"Experts give their opinions on why the UK has been hit so hard by the Covid-19 virus"
Possible reasons:
An elderly and unhealthy population. Too late to lockdown and a failure to close the borders. Insufficient PPE. Lack of testing. Failure to protect the elderly? Protect the NHS has actually cost lives Just bad luck.
Population density has to be in there as well. Look at the other areas really hard hit, NY, Northern Italy, Madrid, Paris, Belgium....all high population density. The UK, its basically London and Birmingham that have been really hard hit.
I think another question that needs asking is, why such poor outcomes of those in hospital. Are we waiting too long to get people into hospitals / is the advice wrong about how long to wait. Is there something missing in the "best practice" approach.
There is a suggestion that Germany, with its higher capacity, gets people into hospital quicker. I have no idea if there is data to back that up.
One thing we do know though is a lot of people who are actually very serious condition, with very low blood oxygen levels, actually feel / appear fine. But are actually in a very dangerous situation.
Have we missed a trick by not just filling NHS Nightingale's with people for monitoring.
You get the idea that someone thought that patients were inconvenient, either for the hospitals or for the data.
Which might also explain the way the infected were allowed to go to care homes.
The public sector didn't deliver. If was just PHE labs, they barely increased testing or capacity. It was the decision to finally get the private sector involved that massively expanded this.
And for all the criticism over spinning to get it over the line, not doubt massoive increase, unlike Scotland and Wales, who nobody seems to be criticising.
Wales promised 5k tests a day, then just gave up after a week.
Only England that trumpeted it every day and then lied about making the numbers when it was obvious they were lying. See the difference where the devolved governments just tried their best and did not big it up and lie.
I'm just happy that we are so easily able to solve all the problems of our former colony. I'm sure many regret we let it go in the first place.
Oh wait. They took it from us. And currently their administration is a reflection of a great many Americans. Just as ours is.
It's not Trump it's the American people and they are entitled to elect whoever they damn well want. Assured, perhaps, that the smug Brits will be there with them. To criticise and make snide observations.
Edit: God bless America.
If American hadn't declared independence, where would it have ended up?
Obviously, self-governance would have continued to be a thing (as it was to an extent even at the point of revolution, and in all other settler colonies) so I'm inclined to think it'd have been a much bigger and richer Canada.
However, what would its size and boundaries have been? How would it have developed?
No-one knows.
Being under the yoke it would have suffered similar fate to Scotland, being held back and treated like crap whilst being milked dry..
Which is the opposite of what actually happened after the Union. Scotland led the way intellectually, scientifically and in empire building and more than matched England industrially.
Funny the way certain narratives can emerge.
What actually happened was that the cream of Scottish society was extracted to run colonial possessions whilst the poor were used to fill the British army to garrison the holdings. The Treasure that flowed back went to the London treasury not Scotland.
For all that the Scots 'ran' the Empire the betterment did not go proportionally to Scotland. Scotland was drained to power the empire.
Yes, all those Scottish officers forced unwillingly to go and serve in the British army over two centuries. You can do a sensible class based analysis of where wealth was distributed for the whole of the UK but a nationalistic grudge viewpoint is nonsense historically. All nationalisms are sustained by myths but the Scottish Nationalism that exists today is a modern concoction based on a total denial of Scottish history. Modern Scotland evolved within the union. Scottish nationalism must be the only variety that denies some of the greatest triumphs of its nation - because they took place under the hated union.
Speaking of nationalist myths, a persistent British nationalist/Unionist myth appears to simultaneously believe that Scotland benefited and still benefits hugely from being part of the Union, and yet among smallish, well educated European nations with developed & diverse industries, substantial natural resources and stable civic polities, is uniquely ill suited to independence. Even smarter Unionists seem unable to square this circle in their own heads, let alone to my satisfaction.
I am sorry that you are not satisfied Divvy but I may just have to live with that.
Scotland could survive as an independent country, of course it could. But would its people have a better life, would we cope with something like this virus as well, would our young have the same breadth of opportunities? I really don't see how an independent Scotland, particularly one using Sterling, would have been able to match the furlough scheme, the grants, the guaranteed loans etc. A Scotland with its own currency would have been flotsam on the current markets with highly unpredictable results.
An independent Scotland today would be significantly poorer with less well funded public services, a serious trade deficit and limited prospects of improving our standard of living going forward. For some that is a price worth paying and the argument that we might eventually find a sense of common purpose and thrive is not to be dismissed out of hand but why on earth would we take that risk? Its bordering on irrational.
The SNP need to focus on our economy, on our education system, on our infrastructure, on business development and create a country that is indeed viable, that would indeed thrive on its own. Instead their obsession with constitutional matters and the uncertaintly that creates means the situation gets worse and worse. They are a menace.
Currently I see one party in Scotland that goes on and on and on about Scottish indy and another referendum and it ain't the SNP. Check the skelf in your own ee.
I actually agree that the Tories, and the also rans, need to go beyond no to a second referendum as a policy platform. But it is not true to say that the SNP do not claim that virtually every single thing that happens shows that we would be better off as an independent nation. It is their raison d'etre.
And as I have said repeatedly to the the point of tediousness, until Unionism, whether it be SCon, SLab or (lol)SLD, puts together a coherent and attractive vision not based on SNPbad, the SNP are the only game in town. On that basis I'd actually say the dire, unimaginative 4th raters that pass for Unionist pols are more to blame than anyone for the state we're in.
Those in government are always more responsible than anyone else. They make the decisions. But Scotland does need a viable choice. I find it frustrating.
David, we will not be getting rid of competent government for a bunch of absolute no hope losers any time soon. Only the fact that SNP leadership seem to be shy on independence is a threat to them and that is likely to be sorted by members booting out the fat and happy devolutionists.
"Experts give their opinions on why the UK has been hit so hard by the Covid-19 virus"
Possible reasons:
An elderly and unhealthy population. Too late to lockdown and a failure to close the borders. Insufficient PPE. Lack of testing. Failure to protect the elderly? Protect the NHS has actually cost lives Just bad luck.
Population density has to be in there as well. Look at the other areas really hard hit, NY, Northern Italy, Madrid, Paris, Belgium....all high population density. The UK, its basically London and Birmingham that have been really hard hit.
I think another question that needs asking is, why such poor outcomes of those in hospital. Are we waiting too long to get people into hospitals / is the advice wrong about how long to wait. Is there something missing in the "best practice" approach.
There is a suggestion that Germany, with its higher capacity, gets people into hospital quicker. I have no idea if there is data to back that up.
One thing we do know though is a lot of people who are actually very serious condition, with very low blood oxygen levels, actually feel / appear fine. But are actually in a very dangerous situation.
Have we missed a trick by not just filling NHS Nightingale's with people for monitoring.
To offer a possible answer to the last point, maybe not. It was remarked upon, I think, in yesterday's Government presser that the Nightingales are specifically designed for ventilator cases, i.e. patients who are all effectively comatose. They mightn't be able to offer the required staff and facilities for patients who are conscious, and thus needing to be provided with meals and make regular trips to the lavatory?
The public sector didn't deliver. If was just PHE labs, they barely increased testing or capacity. It was the decision to finally get the private sector involved that massively expanded this.
And for all the criticism over spinning to get it over the line, not doubt massoive increase, unlike Scotland and Wales, who nobody seems to be criticising.
Wales promised 5k tests a day, then just gave up after a week.
Only England that trumpeted it every day and then lied about making the numbers when it was obvious they were lying. See the difference where the devolved governments just tried their best and did not big it up and lie.
Wales did. They promised 5k tests a day by the end of the month. Then they quickly kicked it into the long grass.
As for Scotland, its no good just saying they are trying. It is nowhere near enough. We can say Hancock has fudged the numbers to get over 100k, but there is a real significant increase in testing and capacity, which is what was required.
I'm just happy that we are so easily able to solve all the problems of our former colony. I'm sure many regret we let it go in the first place.
Oh wait. They took it from us. And currently their administration is a reflection of a great many Americans. Just as ours is.
It's not Trump it's the American people and they are entitled to elect whoever they damn well want. Assured, perhaps, that the smug Brits will be there with them. To criticise and make snide observations.
Edit: God bless America.
If American hadn't declared independence, where would it have ended up?
Obviously, self-governance would have continued to be a thing (as it was to an extent even at the point of revolution, and in all other settler colonies) so I'm inclined to think it'd have been a much bigger and richer Canada.
However, what would its size and boundaries have been? How would it have developed?
No-one knows.
Being under the yoke it would have suffered similar fate to Scotland, being held back and treated like crap whilst being milked dry..
Which is the opposite of what actually happened after the Union. Scotland led the way intellectually, scientifically and in empire building and more than matched England industrially.
Funny the way certain narratives can emerge.
What actually happened was that the cream of Scottish society was extracted to run colonial possessions whilst the poor were used to fill the British army to garrison the holdings. The Treasure that flowed back went to the London treasury not Scotland.
For all that the Scots 'ran' the Empire the betterment did not go proportionally to Scotland. Scotland was drained to power the empire.
Yes, all those Scottish officers forced unwillingly to go and serve in the British army over two centuries. You can do a sensible class based analysis of where wealth was distributed for the whole of the UK but a nationalistic grudge viewpoint is nonsense historically. All nationalisms are sustained by myths but the Scottish Nationalism that exists today is a modern concoction based on a total denial of Scottish history. Modern Scotland evolved within the union. Scottish nationalism must be the only variety that denies some of the greatest triumphs of its nation - because they took place under the hated union.
Speaking of nationalist myths, a persistent British nationalist/Unionist myth appears to simultaneously believe that Scotland benefited and still benefits hugely from being part of the Union, and yet among smallish, well educated European nations with developed & diverse industries, substantial natural resources and stable civic polities, is uniquely ill suited to independence. Even smarter Unionists seem unable to square this circle in their own heads, let alone to my satisfaction.
I am sorry that you are not satisfied Divvy but I may just have to live with that.
Scotland could survive as an independent country, of course it could. But would its people have a better life, would we cope with something like this virus as well, would our young have the same breadth of opportunities? I really don't see how an independent Scotland, particularly one using Sterling, would have been able to match the furlough scheme, the grants, the guaranteed loans etc. A Scotland with its own currency would have been flotsam on the current markets with highly unpredictable results.
An independent Scotland today would be significantly poorer with less well funded public services, a serious trade deficit and limited prospects of improving our standard of living going forward. For some that is a price worth paying and the argument that we might eventually find a sense of common purpose and thrive is not to be dismissed out of hand but why on earth would we take that risk? Its bordering on irrational.
The SNP need to focus on our economy, on our education system, on our infrastructure, on business development and create a country that is indeed viable, that would indeed thrive on its own. Instead their obsession with constitutional matters and the uncertaintly that creates means the situation gets worse and worse. They are a menace.
Currently I see one party in Scotland that goes on and on and on about Scottish indy and another referendum and it ain't the SNP. Check the skelf in your own ee.
I actually agree that the Tories, and the also rans, need to go beyond no to a second referendum as a policy platform. But it is not true to say that the SNP do not claim that virtually every single thing that happens shows that we would be better off as an independent nation. It is their raison d'etre.
And as I have said repeatedly to the the point of tediousness, until Unionism, whether it be SCon, SLab or (lol)SLD, puts together a coherent and attractive vision not based on SNPbad, the SNP are the only game in town. On that basis I'd actually say the dire, unimaginative 4th raters that pass for Unionist pols are more to blame than anyone for the state we're in.
Judging by Wings comments there will be a non SNP pro Indy party standing for Holyrood next year, given the loathing of many there for Sturgeon. Thus finally splitting the Nat vote as the Unionist vote has been split
Hope springs eternal in the new Wings convert's heart.
Also shows an ignorance of the new party's voting strategy, and the Scottish Pmt's voting system.
Provided any new Indy party does not gain enough votes to elect MSPs it will likely cost the SNP list seats and increase the chances of a Unionist majority, more so if it stands for constituency FPTP seats too
The whole point is that if it got so few on the list then it wouldn't make much difference to the SNP, which gets disproportionately few seats for its list votes assuming it does well on the constituencies.
The way in which the Scottish Pmt was deliberately gerrymandered - and confessedly so - by its creators to favout a split British Nationalist vote against the (initially) unified vote for self-determination is something that might well repay a careful analysis on PB early in 2021, when the Holyrood elections approach. Would a Wings party approach work?
[Edit - British Nationalist used as descriptive term as 'Unionist' is too confused with Ulster, or so I tend to feel. But use whichever you prefer.]
The SNP have 32 more seats than the Tories at Holyrood so will likely stay largest party regardless.
However the SNP and Greens only have 4 more seats combined than the 65 needed for a Nationalist majority, so just a handful of lost SNP MSPs would give a Unionist majority once you combined the Tory, Labour and LD MSPs
"Experts give their opinions on why the UK has been hit so hard by the Covid-19 virus"
Possible reasons:
An elderly and unhealthy population. Too late to lockdown and a failure to close the borders. Insufficient PPE. Lack of testing. Failure to protect the elderly? Protect the NHS has actually cost lives Just bad luck.
Population density has to be in there as well. Look at the other areas really hard hit, NY, Northern Italy, Madrid, Paris, Belgium....all high population density. The UK, its basically London and Birmingham that have been really hard hit.
I think another question that needs asking is, why such poor outcomes of those in hospital. Are we waiting too long to get people into hospitals / is the advice wrong about how long to wait. Is there something missing in the "best practice" approach.
There is a suggestion that Germany, with its higher capacity, gets people into hospital quicker. I have no idea if there is data to back that up.
One thing we do know though is a lot of people who are actually very serious condition, with very low blood oxygen levels, actually feel / appear fine. But are actually in a very dangerous situation.
Have we missed a trick by not just filling NHS Nightingale's with people for monitoring.
