I'm not entirely convinced by this 'forensic' style. As we saw to an extent today, Boris is quite capable of ignoring the question, answering a completely different question, or simply blustering with half-truths. Moreover I'm not sure that Starmer is that good at it anyway; he comes over as nit-picking rather than addressing the big issues.
It is telling that by far the best forensic, well-argued, persistent and persuasive inquisitorial performances by an opposition Labour front-bencher were those of Robin Cook before 1997, which left Blair to do the soundbite, big-picture stuff as the party leader. That was a truly effective combination.
Depends. There could be a rush to competence. In which case Starmer will do well vs the alternative.
All this four years down the line, that said, so plenty of events to come one way and the other.
I'm not entirely convinced by this 'forensic' style. As we saw to an extent today, Boris is quite capable of ignoring the question, answering a completely different question, or simply blustering with half-truths. Moreover I'm not sure that Starmer is that good at it anyway; he comes over as nit-picking rather than addressing the big issues.
It is telling that by far the best forensic, well-argued, persistent and persuasive inquisitorial performances by an opposition Labour front-bencher were those of Robin Cook before 1997, which left Blair to do the soundbite, big-picture stuff as the party leader. That was a truly effective combination.
I wonder who will do the soundbite stuff for Starmer? Ed Miliband?
So Boris has just set another arbitrary target (200k tests) for the media to take aim at. That is just bad politics, both presentationally and also seems limited evidence for this number.
Seems like good politics to distract the media with a number in the future to obsess over that should be quite easy (with another month) to achieve.
Targets galvanise but they also distort behaviour. The current ones just focus on getting the total up by whatever means possible and with wide eligibility which is at variance with prioritisation. That may be OK for building testing capacity for the whole country, but meanwhile there is an out of control pandemic in our care homes. Something in the ball park of half of all virus related deaths are now in care homes.
In terms of a macro target to prioritise tackling that, I would be looking at something like this: By a defined date (eg. within 7 days from now?), 100% of all staff and residents have been tested in care homes where there has been a single positive test or a single untested death where the virus was suspected within the past fortnight, and that say 90% of all staff and residents in all other care homes should have been tested.
However, if he's going to set a new macro target, he should start by setting one that defines when the UK will exceed 100,000 on average for a whole week, or even just for a second day.
Good to see Keir handing Johnson his ass at PMQs but a word of caution for me and my ilk. The chamber is almost empty atm - no noisy gallery to play to - and this suits the quiet probing style of an ex top prosecutor. When normal business is finally resumed (Oct?) expect Johnson to transform into what he fundamentally is above all else, a master of knockabout comedy, the man we know not as Johnson, or even as the PM, but as "Boris". Different ballgame when that happens. Will Keir then become the hapless stooge? The Phil Spencer to Johnson's Kirstie Allsopp? I'm not saying he will, but the risk is there and it's a real one.
Oh and fpt re the armed forces' political affiliations.
My guess is that eg @Dura_Ace and I are near enough at polar opposites of the political spectrum and hence his point is quite well proved - if people care at all (most don't, just like the general public), then there is a broad mix.
The chart I never understand the eggheads putting up is the death numbers by day of release. They know its wrong, we all know its wrong, but yet they do it day after day. And then of course the media report that chart.
It was good to see Starmer puncture the 'we can't make international comparisons' bs with the govt's own slide.
Except the scientists themselves say that the comparison should be treated with caution because of different reporting protocols.
With caution but not ignored. And, as I posted below, the caution is only warranted because otherwise the relative awfulness of the UK's position will probably be understated.
So Boris has just set another arbitrary target (200k tests) for the media to take aim at. That is just bad politics, both presentationally and also seems limited evidence for this number.
Seems like good politics to distract the media with a number in the future to obsess over that should be quite easy (with another month) to achieve.
Targets galvanise but they also distort behaviour. The current ones just focus on getting the total up by whatever means possible and with wide eligibility which is at variance with prioritisation. That may be OK for building testing capacity for the whole country, but meanwhile there is an out of control pandemic in our care homes. Something in the ball park of half of all virus related deaths are now in care homes.
In terms of a macro target to prioritise tackling that, I would be looking at something like this: By a defined date (eg. within 7 days from now?), 100% of all staff and residents have been tested in care homes where there has been a single positive test or a single untested death where the virus was suspected within the past fortnight, and that say 90% of all staff and residents in all other care homes should have been tested.
However, if he's going to set a new macro target, he should start by setting one that defines when the UK will exceed 100,000 on average for a whole week, or even just for a second day.
Testing care home staff and residents is definitely a good idea, but more capacity will be needed if we're to end lockdown and go to test, track and trace.
200k shouldn't be too distorting. Its much easier to get from 100k to 200k than it is to get from 5k to 100k.
The chart I never understand the eggheads putting up is the death numbers by day of release. They know its wrong, we all know its wrong, but yet they do it day after day. And then of course the media report that chart.
They'd be accused of a coverup if they did change it.
The egg-heads from one day have warned strongly against making direct comparison between countries (even when the UK looked like they were doing better than Italy). I think they put it up, because the media were doing it anyway.
The chart I never understand the eggheads putting up is the death numbers by day of release. They know its wrong, we all know its wrong, but yet they do it day after day. And then of course the media report that chart.
Because they are reporting all the deaths they know of, on the day they know of them. Otherwise they would be hiding something - at least according to some people.
The chart I never understand the eggheads putting up is the death numbers by day of release. They know its wrong, we all know its wrong, but yet they do it day after day. And then of course the media report that chart.
Because they are reporting all the deaths they know of, on the day they know of them. Otherwise they would be hiding something - at least according to some people.
Twitter still believes Boris spent two week burying bodies in the ground of Chequers regardless of what figures they release.
Their fall in intensive care numbers has flat lined
This (incidentally) is what the numbers looked like yesterday
Fall in deaths per day is also showing evidence of flat lining
I wouldnt want to see my bank balance flatline like that
Swedish data is heavily lagged. Intesive Care number by about a week, deaths by a minimum of ten days.
Yesterday the April 30th figure for deaths was 40. Today it is 48.
In another 7 days time it will have in all liekly hood another 15-20 deaths added to it. Taking it to the same level as the preceding week or so worth's of data.
