Purging former Chancellors, ministers and MPs drastically reduced not just the talent pool but also the experience pool. In this respect, Boris was the Stalinist, not Corbyn.
Corbyn did the same, of course.
That is true but in Corbyn's case most of the experienced Blairites excluded themselves and fortunately he never got to be the PM.
There is little doubt that the cabinet after the "get Brexit done" GE was primarily chosen on the criteria of those who were willing/pleased to exit the EU on WTO terms.
Every Conservative politician who had supported the party's policy on the EU right up to 2016 was therefore excluded from the cabinet. He might have got away with it if nothing much had happened between the election and the end of the transition period in 8 months time but the pandemic has cruelly exposed the lack of talent and experience in the current line up.
So what different policy decisions would other politicians have made ?
Lockdown earlier, not even consider 'herd immunity', put those coming from abroad in 2 week quarantine, order in PPE in quantity much earlier. Things that New Zealand and Germany did.
On PPE the question will be why didn't we implement the 2017 report? Once you are in a pandemic, you are fighting to source every last glove with every other Government on the planet, and if you do get supplies, you will have paid through the nose (always assuming you don't get delivered shit quality). You have to face the fact that unless you are prepared to play EXTREMELY dirty, your staff may end up wearing bin liners. Question: all those complaining we couldn't timely source stock and thereby left the NHS exposed - would you have paid massive bribes to secure that stock to keep them safe?
The question is: are we prepared to pay a huge amount of money to have mountains of stocks that risks never getting used (or can you source a mass of replacements as you put the soon-to-be-passed-its-best stock on the market at a discount)?
An alternative is to have your own production facilities where you can expand output within a few weeks.
It would cost a few million but given what the government has been spending ...
The key word here is "optionality" so I think there's something in your suggestion. A pandemic is a long-term problem and always came with the risk of global supply chains getting jammed up, so doing something to maintain homegrown capacity is not a bad shout. One of those circumstances where a degree of industrial subsidy is arguably justifiable.
Thereby ruining the economy. There are lots of businesses that can weather changes, restrictions - but not the looming uncertainty of repeat lock down.
Some people don't get that a reopen followed by a lockdown would be far more devestating than simply remaining locked down.
Absolutely - we can only walk down this road once and that means clarity and transparency from the Prime Minister on Sunday.
We need a speech long on specifics and short on generalities, platitudes and calls on the nation to "do its patriotic duty". There needs to be an unambiguous programme of easing restrictions devoid of contradictions and obfuscations.
Week after week the BBC’s mantra has been “all deaths are tragedies” when talking about the virus. Yet tonight they couldn’t wait to pile into misleading statistical comparisons.
They are an utter disgrace.
It's the BBC's fault 30,000 people have died?
Umm, not sure how you took that from my post.
Whose fault is it, then?
Sunil, tlg86 is referring to BBC`s misrepresentation of statistics.
And I'm referring to the UK death toll. Why have so many people died from Covid?
Of course him having an affair would normally be about as remarkable as the Scottish Med officer visiting her holiday home, but as ever it's a case of do what I say not what I do by those who are supposed to be leading this country through the quagmire be it scientist, politician or senior civil servant.
Week after week the BBC’s mantra has been “all deaths are tragedies” when talking about the virus. Yet tonight they couldn’t wait to pile into misleading statistical comparisons.
They are an utter disgrace.
It's the BBC's fault 30,000 people have died?
Umm, not sure how you took that from my post.
Whose fault is it, then?
Sunil, tlg86 is referring to BBC`s misrepresentation of statistics.
And I'm referring to the UK death toll. Why have so many people died from Covid?
Thereby ruining the economy. There are lots of businesses that can weather changes, restrictions - but not the looming uncertainty of repeat lock down.
Some people don't get that a reopen followed by a lockdown would be far more devestating than simply remaining locked down.
Absolutely - we can only walk down this road once and that means clarity and transparency from the Prime Minister on Sunday.
We need a speech long on specifics and short on generalities, platitudes and calls on the nation to "do its patriotic duty". There needs to be an unambiguous programme of easing restrictions devoid of contradictions and obfuscations.
Surely that depends upon if we're lifting the lockdown yet or not?
If we're lifting the lockdown then specifics are what is required. If we're not lifting the lockdown then generalities, platitudes and calls on the nation are what is required.
Week after week the BBC’s mantra has been “all deaths are tragedies” when talking about the virus. Yet tonight they couldn’t wait to pile into misleading statistical comparisons.
They are an utter disgrace.
It's the BBC's fault 30,000 people have died?
Umm, not sure how you took that from my post.
Whose fault is it, then?
Sunil, tlg86 is referring to BBC`s misrepresentation of statistics.
And I'm referring to the UK death toll. Why have so many people died from Covid?
Because there is a pandemic going on.
There's one going on in Germany, South Korea, Taiwan also.
It's a really marginal state. Obama won by 0.3% in 2008 while Romney won by 2% in 2012. Trump won by 2.6% in 2016 so a small but significant swing to Biden currently and the 15 electoral college votes are highly significant.
A swing of that size would deliver Arizona, Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and perhaps Georgia to the Democrats which along with North Carolina is 117 electoral college votes.
Absolutely - we can only walk down this road once and that means clarity and transparency from the Prime Minister on Sunday.
We need a speech long on specifics and short on generalities, platitudes and calls on the nation to "do its patriotic duty". There needs to be an unambiguous programme of easing restrictions devoid of contradictions and obfuscations.
