If you are a man under 70 you are still less likely to die of it than a woman over 80. The only reason BAME people are more affected is they tend to live in big cities, BAME people in rural areas are less affected than white people in big cities.
So my point stands, a line has to be drawn somewhere and 70 is it.
Over 70s are retired and do not need to work, they can live off their pension and just go out when absolutely necessary
Individual calculated risks is the only way to go, otherwise you are condemning people who don't fit your blunt instrument division.
That you talk about 'not needing to work' is a big tell. Kill off those who are not quite at pension age and it will save a lot of money. The old? Well those over seventy are going to die soon anyway, the real saving is if we can harvest a lot of those who are getting ready to draw their pensions for twenty plus years. That is the calculation isn't it?
How many times does it take to get the idea through that this is not just about deaths, anyway? It's about hospitalisations and the likelihood of long term health issues as much anything.
No, the calculation is we need to get people back to work to get the economy going again and to pay the extra tax we are going to need and it is only once you get over 70 that you get even to a 10% death rate from catching Covid.
When 95% of 60 to 70s will survive Covid it is not a very efficient way of killing them off even if a government was that way inclined
This is not just about deaths (ad infinitum).
In any case, a 10% death rate? Do you even realise what you are saying? That a figure just short of this shocking level of deaths is fine?
I sure as hell would rather exit the workforce rather than pay taxes to feather the nest of those whose calculation is of that order.
The death rate for 60 to 69s is around 3% for those who catch it, not 10%.
However if you are over 60 and wish to exit the workforce albeit with a slightly reduced pension fine, it is under 50s we really need to get back to work
Again, it's not just about deaths.
In any case, you do realise that for millions the only thing they have is their state pension? They can't just 'take less'.
I'm lucky and I could do so quite easily but it's a luxury open to few. I could take my pension in January or in the months after that, pay off the small amount left on my mortgage, keep myself out of it for a couple of years and then re-enter the workforce if I need to for a few years. I am very lucky in being able to do that but think of those who are not.
Your personal circumstances explain your extreme position on extending the lockdown, similar to Mortimer.
I'm not the extremist here, everything I've said about what the response of education will be has come to fruition. There was disbelief about what I've said about things from parental concerns, to demands for PPE (which I'd mentioned before unions and such), on the disconnect between the economy and schools in the current situation and so on.
I'd call it being accurate.
My position is for those who aren't as fortunate as myself. I have this luxury but, unlike some others, I'm not going to relax in that knowledge.
No. Every post you write is another of saying, “extend the lockdown”. Yet that’s not a sustainable position.
We need to find a way forward that reconciles liberty, economy and safety.
The lockdown is being extended. Isn't it the default position?
You need to look closer, I've said we needed to lock down earlier and harder. Then we wouldn't need to keep it going now. We didn't so we have to. Blame those who claimed that people wouldn't want to lock down too early or the early government response that seemed to follow that line. That was why we are where we are now and those are the people who should be being called to account for it.
Also, you seem to have missed what I've posted again and again (in double figures by now, surely). Namely -
End it by consent. Those who feel that they are safe enough to unlock can do so and be supported via the healthcare system. Those who don't can be supported economically. It's fair on both sides of the argument. I'm not demanding that the young should stay indoors indefinitely (or pensioners), I'm not demanding that everyone needs to get back to work. I would call that a middle ground position but, heigh ho, if that's what an extremist position is from where you are standing, I wonder just where you are standing.
Ending it by consent? People are free to stay inside if they want to, they don't need a government directive to do that.
From the Telegraph: The new slogan – “Stay alert, Control the virus, Save lives” – has been drawn up by Isaac Levido, the Australian strategist, and Ben Guerin, a 25-year-old New Zealander who advised the Conservatives on their social media strategy during last year’s election. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/05/09/stay-alert-boris-johnsons-new-message-nation/
This slogan is different from the one the Mail has earlier in this thread so the story could be wrong but if not, then we are paying government money to Boris's election gurus and opponents might see this as questionable or even corrupt.
If you are a man under 70 you are still less likely to die of it than a woman over 80. The only reason BAME people are more affected is they tend to live in big cities, BAME people in rural areas are less affected than white people in big cities.
