team do not look like the sort of leadership that will hit or surpass 40% in the polls.
If there are aliens and they exist in this universe, we will never see them. They must be millions of light years away, and with space expanding faster than light can travel, we'll never be able to see them.
You underestimate how many stars there are on our galactic doorstep. All of those are within tens of thousands of light years.
Point of order on the Survation poll is that it is the first the company has done since the GE, so comparisons are with then - not since Starmer took over. His personal rating is plus 16.
Yes, the last Survation poll had Labour on 34, so they’re down 3 from that
Indeed - and the latest one is since Starmer took over - presumably Labour would have dropped even lower if JC was still in charge. Not sure I'm buying it either.
I wouldn’t expect you to. But companies that polled in Februrary, March and April have shown Labour’s vote rising - albeit slowly - since Starmer took over. More importantly at this stage, his personal numbers are positive. Four years to go ...
That is quite bizarre. If I was thinking of doing one of my silly satirical type posts lampooning 'Hancock's Target' I would probably do something like that - liken it in deadpan language to JFK and the moonshot and things equally OTT and absurd and ridiculous. And here we have a supposedly loyal Tory MP taking the piss out of it in just that way! Is Freeman for the chop now, I wonder? And does it indicate a growing contempt for Hancock on the backbenches?
Oh, come on. He's not saying that Hancock's achievement is comparable to the moon landings, just that the principle is that same. He set what looked like an almost impossible target and has effectively met it under difficult circumstances.
Millions of self-help books are sold every year on the principle that you can learn from the techniques used by great leaders. I don't think Freeman is suggesting anything beyond that.
We must have different absurdity thresholds, you and I. My genuine initial reaction was to look for the blue tick because it must surely be a piss take.
Pleased for Matt though. I do like him. Not sure how effective he is but I do like him.
Did you even bother to read the article? It is well written.
I confess I didn't. But "well written" always helps.
And what did you make of that definition of what constitutes sound public finances? -
The TFEU obliges EU Member States to comply with budgetary discipline by respecting two criteria: a deficit to GDP ratio and a debt to GDP ratio not exceeding reference values of 3% and 60% respectively, as defined in the Protocol on the EDP annexed to the TFEU.
Sound broadly reasonable?
That's the TFEU definition and no it does not.
It says that you can be running a 2.9% deficit during a boom time so long as your debt isn't high without giving any thought as to what happens when the next inevitable recession comes after the boom - which is precisely what happened in 2007/08.
This may be breaking news to you but I don't agree 100% with everything in the TFEU
More the overall concept is what I thought might be interesting - how when assessing the state of a nation's public finances one looks at the level of deficit and of debt as a % of GDP.
I suppose it's pretty obvious but, you know, I thought why not circulate because one or two people on here might not have a handle on this stuff like you and I have.
That's the problem its too prescriptive and putting thresholds like that causes politicians to try to game the system by saying "we are within the rules" during the boom time then acting shocked there's a crisis afterwards. Or it means there's a crisis and the threshold gets breached and people just ignore it.
The reality is much simpler and more vague. The reality is booms and busts happen, there is nothing you can do to prevent it.
The reality is there needs to be if possible stability over an economic cycle so that during boom times you either reduce the deficit or run a surplus, and during recessions you run a deficit. That is what matters more. Simple numbers can't work and that is where the European Union failed in trying to assign numbers.
Gordon Brown himself when he came in said this with his "Golden Rule" but then kept manipulating the rule to break it. Given that 2002/03 to 2007/08 were all during the UK's boom time and a long time after the last recession the budget should have been a surplus and we'd have been well placed to face the GFC when it hit.
Mmm. I'm reckon there's some truth there. Thanks for typing all that out.
But the overall concept - that one looks at the size of the deficit and the size of the debt, these two things together, the interplay between them, in order the assess how sound or how fragile the public finances are.
We cool with this now?
Not really, no.
The overall stage of the economic cycle and the overall deficit, those two things together, the interplay between them are what matters far more.
Anything that ignores where you are in the economic cycle is absolutely meaningless.
Point of order on the Survation poll is that it is the first the company has done since the GE, so comparisons are with then - not since Starmer took over. His personal rating is plus 16.
Yes, the last Survation poll had Labour on 34, so they’re down 3 from that
Indeed - and the latest one is since Starmer took over - presumably Labour would have dropped even lower if JC was still in charge. Not sure I'm buying it either.
Post election polls sees a lot of folk shifting to the 'winning party' so no surprise to see the Tories around 50%. I suspect Lab have gained Libs, lost to the Greens and probably have a slightly lower level of voter enthusiasm.
Starmer is obviously there for the long game and has had a fairly mediocre first few weeks but he is at least better positioned to take Tory votes if and presumably when the Boris factor rubs off. Initial thoughts suggest Starmer and his team do not look like the sort of leadership that will hit or surpass 40% in the polls.
Yes, he is going to need LD and/or SNP support to become PM it seems if he does become PM, he is not getting the bounce Blair or Boris got when they became party leader which foretold a big majority for them at the next general election
In other words We SHOULD negotiate with terrorists when they're my terrorists.
The Americans have always had a love-hate relationship with terrorists. Who do you think supported the IRA?