To offer a possible answer to the last point, maybe not. It was remarked upon, I think, in yesterday's Government presser that the Nightingales are specifically designed for ventilator cases, i.e. patients who are all effectively comatose. They mightn't be able to offer the required staff and facilities for patients who are conscious, and thus needing to be provided with meals and make regular trips to the lavatory?
I meant as an overall plan. I have always been very much in favour of the funnel approach. You test positive, you are going to a uni halls / hotel...if you start to go downhill a bit you got to a field hospital...you get bad you go to traditional hospital.
That is what the Chinese did with their "16 new hospitals". 14 of them where nothing more than dorms to contain people, give them food, etc.
Can the PB arbiters of what is and isn't reliable media (Guido - yeah!) confirm if there has been a concerted effort to astroturf the government view, just so we poor schmucks don't have to rely on these dodgy types?
So who's behind these bots? Surely it can only be Dom or Vlad. If the latter then that's very worrying as it suggests that the Kremlin sees the Boris government as conducive to its aims and wants to it keep it in power.
It is quite obviously the work of the tory party shitposting apparatus of which they are so inestimably proud.
Or people opposed to the current 'Gawd bless you Guv'nor' mood of the nation and wanting to besmirch it as false. Since the bots seem to have all the cunning of Baldrick.
I'm just happy that we are so easily able to solve all the problems of our former colony. I'm sure many regret we let it go in the first place.
Oh wait. They took it from us. And currently their administration is a reflection of a great many Americans. Just as ours is.
It's not Trump it's the American people and they are entitled to elect whoever they damn well want. Assured, perhaps, that the smug Brits will be there with them. To criticise and make snide observations.
Edit: God bless America.
If American hadn't declared independence, where would it have ended up?
Obviously, self-governance would have continued to be a thing (as it was to an extent even at the point of revolution, and in all other settler colonies) so I'm inclined to think it'd have been a much bigger and richer Canada.
However, what would its size and boundaries have been? How would it have developed?
No-one knows.
Being under the yoke it would have suffered similar fate to Scotland, being held back and treated like crap whilst being milked dry..
Which is the opposite of what actually happened after the Union. Scotland led the way intellectually, scientifically and in empire building and more than matched England industrially.
Funny the way certain narratives can emerge.
What actually happened was that the cream of Scottish society was extracted to run colonial possessions whilst the poor were used to fill the British army to garrison the holdings. The Treasure that flowed back went to the London treasury not Scotland.
For all that the Scots 'ran' the Empire the betterment did not go proportionally to Scotland. Scotland was drained to power the empire.
Yes, all those Scottish officers forced unwillingly to go and serve in the British army over two centuries. You can do a sensible class based analysis of where wealth was distributed for the whole of the UK but a nationalistic grudge viewpoint is nonsense historically. All nationalisms are sustained by myths but the Scottish Nationalism that exists today is a modern concoction based on a total denial of Scottish history. Modern Scotland evolved within the union. Scottish nationalism must be the only variety that denies some of the greatest triumphs of its nation - because they took place under the hated union.
Speaking of nationalist myths, a persistent British nationalist/Unionist myth appears to simultaneously believe that Scotland benefited and still benefits hugely from being part of the Union, and yet among smallish, well educated European nations with developed & diverse industries, substantial natural resources and stable civic polities, is uniquely ill suited to independence. Even smarter Unionists seem unable to square this circle in their own heads, let alone to my satisfaction.
I am sorry that you are not satisfied Divvy but I may just have to live with that.
Scotland could survive as an independent country, of course it could. But would its people have a better life, would we cope with something like this virus as well, would our young have the same breadth of opportunities? I really don't see how an independent Scotland, particularly one using Sterling, would have been able to match the furlough scheme, the grants, the guaranteed loans etc. A Scotland with its own currency would have been flotsam on the current markets with highly unpredictable results.
An independent Scotland today would be significantly poorer with less well funded public services, a serious trade deficit and limited prospects of improving our standard of living going forward. For some that is a price worth paying and the argument that we might eventually find a sense of common purpose and thrive is not to be dismissed out of hand but why on earth would we take that risk? Its bordering on irrational.
The SNP need to focus on our economy, on our education system, on our infrastructure, on business development and create a country that is indeed viable, that would indeed thrive on its own. Instead their obsession with constitutional matters and the uncertaintly that creates means the situation gets worse and worse. They are a menace.
Currently I see one party in Scotland that goes on and on and on about Scottish indy and another referendum and it ain't the SNP. Check the skelf in your own ee.
I actually agree that the Tories, and the also rans, need to go beyond no to a second referendum as a policy platform. But it is not true to say that the SNP do not claim that virtually every single thing that happens shows that we would be better off as an independent nation. It is their raison d'etre.
And as I have said repeatedly to the the point of tediousness, until Unionism, whether it be SCon, SLab or (lol)SLD, puts together a coherent and attractive vision not based on SNPbad, the SNP are the only game in town. On that basis I'd actually say the dire, unimaginative 4th raters that pass for Unionist pols are more to blame than anyone for the state we're in.
Judging by Wings comments there will be a non SNP pro Indy party standing for Holyrood next year, given the loathing of many there for Sturgeon. Thus finally splitting the Nat vote as the Unionist vote has been split
Hope springs eternal in the new Wings convert's heart.
Also shows an ignorance of the new party's voting strategy, and the Scottish Pmt's voting system.
Provided any new Indy party does not gain enough votes to elect MSPs it will likely cost the SNP list seats and increase the chances of a Unionist majority, more so if it stands for constituency FPTP seats too
The whole point is that if it got so few on the list then it wouldn't make much difference to the SNP, which gets disproportionately few seats for its list votes assuming it does well on the constituencies.
The way in which the Scottish Pmt was deliberately gerrymandered - and confessedly so - by its creators to favout a split British Nationalist vote against the (initially) unified vote for self-determination is something that might well repay a careful analysis on PB early in 2021, when the Holyrood elections approach. Would a Wings party approach work?
[Edit - British Nationalist used as descriptive term as 'Unionist' is too confused with Ulster, or so I tend to feel. But use whichever you prefer.]
The SNP have 32 more seats than the Tories at Holyrood so will likely stay largest party regardless.
However the SNP and Greens only have 4 more seats combined than the 65 needed for a Nationalist majority, so just a handful of lost SNP MSPs would give a Unionist majority once you combined the Tory, Labour and LD MSPs
The whole logic of the new party is that it could well gain more seats than the SNP lost on the same list votes, across each region. This is something PB will need to look at carefully if such a party is put forward in 2021.
An 11 year old has been shot, but people seem more concerned about whether Upminster is in East London or Essex
We don't want it!!! London can have it.
Aw don’t be like that! It’s definitely more Essex than London.
It's in both. My mother's generation would call it "London over the border" although of course since 1965 it has actually been in London. Probably has an Essex postal address though.
Yes, I’ve lived in Upminster or Hornchurch nearly all of my life. I’d always say they were Essex, they both have an Essex postcodes, although technically London too as Havering is a London borough, and they’re on the tube.
In electoral terms it certainly has resembled Southern Essex rather than Greater London. At the 1974 elections, Upminster was very much a tossup very marginal seat between Tory and Labour. Against the wider London trend it has long become a safe Tory seat - only falling to Labour in 1997 - much more in line with the pattern seen in Basildon , Thurrock and Harlow.
Indeed and most of the handful of Tory gains from Labour at the 2001 general election came in Havering and Essex e.g. Upminster, Romford and Castle Point (the others being Newark and Norfolk North West)
Essex feels like a white supremacy theme park - Stewart Lee.
I watched an episode his BBC stand up (Comedy vehicle)”?) programme on recommendation from a v lefty mate, and was just about to text him how good I thought it was when I realised I hadn’t laughed once. Clever, and good delivery though... and to be fair I think I did laugh at some of the other episodes
The public sector didn't deliver. If was just PHE labs, they barely increased testing or capacity. It was the decision to finally get the private sector involved that massively expanded this.
And for all the criticism over spinning to get it over the line, not doubt massoive increase, unlike Scotland and Wales, who nobody seems to be criticising.
Wales promised 5k tests a day, then just gave up after a week.
Only England that trumpeted it every day and then lied about making the numbers when it was obvious they were lying. See the difference where the devolved governments just tried their best and did not big it up and lie.
What matters is the testing numbers and testing efficacy. You can't have efficacy with insufficient capacity. England is getting there, Scotland and Wales look to be lagging badly behind.
Can the PB arbiters of what is and isn't reliable media (Guido - yeah!) confirm if there has been a concerted effort to astroturf the government view, just so we poor schmucks don't have to rely on these dodgy types?
So who's behind these bots? Surely it can only be Dom or Vlad. If the latter then that's very worrying as it suggests that the Kremlin sees the Boris government as conducive to its aims and wants to it keep it in power.
It is quite obviously the work of the tory party shitposting apparatus of which they are so inestimably proud.
Or people opposed to the current 'Gawd bless you Guv'nor' mood of the nation and wanting to besmirch it as false. Since the bots seem to have all the cunning of Baldrick.
The crapulence of it fits the pattern of the American election bots which pushed Black Lives Matter in a curiously un-American style.
Can the PB arbiters of what is and isn't reliable media (Guido - yeah!) confirm if there has been a concerted effort to astroturf the government view, just so we poor schmucks don't have to rely on these dodgy types?
So who's behind these bots? Surely it can only be Dom or Vlad. If the latter then that's very worrying as it suggests that the Kremlin sees the Boris government as conducive to its aims and wants to it keep it in power.
It is quite obviously the work of the tory party shitposting apparatus of which they are so inestimably proud.
Or people opposed to the current 'Gawd bless you Guv'nor' mood of the nation and wanting to besmirch it as false. Since the bots seem to have all the cunning of Baldrick.
Didn't think we'd get to 'Black Ops' quite so quickly.
I'm just happy that we are so easily able to solve all the problems of our former colony. I'm sure many regret we let it go in the first place.
Oh wait. They took it from us. And currently their administration is a reflection of a great many Americans. Just as ours is.
It's not Trump it's the American people and they are entitled to elect whoever they damn well want. Assured, perhaps, that the smug Brits will be there with them. To criticise and make snide observations.
Edit: God bless America.
If American hadn't declared independence, where would it have ended up?
Obviously, self-governance would have continued to be a thing (as it was to an extent even at the point of revolution, and in all other settler colonies) so I'm inclined to think it'd have been a much bigger and richer Canada.
However, what would its size and boundaries have been? How would it have developed?
No-one knows.
Being under the yoke it would have suffered similar fate to Scotland, being held back and treated like crap whilst being milked dry..
Which is the opposite of what actually happened after the Union. Scotland led the way intellectually, scientifically and in empire building and more than matched England industrially.
Funny the way certain narratives can emerge.
What actually happened was that the cream of Scottish society was extracted to run colonial possessions whilst the poor were used to fill the British army to garrison the holdings. The Treasure that flowed back went to the London treasury not Scotland.
For all that the Scots 'ran' the Empire the betterment did not go proportionally to Scotland. Scotland was drained to power the empire.
Yes, all those Scottish officers forced unwillingly to go and serve in the British army over two centuries. You can do a sensible class based analysis of where wealth was distributed for the whole of the UK but a nationalistic grudge viewpoint is nonsense historically. All nationalisms are sustained by myths but the Scottish Nationalism that exists today is a modern concoction based on a total denial of Scottish history. Modern Scotland evolved within the union. Scottish nationalism must be the only variety that denies some of the greatest triumphs of its nation - because they took place under the hated union.
Speaking of nationalist myths, a persistent British nationalist/Unionist myth appears to simultaneously believe that Scotland benefited and still benefits hugely from being part of the Union, and yet among smallish, well educated European nations with developed & diverse industries, substantial natural resources and stable civic polities, is uniquely ill suited to independence. Even smarter Unionists seem unable to square this circle in their own heads, let alone to my satisfaction.
I am sorry that you are not satisfied Divvy but I may just have to live with that.
Scotland could survive as an independent country, of course it could. But would its people have a better life, would we cope with something like this virus as well, would our young have the same breadth of opportunities? I really don't see how an independent Scotland, particularly one using Sterling, would have been able to match the furlough scheme, the grants, the guaranteed loans etc. A Scotland with its own currency would have been flotsam on the current markets with highly unpredictable results.
An independent Scotland today would be significantly poorer with less well funded public services, a serious trade deficit and limited prospects of improving our standard of living going forward. For some that is a price worth paying and the argument that we might eventually find a sense of common purpose and thrive is not to be dismissed out of hand but why on earth would we take that risk? Its bordering on irrational.
The SNP need to focus on our economy, on our education system, on our infrastructure, on business development and create a country that is indeed viable, that would indeed thrive on its own. Instead their obsession with constitutional matters and the uncertaintly that creates means the situation gets worse and worse. They are a menace.
Currently I see one party in Scotland that goes on and on and on about Scottish indy and another referendum and it ain't the SNP. Check the skelf in your own ee.
I actually agree that the Tories, and the also rans, need to go beyond no to a second referendum as a policy platform. But it is not true to say that the SNP do not claim that virtually every single thing that happens shows that we would be better off as an independent nation. It is their raison d'etre.
And as I have said repeatedly to the the point of tediousness, until Unionism, whether it be SCon, SLab or (lol)SLD, puts together a coherent and attractive vision not based on SNPbad, the SNP are the only game in town. On that basis I'd actually say the dire, unimaginative 4th raters that pass for Unionist pols are more to blame than anyone for the state we're in.
Judging by Wings comments there will be a non SNP pro Indy party standing for Holyrood next year, given the loathing of many there for Sturgeon. Thus finally splitting the Nat vote as the Unionist vote has been split
Hope springs eternal in the new Wings convert's heart.
