As news of relaxations in other countries becomes commonplace, I do expect that the UK public will become more critical and ask why restrictions are being maintained here. We will I think by and large accept a continuation of the lockdown for longer, but at the same time the perception will grow that it's because the UK's handling of the situation has overall been pretty poor to put it mildly. That is a big political risk for the government.
BTW my partner got pretty excited today at news that Portuguese hairdressers are to reopen. She is clamouring at the bit - big curly hair is a problem.
"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?
The Director Health for Liverpool has gone on record attacking Liverpool's decision to go ahead with the Madrid game and commented that it was likely that it had contributed to Merseyside being a hot spot.
A small group of protesters have gathered in London to take part in a group hug in defiance of lockdown measures in the UK.
Around 20 people, some holding signs including one which read "My body, my choice" and others alluding to debunked 5G conspiracy theories, were involved in the protest outside the Metropolitan Police's headquarters this afternoon.
Wonder if Mr P Corbyn of Glastonbury was involved?
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?
A small group of protesters have gathered in London to take part in a group hug in defiance of lockdown measures in the UK.
Around 20 people, some holding signs including one which read "My body, my choice" and others alluding to debunked 5G conspiracy theories, were involved in the protest outside the Metropolitan Police's headquarters this afternoon.
Wonder if Mr P Corbyn of Glastonbury was involved?
"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?
The Director Health for Liverpool has gone on record attacking Liverpool's decision to go ahead with the Madrid game and commented that it was likely that it had contributed to Merseyside being a hot spot.
The ZOE covid tracker data is certainly showing a cluster in Liverpool. More so than Manchester. Boston is another one for some reason, as is Anglesey.
A small group of protesters have gathered in London to take part in a group hug in defiance of lockdown measures in the UK.
Around 20 people, some holding signs including one which read "My body, my choice" and others alluding to debunked 5G conspiracy theories, were involved in the protest outside the Metropolitan Police's headquarters this afternoon.
Wonder if Mr P Corbyn of Glastonbury was involved?
Led by David Ike.
I reckon despite all this BS claims he is actually holed up in his home on the Isle of Wright dressed at all times in a hazmat suit.
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?
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
Some of the Bill didn't get that memo - footage on youtube of them kicking some guys door in so they could search for visitors as had been reported.
There are others including plod telling people they can't play in their own front garden.......
"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?
The Director Health for Liverpool has gone on record attacking Liverpool's decision to go ahead with the Madrid game and commented that it was likely that it had contributed to Merseyside being a hot spot.
The ZOE covid tracker data is certainly showing a cluster in Liverpool. More so than Manchester. Boston is another one for some reason, as is Anglesey.
But not Cheltenham or Gloucestershire. Probably a coincidence.
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.
Yes. I'm afraid this is often the case. If those who routinely shout about "fake news!" in the dreaded "MSM" were instead turning to a plethora of intellectually rigorous, unbiased and well researched alternative outlets/sources, that would be fine and dandy. But they're not. They tend to be staggeringly dumb units, easily led, gorging on a diet of utter drivel. It's a real worry.
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?
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.
Nationalists currently have a majority at Holyrood, it is they playing defence not Unionists, a split 3 way Nat vote on the list just boosts chances of a Unionist majority
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.
Yes. I'm afraid this is often the case. If those who routinely shout about "fake news!" in the dreaded "MSM" were instead turning to a plethora of intellectually rigorous, unbiased and well researched alternative outlets/sources, that would be fine and dandy. But they're not. They tend to be staggeringly dumb units, easily led, gorging on a diet of utter drivel. It's a real worry.
The cure is to raise the game.
Not to say "so what to" when their reputation for facts looks like this -
"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."
Hillary got just 37% of the white vote in 2016 and Obama got only 39% of the white vote in 2012, so if Biden got 41% of the white vote it would be the highest share of the white vote for a Democratic candidate for president since Obama won 43% of white voters support in 2008
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.
Nationalists currently have a majority at Holyrood, it is they playing defence not Unionists, a split 3 way Nat vote on the list just boosts chances of a Unionist majority
You're srtill confounding the list and constituency votes - which is the crux of the matter. I do hope that PB will give it serious attention when the time comes.
Contemplating a new future. What are going to be the really big changes? Travel and tourism is surely going to be one of them. As a next exporter of tourists, that could be of benefit to the UK. We should also be able to create jobs in the health and care sectors, while there will need to be domestic manufacturing of PPE, so that will be good, too. On top of that, our digital economy could be a significant beneficiary. Where else can we win?
Contemplating a new future. What are going to be the really big changes? Travel and tourism is surely going to be one of them. As a next exporter of tourists, that could be of benefit to the UK. We should also be able to create jobs in the health and care sectors, while there will need to be domestic manufacturing of PPE, so that will be good, too. On top of that, our digital economy could be a significant beneficiary. Where else can we win?
New services in public hygiene in the course of our normal work, shopping and social activities. Britain, for all the whining and self-bashing on this site, has an excellent reputation in this field.
PS what I mean is consulting and certification that work practices and facilities are hygienic with regards to infectious diseases, as are transport, hotel rooms, and so on.