Surely that depends upon if we're lifting the lockdown yet or not?
If we're lifting the lockdown then specifics are what is required. If we're not lifting the lockdown then generalities, platitudes and calls on the nation are what is required.
I don't imagine there will be a full lifting of the lockdown - do you think there should be?
What we will see is a partial easing of some restrictions but that needs to be spelled out clearly and transparently. It won't happen the following day either - organisations will need time to prepare. What will be announced Sunday is an intention to begin to ease restrictions from the 18th or possibly the 26th.
For many, it won't mean a lot of change. Working at home where possible, limited and essential trips out only, perhaps some easing on the issue of allowing family members to visit.
No doubt those who can't live without their Big Mac fix will form an orderly and socially distant queue at the slightest hint Ronald will be back in town.
Ooops. Neil Ferguson playing away with married lover and breaking lockdown guidelines has resigned
Not surprised. He gave off exactly those vibes to me. Excessively vain. Touch of the Seb Coes. The Paul Masons. The other Nial Ferguson. You know the sort of guys I mean.
I know socialist sage claimed too many tory lackies on SAGE and needed to get a wider range of political views...who knew Ferguson was already practising this advice.
Week after week the BBC’s mantra has been “all deaths are tragedies” when talking about the virus. Yet tonight they couldn’t wait to pile into misleading statistical comparisons.
They are an utter disgrace.
It's the BBC's fault 30,000 people have died?
Umm, not sure how you took that from my post.
Whose fault is it, then?
Sunil, tlg86 is referring to BBC`s misrepresentation of statistics.
For me there is a lack of appreciation between the difference between statistics and management information. Right now, most of those worldometer figures are the latter. There will be plenty of time for a forensic statistical assessment of how different countries responded to this, and I suspect the UK will not do particularly well. Right now the focus should be on "what are the government doing to get us out of this mess?"
Why do you suspect the UK will not do particularly well. I suspect except for Germany we will have done reasonably when we start comparisons with the actual excess death figures of other EU countries (France, Spain, Italy).
You may have missed this from a couple of days back.
"England's excess death rate among highest in Europe An analysis of official figures from 24 European countries shows that England has had the highest excess death rate and it is not dropping"
"Stephen Powis, National Medical Director of NHS England, told the daily Downing Street press conference that excess deaths is the “key measure” in assessing the impact of Covid-19 but argued it will be “some time” before that comparison can be done between countries. However, figures from EuroMOMO which monitors official data including from all parts of the UK, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, Italy and Switzerland, show that England has had the highest level of excess deaths for the past four weeks. The researchers, who are supported by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) and the World Health Organization (WHO), provide a “z-score” which takes into account factors such as population size and mortality patterns. The higher the z-score, the higher the number of excess deaths and the countries with the biggest peaks are Belgium, Spain, Italy and England. However, England is the only country which recorded a z-score over 40 and it has now been at this level for three weeks."
The news was today that Italy's numbers are underestimated by 50%.
Week after week the BBC’s mantra has been “all deaths are tragedies” when talking about the virus. Yet tonight they couldn’t wait to pile into misleading statistical comparisons.
They are an utter disgrace.
It's the BBC's fault 30,000 people have died?
Umm, not sure how you took that from my post.
Whose fault is it, then?
Sunil, tlg86 is referring to BBC`s misrepresentation of statistics.
And I'm referring to the UK death toll. Why have so many people died from Covid?
Because there is a pandemic going on.
There's one going on in Germany, South Korea, Taiwan also.
Prof Ferguson - shows us men really do at times think with their dicks
Apparently the viewership for PE with Joe Wicks has increased dramatically this week...nothing to do with his former glamour model wife doing the work-outs.....
Week after week the BBC’s mantra has been “all deaths are tragedies” when talking about the virus. Yet tonight they couldn’t wait to pile into misleading statistical comparisons.
They are an utter disgrace.
It's the BBC's fault 30,000 people have died?
Umm, not sure how you took that from my post.
Whose fault is it, then?
Sunil, tlg86 is referring to BBC`s misrepresentation of statistics.
And I'm referring to the UK death toll. Why have so many people died from Covid?
Because there is a pandemic going on.
There's one going on in Germany, South Korea, Taiwan also.
If German Egghead in the interview i linked below is right that death rate is about 0.4%, as best practice improves and the likes of remdesivir are as shown effectice (plus whatever other drugs can be repurposed), we might might drive that down further to quite a low rate even without a vaccine.
My area of Yorkshire and North East now with the dubious distinction of being the one with most deaths. I do wish that people churning out UK graphs would stop and do ones for UK (without London) as well. It's giving a false sense of how things are progressing. So London, from peak to now is 180 to 38, Yorks N/E is 100 to 57 (peaks only a couple of days apart).
Does this help -
It's the current r0 that is the key. Not where we are now but how long it has taken different regions to get where we are now. London is at near 20% of its height, Yorks/NE at 57%. That means the latter is not being as effective and it'd be nice to get some answers (living in that area concentrates the mind).
Or it means that London had many more excess deaths than Y&NE.
Yet we are told that London never reached capacity. The simple fact is that London is controlling this more effectively. Is that down to close proximity to hospitals? Age profile? Prevalence of comorbidities? I see that the idea of treating parts of the country differently has arisen, maybe because of this disparity. Is there a danger that countrywide relaxation of lockdown rules could adversely affect the North or vice versa for London? Scotland can go its own way but regions cannot.