Mainly north east Catholics. I was in a bar in the Combat Zone in Boston in the late 70s when a couple of heavy set males in blue jeans and black leather jackets came in and stood quietly by the door, followed by several females dressed the same, who wandered through the bar passing buckets around for donations under the watchful eyes of the men. That was Noraid. Northeastern Catholics loved the country so much that they'd do anything short of actually going there. They viewed the IRA as romantically as we viewed the old west. In those days there were many bumper stickers that sid simply 26 + 6 = 1. It didn't require an explanation.
I remember being in an Irish bar just off the UPenn campus in Philly c.1997 with my girlfriend (now wife) and her friends. The band was called "Spirit of '16", tagline "Righting Ireland's wrongs through music." They started with "What Shall We Do With The British Soldier?" (answer apparently, "shoot, shoot, shoot the bastard"). That was, um, uncomfortable.
He would have been well advised to have stuck with his long cultivated image of someone who’s jackshit opinions were based on nothing more than the last thing he had happened to read, with a half life of a day or two at best. Rather than resorting to hindsight bias to claim to have been the next Nostradamus.
Never abandon your USP, is always good advice.
The fact I foresaw this pandemic six weeks before you REALLY pisses you off, doesn’t it? Like, it doesn’t just irritate you, it sends you a bit mental
Have a jam sandwich. You can’t change the past.
It's true. You have forecast 10 out of the last three pandemics/recessions/alien landings which is a great record.
Cheltenham. You went to CHELTENHAM
As a matter of interest, Cheltenham is rather a hotspot at 50 deaths per 100 000, higher than most of the West Country/South Midlands.
Spain 1.455m tests (31,126 per million) Italy 1.979m tests (32,735 per million) Germany 2.547m tests (30,400 per million) Hancock 0.902m tests (13.286 million)
Hancock is not a legend
You were the one banging on about daily totals, now the daily totals are up you're changing tack. Funny that.
Do you think anyone is impressed with you spinning like a jenny at the minute?
Do you think anyone is impressed by Hancock other than a complete spinning Patsy like you, we are running at less than half per million population of what Spain Germany and Italy are
Hancock is a total failure and if its true that “Up to 50,000 of the tests that will be reported as having taken place on 30 April will actually represent the mailing or the agreeing to mail a home testing kit.” He has to go
He would have been well advised to have stuck with his long cultivated image of someone who’s jackshit opinions were based on nothing more than the last thing he had happened to read, with a half life of a day or two at best. Rather than resorting to hindsight bias to claim to have been the next Nostradamus.
Never abandon your USP, is always good advice.
The fact I foresaw this pandemic six weeks before you REALLY pisses you off, doesn’t it? Like, it doesn’t just irritate you, it sends you a bit mental
Have a jam sandwich. You can’t change the past.
It's true. You have forecast 10 out of the last three pandemics/recessions/alien landings which is a great record.
Cheltenham. You went to CHELTENHAM
I know. I was such an idiot.
And because I want to humiliate myself further, and as I don't have it in front of me could you please link again to the research around the Cheltenham Spike in terms of cases/deaths.
Is there any correlation with overall health? For example, life expectancy?
A fair bit with the index of multiple deprivation, which I imagine is a good correlation for health/mortality.
by eye. that looks like a map of lived density (people who live within XX of you rather than pop/area). with some wrinkles around affluence and ethnicity.
If there are aliens and they exist in this universe, we will never see them. They must be millions of light years away, and with space expanding faster than light can travel, we'll never be able to see them.
Sort of correct, but your first "will" and "must" are not certain.
Spain 1.455m tests (31,126 per million) Italy 1.979m tests (32,735 per million) Germany 2.547m tests (30,400 per million) Hancock 0.902m tests (13.286 million)
Hancock is not a legend
You were the one banging on about daily totals, now the daily totals are up you're changing tack. Funny that.
Do you think anyone is impressed with you spinning like a jenny at the minute?
Do you think anyone is impressed by Hancock other than a complete spinning Patsy like you, we are running at less than half per million population of what Spain Germany and Italy are
Hancock is a total failure and if its true that “Up to 50,000 of the tests that will be reported as having taken place on 30 April will actually represent the mailing or the agreeing to mail a home testing kit.” He has to go
He's done a great job and is going nowhere.
Why are you cherrypicking cumulative totals (which isn't what you were doing) against Germany (who had the industry at the start) and Spain and Italy (whose healthcare system collapsed and needed testing much sooner). Would you rather be in the position of Spain and Italy with a collapsed healthcare system rather than where we are with the NHS having spare capacity?
How many daily tests are France doing and what is France's cumulative total?
Spain 1.455m tests (31,126 per million) Italy 1.979m tests (32,735 per million) Germany 2.547m tests (30,400 per million) Hancock 0.902m tests (13.286 million)
Hancock is not a legend
You were the one banging on about daily totals, now the daily totals are up you're changing tack. Funny that.
Do you think anyone is impressed with you spinning like a jenny at the minute?
Do you think anyone is impressed by Hancock other than a complete spinning Patsy like you, we are running at less than half per million population of what Spain Germany and Italy are
Hancock is a total failure and if its true that “Up to 50,000 of the tests that will be reported as having taken place on 30 April will actually represent the mailing or the agreeing to mail a home testing kit.” He has to go
A wonderful example of starting from your conclusion and working backwards to try to find an argument to support it.