Good to see Keir handing Johnson his ass at PMQs but a word of caution for me and my ilk. The chamber is almost empty atm - no noisy gallery to play to - and this suits the quiet probing style of an ex top prosecutor. When normal business is finally resumed (Oct?) expect Johnson to transform into what he fundamentally is above all else, a master of knockabout comedy, the man we know not as Johnson, or even as the PM, but as "Boris". Different ballgame when that happens. Will Keir then become the hapless stooge? The Phil Spencer to Johnson's Kirstie Allsopp? I'm not saying he will, but the risk is there and it's a real one.
The lack of an audience definitely puts the kybosh on BoJo's normal style. Like a good improvisational comic, he needs the laughs to cover the gaps where he works out what to say next. Without that, it's um, well... actually it's um, quite hard to, you know, listen to or respect.
Watching the Newsnight report on Germany and masks...Clear evidence in the footage why they don't work very well in public setting.
Reporting walking around, gets to train station, fiddles about in pocket, produces mask, puts it on.
Then they go outside a department store, person after person, walks up, fiddles about in their bag or pocket, produces mask puts it on (or has masks around their neck and pull it up), goes in...as soon as they come out, whips masks off (hand grabbing the textile) and puts in pockets.
So if they have touched anything contaminated with coronavirus, they have just put it on their hands and within minutes they are going to be touching their eyes or mouth.
Also, no goggles. All the medical experts have said if this does transmit via touching something contaminated and then touching your mouth, your eyes are exactly the same avenue for infection.
Maybe I am just a freak, but I have proper safety goggles and mask.
Those visors you see staff have in m&s are surely better than masks? And look very easy to produce?
I have not noticed a lot of personal warmth towards Johnson recently from Tory MPs, although most of them are attending PMQs online. One might think they are not grateful to him for winning the last general election.
The header doesn't explain why Starmer hasn't yet had an impact on the polls or with the general public. Perhaps it is the errors Starmer made with Brexit or that he has a weak team behind him.
Far too early given the he news is totally dominated by the pandemic. Most people simply don't know who he is.
Remember the reason why people flocked to the Tories at GE19 was to stop a Corbyn victory. Now he's out of the way the world has changed
Remember that what did for IDS was not public perception -- the Conservative Party did rather well at elections under IDS -- it was the crushing of Tory backbench morale when every week their champion was carried out on his shield.
That is the danger for Boris. Not that the public is entranced by Starmer but that Conservative MPs see the PM lose most weeks and start to flirt with the idea of Rishi Sunak in Number 10.
I think that that is a good point.
Except that IDS was and is as thick as mince, very slow on his feet and was trying to deal with Blair in his pomp. Boris is not stupid, quite good on his feet and Starmer is no Blair. Yes, he will get the better of Boris sometimes, yes Boris will bluster but the kind of embarrassment that IDS generated is a very long way off and unlikely to happen to either of these 2.
IDS even led Labour in a few polls by 2003, personality wise he was quite close to Starmer, dull as ditchwater but seen as decent.
Boris is far more like Blair, a charismatic flashman.
The question is whether Covid and hard Brexit turns out to be Boris' Iraq War?
Niche view, I sense, but I don't think he will be doing Hard Brexit. Deal or extension IMO.
Their fall in intensive care numbers has flat lined
This (incidentally) is what the numbers looked like yesterday
Fall in deaths per day is also showing evidence of flat lining
I wouldnt want to see my bank balance flatline like that
Swedish data is heavily lagged. Intesive Care number by about a week, deaths by a minimum of ten days.
Yesterday the April 30th figure for deaths was 40. Today it is 48.
In another 7 days time it will have in all liekly hood another 15-20 deaths added to it. Taking it to the same level as the preceding week or so worth's of data.
I looked into the number and nature of care homes in Europe yesterday to see if there was any connection between that and Covid deaths. Can you have a look and see if you can find anything?
Keir is getting levels of accolades from the centrists rivalling Rory, Chuka, Swinson and CUK. I expect him to attain the same levels of political success too.
Yup the thread headers on here are very - wash/rinse/spinspinspin/repeat - I suppose it passes the time.
Remember that what did for IDS was not public perception -- the Conservative Party did rather well at elections under IDS -- it was the crushing of Tory backbench morale when every week their champion was carried out on his shield.
That is the danger for Boris. Not that the public is entranced by Starmer but that Conservative MPs see the PM lose most weeks and start to flirt with the idea of Rishi Sunak in Number 10.
I think that that is a good point.
Except that IDS was and is as thick as mince, very slow on his feet and was trying to deal with Blair in his pomp. Boris is not stupid, quite good on his feet and Starmer is no Blair. Yes, he will get the better of Boris sometimes, yes Boris will bluster but the kind of embarrassment that IDS generated is a very long way off and unlikely to happen to either of these 2.
IDS even led Labour in a few polls by 2003, personality wise he was quite close to Starmer, dull as ditchwater but seen as decent.
Boris is far more like Blair, a charismatic flashman.
The question is whether Covid and hard Brexit turns out to be Boris' Iraq War?
Niche view, I sense, but I don't think he will be doing Hard Brexit. Deal or extension IMO.
Boxed himself into a corner with his "renegotiation" of the Withdrawal Agreement. Northern Ireland situation is going to get very messy and he has done absolutely zero to mitigate it. In any case there is no soft Brexit available. It's very hard Brexit or car crash.
I have not noticed a lot of personal warmth towards Johnson recently from Tory MPs, although most of them are attending PMQs online. One might think they are not grateful to him for winning the last general election.
We'll be at the rare sport of speculating how many letters SGB has received soon enough. An billionaire's nerdy son in law lurks in the wings...
Starmer has a tricky situation here. It would be hard to cause fireworks in a HoC that's mostly empty, and you could see that Boris was also doing much less playing to the gallery than usual. The line of attack for Starmer seems to be honesty and competence, neither of which are Johnson's strong suits, though it's not like Johnson has ever suffered much for it in the past.
Starmer may benefit from a helpful media, though. Whereas Corbyn did his own thing for the consumption of his own voter base, Starmer is asking questions that journalists can build stories around. Did Hancock engage in sleight-of-hand to hit his 100k target on May 1st? Is the UK doing measurably worse than comparable countries? Are NHS doctors buying their own PPE even though the government denies a shortage? These are classic stories that have a low impact on their own, but together suggest a government that is not doing terribly well, and not being terribly honest about it.