London's death rate peaked at over 200 per day whereas in Y&NE it peaked at half that.
So London did not control more effectively, rather it came close to losing control in early April.
So why does London now have half the deaths of Yorks/NE? The UK is seeing different regions react differently and that is the unavoidable reality, I can see why govt. is pushing for regional lockdowns/relaxations but is that workable? In Italy it was disastrous, for example.
Possibly because the virus burnt out already more in London than the Y&NE.
Yes, that is the simplest explanation. The speculation goes on.
Week after week the BBC’s mantra has been “all deaths are tragedies” when talking about the virus. Yet tonight they couldn’t wait to pile into misleading statistical comparisons.
They are an utter disgrace.
It's the BBC's fault 30,000 people have died?
Umm, not sure how you took that from my post.
Whose fault is it, then?
Sunil, tlg86 is referring to BBC`s misrepresentation of statistics.
And I'm referring to the UK death toll. Why have so many people died from Covid?
Because there is a pandemic going on.
Government policy nothing to do with the huge death toll? Are you sure?
My area of Yorkshire and North East now with the dubious distinction of being the one with most deaths. I do wish that people churning out UK graphs would stop and do ones for UK (without London) as well. It's giving a false sense of how things are progressing. So London, from peak to now is 180 to 38, Yorks N/E is 100 to 57 (peaks only a couple of days apart).
Does this help -
It's the current r0 that is the key. Not where we are now but how long it has taken different regions to get where we are now. London is at near 20% of its height, Yorks/NE at 57%. That means the latter is not being as effective and it'd be nice to get some answers (living in that area concentrates the mind).
Or it means that London had many more excess deaths than Y&NE.
Yet we are told that London never reached capacity. The simple fact is that London is controlling this more effectively. Is that down to close proximity to hospitals? Age profile? Prevalence of comorbidities? I see that the idea of treating parts of the country differently has arisen, maybe because of this disparity. Is there a danger that countrywide relaxation of lockdown rules could adversely affect the North or vice versa for London? Scotland can go its own way but regions cannot.
London's death rate peaked at over 200 per day whereas in Y&NE it peaked at half that.
So London did not control more effectively, rather it came close to losing control in early April.
So why does London now have half the deaths of Yorks/NE? The UK is seeing different regions react differently and that is the unavoidable reality, I can see why govt. is pushing for regional lockdowns/relaxations but is that workable? In Italy it was disastrous, for example.
Possibly because the virus burnt out already more in London than the Y&NE.
My area of Yorkshire and North East now with the dubious distinction of being the one with most deaths. I do wish that people churning out UK graphs would stop and do ones for UK (without London) as well. It's giving a false sense of how things are progressing. So London, from peak to now is 180 to 38, Yorks N/E is 100 to 57 (peaks only a couple of days apart).
Does this help -
It's the current r0 that is the key. Not where we are now but how long it has taken different regions to get where we are now. London is at near 20% of its height, Yorks/NE at 57%. That means the latter is not being as effective and it'd be nice to get some answers (living in that area concentrates the mind).
Or it means that London had many more excess deaths than Y&NE.
Yet we are told that London never reached capacity. The simple fact is that London is controlling this more effectively. Is that down to close proximity to hospitals? Age profile? Prevalence of comorbidities? I see that the idea of treating parts of the country differently has arisen, maybe because of this disparity. Is there a danger that countrywide relaxation of lockdown rules could adversely affect the North or vice versa for London? Scotland can go its own way but regions cannot.
London's death rate peaked at over 200 per day whereas in Y&NE it peaked at half that.
So London did not control more effectively, rather it came close to losing control in early April.
So why does London now have half the deaths of Yorks/NE? The UK is seeing different regions react differently and that is the unavoidable reality, I can see why govt. is pushing for regional lockdowns/relaxations but is that workable? In Italy it was disastrous, for example.
Possibly because the virus burnt out already more in London than the Y&NE.
Yes, that is the simplest explanation. The speculation goes on.
It doesn’t burn out, it gets suppressed, there is no suggestion of the virus mutating to a less virulent form, so it infects who is left. Give it more people and it’s away again, especially if it doesn’t appear to have any seasonality.
Week after week the BBC’s mantra has been “all deaths are tragedies” when talking about the virus. Yet tonight they couldn’t wait to pile into misleading statistical comparisons.
They are an utter disgrace.
It's the BBC's fault 30,000 people have died?
Umm, not sure how you took that from my post.
Whose fault is it, then?
Sunil, tlg86 is referring to BBC`s misrepresentation of statistics.
And I'm referring to the UK death toll. Why have so many people died from Covid?
Because there is a pandemic going on.
Government policy nothing to do with the huge death toll? Are you sure?
Week after week the BBC’s mantra has been “all deaths are tragedies” when talking about the virus. Yet tonight they couldn’t wait to pile into misleading statistical comparisons.
They are an utter disgrace.
It's the BBC's fault 30,000 people have died?
Umm, not sure how you took that from my post.
Whose fault is it, then?
Sunil, tlg86 is referring to BBC`s misrepresentation of statistics.
And I'm referring to the UK death toll. Why have so many people died from Covid?
Because there is a pandemic going on.
Government policy nothing to do with the huge death toll? Are you sure?
Week after week the BBC’s mantra has been “all deaths are tragedies” when talking about the virus. Yet tonight they couldn’t wait to pile into misleading statistical comparisons.
They are an utter disgrace.