Spain 1.455m tests (31,126 per million) Italy 1.979m tests (32,735 per million) Germany 2.547m tests (30,400 per million) Hancock 0.902m tests (13.286 million)
Hancock is not a legend
You were the one banging on about daily totals, now the daily totals are up you're changing tack. Funny that.
Do you think anyone is impressed with you spinning like a jenny at the minute?
Do you think anyone is impressed by Hancock other than a complete spinning Patsy like you, we are running at less than half per million population of what Spain Germany and Italy are
Hancock is a total failure and if its true that “Up to 50,000 of the tests that will be reported as having taken place on 30 April will actually represent the mailing or the agreeing to mail a home testing kit.” He has to go
I don't think Hancock is the worst Sec for Health. There have been plenty of shockers in that post over my 3 decades in the business.
His target is pretty daft, real Soviet Tractor factory stuff. Numbers are only a part of the story.
It is an old adage in Medicine to only do a test if it is going to alter management.
Who has been tested? Why have they been tested? And what is being done differently as a result? These are the questions to be asked.
Point of order on the Survation poll is that it is the first the company has done since the GE, so comparisons are with then - not since Starmer took over. His personal rating is plus 16.
Yes, the last Survation poll had Labour on 34, so they’re down 3 from that
Indeed - and the latest one is since Starmer took over - presumably Labour would have dropped even lower if JC was still in charge. Not sure I'm buying it either.
I wouldn’t expect you to. But companies that polled in Februrary, March and April have shown Labour’s vote rising - albeit slowly - since Starmer took over. More importantly at this stage, his personal numbers are positive. Four years to go ...
Yes, I’d expect a new leader to poll better than one who was leaving, three months after losing a General Election. So Starmer should improve on Jezza’s last scores. He isn’t improving on Jezza’s scores before the GE though
Would you call 34 to 31 a 3% drop or 9% by the way?
I think the testing thing is OK. So maybe it's only really 50 000 a day. That's a big improvement. Great. Now think about test effectiveness and building it up further.
Spain 1.455m tests (31,126 per million) Italy 1.979m tests (32,735 per million) Germany 2.547m tests (30,400 per million) Hancock 0.902m tests (13.286 million)
Hancock is not a legend
You were the one banging on about daily totals, now the daily totals are up you're changing tack. Funny that.
Do you think anyone is impressed with you spinning like a jenny at the minute?
Do you think anyone is impressed by Hancock other than a complete spinning Patsy like you, we are running at less than half per million population of what Spain Germany and Italy are
Hancock is a total failure and if its true that “Up to 50,000 of the tests that will be reported as having taken place on 30 April will actually represent the mailing or the agreeing to mail a home testing kit.” He has to go
I don't think Hancock is the worst Sec for Health. There have been plenty of shockers in that post over my 3 decades in the business.
His target is pretty daft, real Soviet Tractor factory stuff. Numbers are only a part of the story.
It is an old adage in Medicine to only do a test if it is going to alter management.
Who has been tested? Why have they been tested? And what is being done differently as a result? These are the questions to be asked.
The target is only daft because the media have been obsessing about it non-stop for the last couple of weeks. The World at One today was absolutely hilarious, you could see that they'd lined up an entire programme to celebrate the failure to meet the target, and then had had to rejig it at the last moment to find some other aspect to whinge about.
He would have been well advised to have stuck with his long cultivated image of someone who’s jackshit opinions were based on nothing more than the last thing he had happened to read, with a half life of a day or two at best. Rather than resorting to hindsight bias to claim to have been the next Nostradamus.
Never abandon your USP, is always good advice.
The fact I foresaw this pandemic six weeks before you REALLY pisses you off, doesn’t it? Like, it doesn’t just irritate you, it sends you a bit mental
Have a jam sandwich. You can’t change the past.
It's true. You have forecast 10 out of the last three pandemics/recessions/alien landings which is a great record.
Cheltenham. You went to CHELTENHAM
I know. I was such an idiot.
And because I want to humiliate myself further, and as I don't have it in front of me could you please link again to the research around the Cheltenham Spike in terms of cases/deaths.
TIA
bunch of twitter stuff snipped
Idiot.
Yes Cheltenham went ahead and there may have been cases because people congregated there.
But the country was not locked down and people congregated in thousands of places, the Central Line, the pub, Odettes, oh and probably the Northern Line, and...and...
You could write the same articles individually for any of those. To single out Cheltenham is actually beyond stupid; as they say, it's not even wrong.
Spain 1.455m tests (31,126 per million) Italy 1.979m tests (32,735 per million) Germany 2.547m tests (30,400 per million) Hancock 0.902m tests (13.286 million)
Hancock is not a legend
You were the one banging on about daily totals, now the daily totals are up you're changing tack. Funny that.
Do you think anyone is impressed with you spinning like a jenny at the minute?
Do you think anyone is impressed by Hancock other than a complete spinning Patsy like you, we are running at less than half per million population of what Spain Germany and Italy are
Hancock is a total failure and if its true that “Up to 50,000 of the tests that will be reported as having taken place on 30 April will actually represent the mailing or the agreeing to mail a home testing kit.” He has to go
I don't think Hancock is the worst Sec for Health. There have been plenty of shockers in that post over my 3 decades in the business.