So my point stands, a line has to be drawn somewhere and 70 is it.
Over 70s are retired and do not need to work, they can live off their pension and just go out when absolutely necessary
Individual calculated risks is the only way to go, otherwise you are condemning people who don't fit your blunt instrument division.
That you talk about 'not needing to work' is a big tell. Kill off those who are not quite at pension age and it will save a lot of money. The old? Well those over seventy are going to die soon anyway, the real saving is if we can harvest a lot of those who are getting ready to draw their pensions for twenty plus years. That is the calculation isn't it?
How many times does it take to get the idea through that this is not just about deaths, anyway? It's about hospitalisations and the likelihood of long term health issues as much anything.
No, the calculation is we need to get people back to work to get the economy going again and to pay the extra tax we are going to need and it is only once you get over 70 that you get even to a 10% death rate from catching Covid.
When 95% of 60 to 70s will survive Covid it is not a very efficient way of killing them off even if a government was that way inclined
This is not just about deaths (ad infinitum).
In any case, a 10% death rate? Do you even realise what you are saying? That a figure just short of this shocking level of deaths is fine?
I sure as hell would rather exit the workforce rather than pay taxes to feather the nest of those whose calculation is of that order.
The death rate for 60 to 69s is around 3% for those who catch it, not 10%.
However if you are over 60 and wish to exit the workforce albeit with a slightly reduced pension fine, it is under 50s we really need to get back to work
Again, it's not just about deaths.
In any case, you do realise that for millions the only thing they have is their state pension? They can't just 'take less'.
I'm lucky and I could do so quite easily but it's a luxury open to few. I could take my pension in January or in the months after that, pay off the small amount left on my mortgage, keep myself out of it for a couple of years and then re-enter the workforce if I need to for a few years. I am very lucky in being able to do that but think of those who are not.
Your personal circumstances explain your extreme position on extending the lockdown, similar to Mortimer.
I'm not the extremist here, everything I've said about what the response of education will be has come to fruition. There was disbelief about what I've said about things from parental concerns, to demands for PPE (which I'd mentioned before unions and such), on the disconnect between the economy and schools in the current situation and so on.
I'd call it being accurate.
My position is for those who aren't as fortunate as myself. I have this luxury but, unlike some others, I'm not going to relax in that knowledge.
No. Every post you write is another of saying, “extend the lockdown”. Yet that’s not a sustainable position.
We need to find a way forward that reconciles liberty, economy and safety.
The lockdown is being extended. Isn't it the default position?
You need to look closer, I've said we needed to lock down earlier and harder. Then we wouldn't need to keep it going now. We didn't so we have to. Blame those who claimed that people wouldn't want to lock down too early or the early government response that seemed to follow that line. That was why we are where we are now and those are the people who should be being called to account for it.
Also, you seem to have missed what I've posted again and again (in double figures by now, surely). Namely -
End it by consent. Those who feel that they are safe enough to unlock can do so and be supported via the healthcare system. Those who don't can be supported economically. It's fair on both sides of the argument. I'm not demanding that the young should stay indoors indefinitely (or pensioners), I'm not demanding that everyone needs to get back to work. I would call that a middle ground position but, heigh ho, if that's what an extremist position is from where you are standing, I wonder just where you are standing.
Ending it by consent? People are free to stay inside if they want to, they don't need a government directive to do that.
Then you have a shambles. Government needs to keep control over this and just standing back and seeing who does what is not going to cut it.
In other news, It's felt like Sunday all day. Is it Sunday tomorrow as well?
From the Telegraph: The new slogan – “Stay alert, Control the virus, Save lives” – has been drawn up by Isaac Levido, the Australian strategist, and Ben Guerin, a 25-year-old New Zealander who advised the Conservatives on their social media strategy during last year’s election. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/05/09/stay-alert-boris-johnsons-new-message-nation/
This slogan is different from the one the Mail has earlier in this thread so the story could be wrong but if not, then we are paying government money to Boris's election gurus and opponents might see this as questionable or even corrupt.
Its not new news...From March...
Johnson rehires election chief to sharpen coronavirus messaging
Following criticism over mixed messages and selective briefings in recent weeks, the prime minister and his key adviser Dominic Cummings recruited Isaac Levido, 36, who ran the Tory general election campaign in December.