On topic, "Health, on the other hand, is a little bit more of an issue. Both men are well into their seventies – Biden much closer to eighty – and Trump is overweight, and there’s a pandemic swirling that is particularly harsh towards those in that age group. It’s far from impossible to see circumstances in which one or the other might be replaced. That said, for the bet to pay out, not only would that candidate have to be replaced but they’d have to win."
I would have though that almost any other Democrat or Republican would do better than Mr Angry Liar and Mr Dementia.
"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."
Hillary got just 37% of the white vote in 2016 and Obama got only 39% of the white vote in 2012, so if Biden got 41% of the white vote it would be the highest share of the white vote for a Democratic candidate for president since Obama won 43% of white voters support in 2008
On topic, "Health, on the other hand, is a little bit more of an issue. Both men are well into their seventies – Biden much closer to eighty – and Trump is overweight, and there’s a pandemic swirling that is particularly harsh towards those in that age group. It’s far from impossible to see circumstances in which one or the other might be replaced. That said, for the bet to pay out, not only would that candidate have to be replaced but they’d have to win."
I would have though that almost any other Democrat or Republican would do better than Mr Angry Liar and Mr Dementia.
On topic, "Health, on the other hand, is a little bit more of an issue. Both men are well into their seventies – Biden much closer to eighty – and Trump is overweight, and there’s a pandemic swirling that is particularly harsh towards those in that age group. It’s far from impossible to see circumstances in which one or the other might be replaced. That said, for the bet to pay out, not only would that candidate have to be replaced but they’d have to win."
I would have though that almost any other Democrat or Republican would do better than Mr Angry Liar and Mr Dementia.
Which does rather beg the question of why they are the ones on the tickets.
On topic, "Health, on the other hand, is a little bit more of an issue. Both men are well into their seventies – Biden much closer to eighty – and Trump is overweight, and there’s a pandemic swirling that is particularly harsh towards those in that age group. It’s far from impossible to see circumstances in which one or the other might be replaced. That said, for the bet to pay out, not only would that candidate have to be replaced but they’d have to win."
I would have though that almost any other Democrat or Republican would do better than Mr Angry Liar and Mr Dementia.
Which does rather beg the question of why they are the ones on the tickets.
That's easy. The Republican establishment would rather have an electoral hammering this year, than ignite a civil war that lasted a decade.
While the Democrats had a very odd Primary season where Iowa almost didn't happen, and then plausible five moderates got crowded out by a former Republican mayor.
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.
Scotland and Wales are now the shit shows.
I don't think Scotland is that far adrift of England in testing. Bear in mind Hancock's figures are for all UK, whereas Sturgeon is quoting for the bit that she looks after in Scotland. Scottish NHS did 2500 tests out of the combined NHS total for all four nations of 40 000. Pro rata about half of the tests in England.
Sturgeon claims Scottish NHS has capacity for 4000 tests a day. As acknowledged, the criteria for being tested is too strict on Scotland for the number of tests available so they will be open to more people from next week. Another reason undoubtedly is that without a target to hit, Scotland isn't testing random people to make up the numbers.
The remainder of the 100 000 is the UK programme. Scottish numbers on the UK programme are also lower than rata, probably for the same two reasons.
As far as I can tell, Scotland may be about a week behind England in the ramp up.
On topic, "Health, on the other hand, is a little bit more of an issue. Both men are well into their seventies – Biden much closer to eighty – and Trump is overweight, and there’s a pandemic swirling that is particularly harsh towards those in that age group. It’s far from impossible to see circumstances in which one or the other might be replaced. That said, for the bet to pay out, not only would that candidate have to be replaced but they’d have to win."
I would have though that almost any other Democrat or Republican would do better than Mr Angry Liar and Mr Dementia.
Which does rather beg the question of why they are the ones on the tickets.
That's easy. The Republican establishment would rather have an electoral hammering this year, than ignite a civil war that lasted a decade.
While the Democrats had a very odd Primary season where Iowa almost didn't happen, and then plausible five moderates got crowded out by a former Republican mayor.
Bloomberg's contribution to the process was spectacularly negative. I see all talk of him running as an independent has been quietly binned.
If I was wondering who the 5% chance was of someone else (other than a medical replacement) the only one I see that would instantly have the credibility would be Bill Gates. And I can't see him being willing to take it on.
Looks like an order has gone out from on high. OTT but it might provoke a fun reaction from the Corbynistas - especially the 'compulsory' bit. 'Come on Dianne and Emily get yer flags out pronto!'
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.
Yes. I'm afraid this is often the case. If those who routinely shout about "fake news!" in the dreaded "MSM" were instead turning to a plethora of intellectually rigorous, unbiased and well researched alternative outlets/sources, that would be fine and dandy. But they're not. They tend to be staggeringly dumb units, easily led, gorging on a diet of utter drivel. It's a real worry.
The cure is to raise the game.
Not to say "so what to" when their reputation for facts looks like this -
But most people who decry the MSM are not looking for facts. They're looking for validation of the mush in their head.
"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?
The Director Health for Liverpool has gone on record attacking Liverpool's decision to go ahead with the Madrid game and commented that it was likely that it had contributed to Merseyside being a hot spot.
The ZOE covid tracker data is certainly showing a cluster in Liverpool. More so than Manchester. Boston is another one for some reason, as is Anglesey.