His target is pretty daft, real Soviet Tractor factory stuff. Numbers are only a part of the story.
It is an old adage in Medicine to only do a test if it is going to alter management.
Who has been tested? Why have they been tested? And what is being done differently as a result? These are the questions to be asked.
Nuance....it was clear the 100k a day target came from the claim Germany can do about that and South Korea probably can if needed.
But the South Korean approach is far superior to the German.
@kinabalu just to explain further why the economic cycle and deficit is what matters more than other concerns think for a second which position is better?
i) During a boom before a recession having a 2.9% deficit? ii) During a recession before a recovery having a 3.1% deficit?
He would have been well advised to have stuck with his long cultivated image of someone who’s jackshit opinions were based on nothing more than the last thing he had happened to read, with a half life of a day or two at best. Rather than resorting to hindsight bias to claim to have been the next Nostradamus.
Never abandon your USP, is always good advice.
The fact I foresaw this pandemic six weeks before you REALLY pisses you off, doesn’t it? Like, it doesn’t just irritate you, it sends you a bit mental
Have a jam sandwich. You can’t change the past.
It's true. You have forecast 10 out of the last three pandemics/recessions/alien landings which is a great record.
Cheltenham. You went to CHELTENHAM
I know. I was such an idiot.
And because I want to humiliate myself further, and as I don't have it in front of me could you please link again to the research around the Cheltenham Spike in terms of cases/deaths.
TIA
bunch of twitter stuff snipped
Idiot.
Yes Cheltenham went ahead and there may have been cases because people congregated there.
But the country was not locked down and people congregated in thousands of places, the Central Line, the pub, Odettes, oh and probably the Northern Line, and...and...
You could write the same articles individually for any of those. To single out Cheltenham is actually beyond stupid; as they say, it's not even wrong.
Well. You did ask to be humiliated publicly. So I obliged.
I actually asked you to prove your stupidity and you did so.
That is quite bizarre. If I was thinking of doing one of my silly satirical type posts lampooning 'Hancock's Target' I would probably do something like that - liken it in deadpan language to JFK and the moonshot and things equally OTT and absurd and ridiculous. And here we have a supposedly loyal Tory MP taking the piss out of it in just that way! Is Freeman for the chop now, I wonder? And does it indicate a growing contempt for Hancock on the backbenches?
Oh, come on. He's not saying that Hancock's achievement is comparable to the moon landings, just that the principle is that same. He set what looked like an almost impossible target and has effectively met it under difficult circumstances.
Millions of self-help books are sold every year on the principle that you can learn from the techniques used by great leaders. I don't think Freeman is suggesting anything beyond that.
We must have different absurdity thresholds, you and I. My genuine initial reaction was to look for the blue tick because it must surely be a piss take.
Pleased for Matt though. I do like him. Not sure how effective he is but I do like him.
Did you even bother to read the article? It is well written.
I confess I didn't. But "well written" always helps.
And what did you make of that definition of what constitutes sound public finances? -
The TFEU obliges EU Member States to comply with budgetary discipline by respecting two criteria: a deficit to GDP ratio and a debt to GDP ratio not exceeding reference values of 3% and 60% respectively, as defined in the Protocol on the EDP annexed to the TFEU.
Sound broadly reasonable?
That's the TFEU definition and no it does not.
It says that you can be running a 2.9% deficit during a boom time so long as your debt isn't high without giving any thought as to what happens when the next inevitable recession comes after the boom - which is precisely what happened in 2007/08.
This may be breaking news to you but I don't agree 100% with everything in the TFEU
More the overall concept is what I thought might be interesting - how when assessing the state of a nation's public finances one looks at the level of deficit and of debt as a % of GDP.
I suppose it's pretty obvious but, you know, I thought why not circulate because one or two people on here might not have a handle on this stuff like you and I have.
That's the problem its too prescriptive and putting thresholds like that causes politicians to try to game the system by saying "we are within the rules" during the boom time then acting shocked there's a crisis afterwards. Or it means there's a crisis and the threshold gets breached and people just ignore it.
The reality is much simpler and more vague. The reality is booms and busts happen, there is nothing you can do to prevent it.
The reality is there needs to be if possible stability over an economic cycle so that during boom times you either reduce the deficit or run a surplus, and during recessions you run a deficit. That is what matters more. Simple numbers can't work and that is where the European Union failed in trying to assign numbers.
Gordon Brown himself when he came in said this with his "Golden Rule" but then kept manipulating the rule to break it. Given that 2002/03 to 2007/08 were all during the UK's boom time and a long time after the last recession the budget should have been a surplus and we'd have been well placed to face the GFC when it hit.
Mmm. I'm reckon there's some truth there. Thanks for typing all that out.
But the overall concept - that one looks at the size of the deficit and the size of the debt, these two things together, the interplay between them, in order the assess how sound or how fragile the public finances are.
We cool with this now?
Not really, no.
The overall stage of the economic cycle and the overall deficit, those two things together, the interplay between them are what matters far more.
Anything that ignores where you are in the economic cycle is absolutely meaningless.
This is now close. I'm excited.