I saw a bloke I used to play football with earlier, he works at Edmonton hospital doing the x-Rays. He said the crazy thing about Covid is some people who should be half dead from their lung x-Ray results are sitting up in bed saying they feel fine, whereas others pass away
If you are a man under 70 you are still less likely to die of it than a woman over 80. The only reason BAME people are more affected is they tend to live in big cities, BAME people in rural areas are less affected than white people in big cities.
So my point stands, a line has to be drawn somewhere and 70 is it.
Over 70s are retired and do not need to work, they can live off their pension and just go out when absolutely necessary
Individual calculated risks is the only way to go, otherwise you are condemning people who don't fit your blunt instrument division.
That you talk about 'not needing to work' is a big tell. Kill off those who are not quite at pension age and it will save a lot of money. The old? Well those over seventy are going to die soon anyway, the real saving is if we can harvest a lot of those who are getting ready to draw their pensions for twenty plus years. That is the calculation isn't it?
How many times does it take to get the idea through that this is not just about deaths, anyway? It's about hospitalisations and the likelihood of long term health issues as much anything.
No, the calculation is we need to get people back to work to get the economy going again and to pay the extra tax we are going to need and it is only once you get over 70 that you get even to a 10% death rate from catching Covid.
When 95% of 60 to 70s will survive Covid it is not a very efficient way of killing them off even if a government was that way inclined
This is not just about deaths (ad infinitum).
In any case, a 10% death rate? Do you even realise what you are saying? That a figure just short of this shocking level of deaths is fine?
I sure as hell would rather exit the workforce rather than pay taxes to feather the nest of those whose calculation is of that order.
The death rate for 60 to 69s is around 3% for those who catch it, not 10%.
However if you are over 60 and wish to exit the workforce albeit with a slightly reduced pension fine, it is under 50s we really need to get back to work
Again, it's not just about deaths.
In any case, you do realise that for millions the only thing they have is their state pension? They can't just 'take less'.
I'm lucky and I could do so quite easily but it's a luxury open to few. I could take my pension in January or in the months after that, pay off the small amount left on my mortgage, keep myself out of it for a couple of years and then re-enter the workforce if I need to for a few years. I am very lucky in being able to do that but think of those who are not.
Your personal circumstances explain your extreme position on extending the lockdown, similar to Mortimer.
I'm not the extremist here, everything I've said about what the response of education will be has come to fruition. There was disbelief about what I've said about things from parental concerns, to demands for PPE (which I'd mentioned before unions and such), on the disconnect between the economy and schools in the current situation and so on.
I'd call it being accurate.
My position is for those who aren't as fortunate as myself. I have this luxury but, unlike some others, I'm not going to relax in that knowledge.
No. Every post you write is another of saying, “extend the lockdown”. Yet that’s not a sustainable position.
We need to find a way forward that reconciles liberty, economy and safety.
The lockdown is being extended. Isn't it the default position?
You need to look closer, I've said we needed to lock down earlier and harder. Then we wouldn't need to keep it going now. We didn't so we have to. Blame those who claimed that people wouldn't want to lock down too early or the early government response that seemed to follow that line. That was why we are where we are now and those are the people who should be being called to account for it.
Also, you seem to have missed what I've posted again and again (in double figures by now, surely). Namely -
End it by consent. Those who feel that they are safe enough to unlock can do so and be supported via the healthcare system. Those who don't can be supported economically. It's fair on both sides of the argument. I'm not demanding that the young should stay indoors indefinitely (or pensioners), I'm not demanding that everyone needs to get back to work. I would call that a middle ground position but, heigh ho, if that's what an extremist position is from where you are standing, I wonder just where you are standing.
Ending it by consent? People are free to stay inside if they want to, they don't need a government directive to do that.
Correct. Ending it by consent is just No Lockdown.
If that’s his position, then I’m surprised. Not the impression I got!
If you are a man under 70 you are still less likely to die of it than a woman over 80. The only reason BAME people are more affected is they tend to live in big cities, BAME people in rural areas are less affected than white people in big cities.