Also shows an ignorance of the new party's voting strategy, and the Scottish Pmt's voting system.
Ignorance is no barrier to commenting on Scotpol on PB, quite often a prerequisite in fact.
Fair's fair, we have been treated to spittle-flecked denunciations of 'English wine shelves' groaning with 'inferior New World wines' from one of your number before now.
The general standard of knowledge of Scottish politics on PB is pretty decent I'd say - far better than of politics in Wales, NI, or the North or South West of England.
Can the PB arbiters of what is and isn't reliable media (Guido - yeah!) confirm if there has been a concerted effort to astroturf the government view, just so we poor schmucks don't have to rely on these dodgy types?
So who's behind these bots? Surely it can only be Dom or Vlad. If the latter then that's very worrying as it suggests that the Kremlin sees the Boris government as conducive to its aims and wants to it keep it in power.
It is quite obviously the work of the tory party shitposting apparatus of which they are so inestimably proud.
Or people opposed to the current 'Gawd bless you Guv'nor' mood of the nation and wanting to besmirch it as false. Since the bots seem to have all the cunning of Baldrick.
Didn't think we'd get to 'Black Ops' quite so quickly.
We were on it already, just accusing the other side of it.
I'm just happy that we are so easily able to solve all the problems of our former colony. I'm sure many regret we let it go in the first place.
Oh wait. They took it from us. And currently their administration is a reflection of a great many Americans. Just as ours is.
It's not Trump it's the American people and they are entitled to elect whoever they damn well want. Assured, perhaps, that the smug Brits will be there with them. To criticise and make snide observations.
Edit: God bless America.
If American hadn't declared independence, where would it have ended up?
Obviously, self-governance would have continued to be a thing (as it was to an extent even at the point of revolution, and in all other settler colonies) so I'm inclined to think it'd have been a much bigger and richer Canada.
However, what would its size and boundaries have been? How would it have developed?
No-one knows.
Being under the yoke it would have suffered similar fate to Scotland, being held back and treated like crap whilst being milked dry..
Which is the opposite of what actually happened after the Union. Scotland led the way intellectually, scientifically and in empire building and more than matched England industrially.
Funny the way certain narratives can emerge.
What actually happened was that the cream of Scottish society was extracted to run colonial possessions whilst the poor were used to fill the British army to garrison the holdings. The Treasure that flowed back went to the London treasury not Scotland.
For all that the Scots 'ran' the Empire the betterment did not go proportionally to Scotland. Scotland was drained to power the empire.
Yes, all those Scottish officers forced unwillingly to go and serve in the British army over two centuries. You can do a sensible class based analysis of where wealth was distributed for the whole of the UK but a nationalistic grudge viewpoint is nonsense historically. All nationalisms are sustained by myths but the Scottish Nationalism that exists today is a modern concoction based on a total denial of Scottish history. Modern Scotland evolved within the union. Scottish nationalism must be the only variety that denies some of the greatest triumphs of its nation - because they took place under the hated union.
Speaking of nationalist myths, a persistent British nationalist/Unionist myth appears to simultaneously believe that Scotland benefited and still benefits hugely from being part of the Union, and yet among smallish, well educated European nations with developed & diverse industries, substantial natural resources and stable civic polities, is uniquely ill suited to independence. Even smarter Unionists seem unable to square this circle in their own heads, let alone to my satisfaction.
I am sorry that you are not satisfied Divvy but I may just have to live with that.
Scotland could survive as an independent country, of course it could. But would its people have a better life, would we cope with something like this virus as well, would our young have the same breadth of opportunities? I really don't see how an independent Scotland, particularly one using Sterling, would have been able to match the furlough scheme, the grants, the guaranteed loans etc. A Scotland with its own currency would have been flotsam on the current markets with highly unpredictable results.
An independent Scotland today would be significantly poorer with less well funded public services, a serious trade deficit and limited prospects of improving our standard of living going forward. For some that is a price worth paying and the argument that we might eventually find a sense of common purpose and thrive is not to be dismissed out of hand but why on earth would we take that risk? Its bordering on irrational.
The SNP need to focus on our economy, on our education system, on our infrastructure, on business development and create a country that is indeed viable, that would indeed thrive on its own. Instead their obsession with constitutional matters and the uncertaintly that creates means the situation gets worse and worse. They are a menace.
Currently I see one party in Scotland that goes on and on and on about Scottish indy and another referendum and it ain't the SNP. Check the skelf in your own ee.
I actually agree that the Tories, and the also rans, need to go beyond no to a second referendum as a policy platform. But it is not true to say that the SNP do not claim that virtually every single thing that happens shows that we would be better off as an independent nation. It is their raison d'etre.
And as I have said repeatedly to the the point of tediousness, until Unionism, whether it be SCon, SLab or (lol)SLD, puts together a coherent and attractive vision not based on SNPbad, the SNP are the only game in town. On that basis I'd actually say the dire, unimaginative 4th raters that pass for Unionist pols are more to blame than anyone for the state we're in.
Judging by Wings comments there will be a non SNP pro Indy party standing for Holyrood next year, given the loathing of many there for Sturgeon. Thus finally splitting the Nat vote as the Unionist vote has been split
Hope springs eternal in the new Wings convert's heart.
Also shows an ignorance of the new party's voting strategy, and the Scottish Pmt's voting system.
Provided any new Indy party does not gain enough votes to elect MSPs it will likely cost the SNP list seats and increase the chances of a Unionist majority, more so if it stands for constituency FPTP seats too
The whole point is that if it got so few on the list then it wouldn't make much difference to the SNP, which gets disproportionately few seats for its list votes assuming it does well on the constituencies.
The way in which the Scottish Pmt was deliberately gerrymandered - and confessedly so - by its creators to favout a split British Nationalist vote against the (initially) unified vote for self-determination is something that might well repay a careful analysis on PB early in 2021, when the Holyrood elections approach. Would a Wings party approach work?
[Edit - British Nationalist used as descriptive term as 'Unionist' is too confused with Ulster, or so I tend to feel. But use whichever you prefer.]
The SNP have 32 more seats than the Tories at Holyrood so will likely stay largest party regardless.
However the SNP and Greens only have 4 more seats combined than the 65 needed for a Nationalist majority, so just a handful of lost SNP MSPs would give a Unionist majority once you combined the Tory, Labour and LD MSPs
The whole logic of the new party is that it could well gain more seats than the SNP lost on the same list votes, across each region. This is something PB will need to look at carefully if such a party is put forward in 2021.
In theory, in practice it is likely to take enough votes from the SNP and Greens to see the SNP and Greens lose list seats without gaining enough votes to pass the threshold to gain many if any MSPs itself
"Experts give their opinions on why the UK has been hit so hard by the Covid-19 virus"
Possible reasons:
An elderly and unhealthy population. Too late to lockdown and a failure to close the borders. Insufficient PPE. Lack of testing. Failure to protect the elderly? Protect the NHS has actually cost lives Just bad luck.
Population density has to be in there as well. Look at the other areas really hard hit, NY, Northern Italy, Madrid, Paris, Belgium....all high population density. The UK, its basically London and Birmingham that have been really hard hit.
I think another question that needs asking is, why such poor outcomes of those in hospital. Are we waiting too long to get people into hospitals / is the advice wrong about how long to wait. Is there something missing in the "best practice" approach.
There is a suggestion that Germany, with its higher capacity, gets people into hospital quicker. I have no idea if there is data to back that up.
One thing we do know though is a lot of people who are actually very serious condition, with very low blood oxygen levels, actually feel / appear fine. But are actually in a very dangerous situation.
Have we missed a trick by not just filling NHS Nightingale's with people for monitoring.
You get the idea that someone thought that patients were inconvenient, either for the hospitals or for the data.
Which might also explain the way the infected were allowed to go to care homes.
The care homes felt pressured to take covid positive patients from hospitals according to this (28 mins)
I'm just happy that we are so easily able to solve all the problems of our former colony. I'm sure many regret we let it go in the first place.
Oh wait. They took it from us. And currently their administration is a reflection of a great many Americans. Just as ours is.
It's not Trump it's the American people and they are entitled to elect whoever they damn well want. Assured, perhaps, that the smug Brits will be there with them. To criticise and make snide observations.
Edit: God bless America.
If American hadn't declared independence, where would it have ended up?
Obviously, self-governance would have continued to be a thing (as it was to an extent even at the point of revolution, and in all other settler colonies) so I'm inclined to think it'd have been a much bigger and richer Canada.
However, what would its size and boundaries have been? How would it have developed?
No-one knows.
Being under the yoke it would have suffered similar fate to Scotland, being held back and treated like crap whilst being milked dry..
Which is the opposite of what actually happened after the Union. Scotland led the way intellectually, scientifically and in empire building and more than matched England industrially.
Funny the way certain narratives can emerge.
What actually happened was that the cream of Scottish society was extracted to run colonial possessions whilst the poor were used to fill the British army to garrison the holdings. The Treasure that flowed back went to the London treasury not Scotland.
For all that the Scots 'ran' the Empire the betterment did not go proportionally to Scotland. Scotland was drained to power the empire.
Yes, all those Scottish officers forced unwillingly to go and serve in the British army over two centuries. You can do a sensible class based analysis of where wealth was distributed for the whole of the UK but a nationalistic grudge viewpoint is nonsense historically. All nationalisms are sustained by myths but the Scottish Nationalism that exists today is a modern concoction based on a total denial of Scottish history. Modern Scotland evolved within the union. Scottish nationalism must be the only variety that denies some of the greatest triumphs of its nation - because they took place under the hated union.
Speaking of nationalist myths, a persistent British nationalist/Unionist myth appears to simultaneously believe that Scotland benefited and still benefits hugely from being part of the Union, and yet among smallish, well educated European nations with developed & diverse industries, substantial natural resources and stable civic polities, is uniquely ill suited to independence. Even smarter Unionists seem unable to square this circle in their own heads, let alone to my satisfaction.
I am sorry that you are not satisfied Divvy but I may just have to live with that.
Scotland could survive as an independent country, of course it could. But would its people have a better life, would we cope with something like this virus as well, would our young have the same breadth of opportunities? I really don't see how an independent Scotland, particularly one using Sterling, would have been able to match the furlough scheme, the grants, the guaranteed loans etc. A Scotland with its own currency would have been flotsam on the current markets with highly unpredictable results.
An independent Scotland today would be significantly poorer with less well funded public services, a serious trade deficit and limited prospects of improving our standard of living going forward. For some that is a price worth paying and the argument that we might eventually find a sense of common purpose and thrive is not to be dismissed out of hand but why on earth would we take that risk? Its bordering on irrational.
The SNP need to focus on our economy, on our education system, on our infrastructure, on business development and create a country that is indeed viable, that would indeed thrive on its own. Instead their obsession with constitutional matters and the uncertaintly that creates means the situation gets worse and worse. They are a menace.
Currently I see one party in Scotland that goes on and on and on about Scottish indy and another referendum and it ain't the SNP. Check the skelf in your own ee.
I actually agree that the Tories, and the also rans, need to go beyond no to a second referendum as a policy platform. But it is not true to say that the SNP do not claim that virtually every single thing that happens shows that we would be better off as an independent nation. It is their raison d'etre.
And as I have said repeatedly to the the point of tediousness, until Unionism, whether it be SCon, SLab or (lol)SLD, puts together a coherent and attractive vision not based on SNPbad, the SNP are the only game in town. On that basis I'd actually say the dire, unimaginative 4th raters that pass for Unionist pols are more to blame than anyone for the state we're in.
Judging by Wings comments there will be a non SNP pro Indy party standing for Holyrood next year, given the loathing of many there for Sturgeon. Thus finally splitting the Nat vote as the Unionist vote has been split
Hope springs eternal in the new Wings convert's heart.
Also shows an ignorance of the new party's voting strategy, and the Scottish Pmt's voting system.
Ignorance is no barrier to commenting on Scotpol on PB, quite often a prerequisite in fact.
Fair's fair, we have been treated to spittle-flecked denunciations of 'English wine shelves' groaning with 'inferior New World wines' from one of your number before now.
The general standard of knowledge of Scottish politics on PB is pretty decent I'd say - far better than of politics in Wales, NI, or the North or South West of England.
That's a low bar you're setting, but fair's fair, it doesn't gild the reality of the 'spittle-flecked' numbnuttery of standard PB Scottish insights.
Edit: and yay, you got a like from PB Scotchpert HYUFD!
"Experts give their opinions on why the UK has been hit so hard by the Covid-19 virus"
Possible reasons:
An elderly and unhealthy population. Too late to lockdown and a failure to close the borders. Insufficient PPE. Lack of testing. Failure to protect the elderly? Protect the NHS has actually cost lives Just bad luck.
Population density has to be in there as well. Look at the other areas really hard hit, NY, Northern Italy, Madrid, Paris, Belgium....all high population density. The UK, its basically London and Birmingham that have been really hard hit.
I think another question that needs asking is, why such poor outcomes of those in hospital. Are we waiting too long to get people into hospitals / is the advice wrong about how long to wait. Is there something missing in the "best practice" approach.
There is a suggestion that Germany, with its higher capacity, gets people into hospital quicker. I have no idea if there is data to back that up.
One thing we do know though is a lot of people who are actually very serious condition, with very low blood oxygen levels, actually feel / appear fine. But are actually in a very dangerous situation.
Have we missed a trick by not just filling NHS Nightingale's with people for monitoring.
You get the idea that someone thought that patients were inconvenient, either for the hospitals or for the data.
Which might also explain the way the infected were allowed to go to care homes.
The care homes felt pressured to take covid positive patients from hospitals according to this (28 mins)
Were it my care home anyone applying that pressure would be being asked to sign a letter taking personal responsibility for any deaths and told to bugger off until that signature was on the paper.