It's the BBC's fault 30,000 people have died?
Umm, not sure how you took that from my post.
Whose fault is it, then?
Sunil, tlg86 is referring to BBC`s misrepresentation of statistics.
And I'm referring to the UK death toll. Why have so many people died from Covid?
Because there is a pandemic going on.
There's one going on in Germany, South Korea, Taiwan also.
It hasn't taken a grip as much there.
Can't think why.
Many possible reasons. Especially for Germany.
Could be something done different, could be different demographics and could be as simple as good luck. Cherrypicking where is working after the fact is a case of post hoc ergo propter hoc
In another universe we might have British public wondering why France has done so well when Britain and Germany have done relatively badly.
Week after week the BBC’s mantra has been “all deaths are tragedies” when talking about the virus. Yet tonight they couldn’t wait to pile into misleading statistical comparisons.
They are an utter disgrace.
It's the BBC's fault 30,000 people have died?
Umm, not sure how you took that from my post.
Whose fault is it, then?
Sunil, tlg86 is referring to BBC`s misrepresentation of statistics.
And I'm referring to the UK death toll. Why have so many people died from Covid?
Because there is a pandemic going on.
Government policy nothing to do with the huge death toll? Are you sure?
Week after week the BBC’s mantra has been “all deaths are tragedies” when talking about the virus. Yet tonight they couldn’t wait to pile into misleading statistical comparisons.
They are an utter disgrace.
It's the BBC's fault 30,000 people have died?
Umm, not sure how you took that from my post.
Whose fault is it, then?
Sunil, tlg86 is referring to BBC`s misrepresentation of statistics.
And I'm referring to the UK death toll. Why have so many people died from Covid?
Because there is a pandemic going on.
There's one going on in Germany, South Korea, Taiwan also.
It hasn't taken a grip as much there.
Can't think why.
Many possible reasons. Especially for Germany.
Could be something done different, could be different demographics and could be as simple as good luck. Cherrypicking where is working after the fact is a case of post hoc ergo proctor hoc
"Luck" is whether you or your granny gets the virus, not the overall death toll for a country. That's got absolubtely nothing to do with luck, the only possible, possible exception to this is Italy.
Week after week the BBC’s mantra has been “all deaths are tragedies” when talking about the virus. Yet tonight they couldn’t wait to pile into misleading statistical comparisons.
They are an utter disgrace.
It's the BBC's fault 30,000 people have died?
Umm, not sure how you took that from my post.
Whose fault is it, then?
Sunil, tlg86 is referring to BBC`s misrepresentation of statistics.
And I'm referring to the UK death toll. Why have so many people died from Covid?
Because there is a pandemic going on.
Government policy nothing to do with the huge death toll? Are you sure?
There is no huge death toll.
?!
Death toll probably would have been bad had we not acted, but right now its a bad flu season. A fraction of the Hong Kong flu deaths it appears so far. Not the hundreds of thousands spoken about.
Any death is bad but deaths do happen, right now its a bad death toll but its not huge.
If German Egghead in the interview i linked below is right that death rate is about 0.4%, as best practice improves and the likes of remdesivir are as shown effectice (plus whatever other drugs can be repurposed), we might might drive that down further to quite a low rate even without a vaccine.
Around 500 people have died in Newham which would be a mortality rate of 0.15% and that is the worst in the country.
We still don't have a clear idea as to how many people have the virus including those who have had only mild symptoms and those who are asymptomatic.
It’s a very old thread. 2009, indeed, talking about third rate nutty conspiracy theorist Craig Murray. THe man who makes Dominic Cummings look sane and moderately intelligent.
German Egghead seems quite sceptical about effective of total lockdown policy. He is strongly anti large gatherings and things like nightclubs. Less sure about how much closing all your shops actually does anything.
Week after week the BBC’s mantra has been “all deaths are tragedies” when talking about the virus. Yet tonight they couldn’t wait to pile into misleading statistical comparisons.
They are an utter disgrace.
It's the BBC's fault 30,000 people have died?
Umm, not sure how you took that from my post.
Whose fault is it, then?
Sunil, tlg86 is referring to BBC`s misrepresentation of statistics.
And I'm referring to the UK death toll. Why have so many people died from Covid?
Because there is a pandemic going on.
There's one going on in Germany, South Korea, Taiwan also.
It hasn't taken a grip as much there.
Can't think why.
Many possible reasons. Especially for Germany.
Could be something done different, could be different demographics and could be as simple as good luck. Cherrypicking where is working after the fact is a case of post hoc ergo proctor hoc
"Luck" is whether you or your granny gets the virus, not the overall death toll for a country. That's got absolubtely nothing to do with luck, the only possible, possible exception to this is Italy.
It absolutely can, especially when it just takes a few superspreaders to seed an outbreak.
German Egghead seems quite sceptical about effective of total lockdown policy. He is strongly anti large gatherings and things like nightclubs. Less sure about how much closing all your shops actually does anything.
The thing is if it's okay for people to go in food shops with social distancing, (and it is because people need to buy food), then why can't they also go in other types of shops, also with social distancing?
Week after week the BBC’s mantra has been “all deaths are tragedies” when talking about the virus. Yet tonight they couldn’t wait to pile into misleading statistical comparisons.
They are an utter disgrace.
It's the BBC's fault 30,000 people have died?
Umm, not sure how you took that from my post.
Whose fault is it, then?
Sunil, tlg86 is referring to BBC`s misrepresentation of statistics.