Anglesey - hard to see why the home of the Holyhead ferry port serving the Irish leaving from Cheltenham Festival should be a hot-spot.....
On topic, "Health, on the other hand, is a little bit more of an issue. Both men are well into their seventies – Biden much closer to eighty – and Trump is overweight, and there’s a pandemic swirling that is particularly harsh towards those in that age group. It’s far from impossible to see circumstances in which one or the other might be replaced. That said, for the bet to pay out, not only would that candidate have to be replaced but they’d have to win."
I would have though that almost any other Democrat or Republican would do better than Mr Angry Liar and Mr Dementia.
Which does rather beg the question of why they are the ones on the tickets.
That's easy. The Republican establishment would rather have an electoral hammering this year, than ignite a civil war that lasted a decade.
While the Democrats had a very odd Primary season where Iowa almost didn't happen, and then plausible five moderates got crowded out by a former Republican mayor.
I think that the republicans want to have their civil war, but they want to have it when the democrats are having a far bigger one.
Contemplating a new future. What are going to be the really big changes? Travel and tourism is surely going to be one of them. As a next exporter of tourists, that could be of benefit to the UK. We should also be able to create jobs in the health and care sectors, while there will need to be domestic manufacturing of PPE, so that will be good, too. On top of that, our digital economy could be a significant beneficiary. Where else can we win?
Digital tourism - there may be gullibles willing to pay for digital site tours, etc
Contemplating a new future. What are going to be the really big changes? Travel and tourism is surely going to be one of them. As a next exporter of tourists, that could be of benefit to the UK. We should also be able to create jobs in the health and care sectors, while there will need to be domestic manufacturing of PPE, so that will be good, too. On top of that, our digital economy could be a significant beneficiary. Where else can we win?
Digital tourism - there may be gullibles willing to pay for digital site tours, etc
Maybe, but perhaps much of the same, but more expensively. Nobody puts up with the oik from next door when he might have the bug. I know because my neighbours don't respond to my knocking
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.
Scotland and Wales are now the shit shows.
I don't think Scotland is that far adrift of England in testing. Bear in mind Hancock's figures are for all UK, whereas Sturgeon is quoting for the bit that she looks after in Scotland. Scottish NHS did 2500 tests out of the combined NHS total for all four nations of 40 000. Pro rata about half of the tests in England.
Sturgeon claims Scottish NHS has capacity for 4000 tests a day. As acknowledged, the criteria for being tested is too strict on Scotland for the number of tests available so they will be open to more people from next week. Another reason undoubtedly is that without a target to hit, Scotland isn't testing random people to make up the numbers.
The remainder of the 100 000 is the UK programme. Scottish numbers on the UK programme are also lower than rata, probably for the same two reasons.
As far as I can tell, Scotland make be about a week behind England in the ramp up.
It seems that Scotland had a higher pro rata rate of tests until very recently - see this: 8.4% of tests for 8.2% of population, which may not include the last few days' (or, more realistically, the NEXT few days') testing of the bits under Mr Hancock.
Contemplating a new future. What are going to be the really big changes? Travel and tourism is surely going to be one of them. As a next exporter of tourists, that could be of benefit to the UK. We should also be able to create jobs in the health and care sectors, while there will need to be domestic manufacturing of PPE, so that will be good, too. On top of that, our digital economy could be a significant beneficiary. Where else can we win?
Digital tourism - there may be gullibles willing to pay for digital site tours, etc
Why is everyone so sure travel and tourism will die? It is only a couple of weeks since we were barricading motorways to stop people driving to beauty spots and the French were turning back billionaires and secretaries.
On topic, "Health, on the other hand, is a little bit more of an issue. Both men are well into their seventies – Biden much closer to eighty – and Trump is overweight, and there’s a pandemic swirling that is particularly harsh towards those in that age group. It’s far from impossible to see circumstances in which one or the other might be replaced. That said, for the bet to pay out, not only would that candidate have to be replaced but they’d have to win."
I would have though that almost any other Democrat or Republican would do better than Mr Angry Liar and Mr Dementia.
Which does rather beg the question of why they are the ones on the tickets.
That's easy. The Republican establishment would rather have an electoral hammering this year, than ignite a civil war that lasted a decade.
While the Democrats had a very odd Primary season where Iowa almost didn't happen, and then plausible five moderates got crowded out by a former Republican mayor.
Bloomberg's contribution to the process was spectacularly negative. I see all talk of him running as an independent has been quietly binned.
If I was wondering who the 5% chance was of someone else (other than a medical replacement) the only one I see that would instantly have the credibility would be Bill Gates. And I can't see him being willing to take it on.
There are a whole bunch of interesting "what ifs" in this Democratic Primary season...
- what if Biden had decided not to run?
- what if Bernie Sanders hadn't bounced back from his heart attack quickly, and Ms Warren was the sole candidate on the left of the party?
- what if Iowa had gone smoothly, and Buttigieg had gotten the traditional bounce?
- what Bloomberg had decided not to run?
- what if Klobuchar had not had the great debate performance in New Hampshire that catapulted her into third?
If Biden hadn't run, maybe Sherrod Brown would have done. If Warren was the only representative of the left, she might have ended up the nominee. If Iowa had gone smoothly, then maybe Buttigieg would have won New Hampshire and the Democratic establishment would have rallied around him.