So my point stands, a line has to be drawn somewhere and 70 is it.
Over 70s are retired and do not need to work, they can live off their pension and just go out when absolutely necessary
Individual calculated risks is the only way to go, otherwise you are condemning people who don't fit your blunt instrument division.
That you talk about 'not needing to work' is a big tell. Kill off those who are not quite at pension age and it will save a lot of money. The old? Well those over seventy are going to die soon anyway, the real saving is if we can harvest a lot of those who are getting ready to draw their pensions for twenty plus years. That is the calculation isn't it?
How many times does it take to get the idea through that this is not just about deaths, anyway? It's about hospitalisations and the likelihood of long term health issues as much anything.
No, the calculation is we need to get people back to work to get the economy going again and to pay the extra tax we are going to need and it is only once you get over 70 that you get even to a 10% death rate from catching Covid.
When 95% of 60 to 70s will survive Covid it is not a very efficient way of killing them off even if a government was that way inclined
This is not just about deaths (ad infinitum).
In any case, a 10% death rate? Do you even realise what you are saying? That a figure just short of this shocking level of deaths is fine?
I sure as hell would rather exit the workforce rather than pay taxes to feather the nest of those whose calculation is of that order.
The death rate for 60 to 69s is around 3% for those who catch it, not 10%.
However if you are over 60 and wish to exit the workforce albeit with a slightly reduced pension fine, it is under 50s we really need to get back to work
Again, it's not just about deaths.
In any case, you do realise that for millions the only thing they have is their state pension? They can't just 'take less'.
I'm lucky and I could do so quite easily but it's a luxury open to few. I could take my pension in January or in the months after that, pay off the small amount left on my mortgage, keep myself out of it for a couple of years and then re-enter the workforce if I need to for a few years. I am very lucky in being able to do that but think of those who are not.
Your personal circumstances explain your extreme position on extending the lockdown, similar to Mortimer.
I'm not the extremist here, everything I've said about what the response of education will be has come to fruition. There was disbelief about what I've said about things from parental concerns, to demands for PPE (which I'd mentioned before unions and such), on the disconnect between the economy and schools in the current situation and so on.
I'd call it being accurate.
My position is for those who aren't as fortunate as myself. I have this luxury but, unlike some others, I'm not going to relax in that knowledge.
No. Every post you write is another of saying, “extend the lockdown”. Yet that’s not a sustainable position.
We need to find a way forward that reconciles liberty, economy and safety.
The lockdown is being extended. Isn't it the default position?
You need to look closer, I've said we needed to lock down earlier and harder. Then we wouldn't need to keep it going now. We didn't so we have to. Blame those who claimed that people wouldn't want to lock down too early or the early government response that seemed to follow that line. That was why we are where we are now and those are the people who should be being called to account for it.
Also, you seem to have missed what I've posted again and again (in double figures by now, surely). Namely -
End it by consent. Those who feel that they are safe enough to unlock can do so and be supported via the healthcare system. Those who don't can be supported economically. It's fair on both sides of the argument. I'm not demanding that the young should stay indoors indefinitely (or pensioners), I'm not demanding that everyone needs to get back to work. I would call that a middle ground position but, heigh ho, if that's what an extremist position is from where you are standing, I wonder just where you are standing.
Ending it by consent? People are free to stay inside if they want to, they don't need a government directive to do that.
Correct. Ending it by consent is just No Lockdown.
If that’s his position, then I’m surprised. Not the impression I got!
I'm still here, you know.
I'd said it again and again. I'm not sure we are at the stage I mentioned yet, though. The figures aren't good enough. Maybe by the beginning of June but it's too early to tell.
The major concern is that it creates a two tier society but it's at least an attempt to get around the either/or. It should only be for a relatively short period anyway (months rather than years).
From the Telegraph: The new slogan – “Stay alert, Control the virus, Save lives” – has been drawn up by Isaac Levido, the Australian strategist, and Ben Guerin, a 25-year-old New Zealander who advised the Conservatives on their social media strategy during last year’s election. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/05/09/stay-alert-boris-johnsons-new-message-nation/
This slogan is different from the one the Mail has earlier in this thread so the story could be wrong but if not, then we are paying government money to Boris's election gurus and opponents might see this as questionable or even corrupt.