Try this for size -
One looks at the size of the deficit, the size of the debt, and the stage of the economic cycle, these things together, the interplay between them, in order the assess how sound or how fragile the public finances are.
I sense a "yes, kinabalu, I agree" now, I really do.
Point of order on the Survation poll is that it is the first the company has done since the GE, so comparisons are with then - not since Starmer took over. His personal rating is plus 16.
Yes, the last Survation poll had Labour on 34, so they’re down 3 from that
Indeed - and the latest one is since Starmer took over - presumably Labour would have dropped even lower if JC was still in charge. Not sure I'm buying it either.
I wouldn’t expect you to. But companies that polled in Februrary, March and April have shown Labour’s vote rising - albeit slowly - since Starmer took over. More importantly at this stage, his personal numbers are positive. Four years to go ...
Yes, I’d expect a new leader to poll better than one who was leaving, three months after losing a General Election. So Starmer should improve on Jezza’s last scores. He isn’t improving on Jezza’s scores before the GE though
Would you call 34 to 31 a 3% drop or 9% by the way?
It's a three point drop or around a 9% drop.
Labour undoubtedly has a mountain to climb and four years in which to do it.
Nuance....it was clear the 100k a day target came from the claim Germany can do about that and South Korea probably can if needed.
But the South Korean approach is far superior to the German.
Possibly, but as usual: lots of differences. They've clearly done a great job though.
Huge amounts of tests was never a really big element in Korea btw - I looked at the stats a little while back, iirc they never did more than 100k in a week, let alone a day. That's about the same as Denmark (1/10th the population).
Spain 1.455m tests (31,126 per million) Italy 1.979m tests (32,735 per million) Germany 2.547m tests (30,400 per million) Hancock 0.902m tests (13.286 million)
Hancock is not a legend
You were the one banging on about daily totals, now the daily totals are up you're changing tack. Funny that.
Do you think anyone is impressed with you spinning like a jenny at the minute?
Do you think anyone is impressed by Hancock other than a complete spinning Patsy like you, we are running at less than half per million population of what Spain Germany and Italy are
Hancock is a total failure and if its true that “Up to 50,000 of the tests that will be reported as having taken place on 30 April will actually represent the mailing or the agreeing to mail a home testing kit.” He has to go
He's done a great job and is going nowhere.
Why are you cherrypicking cumulative totals (which isn't what you were doing) against Germany (who had the industry at the start) and Spain and Italy (whose healthcare system collapsed and needed testing much sooner). Would you rather be in the position of Spain and Italy with a collapsed healthcare system rather than where we are with the NHS having spare capacity?
How many daily tests are France doing and what is France's cumulative total?
He has changed the way in which tests are counted
Disgusting. all to pretend he has hit his trying to catch up target.
Failed on PPE failed on testing failed on test and trace failed on Care Home deaths failed on Mortality.
He should go
I have frequently said provision of Critical Capacity is a success
That is quite bizarre. If I was thinking of doing one of my silly satirical type posts lampooning 'Hancock's Target' I would probably do something like that - liken it in deadpan language to JFK and the moonshot and things equally OTT and absurd and ridiculous. And here we have a supposedly loyal Tory MP taking the piss out of it in just that way! Is Freeman for the chop now, I wonder? And does it indicate a growing contempt for Hancock on the backbenches?
Oh, come on. He's not saying that Hancock's achievement is comparable to the moon landings, just that the principle is that same. He set what looked like an almost impossible target and has effectively met it under difficult circumstances.
Millions of self-help books are sold every year on the principle that you can learn from the techniques used by great leaders. I don't think Freeman is suggesting anything beyond that.
We must have different absurdity thresholds, you and I. My genuine initial reaction was to look for the blue tick because it must surely be a piss take.
Pleased for Matt though. I do like him. Not sure how effective he is but I do like him.
Did you even bother to read the article? It is well written.
I confess I didn't. But "well written" always helps.
And what did you make of that definition of what constitutes sound public finances? -
The TFEU obliges EU Member States to comply with budgetary discipline by respecting two criteria: a deficit to GDP ratio and a debt to GDP ratio not exceeding reference values of 3% and 60% respectively, as defined in the Protocol on the EDP annexed to the TFEU.
Sound broadly reasonable?
That's the TFEU definition and no it does not.
It says that you can be running a 2.9% deficit during a boom time so long as your debt isn't high without giving any thought as to what happens when the next inevitable recession comes after the boom - which is precisely what happened in 2007/08.
This may be breaking news to you but I don't agree 100% with everything in the TFEU
More the overall concept is what I thought might be interesting - how when assessing the state of a nation's public finances one looks at the level of deficit and of debt as a % of GDP.
I suppose it's pretty obvious but, you know, I thought why not circulate because one or two people on here might not have a handle on this stuff like you and I have.
That's the problem its too prescriptive and putting thresholds like that causes politicians to try to game the system by saying "we are within the rules" during the boom time then acting shocked there's a crisis afterwards. Or it means there's a crisis and the threshold gets breached and people just ignore it.
The reality is much simpler and more vague. The reality is booms and busts happen, there is nothing you can do to prevent it.
The reality is there needs to be if possible stability over an economic cycle so that during boom times you either reduce the deficit or run a surplus, and during recessions you run a deficit. That is what matters more. Simple numbers can't work and that is where the European Union failed in trying to assign numbers.