And that's the nature of gambling and probability. There are lots of little things that could have had big impacts.
The US overtakes Italy in total cases per population
But less than half the rate of death. Has there been a significant improvement in treatments since the early days of northern Italy? It seems odd.
Italy has many more multi-generational families than the US. Young people, who socialise, get the disease and bring it home. That infects the elderly in Italy, and the housemates in the US.
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.
Yes. I'm afraid this is often the case. If those who routinely shout about "fake news!" in the dreaded "MSM" were instead turning to a plethora of intellectually rigorous, unbiased and well researched alternative outlets/sources, that would be fine and dandy. But they're not. They tend to be staggeringly dumb units, easily led, gorging on a diet of utter drivel. It's a real worry.
The cure is to raise the game.
Not to say "so what to" when their reputation for facts looks like this -
But most people who decry the MSM are not looking for facts. They're looking for validation of the mush in their head.
Well, I am looking for facts. And there are quite a few people who are as well. Hence ArsTechnica being a good business etc.
On topic, "Health, on the other hand, is a little bit more of an issue. Both men are well into their seventies – Biden much closer to eighty – and Trump is overweight, and there’s a pandemic swirling that is particularly harsh towards those in that age group. It’s far from impossible to see circumstances in which one or the other might be replaced. That said, for the bet to pay out, not only would that candidate have to be replaced but they’d have to win."
I would have though that almost any other Democrat or Republican would do better than Mr Angry Liar and Mr Dementia.
Which does rather beg the question of why they are the ones on the tickets.
That's easy. The Republican establishment would rather have an electoral hammering this year, than ignite a civil war that lasted a decade.
While the Democrats had a very odd Primary season where Iowa almost didn't happen, and then plausible five moderates got crowded out by a former Republican mayor.
I think that the republicans want to have their civil war, but they want to have it when the democrats are having a far bigger one.
Biden is a ridiculous candidate.
Yes he is. Biden is a ridiculous candidate. Who was the sane alternative? Mayor Pete who ran a town about the size of Upminster, wherever that is? Beto the serial loser from Texas? Bernie and Bloomberg who are barely even Democrats?
In any case, we did all this four years ago with Trump and the clown candidate won.
Contemplating a new future. What are going to be the really big changes? Travel and tourism is surely going to be one of them. As a next exporter of tourists, that could be of benefit to the UK. We should also be able to create jobs in the health and care sectors, while there will need to be domestic manufacturing of PPE, so that will be good, too. On top of that, our digital economy could be a significant beneficiary. Where else can we win?
Digital tourism - there may be gullibles willing to pay for digital site tours, etc
Why is everyone so sure travel and tourism will die? It is only a couple of weeks since we were barricading motorways to stop people driving to beauty spots and the French were turning back billionaires and secretaries.
I agree - but until the arrival of cure or vaccine - it's going to be either illegal or very, very expensive.
The US overtakes Italy in total cases per population
But less than half the rate of death. Has there been a significant improvement in treatments since the early days of northern Italy? It seems odd.
There must be some very big variations from country to country as to what gets counted.
Yes, these international comparisons are deeply flawed. Initially I thought that the US were just much further down the growth slope than Europe but increasingly that can't be all of the explanation (although there are still "new" outbreaks in various parts of the US where deaths haven't really happened yet). Excess deaths will be the ultimate answer but it might take years for the figures to be truly comparable.
The US overtakes Italy in total cases per population
But less than half the rate of death. Has there been a significant improvement in treatments since the early days of northern Italy? It seems odd.
Italy has many more multi-generational families than the US. Young people, who socialise, get the disease and bring it home. That infects the elderly in Italy, and the housemates in the US.
You think? Even amongst the Mexican community, for example? I think the explanations are likely to prove more complex and diffuse.
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.
Scotland and Wales are now the shit shows.
I don't think Scotland is that far adrift of England in testing. Bear in mind Hancock's figures are for all UK, whereas Sturgeon is quoting for the bit that she looks after in Scotland. Scottish NHS did 2500 tests out of the combined NHS total for all four nations of 40 000. Pro rata about half of the tests in England.
Sturgeon claims Scottish NHS has capacity for 4000 tests a day. As acknowledged, the criteria for being tested is too strict on Scotland for the number of tests available so they will be open to more people from next week. Another reason undoubtedly is that without a target to hit, Scotland isn't testing random people to make up the numbers.
The remainder of the 100 000 is the UK programme. Scottish numbers on the UK programme are also lower than rata, probably for the same two reasons.
As far as I can tell, Scotland make be about a week behind England in the ramp up.
It seems that Scotland had a higher pro rata rate of tests until very recently - see this: 8.4% of tests for 8.2% of population, which may not include the last few days' (or, more realistically, the NEXT few days') testing of the bits under Mr Hancock.
Also as TUD says the actual figfure for testing in Scotland from all sources is more like 4.5K/day (or 4.2? Can't remember).
But the comaprator is the UK in general, and whatever the reasons for past performance, the sooner we go to mass testing all round the better.
Another 2000 UK programme tests were carried out in Scotland for a total of 4.5K. Presumably the controversial self test packages were also posted to addresses in Scotland
If the UK is doing less testing in Scotland than in England that isn't necessarily Sturgeon's fault.