"Experts give their opinions on why the UK has been hit so hard by the Covid-19 virus"
Possible reasons:
An elderly and unhealthy population. Too late to lockdown and a failure to close the borders. Insufficient PPE. Lack of testing. Failure to protect the elderly? Protect the NHS has actually cost lives Just bad luck.
Population density has to be in there as well. Look at the other areas really hard hit, NY, Northern Italy, Madrid, Paris, Belgium....all high population density. The UK, its basically London and Birmingham that have been really hard hit.
I think another question that needs asking is, why such poor outcomes of those in hospital. Are we waiting too long to get people into hospitals / is the advice wrong about how long to wait. Is there something missing in the "best practice" approach.
There is a suggestion that Germany, with its higher capacity, gets people into hospital quicker. I have no idea if there is data to back that up.
One thing we do know though is a lot of people who are actually very serious condition, with very low blood oxygen levels, actually feel / appear fine. But are actually in a very dangerous situation.
Have we missed a trick by not just filling NHS Nightingale's with people for monitoring.
You get the idea that someone thought that patients were inconvenient, either for the hospitals or for the data.
Which might also explain the way the infected were allowed to go to care homes.
The care homes felt pressured to take covid positive patients from hospitals according to this (28 mins)
An 11 year old has been shot, but people seem more concerned about whether Upminster is in East London or Essex
We don't want it!!! London can have it.
Aw don’t be like that! It’s definitely more Essex than London.
It's in both. My mother's generation would call it "London over the border" although of course since 1965 it has actually been in London. Probably has an Essex postal address though.
Yes, I’ve lived in Upminster or Hornchurch nearly all of my life. I’d always say they were Essex, they both have an Essex postcodes, although technically London too as Havering is a London borough, and they’re on the tube.
In electoral terms it certainly has resembled Southern Essex rather than Greater London. At the 1974 elections, Upminster was very much a tossup very marginal seat between Tory and Labour. Against the wider London trend it has long become a safe Tory seat - only falling to Labour in 1997 - much more in line with the pattern seen in Basildon , Thurrock and Harlow.
Indeed and most of the handful of Tory gains from Labour at the 2001 general election came in Havering and Essex e.g. Upminster, Romford and Castle Point (the others being Newark and Norfolk North West)
Essex feels like a white supremacy theme park - Stewart Lee.
I watched an episode his BBC stand up (Comedy vehicle)”?) programme on recommendation from a v lefty mate, and was just about to text him how good I thought it was when I realised I hadn’t laughed once. Clever, and good delivery though... and to be fair I think I did laugh at some of the other episodes
Oh he's a killer comic. Probably helps if you share his sensibilities but I'd say you shouldn't have to because he avoids smugness and the material is rarely crass or obvious. He walks a fine line and mostly pulls it off.
I think layers of Trump are missing the possibility of the election not being free and fair. It's easy to be cynical about this and point to the chads in 2000, gerrymandering, and various vote suppression efforts over the years and to conclude that it's priced in to the baseline of previous elections.
I think it's worth reminding yourself what this President is like, the sorts of people he praises and the actions they take.
In a dispute between armed fascists and anyone who isn't wearing Trump merchandise, Trump supports the fascists. The very good people. If these people protest "election fraud" on voting day in strongly Democrat precincts, how many votes does Biden lose as a result?
These people believe that the Democrats would need to steal the election to defeat Trump. They won't watch it happen. Fascists don't peacefully sit by while their opponents vote against them.
After the fact Republicans will argue that turnout was depressed by fear of the virus, or because Biden was a poor candidate, to minimise the effect of violence preventing people from voting. The election will have been stolen and it will be too late to do anything about it.
This is complicated though - Trump has the audacity and the Supreme Court, but the Dems have the swing state governorships, so if Trump tries to create chaos they may be able to use it to their advantage.
Yes. That is a point in the Democrats favour, but they have to be prepared so that they can act in time.
The police and other law enforcement agencies are much more tolerant of these sorts of protests than they are of protests by black people. The immediate operational response to a clash between white Trump supporters and black would-be Biden voters is unlikely to be to the Democrats advantage, regardless of who the Governor is.
Just come up on Facebook; Apparently someone has been sent a COVID-19 testing kit without a return label. They chap who got it rang the sender and was told that there have been a lot like that; just bin it.
Some years ago there was a tale about the Soviets injecting people with water and counting them as diphtheria injections. Then, just after the DSoviet Union collapsed there was a nasty diphtheria epidemic in Russia.
using a 7 day trend for the line. Seems suprisingly linear at the moment
You shouldn't be using the numbers for the 27th, 28th, 29th, 30th of April and 1st of May. They are blocked out in grey in the released data as they're subject to major increases as more information comes in. They will always be artificially lower and push lines downwards (so turning a decay curve linear, or a linear curve into a rapid descent.
using a 7 day trend for the line. Seems suprisingly linear at the moment
You shouldn't be using the numbers for the 27th, 28th, 29th, 30th of April and 1st of May. They are blocked out in grey in the released data as they're subject to major increases as more information comes in. They will always be artificially lower and push lines downwards (so turning a decay curve linear, or a linear curve into a rapid descent.
Yes - just showing the full dataset, rather than chopping off the last 5-7 days. A moving average trendline won't be affected for the part before the last few days.
Moscow's real coronavirus infection rate is more than 250,000 says the city's mayor - more than twice official figures for Russia - as temporary morgues appear in St Petersburg
The public sector didn't deliver. If was just PHE labs, they barely increased testing or capacity. It was the decision to finally get the private sector involved that massively expanded this.
And for all the criticism over spinning to get it over the line, not doubt massoive increase, unlike Scotland and Wales, who nobody seems to be criticising.
Wales promised 5k tests a day, then just gave up after a week.
Only England that trumpeted it every day and then lied about making the numbers when it was obvious they were lying. See the difference where the devolved governments just tried their best and did not big it up and lie.
What matters is the testing numbers and testing efficacy. You can't have efficacy with insufficient capacity. England is getting there, Scotland and Wales look to be lagging badly behind.
Could you enlighten a simple Jock as to why the constant refrain on here yesterday was 'Scotland's only done 2000 tests!!!' when in fact it was more than double that?
What's the end game of demonising the UK media? Has anybody in Government, i.e. the one man who is actually the government, thought of the long-term consequences? It would not be so difficult for a future Labour government to create a captive state media alternative to the BBC and to regulate Twitter and Facebook into submission.
Today is World Naked Gardening Day. (No, I don’t know why either.)
Do you know the most depressing thing for me - on top of everything else? Despite being surrounded by the most beautiful countryside (and, now 3 ewes and their lambs who have taken residence outside our front door) and despite the glorious weather and having all the time in the world to garden I have NO ACTUAL GARDEN.
None. It is unbelievably depressing, the sort of cosmically bad joke at my expense which makes me believe in a malicious God tormenting humans just for the sheer hell of it.
I could buy a few pots and stick some plants in them but that is not proper gardening. If only the bloody landlord had laid down earth rather than bloody slate chippings I could be creating something beautiful and worthwhile and even growing my own food.
But no - I stare at sheep who eat, sleep and walk round the hills - and realise that I am now living the life of a sheep.
I am bewildered. How on earth did you, of all people, ever choose a house without a garden?
It was that or homelessness. Seriously.
Our house is in the middle of rebuilding. Daughter and I were temporarily house-sitting due to come to an end on March 24. We got a short-term holiday let and were due to move in at the end of it. Then lockdown happened.
Sofa surfing for me, daughter & 3 cats not an option, especially not given my health issues. Holiday lets no longer an option and not much else to rent either. This barely completed barn conversion ( really meant for holiday letting) was the only thing on offer for a long-term tenancy since God knows when house will be finished.
And, to be fair, the house is comfortable and the surrounding countryside and the views and the walks outstanding. But landlords far away tend not to create gardens given the maintenance involved.
Perhaps I could offer to create one for him - or at least design one.
That’s what I would do - although perhaps suggest a single flower bed to start
Can you buy the containers for your new garden early?
On the lack of garden - yes, there's little incentive for an LL to spend £500-750 a year (which would give 1 hr of gardener per week if you can get one) maintaining a garden if the Ts do not want it.
I'm just happy that we are so easily able to solve all the problems of our former colony. I'm sure many regret we let it go in the first place.
Oh wait. They took it from us. And currently their administration is a reflection of a great many Americans. Just as ours is.
It's not Trump it's the American people and they are entitled to elect whoever they damn well want. Assured, perhaps, that the smug Brits will be there with them. To criticise and make snide observations.
Edit: God bless America.
If American hadn't declared independence, where would it have ended up?
Obviously, self-governance would have continued to be a thing (as it was to an extent even at the point of revolution, and in all other settler colonies) so I'm inclined to think it'd have been a much bigger and richer Canada.
However, what would its size and boundaries have been? How would it have developed?
No-one knows.
Being under the yoke it would have suffered similar fate to Scotland, being held back and treated like crap whilst being milked dry..
Which is the opposite of what actually happened after the Union. Scotland led the way intellectually, scientifically and in empire building and more than matched England industrially.
Funny the way certain narratives can emerge.
What actually happened was that the cream of Scottish society was extracted to run colonial possessions whilst the poor were used to fill the British army to garrison the holdings. The Treasure that flowed back went to the London treasury not Scotland.
For all that the Scots 'ran' the Empire the betterment did not go proportionally to Scotland. Scotland was drained to power the empire.
Yes, all those Scottish officers forced unwillingly to go and serve in the British army over two centuries. You can do a sensible class based analysis of where wealth was distributed for the whole of the UK but a nationalistic grudge viewpoint is nonsense historically. All nationalisms are sustained by myths but the Scottish Nationalism that exists today is a modern concoction based on a total denial of Scottish history. Modern Scotland evolved within the union. Scottish nationalism must be the only variety that denies some of the greatest triumphs of its nation - because they took place under the hated union.
Speaking of nationalist myths, a persistent British nationalist/Unionist myth appears to simultaneously believe that Scotland benefited and still benefits hugely from being part of the Union, and yet among smallish, well educated European nations with developed & diverse industries, substantial natural resources and stable civic polities, is uniquely ill suited to independence. Even smarter Unionists seem unable to square this circle in their own heads, let alone to my satisfaction.
I am sorry that you are not satisfied Divvy but I may just have to live with that.
Scotland could survive as an independent country, of course it could. But would its people have a better life, would we cope with something like this virus as well, would our young have the same breadth of opportunities? I really don't see how an independent Scotland, particularly one using Sterling, would have been able to match the furlough scheme, the grants, the guaranteed loans etc. A Scotland with its own currency would have been flotsam on the current markets with highly unpredictable results.
An independent Scotland today would be significantly poorer with less well funded public services, a serious trade deficit and limited prospects of improving our standard of living going forward. For some that is a price worth paying and the argument that we might eventually find a sense of common purpose and thrive is not to be dismissed out of hand but why on earth would we take that risk? Its bordering on irrational.
The SNP need to focus on our economy, on our education system, on our infrastructure, on business development and create a country that is indeed viable, that would indeed thrive on its own. Instead their obsession with constitutional matters and the uncertaintly that creates means the situation gets worse and worse. They are a menace.
Currently I see one party in Scotland that goes on and on and on about Scottish indy and another referendum and it ain't the SNP. Check the skelf in your own ee.
I actually agree that the Tories, and the also rans, need to go beyond no to a second referendum as a policy platform. But it is not true to say that the SNP do not claim that virtually every single thing that happens shows that we would be better off as an independent nation. It is their raison d'etre.
And as I have said repeatedly to the the point of tediousness, until Unionism, whether it be SCon, SLab or (lol)SLD, puts together a coherent and attractive vision not based on SNPbad, the SNP are the only game in town. On that basis I'd actually say the dire, unimaginative 4th raters that pass for Unionist pols are more to blame than anyone for the state we're in.
Judging by Wings comments there will be a non SNP pro Indy party standing for Holyrood next year, given the loathing of many there for Sturgeon. Thus finally splitting the Nat vote as the Unionist vote has been split
Hope springs eternal in the new Wings convert's heart.
Also shows an ignorance of the new party's voting strategy, and the Scottish Pmt's voting system.
Provided any new Indy party does not gain enough votes to elect MSPs it will likely cost the SNP list seats and increase the chances of a Unionist majority, more so if it stands for constituency FPTP seats too
The whole point is that if it got so few on the list then it wouldn't make much difference to the SNP, which gets disproportionately few seats for its list votes assuming it does well on the constituencies.
The way in which the Scottish Pmt was deliberately gerrymandered - and confessedly so - by its creators to favout a split British Nationalist vote against the (initially) unified vote for self-determination is something that might well repay a careful analysis on PB early in 2021, when the Holyrood elections approach. Would a Wings party approach work?
[Edit - British Nationalist used as descriptive term as 'Unionist' is too confused with Ulster, or so I tend to feel. But use whichever you prefer.]
The SNP have 32 more seats than the Tories at Holyrood so will likely stay largest party regardless.
However the SNP and Greens only have 4 more seats combined than the 65 needed for a Nationalist majority, so just a handful of lost SNP MSPs would give a Unionist majority once you combined the Tory, Labour and LD MSPs
Once again your ignorance shines like a beacon. Given if anywhere near recent polls , the fact that they will get next to no list seats anyway then an independence list party could do very well indeed. It has the unionists shitting their breeks at the thought of it at least.
Just come up on Facebook; Apparently someone has been sent a COVID-19 testing kit without a return label. They chap who got it rang the sender and was told that there have been a lot like that; just bin it.
Some years ago there was a tale about the Soviets injecting people with water and counting them as diphtheria injections. Then, just after the DSoviet Union collapsed there was a nasty diphtheria epidemic in Russia.