Its new news...From March...
Johnson rehires election chief to sharpen coronavirus messaging
OK but it still looks dodgy. I'd not be surprised if it is raised at PMQs.
On another subject, as others have said about the MoS version, it really is a terrible slogan. Stay alert for what? A shadowy virus-like figure lurking in the bushes? Control the virus how? Saving lives is good but what is it you want me to do?
I saw a bloke I used to play football with earlier, he works at Edmonton hospital doing the x-Rays. He said the crazy thing about Covid is some people who should be half dead from their lung x-Ray results are sitting up in bed saying they feel fine, whereas others pass away
I saw a bloke I used to play football with earlier, he works at Edmonton hospital doing the x-Rays. He said the crazy thing about Covid is some people who should be half dead from their lung x-Ray results are sitting up in bed saying they feel fine, whereas others pass away
From the Telegraph: The new slogan – “Stay alert, Control the virus, Save lives” – has been drawn up by Isaac Levido, the Australian strategist, and Ben Guerin, a 25-year-old New Zealander who advised the Conservatives on their social media strategy during last year’s election. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/05/09/stay-alert-boris-johnsons-new-message-nation/
This slogan is different from the one the Mail has earlier in this thread so the story could be wrong but if not, then we are paying government money to Boris's election gurus and opponents might see this as questionable or even corrupt.
Its new news...From March...
Johnson rehires election chief to sharpen coronavirus messaging
OK but it still looks dodgy. I'd not be surprised if it is raised at PMQs.
On another subject, as others have said about the MoS version, it really is a terrible slogan. Stay alert for what? A shadowy virus-like figure lurking in the bushes? Control the virus how? Saving lives is good but what is it you want me to do?
Political parties / government hiring people who worked on their campaign...I think that is pretty standard operating procedure. Nepotism is middle word of most political hires. Given he was hired 6 weeks ago and mentioned in the Guardian, I somehow doubt it escaped the notice of Starmer.
As for the slogan, it isn't exactly "Get Brexit Done" or "Take Back Control".
If you are a man under 70 you are still less likely to die of it than a woman over 80. The only reason BAME people are more affected is they tend to live in big cities, BAME people in rural areas are less affected than white people in big cities.
So my point stands, a line has to be drawn somewhere and 70 is it.
Over 70s are retired and do not need to work, they can live off their pension and just go out when absolutely necessary
Individual calculated risks is the only way to go, otherwise you are condemning people who don't fit your blunt instrument division.
That you talk about 'not needing to work' is a big tell. Kill off those who are not quite at pension age and it will save a lot of money. The old? Well those over seventy are going to die soon anyway, the real saving is if we can harvest a lot of those who are getting ready to draw their pensions for twenty plus years. That is the calculation isn't it?
How many times does it take to get the idea through that this is not just about deaths, anyway? It's about hospitalisations and the likelihood of long term health issues as much anything.
No, the calculation is we need to get people back to work to get the economy going again and to pay the extra tax we are going to need and it is only once you get over 70 that you get even to a 10% death rate from catching Covid.
When 95% of 60 to 70s will survive Covid it is not a very efficient way of killing them off even if a government was that way inclined
This is not just about deaths (ad infinitum).
In any case, a 10% death rate? Do you even realise what you are saying? That a figure just short of this shocking level of deaths is fine?
I sure as hell would rather exit the workforce rather than pay taxes to feather the nest of those whose calculation is of that order.
The death rate for 60 to 69s is around 3% for those who catch it, not 10%.
However if you are over 60 and wish to exit the workforce albeit with a slightly reduced pension fine, it is under 50s we really need to get back to work
Again, it's not just about deaths.
In any case, you do realise that for millions the only thing they have is their state pension? They can't just 'take less'.
I'm lucky and I could do so quite easily but it's a luxury open to few. I could take my pension in January or in the months after that, pay off the small amount left on my mortgage, keep myself out of it for a couple of years and then re-enter the workforce if I need to for a few years. I am very lucky in being able to do that but think of those who are not.
Your personal circumstances explain your extreme position on extending the lockdown, similar to Mortimer.