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.
Yes. I'm afraid this is often the case. If those who routinely shout about "fake news!" in the dreaded "MSM" were instead turning to a plethora of intellectually rigorous, unbiased and well researched alternative outlets/sources, that would be fine and dandy. But they're not. They tend to be staggeringly dumb units, easily led, gorging on a diet of utter drivel. It's a real worry.
The cure is to raise the game.
Not to say "so what to" when their reputation for facts looks like this -
But most people who decry the MSM are not looking for facts. They're looking for validation of the mush in their head.
Well, I am looking for facts. And there are quite a few people who are as well. Hence ArsTechnica being a good business etc.
I am sure you are. And of course many others. All power to you. But that is not the template for MSM haters. I'd draw a comparison with intelligent, humane and knowledgeable Leavers. There are plenty of them too, some on here, but they are nevertheless highly unrepresentative of the breed.
"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?
The Director Health for Liverpool has gone on record attacking Liverpool's decision to go ahead with the Madrid game and commented that it was likely that it had contributed to Merseyside being a hot spot.
The ZOE covid tracker data is certainly showing a cluster in Liverpool. More so than Manchester. Boston is another one for some reason, as is Anglesey.
Anglesey - hard to see why the home of the Holyhead ferry port serving the Irish leaving from Cheltenham Festival should be a hot-spot.....
I would have thought the majority of the Irish going from Cheltenham would actually have gone from Fishguard, not Holyhead. Holyhead’s an absolute bastard to get to from Cheltenham. Must take five hours in a lorry even when traffic’s quiet when it’s hard to imagine Fishguard is much more than three.
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.
Yes. I'm afraid this is often the case. If those who routinely shout about "fake news!" in the dreaded "MSM" were instead turning to a plethora of intellectually rigorous, unbiased and well researched alternative outlets/sources, that would be fine and dandy. But they're not. They tend to be staggeringly dumb units, easily led, gorging on a diet of utter drivel. It's a real worry.
The cure is to raise the game.
Not to say "so what to" when their reputation for facts looks like this -
But most people who decry the MSM are not looking for facts. They're looking for validation of the mush in their head.
Well, I am looking for facts. And there are quite a few people who are as well. Hence ArsTechnica being a good business etc.
I am sure you are. And of course many others. All power to you. But that is not the template for MSM haters. I'd draw a comparison with intelligent, humane and knowledgeable Leavers. There are plenty of them too, some on here, but they are nevertheless highly unrepresentative of the breed.
You should look at some the surveys of beliefs of anti-vaxers - might surprise you.
But to the main point - you can't fight back by saying "Our opponents are morally wrong to point out our mistakes"
The Catholic church tried that for centuries, for example. It hasn't worked.
If you want to have a reputation for accuracy, you have to earn it. Demanding a reputation doesn't work.
Hang Walter Duranty's Pulitzer Prize on your wall, if you like. But you will be judged for it.
The US overtakes Italy in total cases per population
But less than half the rate of death. Has there been a significant improvement in treatments since the early days of northern Italy? It seems odd.
Italy has many more multi-generational families than the US. Young people, who socialise, get the disease and bring it home. That infects the elderly in Italy, and the housemates in the US.
You think? Even amongst the Mexican community, for example? I think the explanations are likely to prove more complex and diffuse.
One thing the US does have, is even among the poor, larger property sizes - outside the megacities, such as New York, that is.
I wouldn't just stop buying chinese phones. I'd stop buying anything Chinese.
I wouldn't just stop buying anything chinese but thinking about anything chinese Prawn crackers The great wall of China Chairman Meo Fireworks One of our Dinosaurs is Missing
On topic, "Health, on the other hand, is a little bit more of an issue. Both men are well into their seventies – Biden much closer to eighty – and Trump is overweight, and there’s a pandemic swirling that is particularly harsh towards those in that age group. It’s far from impossible to see circumstances in which one or the other might be replaced. That said, for the bet to pay out, not only would that candidate have to be replaced but they’d have to win."
I would have though that almost any other Democrat or Republican would do better than Mr Angry Liar and Mr Dementia.
Which does rather beg the question of why they are the ones on the tickets.
That's easy. The Republican establishment would rather have an electoral hammering this year, than ignite a civil war that lasted a decade.
While the Democrats had a very odd Primary season where Iowa almost didn't happen, and then plausible five moderates got crowded out by a former Republican mayor.
Bloomberg's contribution to the process was spectacularly negative. I see all talk of him running as an independent has been quietly binned.
If I was wondering who the 5% chance was of someone else (other than a medical replacement) the only one I see that would instantly have the credibility would be Bill Gates. And I can't see him being willing to take it on.
There are a whole bunch of interesting "what ifs" in this Democratic Primary season...
- what if Biden had decided not to run?
- what if Bernie Sanders hadn't bounced back from his heart attack quickly, and Ms Warren was the sole candidate on the left of the party?
- what if Iowa had gone smoothly, and Buttigieg had gotten the traditional bounce?
- what Bloomberg had decided not to run?
- what if Klobuchar had not had the great debate performance in New Hampshire that catapulted her into third?