Odds are, nobody is going to pin anything on Hancock. But maybe there's a whistleblower, maybe some alternative figures show something else, and he has to answer more questions and maybe he slips up. If the warehouses never had a "stock-out" of PPE, then there's a simple follow-up: why wasn't the PPE being distributed? The reason centrist journalists like Starmer is that by asking these things in PMQs he gives them a better story: that story about the NHS doctors buying masks from China directly stops being a page 11 story about the NHS supply chain and becomes a page 1-3 story about how the PM lied about shortages.
If we're 4.5 years off from another GE, then attritional warfare makes sense. The last decade has seen enormous churn in the front bench, and experienced ministers are in short supply. All governments run out of steam eventually, not so much being toppled by an insurgency as collapsing under their own weight, and chiselling away at the foundations isn't a bad approach to take in those circumstances.
It was good to see Starmer puncture the 'we can't make international comparisons' bs with the govt's own slide.
Except the scientists themselves say that the comparison should be treated with caution because of different reporting protocols.
Then why do the govt make international comparisons?
They are not - they are demonstrating the trends of a number of countries.
That is the weakest argument mounted on PB in some time. Nicely done.
They actually point out why some lines are higher than others during the press conference.
Now, I've said all along that these daily press conferences are fucking stupid, but what the media wants the media gets.
Boris has been comparing us to other countries right up until the point it becomes politically challenging to do so. After all the 'best in the world' rhetoric, we'e all supposed to not talk about it now. So silly.
Good to see Keir handing Johnson his ass at PMQs but a word of caution for me and my ilk. The chamber is almost empty atm - no noisy gallery to play to - and this suits the quiet probing style of an ex top prosecutor. When normal business is finally resumed (Oct?) expect Johnson to transform into what he fundamentally is above all else, a master of knockabout comedy, the man we know not as Johnson, or even as the PM, but as "Boris". Different ballgame when that happens. Will Keir then become the hapless stooge? The Phil Spencer to Johnson's Kirstie Allsopp? I'm not saying he will, but the risk is there and it's a real one.
Oh and fpt re the armed forces' political affiliations.
My guess is that eg @Dura_Ace and I are near enough at polar opposites of the political spectrum and hence his point is quite well proved - if people care at all (most don't, just like the general public), then there is a broad mix.
Right, and I'm believing it. Although I really would expect the top layers to lean Tory. At Sandhurst, for example, surely little support there for "progressive" causes. I bet it's a pretty conservative (in both senses) place. If this is not the case then many many dramas I have watched are presenting a false view.
It was good to see Starmer puncture the 'we can't make international comparisons' bs with the govt's own slide.
Except the scientists themselves say that the comparison should be treated with caution because of different reporting protocols.
Then why do the govt make international comparisons?
They are not - they are demonstrating the trends of a number of countries.
That is the weakest argument mounted on PB in some time. Nicely done.
They actually point out why some lines are higher than others during the press conference.
Now, I've said all along that these daily press conferences are fucking stupid, but what the media wants the media gets.
Boris has been comparing us to other countries right up until the point it becomes politically challenging to do so. After all the 'best in the world' rhetoric, we'e all supposed to not talk about it now. So silly.
Slow? That's fast, much faster than I expected. The longer it stays linear the better too.
If that trend continues there'd be no deaths reported next Sunday.
I am quite surprised we haven't seen a tailoff in the rate of decline yet.
It's because he's reporting in that table stats compiled via the locations where the pandemic is starting to come under control, as opposed to where it's not.
It is nonetheless good news, because it means that the virus is coming under control in the wider population which feeds into the hospital stats. It's the prevalence in the wider population that matters to the question of when we can start to get back to normal.
Care homes by contrast are effectively small isolated clusters and as soon as their issues of testing and lack of PPE are properly addressed then surely the numbers will start to come down fast there too.
7% of Germans are proud of their country's role in WWII is the more shocking statistic.
And only 53% of German's strongly disagree with the statement they are proud of Germany's role in WWII.
WTF is up with that?
A lot of young people here have barely heard of ww2. You can easily live your life without anyone mentioning it for months or years. It's not like England where you can't avoid references to it all the bleeding time.
Obsessed.
Isn't 7% the sort of number of BAME people who say they approve of slavery when asked in this kind of survey?
As regular readers may remember, I've defended the government's handling of the crisis, on the basis that most of the criticism is either hindsight-based, partisan nonsense, doesn't reflect the uncertain nature of the science at the time decisions were made, doesn't reflect the realities of what was possible, or was plain wrong.
However, I'm not going to defend them (or whoever made the decision) or this point, on which David H is quite right:
Remember that what did for IDS was not public perception -- the Conservative Party did rather well at elections under IDS -- it was the crushing of Tory backbench morale when every week their champion was carried out on his shield.
That is the danger for Boris. Not that the public is entranced by Starmer but that Conservative MPs see the PM lose most weeks and start to flirt with the idea of Rishi Sunak in Number 10.
I think that that is a good point.
Except that IDS was and is as thick as mince, very slow on his feet and was trying to deal with Blair in his pomp. Boris is not stupid, quite good on his feet and Starmer is no Blair. Yes, he will get the better of Boris sometimes, yes Boris will bluster but the kind of embarrassment that IDS generated is a very long way off and unlikely to happen to either of these 2.
IDS even led Labour in a few polls by 2003, personality wise he was quite close to Starmer, dull as ditchwater but seen as decent.
Boris is far more like Blair, a charismatic flashman.
The question is whether Covid and hard Brexit turns out to be Boris' Iraq War?
Niche view, I sense, but I don't think he will be doing Hard Brexit. Deal or extension IMO.
Boxed himself into a corner with his "renegotiation" of the Withdrawal Agreement. Northern Ireland situation is going to get very messy and he has done absolutely zero to mitigate it. In any case there is no soft Brexit available. It's very hard Brexit or car crash.
Extension I expect, based on no-one apart from Nigel Farage and Bill Cash giving a toss about the details. Covid-19 gives cover for kicking it into row Z.
As regular readers may remember, I've defended the government's handling of the crisis, on the basis that most of the criticism is either hindsight-based, partisan nonsense, doesn't reflect the uncertain nature of the science at the time decisions were made, doesn't reflect the realities of what was possible, or was plain wrong.