For me there is a lack of appreciation between the difference between statistics and management information. Right now, most of those worldometer figures are the latter. There will be plenty of time for a forensic statistical assessment of how different countries responded to this, and I suspect the UK will not do particularly well. Right now the focus should be on "what are the government doing to get us out of this mess?"
Why do you suspect the UK will not do particularly well. I suspect except for Germany we will have done reasonably when we start comparisons with the actual excess death figures of other EU countries (France, Spain, Italy).
You may have missed this from a couple of days back.
"England's excess death rate among highest in Europe An analysis of official figures from 24 European countries shows that England has had the highest excess death rate and it is not dropping"
"Stephen Powis, National Medical Director of NHS England, told the daily Downing Street press conference that excess deaths is the “key measure” in assessing the impact of Covid-19 but argued it will be “some time” before that comparison can be done between countries. However, figures from EuroMOMO which monitors official data including from all parts of the UK, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, Italy and Switzerland, show that England has had the highest level of excess deaths for the past four weeks. The researchers, who are supported by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) and the World Health Organization (WHO), provide a “z-score” which takes into account factors such as population size and mortality patterns. The higher the z-score, the higher the number of excess deaths and the countries with the biggest peaks are Belgium, Spain, Italy and England. However, England is the only country which recorded a z-score over 40 and it has now been at this level for three weeks."
Stupid people Fat people BAME with vit D problems Etc
England was a plague waiting to happen.
That z-score measures variability in mortality. It means that a nation with a stable average death rate (like the UK) scores very poorly, and one with a highly variable one (France) scores well. It's not a good measure at all. The best analysis is by the FT who are compiling excess death data from national statistical releases. Even those depend on accurate data but it's still the best measure. The reason it looks bad here is because our data is very fast to release, other countries take weeks or months to do it while the ONS run just a couple of weeks behind.
Week after week the BBC’s mantra has been “all deaths are tragedies” when talking about the virus. Yet tonight they couldn’t wait to pile into misleading statistical comparisons.
They are an utter disgrace.
It's the BBC's fault 30,000 people have died?
Umm, not sure how you took that from my post.
Whose fault is it, then?
Sunil, tlg86 is referring to BBC`s misrepresentation of statistics.
For me there is a lack of appreciation between the difference between statistics and management information. Right now, most of those worldometer figures are the latter. There will be plenty of time for a forensic statistical assessment of how different countries responded to this, and I suspect the UK will not do particularly well. Right now the focus should be on "what are the government doing to get us out of this mess?"
Why do you suspect the UK will not do particularly well. I suspect except for Germany we will have done reasonably when we start comparisons with the actual excess death figures of other EU countries (France, Spain, Italy).
You may have missed this from a couple of days back.
"England's excess death rate among highest in Europe An analysis of official figures from 24 European countries shows that England has had the highest excess death rate and it is not dropping"
"Stephen Powis, National Medical Director of NHS England, told the daily Downing Street press conference that excess deaths is the “key measure” in assessing the impact of Covid-19 but argued it will be “some time” before that comparison can be done between countries. However, figures from EuroMOMO which monitors official data including from all parts of the UK, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, Italy and Switzerland, show that England has had the highest level of excess deaths for the past four weeks. The researchers, who are supported by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) and the World Health Organization (WHO), provide a “z-score” which takes into account factors such as population size and mortality patterns. The higher the z-score, the higher the number of excess deaths and the countries with the biggest peaks are Belgium, Spain, Italy and England. However, England is the only country which recorded a z-score over 40 and it has now been at this level for three weeks."
Stupid people Fat people BAME with vit D problems Etc
England was a plague waiting to happen.
That z-score measures variability in mortality. It means that a nation with a stable average death rate (like the UK) scores very poorly, and one with a highly variable one (France) scores well. It's not a good measure at all. The best analysis is by the FT who are compiling excess death data from national statistical releases. Even those depend on accurate data but it's still the best measure. The reason it looks bad here is because our data is very fast to release, other countries take weeks or months to do it while the ONS run just a couple of weeks behind.
Indeed. Our excess death rates are nothing like Italy/Spains rates so far.
Prof Ferguson has a history of making poor predictions.
For example:
"In 2009, Ferguson and his Imperial team predicted that swine flu had a case fatality rate 0.3 per cent to 1.5 per cent. His most likely estimate was that the mortality rate was 0.4 per cent. A government estimate, based on Ferguson’s advice, said a ‘reasonable worst-case scenario’ was that the disease would lead to 65,000 UK deaths. In the end swine flu killed 457 people in the UK and had a death rate of just 0.026 per cent in those infected."
German Egghead - hypothesis - If viral load is linked to severity of disease, really good hygiene could be enough. Ultimately the vast majority of people can be get this, build some immunity, but low levels where not life threatening.
Week after week the BBC’s mantra has been “all deaths are tragedies” when talking about the virus. Yet tonight they couldn’t wait to pile into misleading statistical comparisons.
They are an utter disgrace.
It's the BBC's fault 30,000 people have died?
Umm, not sure how you took that from my post.
Whose fault is it, then?
Sunil, tlg86 is referring to BBC`s misrepresentation of statistics.
And I'm referring to the UK death toll. Why have so many people died from Covid?
Because there is a pandemic going on.
Government policy nothing to do with the huge death toll? Are you sure?
There is no huge death toll.
You are Stalin and I claim my five roubles!
I would not advise trying to recoup a bill owed by Stalin.