Gordon Brown himself when he came in said this with his "Golden Rule" but then kept manipulating the rule to break it. Given that 2002/03 to 2007/08 were all during the UK's boom time and a long time after the last recession the budget should have been a surplus and we'd have been well placed to face the GFC when it hit.
Mmm. I'm reckon there's some truth there. Thanks for typing all that out.
But the overall concept - that one looks at the size of the deficit and the size of the debt, these two things together, the interplay between them, in order the assess how sound or how fragile the public finances are.
We cool with this now?
Not really, no.
The overall stage of the economic cycle and the overall deficit, those two things together, the interplay between them are what matters far more.
Anything that ignores where you are in the economic cycle is absolutely meaningless.
This is now close. I'm excited.
Try this for size -
One looks at the size of the deficit, the size of the debt, and the stage of the economic cycle, these things together, the interplay between them, in order the assess how sound or how fragile the public finances are.
I sense a "yes, kinabalu, I agree" now, I really do.
Please let me not be thwarted again.
Yes kinabalu I agree, one must consider primary concerns like the stage of the economic cycle, the size of the deficit as well as secondary concerns like the size of the debt to get a big picture view.
Spain 1.455m tests (31,126 per million) Italy 1.979m tests (32,735 per million) Germany 2.547m tests (30,400 per million) Hancock 0.902m tests (13.286 million)
Hancock is not a legend
You were the one banging on about daily totals, now the daily totals are up you're changing tack. Funny that.
Do you think anyone is impressed with you spinning like a jenny at the minute?
Do you think anyone is impressed by Hancock other than a complete spinning Patsy like you, we are running at less than half per million population of what Spain Germany and Italy are
Hancock is a total failure and if its true that “Up to 50,000 of the tests that will be reported as having taken place on 30 April will actually represent the mailing or the agreeing to mail a home testing kit.” He has to go
He's done a great job and is going nowhere.
Why are you cherrypicking cumulative totals (which isn't what you were doing) against Germany (who had the industry at the start) and Spain and Italy (whose healthcare system collapsed and needed testing much sooner). Would you rather be in the position of Spain and Italy with a collapsed healthcare system rather than where we are with the NHS having spare capacity?
How many daily tests are France doing and what is France's cumulative total?
He has changed the way in which tests are counted
Disgusting. all to pretend he has hit his trying to catch up target.
Failed on PPE failed on testing failed on test and trace failed on Care Home deaths failed on Mortality.
He should go
I have frequently said provision of Critical Capacity is a success
No.They weren't sending out tests through Pillar 4 before so the number was zero and now they are and so now they're getting tested. They always said from the start the testing figures would count all pillars and contrary to what you [or someone else] said earlier the tests are only getting counted once they have been sent out, not just if they've been eg ordered etc
This is just one research initiative out of many, but promising. I think it is highly likely that we are rapidly going to find some effective treatments, and maybe even prophylactics, amongst existing drugs, or combinations of existing drugs:
I think the testing thing is OK. So maybe it's only really 50 000 a day. That's a big improvement. Great. Now think about test effectiveness and building it up further.
It's evidence that media management and saving face is more important to them than honest information about the reality of the situation. That's a terrible message to send to all the people under pressure across the country who might feel tempted to massage their figures so they look better.
It's one of the main reasons China reacted to this late and that we're in this situation. It's a disaster for the government to undermine their own trustworthiness in this way.
If they'd held their hand up, acknowledged the failure to meet the target, explained why, for reasonable reasons it was missed (mainly the failure of the antibody tests, say) and pointed to what had been achieved and the lessons learned, I would have been prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt. A few days ago I said that the 100,000 figure itself was arbitrary and would give credit for major progress towards an order of magnitude increase.
You are making an assumption here that tax is all that incentivises people to forgo income.
for example My job my take home pay is Y, for a shelf stacker it is X The extra money I get paid (Y-X) incentivises me to keep in my job and not quit and become a shelf stacker.
However my job also involves unpaid overtime, stress, support rota's, longer commutes probably as most shelf stackers will live closer to work. If the value Y-X becomes small enough that I don't think the extra pay is worth all that extra angst I definitely go sod this I will go shelf stacking instead. Your progressive taxation lowers the value of Y-X as I will be paying a larger portion of tax than currently thus lowering the value of Y and possibly raising the value of X.
No, it's the other way round. The proposal I described is designed to reduce the perverse incentive not to take the increased pay, which you get at the moment because of various tax band effects (and benefits as well). At no point in the system I'm describing would you be heavily penalised for earning extra pay.
You miss my point entirely, I am not talking about not taking extra pay I am talking about the effect on take home pay differentials let me illustrate with some figures
A earns 20k he pays currently 20% tax of 29pounds a week and takes home 332 B earns 40k he pays currently 20% tax of 106pounds a week and takes home 529
B considers that the extra 197£ a week is reasonable compensation for the unpaid overtime , the commute costs, the stress and the support rota
under your system A now pays for example 5% and b pays 35%
A now pays tax of 7£ a week and takes home 354£ b now pays tax of 185$ a week and takes home 450£
Now B is wondering if the 96 pounds extra is worth it for the unpaid overtime , the commute costs, the stress and the support rota
No, your figure of 35% at £40K is far, far too high. I haven't done the full sums (and of course it could be calibrated at whatever rate the Chancellor wanted), but I'd guess it would probably be around 15% at that level.