I'm not the extremist here, everything I've said about what the response of education will be has come to fruition. There was disbelief about what I've said about things from parental concerns, to demands for PPE (which I'd mentioned before unions and such), on the disconnect between the economy and schools in the current situation and so on.
I'd call it being accurate.
My position is for those who aren't as fortunate as myself. I have this luxury but, unlike some others, I'm not going to relax in that knowledge.
No. Every post you write is another of saying, “extend the lockdown”. Yet that’s not a sustainable position.
We need to find a way forward that reconciles liberty, economy and safety.
The lockdown is being extended. Isn't it the default position?
You need to look closer, I've said we needed to lock down earlier and harder. Then we wouldn't need to keep it going now. We didn't so we have to. Blame those who claimed that people wouldn't want to lock down too early or the early government response that seemed to follow that line. That was why we are where we are now and those are the people who should be being called to account for it.
Also, you seem to have missed what I've posted again and again (in double figures by now, surely). Namely -
End it by consent. Those who feel that they are safe enough to unlock can do so and be supported via the healthcare system. Those who don't can be supported economically. It's fair on both sides of the argument. I'm not demanding that the young should stay indoors indefinitely (or pensioners), I'm not demanding that everyone needs to get back to work. I would call that a middle ground position but, heigh ho, if that's what an extremist position is from where you are standing, I wonder just where you are standing.
Ending it by consent? People are free to stay inside if they want to, they don't need a government directive to do that.
Then you have a shambles. Government needs to keep control over this and just standing back and seeing who does what is not going to cut it.
In other news, It's felt like Sunday all day. Is it Sunday tomorrow as well?
I'm not sure how that would be a shambles. If people want to stay in, they are more than welcome to do so.
There's a major semantic problem in the new government slogan; it is very, very difficult to control a virus, especially one like this. It's a message that invites failure.
Suppress the virus would be better, even if still difficult to achieve it's memorably alliterative. 'Stay alert/suppress the virus/save lives'.
There's a major semantic problem in the new government slogan; it is very, very difficult to control a virus, especially one like this. It's a message that invites failure.
Suppress the virus would be better, even if still inviting failure it's memorably alliterative. 'Stay alert/suppress the virus/save lives'.
The "stay alert" part is worse....this is a silent killer, it isn't exactly the same as looking out for a bloke coming on the tube with a rucksack that has wires coming out of it and is ticking. What am I staying alert for, somebody coughing their guts up? Bit late by then.
You really want that bit to tell people to keep social distancing, take precautions and don't engage in risky behaviour...
If you are a man under 70 you are still less likely to die of it than a woman over 80. The only reason BAME people are more affected is they tend to live in big cities, BAME people in rural areas are less affected than white people in big cities.
So my point stands, a line has to be drawn somewhere and 70 is it.
Over 70s are retired and do not need to work, they can live off their pension and just go out when absolutely necessary
Individual calculated risks is the only way to go, otherwise you are condemning people who don't fit your blunt instrument division.
That you talk about 'not needing to work' is a big tell. Kill off those who are not quite at pension age and it will save a lot of money. The old? Well those over seventy are going to die soon anyway, the real saving is if we can harvest a lot of those who are getting ready to draw their pensions for twenty plus years. That is the calculation isn't it?
How many times does it take to get the idea through that this is not just about deaths, anyway? It's about hospitalisations and the likelihood of long term health issues as much anything.
No, the calculation is we need to get people back to work to get the economy going again and to pay the extra tax we are going to need and it is only once you get over 70 that you get even to a 10% death rate from catching Covid.
When 95% of 60 to 70s will survive Covid it is not a very efficient way of killing them off even if a government was that way inclined
This is not just about deaths (ad infinitum).
In any case, a 10% death rate? Do you even realise what you are saying? That a figure just short of this shocking level of deaths is fine?
I sure as hell would rather exit the workforce rather than pay taxes to feather the nest of those whose calculation is of that order.
The death rate for 60 to 69s is around 3% for those who catch it, not 10%.
However if you are over 60 and wish to exit the workforce albeit with a slightly reduced pension fine, it is under 50s we really need to get back to work
Again, it's not just about deaths.