However, I'm not going to defend them (or whoever made the decision) or this point, on which David H is quite right:
Good to see Keir handing Johnson his ass at PMQs but a word of caution for me and my ilk. The chamber is almost empty atm - no noisy gallery to play to - and this suits the quiet probing style of an ex top prosecutor. When normal business is finally resumed (Oct?) expect Johnson to transform into what he fundamentally is above all else, a master of knockabout comedy, the man we know not as Johnson, or even as the PM, but as "Boris". Different ballgame when that happens. Will Keir then become the hapless stooge? The Phil Spencer to Johnson's Kirstie Allsopp? I'm not saying he will, but the risk is there and it's a real one.
Oh and fpt re the armed forces' political affiliations.
My guess is that eg @Dura_Ace and I are near enough at polar opposites of the political spectrum and hence his point is quite well proved - if people care at all (most don't, just like the general public), then there is a broad mix.
Right, and I'm believing it. Although I really would expect the top layers to lean Tory. At Sandhurst, for example, surely little support there for "progressive" causes. I bet it's a pretty conservative (in both senses) place. If this is not the case then many many dramas I have watched are presenting a false view.
If you look at the demographic of squaddies you are looking at the (hitherto) Lab northern heartlands pretty much.
If you are looking at the "top layers" there is certainly an element which leans Tory. But there is an element which leans Lab also. The army has democratised to quite an extent which is a consequence of a rapidly shrinking force and huge competition to join certainly in the "officer class". That said, prob best not to apply to HCav unless you are an OE.
Not all like this any more (first few minutes esp):
It was good to see Starmer puncture the 'we can't make international comparisons' bs with the govt's own slide.
Except the scientists themselves say that the comparison should be treated with caution because of different reporting protocols.
Then why do the govt make international comparisons?
They are not - they are demonstrating the trends of a number of countries.
That is the weakest argument mounted on PB in some time. Nicely done.
They actually point out why some lines are higher than others during the press conference.
Now, I've said all along that these daily press conferences are fucking stupid, but what the media wants the media gets.
Boris has been comparing us to other countries right up until the point it becomes politically challenging to do so. After all the 'best in the world' rhetoric, we'e all supposed to not talk about it now. So silly.
When has the government made that claim?
Do you agree with BJ that the UK has succeeded in avoiding the tragedy seen elsewhere in the world?
As regular readers may remember, I've defended the government's handling of the crisis, on the basis that most of the criticism is either hindsight-based, partisan nonsense, doesn't reflect the uncertain nature of the science at the time decisions were made, doesn't reflect the realities of what was possible, or was plain wrong.
However, I'm not going to defend them (or whoever made the decision) or this point, on which David H is quite right:
28 mins in, April 8th. I have posted this countless times. Care homes were being pressured into taking Covid positive patients from Hospitals. Is that the Governments fault, or dare I say it, that of the NHS?
As regular readers may remember, I've defended the government's handling of the crisis, on the basis that most of the criticism is either hindsight-based, partisan nonsense, doesn't reflect the uncertain nature of the science at the time decisions were made, doesn't reflect the realities of what was possible, or was plain wrong.
However, I'm not going to defend them (or whoever made the decision) or this point, on which David H is quite right:
I can only imagine that this fell into the category of 'protect the NHS'.
Protecting the NHS does seem to have been the priority from day 1. And understandably so: the stories of overwhelmed hospitals in Italy and Spain were horrendous. We seem to have avoided that by doing everything we could to keep people out of hospital. People still die, but elsewhere.
Keir is getting levels of accolades from the centrists rivalling Rory, Chuka, Swinson and CUK. I expect him to attain the same levels of political success too.
Haha yes!
Careful Keir, they're gonna build you up, break your heart, then walk away as if it never happened when you're at your lowest ebb
It was good to see Starmer puncture the 'we can't make international comparisons' bs with the govt's own slide.
Except the scientists themselves say that the comparison should be treated with caution because of different reporting protocols.
Then why do the govt make international comparisons?
They are not - they are demonstrating the trends of a number of countries.
That is the weakest argument mounted on PB in some time. Nicely done.
They actually point out why some lines are higher than others during the press conference.
Now, I've said all along that these daily press conferences are fucking stupid, but what the media wants the media gets.
Boris has been comparing us to other countries right up until the point it becomes politically challenging to do so. After all the 'best in the world' rhetoric, we'e all supposed to not talk about it now. So silly.
When has the government made that claim?
Do you agree with BJ that the UK has succeeded in avoiding the tragedy seen elsewhere in the world?
Specifically in terms of not having a meltdown in the NHS? Yes. But I do wonder about the "protect the NHS" mantra - it is a bit like the hospital with no patients in Yes Minister.
Do you agree with BJ that the UK has succeeded in avoiding the tragedy seen elsewhere in the world?
He didn't say that.
'We've so far succeeded in the first and most important task that we set ourselves as a nation, to avoid the tragedy that engulfed other parts of the world.'
Perhaps you can supply a translation for a simple Jock obviously lacking certain basic comprehension skills.
Remember that what did for IDS was not public perception -- the Conservative Party did rather well at elections under IDS -- it was the crushing of Tory backbench morale when every week their champion was carried out on his shield.
That is the danger for Boris. Not that the public is entranced by Starmer but that Conservative MPs see the PM lose most weeks and start to flirt with the idea of Rishi Sunak in Number 10.
I think that that is a good point.
Except that IDS was and is as thick as mince, very slow on his feet and was trying to deal with Blair in his pomp. Boris is not stupid, quite good on his feet and Starmer is no Blair. Yes, he will get the better of Boris sometimes, yes Boris will bluster but the kind of embarrassment that IDS generated is a very long way off and unlikely to happen to either of these 2.
IDS even led Labour in a few polls by 2003, personality wise he was quite close to Starmer, dull as ditchwater but seen as decent.
Boris is far more like Blair, a charismatic flashman.
The question is whether Covid and hard Brexit turns out to be Boris' Iraq War?
Niche view, I sense, but I don't think he will be doing Hard Brexit. Deal or extension IMO.
Boxed himself into a corner with his "renegotiation" of the Withdrawal Agreement. Northern Ireland situation is going to get very messy and he has done absolutely zero to mitigate it. In any case there is no soft Brexit available. It's very hard Brexit or car crash.
Extension I expect, based on no-one apart from Nigel Farage and Bill Cash giving a toss about the details. Covid-19 gives cover for kicking it into row Z.