"Experts give their opinions on why the UK has been hit so hard by the Covid-19 virus"
Possible reasons:
An elderly and unhealthy population. Too late to lockdown and a failure to close the borders. Insufficient PPE. Lack of testing. Failure to protect the elderly? Protect the NHS has actually cost lives Just bad luck.
Population density has to be in there as well. Look at the other areas really hard hit, NY, Northern Italy, Madrid, Paris, Belgium....all high population density. The UK, its basically London and Birmingham that have been really hard hit.
I think another question that needs asking is, why such poor outcomes of those in hospital. Are we waiting too long to get people into hospitals / is the advice wrong about how long to wait. Is there something missing in the "best practice" approach.
There is a suggestion that Germany, with its higher capacity, gets people into hospital quicker. I have no idea if there is data to back that up.
One thing we do know though is a lot of people who are actually very serious condition, with very low blood oxygen levels, actually feel / appear fine. But are actually in a very dangerous situation.
Have we missed a trick by not just filling NHS Nightingale's with people for monitoring.
You get the idea that someone thought that patients were inconvenient, either for the hospitals or for the data.
Which might also explain the way the infected were allowed to go to care homes.
The care homes felt pressured to take covid positive patients from hospitals according to this (28 mins)
Major UK trials of versions of Ebola drug remdesivir, arthritis medication tocilizumab and HIV antiretroviral lopinavir-ritonavir are all expected to produce definitive results in the coming weeks.
What's the end game of demonising the UK media? Has anybody in Government, i.e. the one man who is actually the government, thought of the long-term consequences? It would not be so difficult for a future Labour government to create a captive state media alternative to the BBC and to regulate Twitter and Facebook into submission.
The media are hard at work demonising themselves. Not being able to understand basic statistics, despite a plethora of people out there explaining it for them... The inability to dig into a story to find the real story - such as what PPE was required where?
If all you do is turn up and ask the same medium pace questions every day, why should anyone be impressed?
FPT Casino_Royale recommedns Turnbull & "Asset" (clever!) instead of Lewin or Tyrwhitt. I recommended M&S for a better purchase at the same price tier, but Turnbull and Asser is indeed better if you can, and the shirts also last a lot longer. The precise problem with most shirts in the Lewin etc. price range is that either the workmanship is non-EU and a bit meh because nobody in head office is in the factory, or the workmanship is fine but the textiles are cheapo to compensate (a problem with some UK makers).
I'm just happy that we are so easily able to solve all the problems of our former colony. I'm sure many regret we let it go in the first place.
Oh wait. They took it from us. And currently their administration is a reflection of a great many Americans. Just as ours is.
It's not Trump it's the American people and they are entitled to elect whoever they damn well want. Assured, perhaps, that the smug Brits will be there with them. To criticise and make snide observations.
Edit: God bless America.
If American hadn't declared independence, where would it have ended up?
Obviously, self-governance would have continued to be a thing (as it was to an extent even at the point of revolution, and in all other settler colonies) so I'm inclined to think it'd have been a much bigger and richer Canada.
However, what would its size and boundaries have been? How would it have developed?
No-one knows.
Being under the yoke it would have suffered similar fate to Scotland, being held back and treated like crap whilst being milked dry..
Which is the opposite of what actually happened after the Union. Scotland led the way intellectually, scientifically and in empire building and more than matched England industrially.
Funny the way certain narratives can emerge.
What actually happened was that the cream of Scottish society was extracted to run colonial possessions whilst the poor were used to fill the British army to garrison the holdings. The Treasure that flowed back went to the London treasury not Scotland.
For all that the Scots 'ran' the Empire the betterment did not go proportionally to Scotland. Scotland was drained to power the empire.
Yes, all those Scottish officers forced unwillingly to go and serve in the British army over two centuries. You can do a sensible class based analysis of where wealth was distributed for the whole of the UK but a nationalistic grudge viewpoint is nonsense historically. All nationalisms are sustained by myths but the Scottish Nationalism that exists today is a modern concoction based on a total denial of Scottish history. Modern Scotland evolved within the union. Scottish nationalism must be the only variety that denies some of the greatest triumphs of its nation - because they took place under the hated union.
Speaking of nationalist myths, a persistent British nationalist/Unionist myth appears to simultaneously believe that Scotland benefited and still benefits hugely from being part of the Union, and yet among smallish, well educated European nations with developed & diverse industries, substantial natural resources and stable civic polities, is uniquely ill suited to independence. Even smarter Unionists seem unable to square this circle in their own heads, let alone to my satisfaction.
I am sorry that you are not satisfied Divvy but I may just have to live with that.
Scotland could survive as an independent country, of course it could. But would its people have a better life, would we cope with something like this virus as well, would our young have the same breadth of opportunities? I really don't see how an independent Scotland, particularly one using Sterling, would have been able to match the furlough scheme, the grants, the guaranteed loans etc. A Scotland with its own currency would have been flotsam on the current markets with highly unpredictable results.
An independent Scotland today would be significantly poorer with less well funded public services, a serious trade deficit and limited prospects of improving our standard of living going forward. For some that is a price worth paying and the argument that we might eventually find a sense of common purpose and thrive is not to be dismissed out of hand but why on earth would we take that risk? Its bordering on irrational.
The SNP need to focus on our economy, on our education system, on our infrastructure, on business development and create a country that is indeed viable, that would indeed thrive on its own. Instead their obsession with constitutional matters and the uncertaintly that creates means the situation gets worse and worse. They are a menace.
Currently I see one party in Scotland that goes on and on and on about Scottish indy and another referendum and it ain't the SNP. Check the skelf in your own ee.
I actually agree that the Tories, and the also rans, need to go beyond no to a second referendum as a policy platform. But it is not true to say that the SNP do not claim that virtually every single thing that happens shows that we would be better off as an independent nation. It is their raison d'etre.
And as I have said repeatedly to the the point of tediousness, until Unionism, whether it be SCon, SLab or (lol)SLD, puts together a coherent and attractive vision not based on SNPbad, the SNP are the only game in town. On that basis I'd actually say the dire, unimaginative 4th raters that pass for Unionist pols are more to blame than anyone for the state we're in.
Judging by Wings comments there will be a non SNP pro Indy party standing for Holyrood next year, given the loathing of many there for Sturgeon. Thus finally splitting the Nat vote as the Unionist vote has been split
Hope springs eternal in the new Wings convert's heart.
Also shows an ignorance of the new party's voting strategy, and the Scottish Pmt's voting system.
Ignorance is no barrier to commenting on Scotpol on PB, quite often a prerequisite in fact.
Fair's fair, we have been treated to spittle-flecked denunciations of 'English wine shelves' groaning with 'inferior New World wines' from one of your number before now.
The general standard of knowledge of Scottish politics on PB is pretty decent I'd say - far better than of politics in Wales, NI, or the North or South West of England.
You must be very easily pleased Lucky, the knowledge on here re Scotland is pitiful, most of them could not find their way here with a Sat Nav. The political knowledge i seven worse, no clue does not even begin to describe it , add to that the ex Scots trying hard to prove how English they have become printing absolute bilge and it completes the picture. Apart from dyed in the wool Tory David who provides the Tory viewpoint only there is nothing apart from the comments of the few Scottish independence supporters, which do not suit southern Tories version of the far north.
What's the end game of demonising the UK media? Has anybody in Government, i.e. the one man who is actually the government, thought of the long-term consequences? It would not be so difficult for a future Labour government to create a captive state media alternative to the BBC and to regulate Twitter and Facebook into submission.
The media are hard at work demonising themselves. Not being able to understand basic statistics, despite a plethora of people out there explaining it for them... The inability to dig into a story to find the real story - such as what PPE was required where?
If all you do is turn up and ask the same medium pace questions every day, why should anyone be impressed?
Erm, opinions aren't constructed randomly. Surely nobody would deny the existence of a government / CCHQ / Dombot campaign to discredit the media using captive Twitter accounts, cabinet ministers, etc. I.e. - if you think the media are discrediting themselves purely through own behaviour, you would have to agree that the government are also discrediting themselves over testing kits / PPE, but I think you won't accept the last statement? : //
using a 7 day trend for the line. Seems suprisingly linear at the moment
You shouldn't be using the numbers for the 27th, 28th, 29th, 30th of April and 1st of May. They are blocked out in grey in the released data as they're subject to major increases as more information comes in. They will always be artificially lower and push lines downwards (so turning a decay curve linear, or a linear curve into a rapid descent.
Yes - just showing the full dataset, rather than chopping off the last 5-7 days. A moving average trendline won't be affected for the part before the last few days.
Fair enough. It's coming down reassuringly quickly. It's compatible with an Rt below 0.8 (assuming a period of 5 days). Given the latency between infection-symptoms-problems-death, it implies that we're already on for a sub-150/day death toll and possibly a sub-100/day death toll from those infected today.
That's highly encouraging.
And, of course, the faster the rate of fall, the lower Rt is implied to be at our current level of restrictions. This should give us more breathing room between where we are now and an Rt of 1.0 (which we need to stay below).
The public sector didn't deliver. If was just PHE labs, they barely increased testing or capacity. It was the decision to finally get the private sector involved that massively expanded this.
And for all the criticism over spinning to get it over the line, not doubt massoive increase, unlike Scotland and Wales, who nobody seems to be criticising.
Wales promised 5k tests a day, then just gave up after a week.
Only England that trumpeted it every day and then lied about making the numbers when it was obvious they were lying. See the difference where the devolved governments just tried their best and did not big it up and lie.
What matters is the testing numbers and testing efficacy. You can't have efficacy with insufficient capacity. England is getting there, Scotland and Wales look to be lagging badly behind.
Could you enlighten a simple Jock as to why the constant refrain on here yesterday was 'Scotland's only done 2000 tests!!!' when in fact it was more than double that?
Just the usual squirrel when the arseholes down south are making an arse of it , the usual cry is look Scotland is shite even if they are not a bunch of lying arseholes like our English losers, quick get online and request another 20K tests.
I'm just happy that we are so easily able to solve all the problems of our former colony. I'm sure many regret we let it go in the first place.
Oh wait. They took it from us. And currently their administration is a reflection of a great many Americans. Just as ours is.
It's not Trump it's the American people and they are entitled to elect whoever they damn well want. Assured, perhaps, that the smug Brits will be there with them. To criticise and make snide observations.
Edit: God bless America.
If American hadn't declared independence, where would it have ended up?
Obviously, self-governance would have continued to be a thing (as it was to an extent even at the point of revolution, and in all other settler colonies) so I'm inclined to think it'd have been a much bigger and richer Canada.
However, what would its size and boundaries have been? How would it have developed?
No-one knows.
Being under the yoke it would have suffered similar fate to Scotland, being held back and treated like crap whilst being milked dry..
Which is the opposite of what actually happened after the Union. Scotland led the way intellectually, scientifically and in empire building and more than matched England industrially.
Funny the way certain narratives can emerge.
What actually happened was that the cream of Scottish society was extracted to run colonial possessions whilst the poor were used to fill the British army to garrison the holdings. The Treasure that flowed back went to the London treasury not Scotland.
For all that the Scots 'ran' the Empire the betterment did not go proportionally to Scotland. Scotland was drained to power the empire.
Yes, all those Scottish officers forced unwillingly to go and serve in the British army over two centuries. You can do a sensible class based analysis of where wealth was distributed for the whole of the UK but a nationalistic grudge viewpoint is nonsense historically. All nationalisms are sustained by myths but the Scottish Nationalism that exists today is a modern concoction based on a total denial of Scottish history. Modern Scotland evolved within the union. Scottish nationalism must be the only variety that denies some of the greatest triumphs of its nation - because they took place under the hated union.
I really can't agree. There has been a great revival of interest in Scottish history over the last few decades in aprallel with the rise of interest in independence. One only need look at bookshops, or a run of the National to find articles about the triumps, as you put it, as well as the mess-ups - it's all history to be remembered and commemorated - but not celebrated.
That latter contrast is perhaps the root of the difference I find most striking between mainstream Scottish nationalism (or rather self-determinationism) and British/English nationalism (as manifest in the last few years most obviously) is the former's almost complete omission of historical references in public discourse. You just don't get Ms Sturgeon going on about Saltires and the claymore, for instance, or the Clearances lowland or otherwise. But just look at almost any speech by Mr Johnson - or Mr Cameron before him. It's all Somme, Agincourt, WW2, WW2 again, Spitfires, Blitz spirit etc. etc. It's a very, very noticeable difference. One is very much looking to the future, but what is one to make of the other?
That's true enough. The vulgar historical references to WW2 are going to get less traction I suspect. The lack of historical references in public by SNP politicians (as opposed to the victim history narrative modelled on Ireland voiced by independence supporters) supports my analysis. For instance, the intellectual giants of the Scottish Enlightenment that were an important part of founding the modern world were not only comfortable with the Union but arguably enabled by it.
Boris and Cameron went to the same school at the same time so perhaps it means nothing more than the Eton headmaster was fond of great historical sweeps during assembly.
Don’t forget that he was also Tony Blair and Prince Charles’ housemaster
Eric Anderson. A good man. RIP
Ah yes, namechecked in Tony Blair's cheesy "name your favourite teacher" advert (which was surprisingly hard to google). Hold on, does this mean you were at school with Boris or with Blair?
using a 7 day trend for the line. Seems suprisingly linear at the moment
You shouldn't be using the numbers for the 27th, 28th, 29th, 30th of April and 1st of May. They are blocked out in grey in the released data as they're subject to major increases as more information comes in. They will always be artificially lower and push lines downwards (so turning a decay curve linear, or a linear curve into a rapid descent.
Yes - just showing the full dataset, rather than chopping off the last 5-7 days. A moving average trendline won't be affected for the part before the last few days.