Home Secretary Priti Patel supported a ban on travellers who had been in hotspots but was slapped down by Downing Street, which cited scientific advice that doing so would have little impact on the spread of the infection. When this spat was under way, Australia's borders had already been closed for a week to all foreign travellers. Australia banned flights from China as early as February 1.
I now think this could utterly destroy the government
That’s going a bit far. It implies what we have at the moment is a government.
Home Secretary Priti Patel supported a ban on travellers who had been in hotspots but was slapped down by Downing Street, which cited scientific advice that doing so would have little impact on the spread of the infection. When this spat was under way, Australia's borders had already been closed for a week to all foreign travellers. Australia banned flights from China as early as February 1.
I now think this could utterly destroy the government
That’s going a bit far. It implies what we have at the moment is a government.
I don't even understand your point whether serious or a joke.
Home Secretary Priti Patel supported a ban on travellers who had been in hotspots but was slapped down by Downing Street, which cited scientific advice that doing so would have little impact on the spread of the infection. When this spat was under way, Australia's borders had already been closed for a week to all foreign travellers. Australia banned flights from China as early as February 1.
I now think this could utterly destroy the government
That’s going a bit far. It implies what we have at the moment is a government.
I don't even understand your point whether serious or a joke.
I was suggesting you cannot destroy what doesn’t exist, so there is a logical inconsistency in the government comment.
Home Secretary Priti Patel supported a ban on travellers who had been in hotspots but was slapped down by Downing Street, which cited scientific advice that doing so would have little impact on the spread of the infection. When this spat was under way, Australia's borders had already been closed for a week to all foreign travellers. Australia banned flights from China as early as February 1.
I now think this could utterly destroy the government
When I read your post initially I thought you were referring to people from the traveller community.
Is this well respected chap suggesting that the peak of infections was prior to lockdown ?
Nope that would indicate that the lockdown was responsible for ending the rise in hospital admissions taking into account an 8 day lag between infection and the development of dyspnea which is the primary cause of hospital admissions. Lockdown formally started on the 23rd March with the peak of admissions 8 or 9 days after that.
German Egghead seems quite sceptical about effective of total lockdown policy. He is strongly anti large gatherings and things like nightclubs. Less sure about how much closing all your shops actually does anything.
Professor Streeck is a minor egghead, involved in the study in Gangelt, near Heinsberg, the second earliest cluster in DE. He is referring to a study of <1000 people in direct proximity to an atypical outbreak. Extrapolating the results of that study to a national level is highly questionable. He is considered (by some) to be a little bit of a shill for the 'unlocker' faction, where the minister president of NRW, Armin Laschet, has positioned himself, presumably for political reasons (he was one of the leading candidates for the succession of Angela Merkel).
Home Secretary Priti Patel supported a ban on travellers who had been in hotspots but was slapped down by Downing Street, which cited scientific advice that doing so would have little impact on the spread of the infection. When this spat was under way, Australia's borders had already been closed for a week to all foreign travellers. Australia banned flights from China as early as February 1.
I now think this could utterly destroy the government
That’s going a bit far. It implies what we have at the moment is a government.
I don't even understand your point whether serious or a joke.
I was suggesting you cannot destroy what doesn’t exist, so there is a logical inconsistency in the government comment.
Home Secretary Priti Patel supported a ban on travellers who had been in hotspots but was slapped down by Downing Street, which cited scientific advice that doing so would have little impact on the spread of the infection. When this spat was under way, Australia's borders had already been closed for a week to all foreign travellers. Australia banned flights from China as early as February 1.
I now think this could utterly destroy the government
That’s going a bit far. It implies what we have at the moment is a government.
I don't even understand your point whether serious or a joke.
I was suggesting you cannot destroy what doesn’t exist, so there is a logical inconsistency in the government comment.
Home Secretary Priti Patel supported a ban on travellers who had been in hotspots but was slapped down by Downing Street, which cited scientific advice that doing so would have little impact on the spread of the infection. When this spat was under way, Australia's borders had already been closed for a week to all foreign travellers. Australia banned flights from China as early as February 1.
I now think this could utterly destroy the government
That’s going a bit far. It implies what we have at the moment is a government.
I don't even understand your point whether serious or a joke.
I was suggesting you cannot destroy what doesn’t exist, so there is a logical inconsistency in the government comment.
Home Secretary Priti Patel supported a ban on travellers who had been in hotspots but was slapped down by Downing Street, which cited scientific advice that doing so would have little impact on the spread of the infection. When this spat was under way, Australia's borders had already been closed for a week to all foreign travellers. Australia banned flights from China as early as February 1.
I now think this could utterly destroy the government
Home Secretary Priti Patel supported a ban on travellers who had been in hotspots but was slapped down by Downing Street, which cited scientific advice that doing so would have little impact on the spread of the infection. When this spat was under way, Australia's borders had already been closed for a week to all foreign travellers. Australia banned flights from China as early as February 1.
I now think this could utterly destroy the government
The passage on coronavirus in Boris Johnson's Greenwich speech early in February bears close reading. He was clearly trying hard to differentiate himself from Trump and placate China, who had announced restrictions on travellers from China a few days previously. At that moment it's almost as if he thought the "panic" over coronavirus was an opportunity for Britain to prove its openness.
Home Secretary Priti Patel supported a ban on travellers who had been in hotspots but was slapped down by Downing Street, which cited scientific advice that doing so would have little impact on the spread of the infection. When this spat was under way, Australia's borders had already been closed for a week to all foreign travellers. Australia banned flights from China as early as February 1.