Let's not forget that:
a) An extension under the current WA has to be agreed with the EU negotiators by end of July. After that any extension request would be a whole new international agreement betwen the UK and the EU and thus requiring the consent of all of the EU27 (plus Walloonia et.al.)
b) The government barred itself by statute in the EU(WA) Act from requesting an extension under the WA.
All the latest points are above the trendline, which supports my earlier squinting.
Infections should be on exponential decay I think, vaguely recall ~5%/day being the predicted. Guessing that's probably what we'll see the death count do going forward - it just looks a bit more linear than it is because recent numbers are more likely to be updated.
It was good to see Starmer puncture the 'we can't make international comparisons' bs with the govt's own slide.
Except the scientists themselves say that the comparison should be treated with caution because of different reporting protocols.
Then why do the govt make international comparisons?
They are not - they are demonstrating the trends of a number of countries.
That is the weakest argument mounted on PB in some time. Nicely done.
They actually point out why some lines are higher than others during the press conference.
Now, I've said all along that these daily press conferences are fucking stupid, but what the media wants the media gets.
Boris has been comparing us to other countries right up until the point it becomes politically challenging to do so. After all the 'best in the world' rhetoric, we'e all supposed to not talk about it now. So silly.
When has the government made that claim?
Do you agree with BJ that the UK has succeeded in avoiding the tragedy seen elsewhere in the world?
Specifically in terms of not having a meltdown in the NHS? Yes. But I do wonder about the "protect the NHS" mantra - it is a bit like the hospital with no patients in Yes Minister.
Plus we are told now that before the lockdown ends we need to ensure that the NHS capacity is not overwhelmed. While at the same time the Nightingale hospitals have been mothballed. Well they are NHS capacity aren't they? Of if they are taken into account and that's still the issue build ten more and then voila no capacity constraints.
As regular readers may remember, I've defended the government's handling of the crisis, on the basis that most of the criticism is either hindsight-based, partisan nonsense, doesn't reflect the uncertain nature of the science at the time decisions were made, doesn't reflect the realities of what was possible, or was plain wrong.
However, I'm not going to defend them (or whoever made the decision) or this point, on which David H is quite right:
I think this will end up being the biggest scandal.
Exactly what I said on the previous thread. Serious mistakes were made here. I think that the hypothesis that you ceased to be infectious after 7 days was partly to blame but jeez, this was stupid.
As regular readers may remember, I've defended the government's handling of the crisis, on the basis that most of the criticism is either hindsight-based, partisan nonsense, doesn't reflect the uncertain nature of the science at the time decisions were made, doesn't reflect the realities of what was possible, or was plain wrong.
However, I'm not going to defend them (or whoever made the decision) or this point, on which David H is quite right:
I think this will end up being the biggest scandal.
Massive reform of social care will be needed now. Starmer should be all over this. Get a modern day Beveridge up and running asap and do a major report etc.
Do you agree with BJ that the UK has succeeded in avoiding the tragedy seen elsewhere in the world?
He didn't say that.
'We've so far succeeded in the first and most important task that we set ourselves as a nation, to avoid the tragedy that engulfed other parts of the world.'
Perhaps you can supply a translation for a simple Jock obviously lacking certain basic comprehension skills.
Apologies, I though you were referring to another comment of his. You are right of course. However, that seems pretty uncontroversial as a point by Boris; we haven't had the overwhelming of the health service seen in Italy and to an extent in Spain and in parts of France.
Good to see Keir handing Johnson his ass at PMQs but a word of caution for me and my ilk. The chamber is almost empty atm - no noisy gallery to play to - and this suits the quiet probing style of an ex top prosecutor. When normal business is finally resumed (Oct?) expect Johnson to transform into what he fundamentally is above all else, a master of knockabout comedy, the man we know not as Johnson, or even as the PM, but as "Boris". Different ballgame when that happens. Will Keir then become the hapless stooge? The Phil Spencer to Johnson's Kirstie Allsopp? I'm not saying he will, but the risk is there and it's a real one.
The lack of an audience definitely puts the kybosh on BoJo's normal style. Like a good improvisational comic, he needs the laughs to cover the gaps where he works out what to say next. Without that, it's um, well... actually it's um, quite hard to, you know, listen to or respect.
Yes. Hence the Andrew Neil dodging etc. And what he's good at - emanating jolliness and good cheer - he really is good at. In fact I think it's an under-appreciated source of his electoral successes over the years. People who are not political, and not particularly deep either, find him a bit of a laugh and that is enough to secure their vote. I sense it's a couple of million, nationally.
As regular readers may remember, I've defended the government's handling of the crisis, on the basis that most of the criticism is either hindsight-based, partisan nonsense, doesn't reflect the uncertain nature of the science at the time decisions were made, doesn't reflect the realities of what was possible, or was plain wrong.
However, I'm not going to defend them (or whoever made the decision) or this point, on which David H is quite right:
I think this will end up being the biggest scandal.
Exactly what I said on the previous thread. Serious mistakes were made here. I think that the hypothesis that you ceased to be infectious after 7 days was partly to blame but jeez, this was stupid.
I posted earlier about my aged aunt - booted out of hospital at the earliest opportunity (pre-CV) and then booted out of (rehab) care home at the earliest opportunity.
The hospital => care home => discharge to home process is such a JiT system that they can't afford bottlenecks or everything else goes to pot. Esp if there is a crisis which pours more than usual numbers into the top of the funnel.
But they should have found somewhere else for them to go (Nightingales built then?) rather than into the most frail community we have, yes absolutely they should have.
It was good to see Starmer puncture the 'we can't make international comparisons' bs with the govt's own slide.
Except the scientists themselves say that the comparison should be treated with caution because of different reporting protocols.
Then why do the govt make international comparisons?
They are not - they are demonstrating the trends of a number of countries.
That is the weakest argument mounted on PB in some time. Nicely done.
They actually point out why some lines are higher than others during the press conference.
Now, I've said all along that these daily press conferences are fucking stupid, but what the media wants the media gets.
Boris has been comparing us to other countries right up until the point it becomes politically challenging to do so. After all the 'best in the world' rhetoric, we'e all supposed to not talk about it now. So silly.
When has the government made that claim?
Do you agree with BJ that the UK has succeeded in avoiding the tragedy seen elsewhere in the world?
Specifically in terms of not having a meltdown in the NHS? Yes. But I do wonder about the "protect the NHS" mantra - it is a bit like the hospital with no patients in Yes Minister.