Fair enough. It's coming down reassuringly quickly. It's compatible with an Rt below 0.8 (assuming a period of 5 days). Given the latency between infection-symptoms-problems-death, it implies that we're already on for a sub-150/day death toll and possibly a sub-100/day death toll from those infected today.
That's highly encouraging.
And, of course, the faster the rate of fall, the lower Rt is implied to be at our current level of restrictions. This should give us more breathing room between where we are now and an Rt of 1.0 (which we need to stay below).
Is this across all regions, though? The graph shows significant falls in London and Midlands but not uniformly elsewhere. Is the Rt higher outside of those places? Given that behaviour may have changed more markedly in areas severely hit is a countrywide Rt hiding variation?
London seems to show a fall from 180 to c.43, my own area of Yorks/NE from 100 to c.59. That is a significant difference.
They are each mehn's shirts with emphasis on the meh. M&S is the place to go.
Turnbull & Asset, if you can afford it.
My working assumption is that most clothing is made at the same factory by child slaves and different labels put on,
Naturally, different fabrics offer different quality even with the same work. But on the serious point you raise, the good news is that you can choose to buy "Made in EU" or other marques. The shirt I am wearing right now was made for a W European brand in a factory in E Europe. You do pay more than if it were a a random Turkey/S Asian/Vietnam factory. It won't be child slaves, but it may well be among the poorest conditions imaginable for European workers, and nor is it a well-paid trade. By the time you get to Charvet, Turnbull and Asser, and similar prices, you are probably talking about better circumstances. But you can at least research European factories more easily than random plants in Asia. This is all a bit harder in the accessories trade, which involves smaller items, so you really need to have trust in the purported supply chain.
An 11 year old has been shot, but people seem more concerned about whether Upminster is in East London or Essex
We don't want it!!! London can have it.
Aw don’t be like that! It’s definitely more Essex than London.
It's in both. My mother's generation would call it "London over the border" although of course since 1965 it has actually been in London. Probably has an Essex postal address though.
Yes, I’ve lived in Upminster or Hornchurch nearly all of my life. I’d always say they were Essex, they both have an Essex postcodes, although technically London too as Havering is a London borough, and they’re on the tube.
In electoral terms it certainly has resembled Southern Essex rather than Greater London. At the 1974 elections, Upminster was very much a tossup very marginal seat between Tory and Labour. Against the wider London trend it has long become a safe Tory seat - only falling to Labour in 1997 - much more in line with the pattern seen in Basildon , Thurrock and Harlow.
Indeed and most of the handful of Tory gains from Labour at the 2001 general election came in Havering and Essex e.g. Upminster, Romford and Castle Point (the others being Newark and Norfolk North West)
Essex feels like a white supremacy theme park - Stewart Lee.
I watched an episode his BBC stand up (Comedy vehicle)”?) programme on recommendation from a v lefty mate, and was just about to text him how good I thought it was when I realised I hadn’t laughed once. Clever, and good delivery though... and to be fair I think I did laugh at some of the other episodes
'I can do jokes, I just choose not to'. His withering contempt for comics called Russell - and for Mock the Week - is wondrous to behold.
What's the end game of demonising the UK media? Has anybody in Government, i.e. the one man who is actually the government, thought of the long-term consequences? It would not be so difficult for a future Labour government to create a captive state media alternative to the BBC and to regulate Twitter and Facebook into submission.
See America, Fox and the GOP. If your party has its own channel, it can have its own facts. The war is not against the MSM but against the very concept of truth.
What's the end game of demonising the UK media? Has anybody in Government, i.e. the one man who is actually the government, thought of the long-term consequences? It would not be so difficult for a future Labour government to create a captive state media alternative to the BBC and to regulate Twitter and Facebook into submission.
See America, Fox and the GOP. If your party has its own channel, it can have its own facts. The war is not against the MSM but against the very concept of truth.
I would help if "facts" that our media have been producing were accurate. It isn't about alternative facts, it is that they have consistently got them wrong. Time and time again, they have been shown a total lack of knowledge or ability to be able to work with some fairly basic stats.
It is why we consistently have to post tweets from a Professor in Industrial Economics to get the death numbers in the correct format, rather than the bollocks that the media have been putting out.
Its not bloody rocket science, all the info is there in an excel spreadsheet that the government releases every day.
using a 7 day trend for the line. Seems suprisingly linear at the moment
You shouldn't be using the numbers for the 27th, 28th, 29th, 30th of April and 1st of May. They are blocked out in grey in the released data as they're subject to major increases as more information comes in. They will always be artificially lower and push lines downwards (so turning a decay curve linear, or a linear curve into a rapid descent.
Yes - just showing the full dataset, rather than chopping off the last 5-7 days. A moving average trendline won't be affected for the part before the last few days.
Fair enough. It's coming down reassuringly quickly. It's compatible with an Rt below 0.8 (assuming a period of 5 days). Given the latency between infection-symptoms-problems-death, it implies that we're already on for a sub-150/day death toll and possibly a sub-100/day death toll from those infected today.
That's highly encouraging.
And, of course, the faster the rate of fall, the lower Rt is implied to be at our current level of restrictions. This should give us more breathing room between where we are now and an Rt of 1.0 (which we need to stay below).
Is this across all regions, though? The graph shows significant falls in London and Midlands but not uniformly elsewhere. Is the Rt higher outside of those places? Given that behaviour may have changed more markedly in areas severely hit is a countrywide Rt hiding variation?
London seems to show a fall from 180 to c.43, my own area of Yorks/NE from 100 to c.59. That is a significant difference.
I would agree with this - the question is when the linear trend (we are currently seeing) curves into a slower decline, I think.
What's the end game of demonising the UK media? Has anybody in Government, i.e. the one man who is actually the government, thought of the long-term consequences? It would not be so difficult for a future Labour government to create a captive state media alternative to the BBC and to regulate Twitter and Facebook into submission.
How on Earth would we be able to tell the difference if they did?
What's the end game of demonising the UK media? Has anybody in Government, i.e. the one man who is actually the government, thought of the long-term consequences? It would not be so difficult for a future Labour government to create a captive state media alternative to the BBC and to regulate Twitter and Facebook into submission.
See America, Fox and the GOP. If your party has its own channel, it can have its own facts. The war is not against the MSM but against the very concept of truth.
True. Giving the nickname of MSM to the diverse print media, television, radio and even mainstream websites allows Trump to demonise anybody who disagrees with him.
What's the end game of demonising the UK media? Has anybody in Government, i.e. the one man who is actually the government, thought of the long-term consequences? It would not be so difficult for a future Labour government to create a captive state media alternative to the BBC and to regulate Twitter and Facebook into submission.
See America, Fox and the GOP. If your party has its own channel, it can have its own facts. The war is not against the MSM but against the very concept of truth.
I would help if "facts" that our media have been producing were accurate. It isn't about alternative facts, it is that they have consistently got them wrong. Time and time again, they have been shown a total lack of knowledge or ability to be able to work with some fairly basic stats.
It is why we consistently have to post tweets from a Professor in Industrial Economics to get the death numbers in the correct format, rather than the bollocks that the media have been putting out.
Its not bloody rocket science, all the info is there in an excel spreadsheet that the government releases every day.
This.
I wrote a piece of software that scrapes the NHS England data, sums the numbers and builds an Excel spreadsheet automatically. Took me and hour or 2 with beers.
Apparently this is beyond anyone at a major news organisation.
"Experts give their opinions on why the UK has been hit so hard by the Covid-19 virus"
Possible reasons:
An elderly and unhealthy population. Too late to lockdown and a failure to close the borders. Insufficient PPE. Lack of testing. Failure to protect the elderly? Protect the NHS has actually cost lives Just bad luck.
Population density has to be in there as well. Look at the other areas really hard hit, NY, Northern Italy, Madrid, Paris, Belgium....all high population density. The UK, its basically London and Birmingham that have been really hard hit.
I think another question that needs asking is, why such poor outcomes of those in hospital. Are we waiting too long to get people into hospitals / is the advice wrong about how long to wait. Is there something missing in the "best practice" approach.
There is a suggestion that Germany, with its higher capacity, gets people into hospital quicker. I have no idea if there is data to back that up.
One thing we do know though is a lot of people who are actually very serious condition, with very low blood oxygen levels, actually feel / appear fine. But are actually in a very dangerous situation.
Have we missed a trick by not just filling NHS Nightingale's with people for monitoring.
To offer a possible answer to the last point, maybe not. It was remarked upon, I think, in yesterday's Government presser that the Nightingales are specifically designed for ventilator cases, i.e. patients who are all effectively comatose. They mightn't be able to offer the required staff and facilities for patients who are conscious, and thus needing to be provided with meals and make regular trips to the lavatory?
I meant as an overall plan. I have always been very much in favour of the funnel approach. You test positive, you are going to a uni halls / hotel...if you start to go downhill a bit you got to a field hospital...you get bad you go to traditional hospital.
That is what the Chinese did with their "16 new hospitals". 14 of them where nothing more than dorms to contain people, give them food, etc.
That's what they're doing in my part of the world - lots of testing in areas of high-density population, followed by isolation in a temporary facility for those who are positive.
UAE has also picked up hundreds of cases who travelled from India. The official Indian numbers make as much sense as those from China or Iran.
What's the end game of demonising the UK media? Has anybody in Government, i.e. the one man who is actually the government, thought of the long-term consequences? It would not be so difficult for a future Labour government to create a captive state media alternative to the BBC and to regulate Twitter and Facebook into submission.
How on Earth would we be able to tell the difference if they did?
Bloody lefty BBC. In other news, Rishi Sunak last week appointed Allegra Stratton, ex-ITV but before that ex-Newsnight, as his new comms SpAd. Funny how the party keeps hiring bolsheviks.
Hmm. Serious political question. Does this appointment mean Rishi has told #ClassicDom to do one?
Panzer Grey was actually much darker - that looks more like RN Light Grey as eg used in the Med. Or perhaps one of the MAP greys as used on later Spitfires.
"Experts give their opinions on why the UK has been hit so hard by the Covid-19 virus"
Possible reasons:
An elderly and unhealthy population. Too late to lockdown and a failure to close the borders. Insufficient PPE. Lack of testing. Failure to protect the elderly? Protect the NHS has actually cost lives Just bad luck.
Failure to restrict entry to the UK was the big policy failure.
The big structural failure was statist bureaucracy which led to failings re PPE, testing and care homes.
The big societal causes are obesity and population density.
I don't think closing our borders would have made much difference, unless we'd been psychic and done it in early January, and maintained it for an unfeasibly lengthy time. As the WHO says:
"In general, evidence shows that restricting the movement of people and goods during public health emergencies is ineffective in most situations and may divert resources from other interventions. Furthermore, restrictions may interrupt needed aid and technical support, may disrupt businesses, and may have negative social and economic effects on the affected countries. However, in certain circumstances, measures that restrict the movement of people may prove temporarily useful, such as in settings with few international connections and limited response capacities. [which London clearly isn't]
Travel measures that significantly interfere with international traffic may only be justified at the beginning of an outbreak, as they may allow countries to gain time, even if only a few days, to rapidly implement effective preparedness measures. Such restrictions must be based on a careful risk assessment, be proportionate to the public health risk, be short in duration, and be reconsidered regularly as the situation evolves.
Travel bans to affected areas or denial of entry to passengers coming from affected areas are usually not effective in preventing the importation of cases but may have a significant economic and social impact. "
What's the end game of demonising the UK media? Has anybody in Government, i.e. the one man who is actually the government, thought of the long-term consequences? It would not be so difficult for a future Labour government to create a captive state media alternative to the BBC and to regulate Twitter and Facebook into submission.
See America, Fox and the GOP. If your party has its own channel, it can have its own facts. The war is not against the MSM but against the very concept of truth.
True. Giving the nickname of MSM to the diverse print media, television, radio and even mainstream websites allows Trump to demonise anybody who disagrees with him.
And demonising those who use the expression MSM...
In the Good Olde Days* the traditional media had the following functions -
1) Reporting news 2) Gatekeeping what was to be published. 3) Opinion 4) Deeper analysis
In the Internet age, (2) disappeared rapidly - today JFK would have been exposed quite rapidly on a variety of matters, for example.
1) came under attack, when an "army of misfits in their pyjamas" started asking awkward questions about why the stories were full of hole.
3) Has become ever more vapid. Expensive big names seem to provide less and less value vs specialist amateurs
4) has been effected by the cuts caused by the internet revolution. In particular the interested amateurs have overtaken the big names in this. The broadsheet paper report space stories very badly, for example - read www.nasaspaceflight.com or www.arstechnica.com to get far better value.
"Experts give their opinions on why the UK has been hit so hard by the Covid-19 virus"
Possible reasons:
An elderly and unhealthy population. Too late to lockdown and a failure to close the borders. Insufficient PPE. Lack of testing. Failure to protect the elderly? Protect the NHS has actually cost lives Just bad luck.
Failure to restrict entry to the UK was the big policy failure.
The big structural failure was statist bureaucracy which led to failings re PPE, testing and care homes.
The big societal causes are obesity and population density.
I don't think closing our borders would have made much difference, unless we'd been psychic and done it in early January, and maintained it for an unfeasibly lengthy time. As the WHO says:
"In general, evidence shows that restricting the movement of people and goods during public health emergencies is ineffective in most situations and may divert resources from other interventions. Furthermore, restrictions may interrupt needed aid and technical support, may disrupt businesses, and may have negative social and economic effects on the affected countries. However, in certain circumstances, measures that restrict the movement of people may prove temporarily useful, such as in settings with few international connections and limited response capacities. [which London clearly isn't]
Travel measures that significantly interfere with international traffic may only be justified at the beginning of an outbreak, as they may allow countries to gain time, even if only a few days, to rapidly implement effective preparedness measures. Such restrictions must be based on a careful risk assessment, be proportionate to the public health risk, be short in duration, and be reconsidered regularly as the situation evolves.