I now think this could utterly destroy the government
That’s going a bit far. It implies what we have at the moment is a government.
I don't even understand your point whether serious or a joke.
I was suggesting you cannot destroy what doesn’t exist, so there is a logical inconsistency in the government comment.
FFS, that is an epic Freudian slip!
We have more government at the moment than usual.
Yes, and it’s still crap.
This government are proving the genius of Ronald Reagan's comment that the most terrifying words in the England language are 'Im from the government and Im here to help'
Home Secretary Priti Patel supported a ban on travellers who had been in hotspots but was slapped down by Downing Street, which cited scientific advice that doing so would have little impact on the spread of the infection. When this spat was under way, Australia's borders had already been closed for a week to all foreign travellers. Australia banned flights from China as early as February 1.
I now think this could utterly destroy the government
That’s going a bit far. It implies what we have at the moment is a government.
I don't even understand your point whether serious or a joke.
I was suggesting you cannot destroy what doesn’t exist, so there is a logical inconsistency in the government comment.
FFS, that is an epic Freudian slip!
We have more government at the moment than usual.
Yes, and it’s still crap.
That may well be so, but is a separate problem.
I don’t see it that way. They are still a collection of intellectually stunted ideologues who would be out of their depth running Brocton Parish Council and who only looked good because they were up against the Jezaster. And it is showing with painful, brutal clarity.
People shouldn't prejudge others reactions/actions/calls for actions in this. Sounds like Priti Patel and Dom Cummings were on the right side of the arguments to me.
Home Secretary Priti Patel supported a ban on travellers who had been in hotspots but was slapped down by Downing Street, which cited scientific advice that doing so would have little impact on the spread of the infection. When this spat was under way, Australia's borders had already been closed for a week to all foreign travellers. Australia banned flights from China as early as February 1.
I now think this could utterly destroy the government
That’s going a bit far. It implies what we have at the moment is a government.
I don't even understand your point whether serious or a joke.
I was suggesting you cannot destroy what doesn’t exist, so there is a logical inconsistency in the government comment.
FFS, that is an epic Freudian slip!
We have more government at the moment than usual.
Yes, and it’s still crap.
This government are proving the genius of Ronald Reagan's comment that the most terrifying words in the England language are 'Im from the government and Im here to help'
I read a book recently, I forget which one, which suggested that as catchy as that comment was the much more terrifying words, and far more common in societal terms historically, was something like 'There is no government and I am here to kill you'.
German Egghead seems quite sceptical about effective of total lockdown policy. He is strongly anti large gatherings and things like nightclubs. Less sure about how much closing all your shops actually does anything.
Professor Streeck is a minor egghead, involved in the study in Gangelt, near Heinsberg, the second earliest cluster in DE. He is referring to a study of <1000 people in direct proximity to an atypical outbreak. Extrapolating the results of that study to a national level is highly questionable. He is considered (by some) to be a little bit of a shill for the 'unlocker' faction, where the minister pesident of NRW Armin Laschet has positioned himself, presumably for political reasons (he was one of the leading candidates for the succession of Angela Merkel).</p>
The claim of only 15% transmission within households had alarm bell ringing. That seems far too low and fairly certain Chinese studies found it to be more than that.
Week after week the BBC’s mantra has been “all deaths are tragedies” when talking about the virus. Yet tonight they couldn’t wait to pile into misleading statistical comparisons.
They are an utter disgrace.
It's the BBC's fault 30,000 people have died?
Umm, not sure how you took that from my post.
Whose fault is it, then?
Sunil, tlg86 is referring to BBC`s misrepresentation of statistics.
And I'm referring to the UK death toll. Why have so many people died from Covid?
Because there is a pandemic going on.
There's one going on in Germany, South Korea, Taiwan also.
It hasn't taken a grip as much there.
Can't think why.
Many possible reasons. Especially for Germany.
Could be something done different, could be different demographics and could be as simple as good luck. Cherrypicking where is working after the fact is a case of post hoc ergo proctor hoc
"Luck" is whether you or your granny gets the virus, not the overall death toll for a country. That's got absolubtely nothing to do with luck, the only possible, possible exception to this is Italy.
It absolutely can, especially when it just takes a few superspreaders to seed an outbreak.
Latest information from the select committee today is that we may have imported tens of thousands of cases from mainland Europe. That's way beyond a few superspreaders.
Home Secretary Priti Patel supported a ban on travellers who had been in hotspots but was slapped down by Downing Street, which cited scientific advice that doing so would have little impact on the spread of the infection. When this spat was under way, Australia's borders had already been closed for a week to all foreign travellers. Australia banned flights from China as early as February 1.
I now think this could utterly destroy the government
That’s going a bit far. It implies what we have at the moment is a government.
I don't even understand your point whether serious or a joke.
I was suggesting you cannot destroy what doesn’t exist, so there is a logical inconsistency in the government comment.
FFS, that is an epic Freudian slip!
We have more government at the moment than usual.
Yes, and it’s still crap.
That may well be so, but is a separate problem.
I don’t see it that way. They are still a collection of intellectually stunted ideologues who would be out of their depth running Brocton Parish Council and who only looked good because they were up against the Jezaster. And it is showing with painful, brutal clarity.