In any case, you do realise that for millions the only thing they have is their state pension? They can't just 'take less'.
I'm lucky and I could do so quite easily but it's a luxury open to few. I could take my pension in January or in the months after that, pay off the small amount left on my mortgage, keep myself out of it for a couple of years and then re-enter the workforce if I need to for a few years. I am very lucky in being able to do that but think of those who are not.
Your personal circumstances explain your extreme position on extending the lockdown, similar to Mortimer.
I'm not the extremist here, everything I've said about what the response of education will be has come to fruition. There was disbelief about what I've said about things from parental concerns, to demands for PPE (which I'd mentioned before unions and such), on the disconnect between the economy and schools in the current situation and so on.
I'd call it being accurate.
My position is for those who aren't as fortunate as myself. I have this luxury but, unlike some others, I'm not going to relax in that knowledge.
No. Every post you write is another of saying, “extend the lockdown”. Yet that’s not a sustainable position.
We need to find a way forward that reconciles liberty, economy and safety.
The lockdown is being extended. Isn't it the default position?
You need to look closer, I've said we needed to lock down earlier and harder. Then we wouldn't need to keep it going now. We didn't so we have to. Blame those who claimed that people wouldn't want to lock down too early or the early government response that seemed to follow that line. That was why we are where we are now and those are the people who should be being called to account for it.
Also, you seem to have missed what I've posted again and again (in double figures by now, surely). Namely -
End it by consent. Those who feel that they are safe enough to unlock can do so and be supported via the healthcare system. Those who don't can be supported economically. It's fair on both sides of the argument. I'm not demanding that the young should stay indoors indefinitely (or pensioners), I'm not demanding that everyone needs to get back to work. I would call that a middle ground position but, heigh ho, if that's what an extremist position is from where you are standing, I wonder just where you are standing.
Ending it by consent? People are free to stay inside if they want to, they don't need a government directive to do that.
Correct. Ending it by consent is just No Lockdown.
If that’s his position, then I’m surprised. Not the impression I got!
I'm still here, you know.
I'd said it again and again. I'm not sure we are at the stage I mentioned yet, though. The figures aren't good enough. Maybe by the beginning of June but it's too early to tell.
The major concern is that it creates a two tier society but it's at least an attempt to get around the either/or. It should only be for a relatively short period anyway (months rather than years).
The Dr David Katz model is based on separate approaches for four groups based on risk. I have said several times that something along those lines is probably the way forward.
We manage a lot of public policy by age/risk/ability. We don’t let anyone drive a car, for example.
It’s a risk-based approach and I don’t see what else we could or should do.
If you are a man under 70 you are still less likely to die of it than a woman over 80. The only reason BAME people are more affected is they tend to live in big cities, BAME people in rural areas are less affected than white people in big cities.
So my point stands, a line has to be drawn somewhere and 70 is it.
Over 70s are retired and do not need to work, they can live off their pension and just go out when absolutely necessary
Individual calculated risks is the only way to go, otherwise you are condemning people who don't fit your blunt instrument division.
That you talk about 'not needing to work' is a big tell. Kill off those who are not quite at pension age and it will save a lot of money. The old? Well those over seventy are going to die soon anyway, the real saving is if we can harvest a lot of those who are getting ready to draw their pensions for twenty plus years. That is the calculation isn't it?
How many times does it take to get the idea through that this is not just about deaths, anyway? It's about hospitalisations and the likelihood of long term health issues as much anything.
No, the calculation is we need to get people back to work to get the economy going again and to pay the extra tax we are going to need and it is only once you get over 70 that you get even to a 10% death rate from catching Covid.
When 95% of 60 to 70s will survive Covid it is not a very efficient way of killing them off even if a government was that way inclined
This is not just about deaths (ad infinitum).
In any case, a 10% death rate? Do you even realise what you are saying? That a figure just short of this shocking level of deaths is fine?
I sure as hell would rather exit the workforce rather than pay taxes to feather the nest of those whose calculation is of that order.
The death rate for 60 to 69s is around 3% for those who catch it, not 10%.
However if you are over 60 and wish to exit the workforce albeit with a slightly reduced pension fine, it is under 50s we really need to get back to work
Again, it's not just about deaths.