Travel bans to affected areas or denial of entry to passengers coming from affected areas are usually not effective in preventing the importation of cases but may have a significant economic and social impact. "
Reminds me of their no human to human transmission tweet.
"Experts give their opinions on why the UK has been hit so hard by the Covid-19 virus"
Possible reasons:
An elderly and unhealthy population. Too late to lockdown and a failure to close the borders. Insufficient PPE. Lack of testing. Failure to protect the elderly? Protect the NHS has actually cost lives Just bad luck.
Failure to restrict entry to the UK was the big policy failure.
The big structural failure was statist bureaucracy which led to failings re PPE, testing and care homes.
The big societal causes are obesity and population density.
I don't think closing our borders would have made much difference, unless we'd been psychic and done it in early January, and maintained it for an unfeasibly lengthy time. As the WHO says:
"In general, evidence shows that restricting the movement of people and goods during public health emergencies is ineffective in most situations and may divert resources from other interventions. Furthermore, restrictions may interrupt needed aid and technical support, may disrupt businesses, and may have negative social and economic effects on the affected countries. However, in certain circumstances, measures that restrict the movement of people may prove temporarily useful, such as in settings with few international connections and limited response capacities. [which London clearly isn't]
Travel measures that significantly interfere with international traffic may only be justified at the beginning of an outbreak, as they may allow countries to gain time, even if only a few days, to rapidly implement effective preparedness measures. Such restrictions must be based on a careful risk assessment, be proportionate to the public health risk, be short in duration, and be reconsidered regularly as the situation evolves.
Travel bans to affected areas or denial of entry to passengers coming from affected areas are usually not effective in preventing the importation of cases but may have a significant economic and social impact. "
If anyone entering the UK from March onwards had been obliged to have a week's quarantine I don't see how that wouldn't have had a significant effect.
The big cluster in Liverpool for example would certainly have been avoided and that arose from the Athletico Madrid game as late as 11th March.
using a 7 day trend for the line. Seems suprisingly linear at the moment
You shouldn't be using the numbers for the 27th, 28th, 29th, 30th of April and 1st of May. They are blocked out in grey in the released data as they're subject to major increases as more information comes in. They will always be artificially lower and push lines downwards (so turning a decay curve linear, or a linear curve into a rapid descent.
Yes - just showing the full dataset, rather than chopping off the last 5-7 days. A moving average trendline won't be affected for the part before the last few days.
Fair enough. It's coming down reassuringly quickly. It's compatible with an Rt below 0.8 (assuming a period of 5 days). Given the latency between infection-symptoms-problems-death, it implies that we're already on for a sub-150/day death toll and possibly a sub-100/day death toll from those infected today.
That's highly encouraging.
And, of course, the faster the rate of fall, the lower Rt is implied to be at our current level of restrictions. This should give us more breathing room between where we are now and an Rt of 1.0 (which we need to stay below).
Is this across all regions, though? The graph shows significant falls in London and Midlands but not uniformly elsewhere. Is the Rt higher outside of those places? Given that behaviour may have changed more markedly in areas severely hit is a countrywide Rt hiding variation?
London seems to show a fall from 180 to c.43, my own area of Yorks/NE from 100 to c.59. That is a significant difference.
I would agree with this - the question is when the linear trend (we are currently seeing) curves into a slower decline, I think.
Agreed with both. Looking at each area, and taking the decline since the peak and a 5-day incubation time, the regions vary between 0.72 (London) and 0.87 (North East and Yorkshire). As London is such a big chunk of the numbers, it brings down the average Rt (without London, we'd be looking at 0.81-0.87, with most falling in the 0.84-0.85 range.
Still positive, but it would imply that in 15 days from the 26th, we'd only just be ducking under 200 (and London would be crossing down past NE & Yorks). And it would take o the end of the month before we duck below 100.
"Experts give their opinions on why the UK has been hit so hard by the Covid-19 virus"
Possible reasons:
An elderly and unhealthy population. Too late to lockdown and a failure to close the borders. Insufficient PPE. Lack of testing. Failure to protect the elderly? Protect the NHS has actually cost lives Just bad luck.
Failure to restrict entry to the UK was the big policy failure.
The big structural failure was statist bureaucracy which led to failings re PPE, testing and care homes.
The big societal causes are obesity and population density.
I don't think closing our borders would have made much difference, unless we'd been psychic and done it in early January, and maintained it for an unfeasibly lengthy time. As the WHO says:
"In general, evidence shows that restricting the movement of people and goods during public health emergencies is ineffective in most situations and may divert resources from other interventions. Furthermore, restrictions may interrupt needed aid and technical support, may disrupt businesses, and may have negative social and economic effects on the affected countries. However, in certain circumstances, measures that restrict the movement of people may prove temporarily useful, such as in settings with few international connections and limited response capacities. [which London clearly isn't]
Travel measures that significantly interfere with international traffic may only be justified at the beginning of an outbreak, as they may allow countries to gain time, even if only a few days, to rapidly implement effective preparedness measures. Such restrictions must be based on a careful risk assessment, be proportionate to the public health risk, be short in duration, and be reconsidered regularly as the situation evolves.
Travel bans to affected areas or denial of entry to passengers coming from affected areas are usually not effective in preventing the importation of cases but may have a significant economic and social impact. "
If anyone entering the UK from March onwards had been obliged to have a week's quarantine I don't see how that wouldn't have had a significant effect.
The big cluster in Liverpool for example would certainly have been avoided and that arose from the Athletico Madrid game as late as 11th March.
Is there any evidence for a cluster like that?
I thought Merseyside cases were comparable to Manchester etc cases and just scaled with population density?
Panzer Grey was actually much darker - that looks more like RN Light Grey as eg used in the Med. Or perhaps one of the MAP greys as used on later Spitfires.
It's actually Moonwalk Grey (I know far too much about the Mini model range due to spending months the year before last trying to find the one I eventually bought).
Panzer Grey was actually much darker - that looks more like RN Light Grey as eg used in the Med. Or perhaps one of the MAP greys as used on later Spitfires.
It's actually Moonwalk Grey (I know far too much about the Mini model range due to spending months the year before last trying to find the one I eventually bought).
Oh, excellent!
What an extraordinary colour to paint a car. Really merges into the morning haar and evening twilight and foggy days. But maybe the lighting nowadays is better.
"Experts give their opinions on why the UK has been hit so hard by the Covid-19 virus"
Possible reasons:
An elderly and unhealthy population. Too late to lockdown and a failure to close the borders. Insufficient PPE. Lack of testing. Failure to protect the elderly? Protect the NHS has actually cost lives Just bad luck.
Failure to restrict entry to the UK was the big policy failure.
The big structural failure was statist bureaucracy which led to failings re PPE, testing and care homes.
The big societal causes are obesity and population density.
I don't think closing our borders would have made much difference, unless we'd been psychic and done it in early January, and maintained it for an unfeasibly lengthy time. As the WHO says:
"In general, evidence shows that restricting the movement of people and goods during public health emergencies is ineffective in most situations and may divert resources from other interventions. Furthermore, restrictions may interrupt needed aid and technical support, may disrupt businesses, and may have negative social and economic effects on the affected countries. However, in certain circumstances, measures that restrict the movement of people may prove temporarily useful, such as in settings with few international connections and limited response capacities. [which London clearly isn't]
Travel measures that significantly interfere with international traffic may only be justified at the beginning of an outbreak, as they may allow countries to gain time, even if only a few days, to rapidly implement effective preparedness measures. Such restrictions must be based on a careful risk assessment, be proportionate to the public health risk, be short in duration, and be reconsidered regularly as the situation evolves.
Travel bans to affected areas or denial of entry to passengers coming from affected areas are usually not effective in preventing the importation of cases but may have a significant economic and social impact. "
If anyone entering the UK from March onwards had been obliged to have a week's quarantine I don't see how that wouldn't have had a significant effect.
The big cluster in Liverpool for example would certainly have been avoided and that arose from the Athletico Madrid game as late as 11th March.
Is there any evidence for a cluster like that?
I thought Merseyside cases were comparable to Manchester etc cases and just scaled with population density?
Panzer Grey was actually much darker - that looks more like RN Light Grey as eg used in the Med. Or perhaps one of the MAP greys as used on later Spitfires.
It's actually Moonwalk Grey (I know far too much about the Mini model range due to spending months the year before last trying to find the one I eventually bought).
Oh, excellent!
What an extraordinary colour to paint a car. Really merges into the morning haar and evening twilight and foggy days. But maybe the lighting nowadays is better.
One reason I spent so long looking was that the first one that met that spec was in that colour so it was a straightforward I'll continue to wait
Panzer Grey was actually much darker - that looks more like RN Light Grey as eg used in the Med. Or perhaps one of the MAP greys as used on later Spitfires.
It's actually Moonwalk Grey (I know far too much about the Mini model range due to spending months the year before last trying to find the one I eventually bought).
Oh, excellent!
What an extraordinary colour to paint a car. Really merges into the morning haar and evening twilight and foggy days. But maybe the lighting nowadays is better.
One reason I spent so long looking was that the first one that met that spec was in that colour so it was a straightforward I'll continue to wait
The darker tone of the wheel arches and bottom bit also helps to merge into the background.
"Experts give their opinions on why the UK has been hit so hard by the Covid-19 virus"
Possible reasons:
An elderly and unhealthy population. Too late to lockdown and a failure to close the borders. Insufficient PPE. Lack of testing. Failure to protect the elderly? Protect the NHS has actually cost lives Just bad luck.
Failure to restrict entry to the UK was the big policy failure.
The big structural failure was statist bureaucracy which led to failings re PPE, testing and care homes.
The big societal causes are obesity and population density.
I don't think closing our borders would have made much difference, unless we'd been psychic and done it in early January, and maintained it for an unfeasibly lengthy time. As the WHO says:
"In general, evidence shows that restricting the movement of people and goods during public health emergencies is ineffective in most situations and may divert resources from other interventions. Furthermore, restrictions may interrupt needed aid and technical support, may disrupt businesses, and may have negative social and economic effects on the affected countries. However, in certain circumstances, measures that restrict the movement of people may prove temporarily useful, such as in settings with few international connections and limited response capacities. [which London clearly isn't]
Travel measures that significantly interfere with international traffic may only be justified at the beginning of an outbreak, as they may allow countries to gain time, even if only a few days, to rapidly implement effective preparedness measures. Such restrictions must be based on a careful risk assessment, be proportionate to the public health risk, be short in duration, and be reconsidered regularly as the situation evolves.
Travel bans to affected areas or denial of entry to passengers coming from affected areas are usually not effective in preventing the importation of cases but may have a significant economic and social impact. "
In essence, once the disease is endemic in a country, anyone coming in is no more or less likely to have the disease than those already in the country. As long as all entering the country comply with the same restrictions as those already in the country, there would be no effect.
Lockdown anecdote. Definitely fraying badly around my way. At least two close neighbours have family/friends visiting, sitting in garden, chatting, clinking of glasses etc.
Lockdown anecdote. Definitely fraying badly around my way. At least two close neighbours have family/friends visiting, sitting in garden, chatting, clinking of glasses etc.
"Experts give their opinions on why the UK has been hit so hard by the Covid-19 virus"
Possible reasons:
An elderly and unhealthy population. Too late to lockdown and a failure to close the borders. Insufficient PPE. Lack of testing. Failure to protect the elderly? Protect the NHS has actually cost lives Just bad luck.
Going further back in time, it starts with: - Public health being treated as a Cinderella service worthy of being transferred over to local authorities (and hence being subject to chronic budget cuts post 2013) - Failure to act years ago on warnings over lack of capacity and inadequate systems to deal with a pandemic, even when revealed in full scale planning exercise - Lack of spare capacity within the NHS in terms of places and personnel, which may lie behind the reluctance to allow early admission to hospital (as cited by others) and also the pressure to take cavalier risks by discharging into the midst of vulnerable people in care homes - Failure to act with urgency early in 2020 to retrieve the faults above (eg. PPE/testing/tracing capacity) once the reality of the pandemic first became apparent - Failure to by learning early on from countries which showed obvious success, most notably their use of test/trace/quarantine
Nonetheless, despite this context, there appear to have been a series of poor judgement calls made well into the crisis as your summary outlines. In addition, was the UK's testing capacity so chronically low that it required all efforts to trace contacts to be abandoned until now as has been claimed?
I agree with the view that density of population makes things worse, but only when the genie is let out of the bottle in terms of major policy mistakes. It shouldn't be an excuse. Singapore and Hong Kong have densities far higher than the UK's and are amongst the success stories around the world. Vietnam's density slightly exceeds the UKs yet has escaped unscathed.
The context also goes in both directions. We had some disadvantages but we also had an advantage in being fairly late to the party. We squandered it, Germany didn't.
"Experts give their opinions on why the UK has been hit so hard by the Covid-19 virus"
Possible reasons:
An elderly and unhealthy population. Too late to lockdown and a failure to close the borders. Insufficient PPE. Lack of testing. Failure to protect the elderly? Protect the NHS has actually cost lives Just bad luck.
Failure to restrict entry to the UK was the big policy failure.
The big structural failure was statist bureaucracy which led to failings re PPE, testing and care homes.
The big societal causes are obesity and population density.
I don't think closing our borders would have made much difference, unless we'd been psychic and done it in early January, and maintained it for an unfeasibly lengthy time. As the WHO says:
"In general, evidence shows that restricting the movement of people and goods during public health emergencies is ineffective in most situations and may divert resources from other interventions. Furthermore, restrictions may interrupt needed aid and technical support, may disrupt businesses, and may have negative social and economic effects on the affected countries. However, in certain circumstances, measures that restrict the movement of people may prove temporarily useful, such as in settings with few international connections and limited response capacities. [which London clearly isn't]
Travel measures that significantly interfere with international traffic may only be justified at the beginning of an outbreak, as they may allow countries to gain time, even if only a few days, to rapidly implement effective preparedness measures. Such restrictions must be based on a careful risk assessment, be proportionate to the public health risk, be short in duration, and be reconsidered regularly as the situation evolves.