If Biden hadn't run, maybe Sherrod Brown would have done. If Warren was the only representative of the left, she might have ended up the nominee. If Iowa had gone smoothly, then maybe Buttigieg would have won New Hampshire and the Democratic establishment would have rallied around him.
And that's the nature of gambling and probability. There are lots of little things that could have had big impacts.
Sherrod Brown did run. He didn't get any traction, probably because of Biden and the amount of media coverage Mayor Pete attracted.
He would have been a decent runner, and was the candidate I first piled on way back in October 2018.
The US overtakes Italy in total cases per population
But less than half the rate of death. Has there been a significant improvement in treatments since the early days of northern Italy? It seems odd.
Italy has many more multi-generational families than the US. Young people, who socialise, get the disease and bring it home. That infects the elderly in Italy, and the housemates in the US.
You think? Even amongst the Mexican community, for example? I think the explanations are likely to prove more complex and diffuse.
One thing the US does have, is even among the poor, larger property sizes - outside the megacities, such as New York, that is.
Robert's description sounded more like an episode of Friends (the one where they all got the virus but lived happily ever after) than a lot of American life.
The holy grail is an online events model that allows for effective networking. Anyone got any ideas?
Online you need to be more structured and you need to spend the time one on one to ensure everyone's objectives and issues are fully understood and to socialise. It's a different discipline but effective if done properly. The time you save travelling can be given back to those one on ones.
I wouldn't just stop buying chinese phones. I'd stop buying anything Chinese.
I wouldn't just stop buying anything chinese but thinking about anything chinese Prawn crackers The great wall of China Chairman Meo Fireworks One of our Dinosaurs is Missing
Most amusing.. but i bet lots of people will stop subconsciously or not. I loathe Chinese food anyway so thats no hardship!
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.
Yes. I'm afraid this is often the case. If those who routinely shout about "fake news!" in the dreaded "MSM" were instead turning to a plethora of intellectually rigorous, unbiased and well researched alternative outlets/sources, that would be fine and dandy. But they're not. They tend to be staggeringly dumb units, easily led, gorging on a diet of utter drivel. It's a real worry.
The cure is to raise the game.
Not to say "so what to" when their reputation for facts looks like this -
But most people who decry the MSM are not looking for facts. They're looking for validation of the mush in their head.
Well, I am looking for facts. And there are quite a few people who are as well. Hence ArsTechnica being a good business etc.
I am sure you are. And of course many others. All power to you. But that is not the template for MSM haters. I'd draw a comparison with intelligent, humane and knowledgeable Leavers. There are plenty of them too, some on here, but they are nevertheless highly unrepresentative of the breed.
You should look at some the surveys of beliefs of anti-vaxers - might surprise you.
But to the main point - you can't fight back by saying "Our opponents are morally wrong to point out our mistakes"
The Catholic church tried that for centuries, for example. It hasn't worked.
If you want to have a reputation for accuracy, you have to earn it. Demanding a reputation doesn't work.
Hang Walter Duranty's Pulitzer Prize on your wall, if you like. But you will be judged for it.
I'm not saying it's wrong to point out (the many) mistakes in the MSM. It isn't. It's completely right to do so. What I'm saying is that those who are forever accusing the MSM of fake news - and especially if they use that phrase - are almost without exception softheads and nutters. This makes it more difficult than it should be for people like you - rational critics of the MSM - to be heard. The smearers of the MSM are a bigger menace to you, to me, than the MSM is.
What would surprise me about the views of anti-vaxers? Not sure I follow what you're getting at there.
I wouldn't just stop buying chinese phones. I'd stop buying anything Chinese.
I wouldn't just stop buying anything chinese but thinking about anything chinese Prawn crackers The great wall of China Chairman Meo Fireworks One of our Dinosaurs is Missing
Most amusing.. but i bet lots of people will stop subconsciously or not. I loathe Chinese food anyway so thats no hardship!
You’ll be telling us next that you eat pineapple on your pizza.
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.
Yes. I'm afraid this is often the case. If those who routinely shout about "fake news!" in the dreaded "MSM" were instead turning to a plethora of intellectually rigorous, unbiased and well researched alternative outlets/sources, that would be fine and dandy. But they're not. They tend to be staggeringly dumb units, easily led, gorging on a diet of utter drivel. It's a real worry.
The cure is to raise the game.
Not to say "so what to" when their reputation for facts looks like this -
But most people who decry the MSM are not looking for facts. They're looking for validation of the mush in their head.
Well, I am looking for facts. And there are quite a few people who are as well. Hence ArsTechnica being a good business etc.
I am sure you are. And of course many others. All power to you. But that is not the template for MSM haters. I'd draw a comparison with intelligent, humane and knowledgeable Leavers. There are plenty of them too, some on here, but they are nevertheless highly unrepresentative of the breed.
You should look at some the surveys of beliefs of anti-vaxers - might surprise you.
But to the main point - you can't fight back by saying "Our opponents are morally wrong to point out our mistakes"
The Catholic church tried that for centuries, for example. It hasn't worked.
If you want to have a reputation for accuracy, you have to earn it. Demanding a reputation doesn't work.
Hang Walter Duranty's Pulitzer Prize on your wall, if you like. But you will be judged for it.