It's about 20% at the moment. Anyone who pays a net rate of 35% is earning six figures.
Also the 35% corresponds to Richards new sliding scale scheme not net taxation where the percent tax you pay depends where you are on the scale between minium wage and 150k
Yes, it's why I don't understand Richard's proposal. Our tax system works very much like he says it should already, just without having multiple rates.
You haven't understood at all. The current system does have multiple rates, barmy ones: excluding NI, rates of 20%, 40%, 59.7% in the Child Benefit withdrawal region for parents, then 40% again up to £100K, then 60% as the personal allowances is tapered out, then 40% again, then 45% over £150K. It's made even more complicated by NI, and at the lower end by benefits withdrawals, and at the higher end potentially by the tapered annual allowance for pension contributions.
Ii the proposal I mentioned there would be no sudden changes in marginal rates, let alone barmy ones as we currently have. Instead the marginal rate would start very low and smoothly increase up to a maximum value. So it is progressive, but without the distorting effects of irrationally high marginal rates at certain points in the curve.
But people's effective tax rate is on a pretty smooth curve, only the allowance withdrawal really distorts it.
Nuance....it was clear the 100k a day target came from the claim Germany can do about that and South Korea probably can if needed.
But the South Korean approach is far superior to the German.
Possibly, but as usual: lots of differences. They've clearly done a great job though.
Huge amounts of tests was never a really big element in Korea btw - I looked at the stats a little while back, iirc they never did more than 100k in a week, let alone a day. That's about the same as Denmark (1/10th the population).
I didn't say Korea did 100k, but they can do that if required. It was more like 25k a day peak.
The big thing though is that their contract tracing app automatically prioritises people based on a number of factors. And it is fast to get results.
I think these are only hospital deaths, so deaths in carehomes not included, and data is 2 weeks old. I think it is a better illustration of foci of community transmission.
In Leicester, cases are disproportionately from overcrowded housing in East Leicester, where multigenerational households are the norm. Less so in places like Harborough despite its much older population. Leicester has a very young population with just 10% over 65, much lower than the county areas.
This is just one research initiative out of many, but promising. I think it is highly likely that we are rapidly going to find some effective treatments, and maybe even prophylactics, amongst existing drugs, or combinations of existing drugs:
I didn't say Korea did 100k, but they can do that if required. It was more like 25k a day peak.
Ahh, fair enough.
Here are their numbers.
Of course, the size of their outbreak was kinda tiny compared to Western Europe's so even with this they probably had far more spare capacity than we do now.
I think these are only hospital deaths, so deaths in carehomes not included, and data is 2 weeks old. I think it is a better illustration of foci of community transmission.
In Leicester, cases are disproportionately from overcrowded housing in East Leicester, where multigenerational households are the norm. Less so in places like Harborough despite its much older population. Leicester has a very young population with just 10% over 65, much lower than the county areas.
I see 5 deaths in Penarth compared to 1 in Highbury Fields (does that include Primrose Hill?)
I didn't say Korea did 100k, but they can do that if required. It was more like 25k a day peak.
Ahh, fair enough.
Here are their numbers.
Of course, the size of their outbreak was kinda tiny compared to Western Europe's so even with this they probably had far more spare capacity than we do now.
One thing Korea is very poor at. Development of treatments.
Apparently in response to SARS and MERS, the South Korean government pumped a lot of time, effort and money into the test / contact trace, but also to companies like Green Cross Pharma, who have failed to come up with anything usual.
Comments
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsinvolvingcovid19bylocalareasanddeprivation/deathsoccurringbetween1marchand17april
The reality is much simpler and more vague. The reality is booms and busts happen, there is nothing you can do to prevent it.
The reality is there needs to be if possible stability over an economic cycle so that during boom times you either reduce the deficit or run a surplus, and during recessions you run a deficit. That is what matters more. Simple numbers can't work and that is where the European Union failed in trying to assign numbers.
Gordon Brown himself when he came in said this with his "Golden Rule" but then kept manipulating the rule to break it. Given that 2002/03 to 2007/08 were all during the UK's boom time and a long time after the last recession the budget should have been a surplus and we'd have been well placed to face the GFC when it hit.
I really hope this is a misunderstanding because if it's true it makes a complete mockery of the numbers being published.
Never abandon your USP, is always good advice.
The data of test taken date, test reported date needs reporting like deaths so at least someone has a chance to do a Prof Cricket on them.
Italy 1.979m tests (32,735 per million)
Germany 2.547m tests (30,400 per million)
Hancock 0.902m tests (13.286 million)
Hancock is not a legend
Ii the proposal I mentioned there would be no sudden changes in marginal rates, let alone barmy ones as we currently have. Instead the marginal rate would start very low and smoothly increase up to a maximum value. So it is progressive, but without the distorting effects of irrationally high marginal rates at certain points in the curve.
https://www.survation.com/final-general-election-2019-poll-results-a-preview/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hancock's_Half_Hour
Did Spain and Italy also have massive advantages if so why?
But if the NHS bureaucrats hadn't been pushed it would still only be 10k tests per day.