They did go to far creating capacity in the NHS by cancelling operations etc but they can't be blamed for that as they were watching Italy, although the sending Covid positive patients home from hospital to care homes was nuts. Whether that was a national policy or what each hospital decided to do I don't know. I imagine Matt Hancock will get a question about that soon.
Do you agree with BJ that the UK has succeeded in avoiding the tragedy seen elsewhere in the world?
He didn't say that.
'We've so far succeeded in the first and most important task that we set ourselves as a nation, to avoid the tragedy that engulfed other parts of the world.'
Perhaps you can supply a translation for a simple Jock obviously lacking certain basic comprehension skills.
Apologies, I though you were referring to another comment of his. You are right of course. However, that seems pretty uncontroversial as a point by Boris; we haven't had the overwhelming of the health service seen in Italy and to an extent in Spain and in parts of France.
Because we succeeded in letting people die in care homes instead?
As regular readers may remember, I've defended the government's handling of the crisis, on the basis that most of the criticism is either hindsight-based, partisan nonsense, doesn't reflect the uncertain nature of the science at the time decisions were made, doesn't reflect the realities of what was possible, or was plain wrong.
However, I'm not going to defend them (or whoever made the decision) or this point, on which David H is quite right:
I think this will end up being the biggest scandal.
Massive reform of social care will be needed now. Starmer should be all over this. Get a modern day Beveridge up and running asap and do a major report etc.
And this is something even the US (or at least PA where my wife works mostly) got right, with care homes refusing to take back any patient once they left the home for hospitalization, regardless of test status.
No defence for readmission without numerous negative results over a period during which the patient has been in quarantine.
Starmer is more forensic than Corbyn certainly but has little charisma.
In terms of the league table of Coronavirus deaths in Europe, Spain, Italy and Belgium all have more deaths per million than the UK
We are 6th worst in the world after (in increasing death rate) Italy, Spain, Andorra, Belgium and San Marino.
Can you please stop using worldometers, it uses officially declared statistics which aren't comparable. The FT analysis is probably the only true measure we have right now.
"The aim of the EuroMOMO project (European monitoring of excess mortality for public health action) is to operate coordinated timely mortality monitoring and analyses in as many European countries as possible, using a standardized approach to ensure that signals are comparable between countries."
No, that measures a useless z-score which is a measurement of variation in current death rates vs the mean. Almost like a volatility index, nations who already have high volatility see a lower increase than those who don't. The raw numbers would be interesting but that doesn't seem to be available there at first glance, just the z score.
Do you agree with BJ that the UK has succeeded in avoiding the tragedy seen elsewhere in the world?
He didn't say that.
'We've so far succeeded in the first and most important task that we set ourselves as a nation, to avoid the tragedy that engulfed other parts of the world.'
Perhaps you can supply a translation for a simple Jock obviously lacking certain basic comprehension skills.
Apologies, I though you were referring to another comment of his. You are right of course. However, that seems pretty uncontroversial as a point by Boris; we haven't had the overwhelming of the health service seen in Italy and to an extent in Spain and in parts of France.
Because we succeeded in letting people die in care homes instead?
Good to see Keir handing Johnson his ass at PMQs but a word of caution for me and my ilk. The chamber is almost empty atm - no noisy gallery to play to - and this suits the quiet probing style of an ex top prosecutor. When normal business is finally resumed (Oct?) expect Johnson to transform into what he fundamentally is above all else, a master of knockabout comedy, the man we know not as Johnson, or even as the PM, but as "Boris". Different ballgame when that happens. Will Keir then become the hapless stooge? The Phil Spencer to Johnson's Kirstie Allsopp? I'm not saying he will, but the risk is there and it's a real one.
The lack of an audience definitely puts the kybosh on BoJo's normal style. Like a good improvisational comic, he needs the laughs to cover the gaps where he works out what to say next. Without that, it's um, well... actually it's um, quite hard to, you know, listen to or respect.
Yes. Hence the Andrew Neil dodging etc. And what he's good at - emanating jolliness and good cheer - he really is good at. In fact I think it's an under-appreciated source of his electoral successes over the years. People who are not political, and not particularly deep either, find him a bit of a laugh and that is enough to secure their vote. I sense it's a couple of million, nationally.
As regular readers may remember, I've defended the government's handling of the crisis, on the basis that most of the criticism is either hindsight-based, partisan nonsense, doesn't reflect the uncertain nature of the science at the time decisions were made, doesn't reflect the realities of what was possible, or was plain wrong.
However, I'm not going to defend them (or whoever made the decision) or this point, on which David H is quite right:
I think this will end up being the biggest scandal.
Massive reform of social care will be needed now. Starmer should be all over this. Get a modern day Beveridge up and running asap and do a major report etc.
Do you agree with BJ that the UK has succeeded in avoiding the tragedy seen elsewhere in the world?
He didn't say that.
'We've so far succeeded in the first and most important task that we set ourselves as a nation, to avoid the tragedy that engulfed other parts of the world.'
Perhaps you can supply a translation for a simple Jock obviously lacking certain basic comprehension skills.
Apologies, I though you were referring to another comment of his. You are right of course. However, that seems pretty uncontroversial as a point by Boris; we haven't had the overwhelming of the health service seen in Italy and to an extent in Spain and in parts of France.
We've gone from 'he didn't say that' to 'well maybe he did but what he meant was'.
Do you agree with BJ that the UK has succeeded in avoiding the tragedy seen elsewhere in the world?
He didn't say that.
'We've so far succeeded in the first and most important task that we set ourselves as a nation, to avoid the tragedy that engulfed other parts of the world.'
Perhaps you can supply a translation for a simple Jock obviously lacking certain basic comprehension skills.
Apologies, I though you were referring to another comment of his. You are right of course. However, that seems pretty uncontroversial as a point by Boris; we haven't had the overwhelming of the health service seen in Italy and to an extent in Spain and in parts of France.
Because we succeeded in letting people die in care homes instead?
Probably not. In Italy it wasn't 90-year olds who were overwhelming the healthcare system.
As regular readers may remember, I've defended the government's handling of the crisis, on the basis that most of the criticism is either hindsight-based, partisan nonsense, doesn't reflect the uncertain nature of the science at the time decisions were made, doesn't reflect the realities of what was possible, or was plain wrong.