I'm not saying it's wrong to point out (the many) mistakes in the MSM. It isn't. It's completely right to do so. What I'm saying is that those who are forever accusing the MSM of fake news - and especially if they use that phrase - are almost without exception softheads and nutters. This makes it more difficult than it should be for people like you - rational critics of the MSM - to be heard. The smearers of the MSM are a bigger menace to you, to me, than the MSM is.
What would surprise me about the views of anti-vaxers? Not sure I follow what you're getting at there.
The biggest menace to the MSM is the MSM. Every time the publish a story with obvious mistakes they are enabling the nutters.
I wouldn't just stop buying chinese phones. I'd stop buying anything Chinese.
I wouldn't just stop buying anything chinese but thinking about anything chinese Prawn crackers The great wall of China Chairman Meo Fireworks One of our Dinosaurs is Missing
Most amusing.. but i bet lots of people will stop subconsciously or not. I loathe Chinese food anyway so thats no hardship!
Contemplating a new future. What are going to be the really big changes? Travel and tourism is surely going to be one of them. As a next exporter of tourists, that could be of benefit to the UK. We should also be able to create jobs in the health and care sectors, while there will need to be domestic manufacturing of PPE, so that will be good, too. On top of that, our digital economy could be a significant beneficiary. Where else can we win?
New services in public hygiene in the course of our normal work, shopping and social activities. Britain, for all the whining and self-bashing on this site, has an excellent reputation in this field.
PS what I mean is consulting and certification that work practices and facilities are hygienic with regards to infectious diseases, as are transport, hotel rooms, and so on.
People looking after family members instead of sending them to die in care homes.
The US overtakes Italy in total cases per population
But less than half the rate of death. Has there been a significant improvement in treatments since the early days of northern Italy? It seems odd.
Italy has many more multi-generational families than the US. Young people, who socialise, get the disease and bring it home. That infects the elderly in Italy, and the housemates in the US.
You think? Even amongst the Mexican community, for example? I think the explanations are likely to prove more complex and diffuse.
One thing the US does have, is even among the poor, larger property sizes - outside the megacities, such as New York, that is.
Robert's description sounded more like an episode of Friends (the one where they all got the virus but lived happily ever after) than a lot of American life.
Latin American families in the US do tend to live in multi-generational households.
I wouldn't just stop buying chinese phones. I'd stop buying anything Chinese.
I wouldn't just stop buying anything chinese but thinking about anything chinese Prawn crackers The great wall of China Chairman Meo Fireworks One of our Dinosaurs is Missing
Most amusing.. but i bet lots of people will stop subconsciously or not. I loathe Chinese food anyway so thats no hardship!
Contemplating a new future. What are going to be the really big changes? Travel and tourism is surely going to be one of them. As a next exporter of tourists, that could be of benefit to the UK. We should also be able to create jobs in the health and care sectors, while there will need to be domestic manufacturing of PPE, so that will be good, too. On top of that, our digital economy could be a significant beneficiary. Where else can we win?
I've been thinking forwards about education. The collapse of international students will shutter some mid range universities (the top end will mop up those left over and the lower end generally rely on domestic students), similarly a number of private schools outside the south eastwill close (preliminary forecasts said up to 50%, I'd hope for no more than 20% but there are a lot on very shaky financial foundations).
There will likely be a surge in home schooling and a need for a lot of online teachers to help to facilitate this (my thinking about where there will be a gap in the market is for specialist teachers to be able to run online classes, linking such students remotely. I'm already looking into it and making some tentative enquiries).
It's an indication of just how bad the pandemic got here that we're reporting the most raw deaths here today (Behind the USA) yet we know we're decreasing cases at the moment.
Contemplating a new future. What are going to be the really big changes? Travel and tourism is surely going to be one of them. As a next exporter of tourists, that could be of benefit to the UK. We should also be able to create jobs in the health and care sectors, while there will need to be domestic manufacturing of PPE, so that will be good, too. On top of that, our digital economy could be a significant beneficiary. Where else can we win?
New services in public hygiene in the course of our normal work, shopping and social activities. Britain, for all the whining and self-bashing on this site, has an excellent reputation in this field.
PS what I mean is consulting and certification that work practices and facilities are hygienic with regards to infectious diseases, as are transport, hotel rooms, and so on.
People looking after family members instead of sending them to die in care homes.
Really.? People used to dump dementia and alzheimic relatives at A&E.
On topic, "Health, on the other hand, is a little bit more of an issue. Both men are well into their seventies – Biden much closer to eighty – and Trump is overweight, and there’s a pandemic swirling that is particularly harsh towards those in that age group. It’s far from impossible to see circumstances in which one or the other might be replaced. That said, for the bet to pay out, not only would that candidate have to be replaced but they’d have to win."
I would have though that almost any other Democrat or Republican would do better than Mr Angry Liar and Mr Dementia.
Which does rather beg the question of why they are the ones on the tickets.
That's easy. The Republican establishment would rather have an electoral hammering this year, than ignite a civil war that lasted a decade.
While the Democrats had a very odd Primary season where Iowa almost didn't happen, and then plausible five moderates got crowded out by a former Republican mayor.
Bloomberg's contribution to the process was spectacularly negative. I see all talk of him running as an independent has been quietly binned.
If I was wondering who the 5% chance was of someone else (other than a medical replacement) the only one I see that would instantly have the credibility would be Bill Gates. And I can't see him being willing to take it on.