Do you think anyone is impressed with you spinning like a jenny at the minute?
In GE 2019 we had life-long LDers (who showed as that on our canvassing and confessed as such at the time) saying how they would be voting Conservative because the revoke policy was utterly undemocratic.
Remember, SW LDs used to be more eurosceptic than the Tories. I don't see many seats in the SW going Yellow again anytime soon.
https://twitter.com/GeorgeFreemanMP/status/1255788963870248960?s=20
But the overall concept - that one looks at the size of the deficit and the size of the debt, these two things together, the interplay between them, in order the assess how sound or how fragile the public finances are.
We cool with this now?
Has he resigned yet?
“Up to 50,000 of the tests that will be reported as having taken place on 30 April will actually represent the mailing or the agreeing to mail a home testing kit.”
Starmer is obviously there for the long game and has had a fairly mediocre first few weeks but he is at least better positioned to take Tory votes if and presumably when the Boris factor rubs off. Initial thoughts suggest Starmer and his team do not look like the sort of leadership that will hit or surpass 40% in the polls.
The overall stage of the economic cycle and the overall deficit, those two things together, the interplay between them are what matters far more.
Anything that ignores where you are in the economic cycle is absolutely meaningless.
Hancock is a total failure and if its true that “Up to 50,000 of the tests that will be reported as having taken place on 30 April will actually represent the mailing or the agreeing to mail a home testing kit.”
He has to go
And because I want to humiliate myself further, and as I don't have it in front of me could you please link again to the research around the Cheltenham Spike in terms of cases/deaths.
TIA
https://twitter.com/hsjeditor/status/1256211494427078656?s=21
Why are you cherrypicking cumulative totals (which isn't what you were doing) against Germany (who had the industry at the start) and Spain and Italy (whose healthcare system collapsed and needed testing much sooner). Would you rather be in the position of Spain and Italy with a collapsed healthcare system rather than where we are with the NHS having spare capacity?
How many daily tests are France doing and what is France's cumulative total?
His target is pretty daft, real Soviet Tractor factory stuff. Numbers are only a part of the story.
It is an old adage in Medicine to only do a test if it is going to alter management.
Who has been tested? Why have they been tested? And what is being done differently as a result? These are the questions to be asked.
Would you call 34 to 31 a 3% drop or 9% by the way?
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1256205394436915200?s=20
https://twitter.com/cricketwyvern/status/1256224890140663814?s=20
If aliens are nice they'd help us. If not, they'd obliterate/enslave us.
Yes Cheltenham went ahead and there may have been cases because people congregated there.
But the country was not locked down and people congregated in thousands of places, the Central Line, the pub, Odettes, oh and probably the Northern Line, and...and...
You could write the same articles individually for any of those. To single out Cheltenham is actually beyond stupid; as they say, it's not even wrong.
But the South Korean approach is far superior to the German.
i) During a boom before a recession having a 2.9% deficit?
ii) During a recession before a recovery having a 3.1% deficit?
Try this for size -
One looks at the size of the deficit, the size of the debt, and the stage of the economic cycle, these things together, the interplay between them, in order the assess how sound or how fragile the public finances are.
I sense a "yes, kinabalu, I agree" now, I really do.
Please let me not be thwarted again.
Labour undoubtedly has a mountain to climb and four years in which to do it.
Possibly, but as usual: lots of differences. They've clearly done a great job though.
Huge amounts of tests was never a really big element in Korea btw - I looked at the stats a little while back, iirc they never did more than 100k in a week, let alone a day. That's about the same as Denmark (1/10th the population).
Disgusting. all to pretend he has hit his trying to catch up target.
Failed on PPE failed on testing failed on test and trace failed on Care Home deaths failed on Mortality.
He should go
I have frequently said provision of Critical Capacity is a success
Do you agree with that?
https://reaction.life/testing-of-old-drugs-shows-promising-leads-in-fight-against-covid-19/
It's one of the main reasons China reacted to this late and that we're in this situation. It's a disaster for the government to undermine their own trustworthiness in this way.
If they'd held their hand up, acknowledged the failure to meet the target, explained why, for reasonable reasons it was missed (mainly the failure of the antibody tests, say) and pointed to what had been achieved and the lessons learned, I would have been prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt. A few days ago I said that the 100,000 figure itself was arbitrary and would give credit for major progress towards an order of magnitude increase.
But, this?
The big thing though is that their contract tracing app automatically prioritises people based on a number of factors. And it is fast to get results.
I think these are only hospital deaths, so deaths in carehomes not included, and data is 2 weeks old. I think it is a better illustration of foci of community transmission.
In Leicester, cases are disproportionately from overcrowded housing in East Leicester, where multigenerational households are the norm. Less so in places like Harborough despite its much older population. Leicester has a very young population with just 10% over 65, much lower than the county areas.
Are other people seeing a slope of 30 less deaths per day (approx)?
Here are their numbers.
Of course, the size of their outbreak was kinda tiny compared to Western Europe's so even with this they probably had far more spare capacity than we do now.
Ground zero for the UK.
Apparently in response to SARS and MERS, the South Korean government pumped a lot of time, effort and money into the test / contact trace, but also to companies like Green Cross Pharma, who have failed to come up with anything usual.