Travel bans to affected areas or denial of entry to passengers coming from affected areas are usually not effective in preventing the importation of cases but may have a significant economic and social impact. "
In essence, once the disease is endemic in a country, anyone coming in is no more or less likely to have the disease than those already in the country. As long as all entering the country comply with the same restrictions as those already in the country, there would be no effect.
Unless the mere act of passing through airports and planes increases the likelihood of infection with them being higher risk areas.
Lockdown anecdote. Definitely fraying badly around my way. At least two close neighbours have family/friends visiting, sitting in garden, chatting, clinking of glasses etc.
Just been for walk round the roads locally. Just so I can remember the way to the pub when all this is over. Very few people about and all of them observing distancing. Few people gardening, some of them quite seriously; one guy looked as though the was planning to re-turf.
Panzer Grey was actually much darker - that looks more like RN Light Grey as eg used in the Med. Or perhaps one of the MAP greys as used on later Spitfires.
Yeah, I was going for the more widely recognisable cheap shot. It's much closer to Luftwaffe RLM02 Grau but I didn't think many would get that.
"Currently our model estimates that 41% of whites who cast ballots would vote for Mr Biden if the election were held today, whereas 51% say they will cast their lot for Mr Trump—a ten-percentage-point margin. In 2016 Mrs Clinton lost this group by 15 points. Mr Biden has improved his standing both among whites who have college degrees and the ever-watched group of those who do not. He polls four and six percentage points better than Mrs Clinton did among each group, respectively. Mr Biden is currently polling 11 points better than Mrs Clinton in states where working-class white voters make up the largest share of the electorate, and he is performing roughly six points worse in those states where they are the lowest share."
Number in hospital can't possibly be down 15,000 in one day.
I think he said it was down from 15,XXX to 14,XXX.
PS Was also good to see from the Scottish data that the number of people in hospital with Covid in Scotland was under 1,700 for the first time since 6 April.
"Experts give their opinions on why the UK has been hit so hard by the Covid-19 virus"
Possible reasons:
An elderly and unhealthy population. Too late to lockdown and a failure to close the borders. Insufficient PPE. Lack of testing. Failure to protect the elderly? Protect the NHS has actually cost lives Just bad luck.
Going further back in time, it starts with: - Public health being treated as a Cinderella service worthy of being transferred over to local authorities (and hence being subject to chronic budget cuts post 2013) - Failure to act years ago on warnings over lack of capacity and inadequate systems to deal with a pandemic, even when revealed in full scale planning exercise - Lack of spare capacity within the NHS in terms of places and personnel, which may lie behind the reluctance to allow early admission to hospital (as cited by others) and also the pressure to take cavalier risks by discharging into the midst of vulnerable people in care homes - Failure to act with urgency early in 2020 to retrieve the faults above (eg. PPE/testing/tracing capacity) once the reality of the pandemic first became apparent - Failure to by learning early on from countries which showed obvious success, most notably their use of test/trace/quarantine
Nonetheless, despite this context, there appear to have been a series of poor judgement calls made well into the crisis as your summary outlines. In addition, was the UK's testing capacity so chronically low that it required all efforts to trace contacts to be abandoned until now as has been claimed?
I agree with the view that density of population makes things worse, but only when the genie is let out of the bottle in terms of major policy mistakes. It shouldn't be an excuse. Singapore and Hong Kong have densities far higher than the UK's and are amongst the success stories around the world. Vietnam's density slightly exceeds the UKs yet has escaped unscathed.
The context also goes in both directions. We had some disadvantages but we also had an advantage in being fairly late to the party. We squandered it, Germany didn't.
Care homes are a big issue. I'm not sure any effort was made to effectively isolate their residents at the beginning of lockdown when we were told that high risk people should take social distancing seriously or go into shielding
Lockdown anecdote. Definitely fraying badly around my way. At least two close neighbours have family/friends visiting, sitting in garden, chatting, clinking of glasses etc.
Lockdown anecdote. Definitely fraying badly around my way. At least two close neighbours have family/friends visiting, sitting in garden, chatting, clinking of glasses etc.
We actually need some of this. Not a lot but some. And we want it building too. Slowly, of course, but we do need the fear to dissipate a little. On the day when lockdown is partially lifted - 28th May - the ideal collective state of mind, if there could ever be such a thing, is 'still a bit scared but OK to do a few things'. Not an easy target for the government to achieve - people being people - but this will be the task for its messaging efforts as we approach crunch time. Leave Home. Protect The Economy. Save Jobs.
Lockdown anecdote. Definitely fraying badly around my way. At least two close neighbours have family/friends visiting, sitting in garden, chatting, clinking of glasses etc.
Report them to the rozzers.
Apparently they have no powers to intervene on private property
Comments
Which might also explain the way the infected were allowed to go to care homes.
using a 7 day trend for the line. Seems suprisingly linear at the moment
As for Scotland, its no good just saying they are trying. It is nowhere near enough. We can say Hancock has fudged the numbers to get over 100k, but there is a real significant increase in testing and capacity, which is what was required.
Scotland and Wales are now the shit shows.
However the SNP and Greens only have 4 more seats combined than the 65 needed for a Nationalist majority, so just a handful of lost SNP MSPs would give a Unionist majority once you combined the Tory, Labour and LD MSPs
That is what the Chinese did with their "16 new hospitals". 14 of them where nothing more than dorms to contain people, give them food, etc.
The general standard of knowledge of Scottish politics on PB is pretty decent I'd say - far better than of politics in Wales, NI, or the North or South West of England.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000h2pc
Edit: and yay, you got a like from PB Scotchpert HYUFD!
https://twitter.com/quatremer/status/1256568443765231617?s=20
http://bruxelles.blogs.liberation.fr/2020/04/30/confinement-le-debat-interdit/
https://twitter.com/cricketwyvern/status/1256577173005258752?s=20
https://twitter.com/EscapeEUSlavery/status/1256570911530061829?s=20
The police and other law enforcement agencies are much more tolerant of these sorts of protests than they are of protests by black people. The immediate operational response to a clash between white Trump supporters and black would-be Biden voters is unlikely to be to the Democrats advantage, regardless of who the Governor is.
Some years ago there was a tale about the Soviets injecting people with water and counting them as diphtheria injections. Then, just after the DSoviet Union collapsed there was a nasty diphtheria epidemic in Russia.
https://twitter.com/DHSCgovuk/status/1256574125344280577?s=20
Moscow's real coronavirus infection rate is more than 250,000 says the city's mayor - more than twice official figures for Russia - as temporary morgues appear in St Petersburg
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8279969/Moscows-real-coronavirus-infection-toll-250-000-says-citys-mayor.html
On the lack of garden - yes, there's little incentive for an LL to spend £500-750 a year (which would give 1 hr of gardener per week if you can get one) maintaining a garden if the Ts do not want it.
It has the unionists shitting their breeks at the thought of it at least.
©Matt Clem JFK Hilda Hancock
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8279223/Coronavirus-drug-trials-lockdown-fully-lifted-mid-summer.html
If all you do is turn up and ask the same medium pace questions every day, why should anyone be impressed?
Apart from dyed in the wool Tory David who provides the Tory viewpoint only there is nothing apart from the comments of the few Scottish independence supporters, which do not suit southern Tories version of the far north.
It's coming down reassuringly quickly. It's compatible with an Rt below 0.8 (assuming a period of 5 days). Given the latency between infection-symptoms-problems-death, it implies that we're already on for a sub-150/day death toll and possibly a sub-100/day death toll from those infected today.
That's highly encouraging.
And, of course, the faster the rate of fall, the lower Rt is implied to be at our current level of restrictions. This should give us more breathing room between where we are now and an Rt of 1.0 (which we need to stay below).
https://twitter.com/GwynneMP/status/1256558809285345280?s=20
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzuUumVHL1I
London seems to show a fall from 180 to c.43, my own area of Yorks/NE from 100 to c.59. That is a significant difference.
It is why we consistently have to post tweets from a Professor in Industrial Economics to get the death numbers in the correct format, rather than the bollocks that the media have been putting out.
Its not bloody rocket science, all the info is there in an excel spreadsheet that the government releases every day.
Giving the nickname of MSM to the diverse print media, television, radio and even mainstream websites allows Trump to demonise anybody who disagrees with him.
I wrote a piece of software that scrapes the NHS England data, sums the numbers and builds an Excel spreadsheet automatically. Took me and hour or 2 with beers.
Apparently this is beyond anyone at a major news organisation.
UAE has also picked up hundreds of cases who travelled from India. The official Indian numbers make as much sense as those from China or Iran.
Hmm. Serious political question. Does this appointment mean Rishi has told #ClassicDom to do one?
"In general, evidence shows that restricting the movement of people and goods during public health emergencies is ineffective in most situations and may divert resources from other interventions. Furthermore, restrictions may interrupt needed aid and technical support, may disrupt businesses, and may have negative social and economic effects on the affected countries. However, in certain circumstances, measures that restrict the movement of people may prove temporarily useful, such as in settings with few international connections and limited response capacities. [which London clearly isn't]
Travel measures that significantly interfere with international traffic may only be justified at the beginning of an outbreak, as they may allow countries to gain time, even if only a few days, to rapidly implement effective preparedness measures. Such restrictions must be based on a careful risk assessment, be proportionate to the public health risk, be short in duration, and be reconsidered regularly as the situation evolves.
Travel bans to affected areas or denial of entry to passengers coming from affected areas are usually not effective in preventing the importation of cases but may have a significant economic and social impact. "
In the Good Olde Days* the traditional media had the following functions -
1) Reporting news
2) Gatekeeping what was to be published.
3) Opinion
4) Deeper analysis
In the Internet age, (2) disappeared rapidly - today JFK would have been exposed quite rapidly on a variety of matters, for example.
1) came under attack, when an "army of misfits in their pyjamas" started asking awkward questions about why the stories were full of hole.
3) Has become ever more vapid. Expensive big names seem to provide less and less value vs specialist amateurs
4) has been effected by the cuts caused by the internet revolution. In particular the interested amateurs have overtaken the big names in this. The broadsheet paper report space stories very badly, for example - read www.nasaspaceflight.com or www.arstechnica.com to get far better value.
*Which weren't
The big cluster in Liverpool for example would certainly have been avoided and that arose from the Athletico Madrid game as late as 11th March.
Looking at each area, and taking the decline since the peak and a 5-day incubation time, the regions vary between 0.72 (London) and 0.87 (North East and Yorkshire). As London is such a big chunk of the numbers, it brings down the average Rt (without London, we'd be looking at 0.81-0.87, with most falling in the 0.84-0.85 range.
Still positive, but it would imply that in 15 days from the 26th, we'd only just be ducking under 200 (and London would be crossing down past NE & Yorks). And it would take o the end of the month before we duck below 100.
I thought Merseyside cases were comparable to Manchester etc cases and just scaled with population density?
What an extraordinary colour to paint a car. Really merges into the morning haar and evening twilight and foggy days. But maybe the lighting nowadays is better.
Liverpool 82
Manchester 60
Leeds 34
Sheffield 33
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsinvolvingcovid19bylocalareasanddeprivation/deathsoccurringbetween1marchand17april#local-authorities
- Public health being treated as a Cinderella service worthy of being transferred over to local authorities (and hence being subject to chronic budget cuts post 2013)
- Failure to act years ago on warnings over lack of capacity and inadequate systems to deal with a pandemic, even when revealed in full scale planning exercise
- Lack of spare capacity within the NHS in terms of places and personnel, which may lie behind the reluctance to allow early admission to hospital (as cited by others) and also the pressure to take cavalier risks by discharging into the midst of vulnerable people in care homes
- Failure to act with urgency early in 2020 to retrieve the faults above (eg. PPE/testing/tracing capacity) once the reality of the pandemic first became apparent
- Failure to by learning early on from countries which showed obvious success, most notably their use of test/trace/quarantine
Nonetheless, despite this context, there appear to have been a series of poor judgement calls made well into the crisis as your summary outlines. In addition, was the UK's testing capacity so chronically low that it required all efforts to trace contacts to be abandoned until now as has been claimed?
I agree with the view that density of population makes things worse, but only when the genie is let out of the bottle in terms of major policy mistakes. It shouldn't be an excuse. Singapore and Hong Kong have densities far higher than the UK's and are amongst the success stories around the world. Vietnam's density slightly exceeds the UKs yet has escaped unscathed.
The context also goes in both directions. We had some disadvantages but we also had an advantage in being fairly late to the party. We squandered it, Germany didn't.
It's much closer to Luftwaffe RLM02 Grau but I didn't think many would get that.
https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-europe-52513516
Number in hospital can't possibly be down 15,000 in one day.
"Currently our model estimates that 41% of whites who cast ballots would vote for Mr Biden if the election were held today, whereas 51% say they will cast their lot for Mr Trump—a ten-percentage-point margin. In 2016 Mrs Clinton lost this group by 15 points. Mr Biden has improved his standing both among whites who have college degrees and the ever-watched group of those who do not. He polls four and six percentage points better than Mrs Clinton did among each group, respectively. Mr Biden is currently polling 11 points better than Mrs Clinton in states where working-class white voters make up the largest share of the electorate, and he is performing roughly six points worse in those states where they are the lowest share."
PS Was also good to see from the Scottish data that the number of people in hospital with Covid in Scotland was under 1,700 for the first time since 6 April.