Do you really think Bill Gates has more appeal to the white working class in the rustbelt and the black vote the Democrats must turn out to beat Trump than Biden?
Comments
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/health/survey-results/daily/2020/05/01/39a7a/1
As news of relaxations in other countries becomes commonplace, I do expect that the UK public will become more critical and ask why restrictions are being maintained here. We will I think by and large accept a continuation of the lockdown for longer, but at the same time the perception will grow that it's because the UK's handling of the situation has overall been pretty poor to put it mildly. That is a big political risk for the government.
BTW my partner got pretty excited today at news that Portuguese hairdressers are to reopen. She is clamouring at the bit - big curly hair is a problem.
Around 20 people, some holding signs including one which read "My body, my choice" and others alluding to debunked 5G conspiracy theories, were involved in the protest outside the Metropolitan Police's headquarters this afternoon.
Wonder if Mr P Corbyn of Glastonbury was involved?
https://twitter.com/carolynharris24/status/1256582414153003009?s=20
There are others including plod telling people they can't play in their own front garden.......
Not to say "so what to" when their reputation for facts looks like this -
PS what I mean is consulting and certification that work practices and facilities are hygienic with regards to infectious diseases, as are transport, hotel rooms, and so on.
I would have though that almost any other Democrat or Republican would do better than Mr Angry Liar and Mr Dementia.
While the Democrats had a very odd Primary season where Iowa almost didn't happen, and then plausible five moderates got crowded out by a former Republican mayor.
☹
Sturgeon claims Scottish NHS has capacity for 4000 tests a day. As acknowledged, the criteria for being tested is too strict on Scotland for the number of tests available so they will be open to more people from next week. Another reason undoubtedly is that without a target to hit, Scotland isn't testing random people to make up the numbers.
The remainder of the 100 000 is the UK programme. Scottish numbers on the UK programme are also lower than rata, probably for the same two reasons.
As far as I can tell, Scotland may be about a week behind England in the ramp up.
If I was wondering who the 5% chance was of someone else (other than a medical replacement) the only one I see that would instantly have the credibility would be Bill Gates. And I can't see him being willing to take it on.
Biden is a ridiculous candidate.
It seems that Scotland had a higher pro rata rate of tests until very recently - see this: 8.4% of tests for 8.2% of population, which may not include the last few days' (or, more realistically, the NEXT few days') testing of the bits under Mr Hancock.
https://www.travellingtabby.com/scotland-coronavirus-tracker
Also as TUD says the actual figfure for testing in Scotland from all sources is more like 4.5K/day (or 4.2? Can't remember).
But the comaprator is the UK in general, and whatever the reasons for past performance, the sooner we go to mass testing all round the better.
Devon says "hold my pint....I'm too frail and elderly to hold my own". Must be some other factors at play?
- what if Biden had decided not to run?
- what if Bernie Sanders hadn't bounced back from his heart attack quickly, and Ms Warren was the sole candidate on the left of the party?
- what if Iowa had gone smoothly, and Buttigieg had gotten the traditional bounce?
- what Bloomberg had decided not to run?
- what if Klobuchar had not had the great debate performance in New Hampshire that catapulted her into third?
If Biden hadn't run, maybe Sherrod Brown would have done. If Warren was the only representative of the left, she might have ended up the nominee. If Iowa had gone smoothly, then maybe Buttigieg would have won New Hampshire and the Democratic establishment would have rallied around him.
And that's the nature of gambling and probability. There are lots of little things that could have had big impacts.
Warning Over Chinese Mobile Giant Xiaomi Recording Millions Of People’s ‘Private’ Web And Phone Use
https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2020/04/30/exclusive-warning-over-chinese-mobile-giant-xiaomi-recording-millions-of-peoples-private-web-and-phone-use/
In any case, we did all this four years ago with Trump and the clown candidate won.
Although not really an issue for me as I never visit any dodgy sites or google interesting things.
If the UK is doing less testing in Scotland than in England that isn't necessarily Sturgeon's fault.
But to the main point - you can't fight back by saying "Our opponents are morally wrong to point out our mistakes"
The Catholic church tried that for centuries, for example. It hasn't worked.
If you want to have a reputation for accuracy, you have to earn it. Demanding a reputation doesn't work.
Hang Walter Duranty's Pulitzer Prize on your wall, if you like. But you will be judged for it.
Prawn crackers
The great wall of China
Chairman Meo
Fireworks
One of our Dinosaurs is Missing
He would have been a decent runner, and was the candidate I first piled on way back in October 2018.
What would surprise me about the views of anti-vaxers? Not sure I follow what you're getting at there.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/01/chinas-dining-table-revolution-takes-aim-at-shared-chopsticks
"I'd stop buyng anything Jewish" would (presumably) ring an alarm bell even in the thickest of skulls.
"I'd stop buying anything Chinese/Muslim/[fill in your own 'acceptable' target]" will no doubt be vehemently defended, as "not the same thing at all."
There will likely be a surge in home schooling and a need for a lot of online teachers to help to facilitate this (my thinking about where there will be a gap in the market is for specialist teachers to be able to run online classes, linking such students remotely. I'm already looking into it and making some tentative enquiries).
China gets Scotland and we get Hong Kong back?