There is a world of difference between us having a crap government and crap ministers and there not being one, which is why that quoted article headline was so stupid since this government and its composition is as real as any, even if it is indeed bad. I don't see the point outside of comedy to suggest crapness is absence. Perhaps in that scenario absence would be better.
Home Secretary Priti Patel supported a ban on travellers who had been in hotspots but was slapped down by Downing Street, which cited scientific advice that doing so would have little impact on the spread of the infection. When this spat was under way, Australia's borders had already been closed for a week to all foreign travellers. Australia banned flights from China as early as February 1.
I now think this could utterly destroy the government
Yes it could. Priti Patel was right on this.
It’s incredible. What have we gained from keeping airports open?
Meanwhile the government is unable to keep 2000 illegal immigrants a month landing in Hastings and Dover
Home Secretary Priti Patel supported a ban on travellers who had been in hotspots but was slapped down by Downing Street, which cited scientific advice that doing so would have little impact on the spread of the infection. When this spat was under way, Australia's borders had already been closed for a week to all foreign travellers. Australia banned flights from China as early as February 1.
I now think this could utterly destroy the government
Yes it could. Priti Patel was right on this.
Indeed, Priti Patel was arguing from the outside to close the borders and stop overseas flights as most of Europe, the US and Australia and New Zealand were doing for example but was overruled.
A mistake from Boris in this case in trying to pursue too liberal an approach, when a more authoritarian one was needed
And we still aren't hearing anything about how the government intend to deal with arrivals post lockdown. Some vague waffle at the weekend, but no leaks of any concrete planning for what is a crucial part of any post lockdown world.
A Tory government that loses control of the borders is a Tory government that needs to die. This lot has managed it twice over: illegal immigrants and failed quarantine
Labour should destroy them on this
Airports have had their demand drop orgnically. At no point has the Gov't ever stepped on their toes at any point. You can change the official travel advice but that's not going to stop everyone.
It's a trifecta of shit for them today
i) Most deaths in europe. ii) Gov't scientist can't follow his own rules. iii) Aer Lingus making a mockery of social distancing on their internal UK flight.
A Tory government that loses control of the borders is a Tory government that needs to die. This lot has managed it twice over: illegal immigrants and failed quarantine
Labour should destroy them on this
Labour can't, Starmer supports free movement and largely open borders though Farage will try
Comments
https://www.welshwildlife.org/wtsww-news/the-water-buffalo-are-back-with-a-new-friend/
Water buffalo are slightly less lethal than cape buffalo, but that's about all you can say for them.
We need a speech long on specifics and short on generalities, platitudes and calls on the nation to "do its patriotic duty". There needs to be an unambiguous programme of easing restrictions devoid of contradictions and obfuscations.
Just - ridiculous.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/jun/15/jody-scheckter-biodynamic-farm
If we're lifting the lockdown then specifics are what is required.
If we're not lifting the lockdown then generalities, platitudes and calls on the nation are what is required.
A swing of that size would deliver Arizona, Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and perhaps Georgia to the Democrats which along with North Carolina is 117 electoral college votes.
That's the battleground this November,
https://youtu.be/vrL9QKGQrWk
It would be even odder if he had been set up.
What we will see is a partial easing of some restrictions but that needs to be spelled out clearly and transparently. It won't happen the following day either - organisations will need time to prepare. What will be announced Sunday is an intention to begin to ease restrictions from the 18th or possibly the 26th.
For many, it won't mean a lot of change. Working at home where possible, limited and essential trips out only, perhaps some easing on the issue of allowing family members to visit.
No doubt those who can't live without their Big Mac fix will form an orderly and socially distant queue at the slightest hint Ronald will be back in town.
Said same with the bar in Austrian ski resort. Infected bar tender had a whistle he blew as he made his way through the crowds.
Could be something done different, could be different demographics and could be as simple as good luck. Cherrypicking where is working after the fact is a case of post hoc ergo propter hoc
In another universe we might have British public wondering why France has done so well when Britain and Germany have done relatively badly.
Any death is bad but deaths do happen, right now its a bad death toll but its not huge.
We still don't have a clear idea as to how many people have the virus including those who have had only mild symptoms and those who are asymptomatic.
About time you put up a thread header.
They have under 3,000
For example:
"In 2009, Ferguson and his Imperial team predicted that swine flu had a case fatality rate 0.3 per cent to 1.5 per cent. His most likely estimate was that the mortality rate was 0.4 per cent. A government estimate, based on Ferguson’s advice, said a ‘reasonable worst-case scenario’ was that the disease would lead to 65,000 UK deaths.
In the end swine flu killed 457 people in the UK and had a death rate of just 0.026 per cent in those infected."
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/six-questions-that-neil-ferguson-should-be-asked
Interesting...
governmentcomment.FFS, that is an epic Freudian slip!
New thread....He is considered (by some) to be a little bit of a shill for the 'unlocker' faction, where the minister president of NRW, Armin Laschet, has positioned himself, presumably for political reasons (he was one of the leading candidates for the succession of Angela Merkel).
No. There is not a new thread. There is a thread from 2009 that for some reason has floated to the top of VanillaForums. Hope that clears things up.
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pm-speech-in-greenwich-3-february-2020
*innocent face*
A mistake from Boris in this case in trying to pursue too liberal an approach, when a more authoritarian one was needed
It's a trifecta of shit for them today
i) Most deaths in europe.
ii) Gov't scientist can't follow his own rules.
iii) Aer Lingus making a mockery of social distancing on their internal UK flight.
Look at his track record. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.