However, I'm not going to defend them (or whoever made the decision) or this point, on which David H is quite right:
I think this will end up being the biggest scandal.
Massive reform of social care will be needed now. Starmer should be all over this. Get a modern day Beveridge up and running asap and do a major report etc.
A modern day Beveridge.
Is that like a Flat White or a Chai Latte?
All post lockdown modern day beverages are alcohol based, fact.
Do you agree with BJ that the UK has succeeded in avoiding the tragedy seen elsewhere in the world?
He didn't say that.
'We've so far succeeded in the first and most important task that we set ourselves as a nation, to avoid the tragedy that engulfed other parts of the world.'
Perhaps you can supply a translation for a simple Jock obviously lacking certain basic comprehension skills.
Apologies, I though you were referring to another comment of his. You are right of course. However, that seems pretty uncontroversial as a point by Boris; we haven't had the overwhelming of the health service seen in Italy and to an extent in Spain and in parts of France.
We've gone from 'he didn't say that' to 'well maybe he did but what he meant was'.
That was quick.
Not at all, I've always assumed the obvious meaning of what he said. What other interpretation could you possibly make, given that the context was this?
Today the number of Covid hospital admissions is falling. The number of patients in ICU is falling.
We have so far succeeded in the first and most important task we set ourselves as a nation. To avoid the tragedy that engulfed other parts of the world.
Because at no stage has our NHS been overwhelmed. No patient went without a ventilator. No patient was deprived of intensive care. We have five of the seven projected Nightingale wards.
You are not seriously suggesting that that doesn't mean what I said it means, are you? Really?
Good to see Keir handing Johnson his ass at PMQs but a word of caution for me and my ilk. The chamber is almost empty atm - no noisy gallery to play to - and this suits the quiet probing style of an ex top prosecutor. When normal business is finally resumed (Oct?) expect Johnson to transform into what he fundamentally is above all else, a master of knockabout comedy, the man we know not as Johnson, or even as the PM, but as "Boris". Different ballgame when that happens. Will Keir then become the hapless stooge? The Phil Spencer to Johnson's Kirstie Allsopp? I'm not saying he will, but the risk is there and it's a real one.
Oh and fpt re the armed forces' political affiliations.
My guess is that eg @Dura_Ace and I are near enough at polar opposites of the political spectrum and hence his point is quite well proved - if people care at all (most don't, just like the general public), then there is a broad mix.
Right, and I'm believing it. Although I really would expect the top layers to lean Tory. At Sandhurst, for example, surely little support there for "progressive" causes. I bet it's a pretty conservative (in both senses) place. If this is not the case then many many dramas I have watched are presenting a false view.
If you look at the demographic of squaddies you are looking at the (hitherto) Lab northern heartlands pretty much.
If you are looking at the "top layers" there is certainly an element which leans Tory. But there is an element which leans Lab also. The army has democratised to quite an extent which is a consequence of a rapidly shrinking force and huge competition to join certainly in the "officer class". That said, prob best not to apply to HCav unless you are an OE.
Not all like this any more (first few minutes esp):
Do you agree with BJ that the UK has succeeded in avoiding the tragedy seen elsewhere in the world?
He didn't say that.
'We've so far succeeded in the first and most important task that we set ourselves as a nation, to avoid the tragedy that engulfed other parts of the world.'
Perhaps you can supply a translation for a simple Jock obviously lacking certain basic comprehension skills.
Apologies, I though you were referring to another comment of his. You are right of course. However, that seems pretty uncontroversial as a point by Boris; we haven't had the overwhelming of the health service seen in Italy and to an extent in Spain and in parts of France.
We've gone from 'he didn't say that' to 'well maybe he did but what he meant was'.
That was quick.
Not at all, I've always assumed the obvious meaning of what he said.
Apart from 5 minutes ago when you claimed he didn't say it.
Slow? That's fast, much faster than I expected. The longer it stays linear the better too.
If that trend continues there'd be no deaths reported next Sunday.
I see hints of it leveling off unfortunately, at least when I squint at the hospital deaths line plot.
You mean like this?
Did you just fit a linear trendline to prove that the trend is linear ?!
Less valuable without a model comparison, but it doesn't look like a terrible fit.
A linear regression is a reasonable enough approximation to anything on a sufficiently short scale
It's fine to use it to state the average decline in deaths over the last x days, but I think we can be fairly confident deaths are not going to follow a linear trend (I'd like to see the theory that explains why they would!) so it's not useful as a predictive tool.
Anyway, enough of discussing relevant stuff. Why aren't we arguing over the rights and wrongs - and correct pronunciation - of Elon Musk's apparent choice of name for his new baby? ("X Æ A-12")
This is what a system without furlough looks like. That really was a stroke of genius. There will still be a great deal of pain of course but it could have been so much worse.
I have some sympathy with the experts at the press briefing, but they are giving too much scientific information to the journalists. There's no point discussing relativity with a slug. We had another one yesterday when they complained the death toll was going upwards. I thought it was very good of the woman to merely explain that it won't go down short of some of the dead getting better.
There's a famous scene in' Father Jack' where Father Ted is explaining to Father Dougal the difference between 'small' and "far away."
"No," Father Dougal said. "I still don't get it. Ted."
Do you agree with BJ that the UK has succeeded in avoiding the tragedy seen elsewhere in the world?
He didn't say that.
'We've so far succeeded in the first and most important task that we set ourselves as a nation, to avoid the tragedy that engulfed other parts of the world.'
Perhaps you can supply a translation for a simple Jock obviously lacking certain basic comprehension skills.
Apologies, I though you were referring to another comment of his. You are right of course. However, that seems pretty uncontroversial as a point by Boris; we haven't had the overwhelming of the health service seen in Italy and to an extent in Spain and in parts of France.
We've gone from 'he didn't say that' to 'well maybe he did but what he meant was'.
That was quick.
Not at all, I've always assumed the obvious meaning of what he said.
Apart from 5 minutes ago when you claimed he didn't say it.
Yes, I was pointing out that Boris had never said (as Sir Keir claimed) that it was a success that we had 29K deaths.
Comments
All this four years down the line, that said, so plenty of events to come one way and the other.
Their fall in intensive care numbers has flat lined
This (incidentally) is what the numbers looked like yesterday
Fall in deaths per day is also showing evidence of flat lining
In terms of a macro target to prioritise tackling that, I would be looking at something like this:
By a defined date (eg. within 7 days from now?), 100% of all staff and residents have been tested in care homes where there has been a single positive test or a single untested death where the virus was suspected within the past fortnight, and that say 90% of all staff and residents in all other care homes should have been tested.
However, if he's going to set a new macro target, he should start by setting one that defines when the UK will exceed 100,000 on average for a whole week, or even just for a second day.
My guess is that eg @Dura_Ace and I are near enough at polar opposites of the political spectrum and hence his point is quite well proved - if people care at all (most don't, just like the general public), then there is a broad mix.
i.e. 24.855 fewer per day, on average.
Speaking of which,
https://twitter.com/cricketwyvern/status/1258024223525801985?s=20
https://twitter.com/cricketwyvern/status/1258024225673183237?s=20
https://twitter.com/cricketwyvern/status/1258026554497683458?s=20
Vinnie Jones is not crushing Gazza's jewels, they just happened to fall into VJ's inadvertently cupped hand.
200k shouldn't be too distorting. Its much easier to get from 100k to 200k than it is to get from 5k to 100k.
If you can't be arsed to listen to the scientists then your ignorance may be bliss to you but it doesn't make you wise.
Yesterday the April 30th figure for deaths was 40. Today it is 48.
In another 7 days time it will have in all liekly hood another 15-20 deaths added to it. Taking it to the same level as the preceding week or so worth's of data.
If that trend continues there'd be no deaths reported next Sunday.
Now, I've said all along that these daily press conferences are fucking stupid, but what the media wants the media gets.
https://www.alzheimer-europe.org/var/plain_site/storage/original/application/f5253c2c572b6e0c28b45922149d2289.pdf
Starmer may benefit from a helpful media, though. Whereas Corbyn did his own thing for the consumption of his own voter base, Starmer is asking questions that journalists can build stories around. Did Hancock engage in sleight-of-hand to hit his 100k target on May 1st? Is the UK doing measurably worse than comparable countries? Are NHS doctors buying their own PPE even though the government denies a shortage? These are classic stories that have a low impact on their own, but together suggest a government that is not doing terribly well, and not being terribly honest about it.
Odds are, nobody is going to pin anything on Hancock. But maybe there's a whistleblower, maybe some alternative figures show something else, and he has to answer more questions and maybe he slips up. If the warehouses never had a "stock-out" of PPE, then there's a simple follow-up: why wasn't the PPE being distributed? The reason centrist journalists like Starmer is that by asking these things in PMQs he gives them a better story: that story about the NHS doctors buying masks from China directly stops being a page 11 story about the NHS supply chain and becomes a page 1-3 story about how the PM lied about shortages.
If we're 4.5 years off from another GE, then attritional warfare makes sense. The last decade has seen enormous churn in the front bench, and experienced ministers are in short supply. All governments run out of steam eventually, not so much being toppled by an insurgency as collapsing under their own weight, and chiselling away at the foundations isn't a bad approach to take in those circumstances.
It is nonetheless good news, because it means that the virus is coming under control in the wider population which feeds into the hospital stats. It's the prevalence in the wider population that matters to the question of when we can start to get back to normal.
Care homes by contrast are effectively small isolated clusters and as soon as their issues of testing and lack of PPE are properly addressed then surely the numbers will start to come down fast there too.
ie No need have kittens just yet over it.
Sorry, that's intensely misleading. The New Zealand case to which you are referring was about the government's health minister, not an epidemiologist.
However, I'm not going to defend them (or whoever made the decision) or this point, on which David H is quite right:
https://twitter.com/DavidHerdson/status/1257996057872609280
It's very easy to fall down the hole of just-remove-this-point-because... Hence the 7 day trend line being a good tool.
If you are looking at the "top layers" there is certainly an element which leans Tory. But there is an element which leans Lab also. The army has democratised to quite an extent which is a consequence of a rapidly shrinking force and huge competition to join certainly in the "officer class". That said, prob best not to apply to HCav unless you are an OE.
Not all like this any more (first few minutes esp):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5gcdSxjV34
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000h2pc
Protecting the NHS does seem to have been the priority from day 1. And understandably so: the stories of overwhelmed hospitals in Italy and Spain were horrendous. We seem to have avoided that by doing everything we could to keep people out of hospital.
People still die, but elsewhere.
Careful Keir, they're gonna build you up, break your heart, then walk away as if it never happened when you're at your lowest ebb
Three decimal places - that's worse than Sunil's ELBOW!
https://twitter.com/byHeatherLong/status/1258017244916973569
Perhaps you can supply a translation for a simple Jock obviously lacking certain basic comprehension skills.
a) An extension under the current WA has to be agreed with the EU negotiators by end of July. After that any extension request would be a whole new international agreement betwen the UK and the EU and thus requiring the consent of all of the EU27 (plus Walloonia et.al.)
b) The government barred itself by statute in the EU(WA) Act from requesting an extension under the WA.
The hospital => care home => discharge to home process is such a JiT system that they can't afford bottlenecks or everything else goes to pot. Esp if there is a crisis which pours more than usual numbers into the top of the funnel.
But they should have found somewhere else for them to go (Nightingales built then?) rather than into the most frail community we have, yes absolutely they should have.
No defence for readmission without numerous negative results over a period during which the patient has been in quarantine.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-52188820
Is that like a Flat White or a Chai Latte?
That was quick.
Today the number of Covid hospital admissions is falling. The number of patients in ICU is falling.
We have so far succeeded in the first and most important task we set ourselves as a nation. To avoid the tragedy that engulfed other parts of the world.
Because at no stage has our NHS been overwhelmed. No patient went without a ventilator. No patient was deprived of intensive care. We have five of the seven projected Nightingale wards.
You are not seriously suggesting that that doesn't mean what I said it means, are you? Really?
It's fine to use it to state the average decline in deaths over the last x days, but I think we can be fairly confident deaths are not going to follow a linear trend (I'd like to see the theory that explains why they would!) so it's not useful as a predictive tool.
Anyway, enough of discussing relevant stuff. Why aren't we arguing over the rights and wrongs - and correct pronunciation - of Elon Musk's apparent choice of name for his new baby? ("X Æ A-12")
There's a famous scene in' Father Jack' where Father Ted is explaining to Father Dougal the difference between 'small' and "far away."
"No," Father Dougal said. "I still don't get it. Ted."