In any case, you do realise that for millions the only thing they have is their state pension? They can't just 'take less'.
I'm lucky and I could do so quite easily but it's a luxury open to few. I could take my pension in January or in the months after that, pay off the small amount left on my mortgage, keep myself out of it for a couple of years and then re-enter the workforce if I need to for a few years. I am very lucky in being able to do that but think of those who are not.
Your personal circumstances explain your extreme position on extending the lockdown, similar to Mortimer.
I'm not the extremist here, everything I've said about what the response of education will be has come to fruition. There was disbelief about what I've said about things from parental concerns, to demands for PPE (which I'd mentioned before unions and such), on the disconnect between the economy and schools in the current situation and so on.
I'd call it being accurate.
My position is for those who aren't as fortunate as myself. I have this luxury but, unlike some others, I'm not going to relax in that knowledge.
No. Every post you write is another of saying, “extend the lockdown”. Yet that’s not a sustainable position.
We need to find a way forward that reconciles liberty, economy and safety.
The lockdown is being extended. Isn't it the default position?
You need to look closer, I've said we needed to lock down earlier and harder. Then we wouldn't need to keep it going now. We didn't so we have to. Blame those who claimed that people wouldn't want to lock down too early or the early government response that seemed to follow that line. That was why we are where we are now and those are the people who should be being called to account for it.
Also, you seem to have missed what I've posted again and again (in double figures by now, surely). Namely -
End it by consent. Those who feel that they are safe enough to unlock can do so and be supported via the healthcare system. Those who don't can be supported economically. It's fair on both sides of the argument. I'm not demanding that the young should stay indoors indefinitely (or pensioners), I'm not demanding that everyone needs to get back to work. I would call that a middle ground position but, heigh ho, if that's what an extremist position is from where you are standing, I wonder just where you are standing.
Ending it by consent? People are free to stay inside if they want to, they don't need a government directive to do that.
Then you have a shambles. Government needs to keep control over this and just standing back and seeing who does what is not going to cut it.
In other news, It's felt like Sunday all day. Is it Sunday tomorrow as well?
I'm not sure how that would be a shambles. If people want to stay in, they are more than welcome to do so.
It's an abdication of government that is the concern, it needs to be framed as an active choice and one that is promoted and supported by government intervention. If someone gets ill, they get treated without faffing around because they don't fit the 111 criteria. If someone is in danger of losing their home, they get help as well (extended payment holiday and interest frozen or something). Economically, I'm not sure that it would cost as much as extended furlough but others may have better figures on that.
If you are a man under 70 you are still less likely to die of it than a woman over 80. The only reason BAME people are more affected is they tend to live in big cities, BAME people in rural areas are less affected than white people in big cities.
So my point stands, a line has to be drawn somewhere and 70 is it.
Over 70s are retired and do not need to work, they can live off their pension and just go out when absolutely necessary
Individual calculated risks is the only way to go, otherwise you are condemning people who don't fit your blunt instrument division.
That you talk about 'not needing to work' is a big tell. Kill off those who are not quite at pension age and it will save a lot of money. The old? Well those over seventy are going to die soon anyway, the real saving is if we can harvest a lot of those who are getting ready to draw their pensions for twenty plus years. That is the calculation isn't it?
How many times does it take to get the idea through that this is not just about deaths, anyway? It's about hospitalisations and the likelihood of long term health issues as much anything.
No, the calculation is we need to get people back to work to get the economy going again and to pay the extra tax we are going to need and it is only once you get over 70 that you get even to a 10% death rate from catching Covid.
When 95% of 60 to 70s will survive Covid it is not a very efficient way of killing them off even if a government was that way inclined
This is not just about deaths (ad infinitum).
In any case, a 10% death rate? Do you even realise what you are saying? That a figure just short of this shocking level of deaths is fine?
I sure as hell would rather exit the workforce rather than pay taxes to feather the nest of those whose calculation is of that order.
The death rate for 60 to 69s is around 3% for those who catch it, not 10%.
However if you are over 60 and wish to exit the workforce albeit with a slightly reduced pension fine, it is under 50s we really need to get back to work
Again, it's not just about deaths.
In any case, you do realise that for millions the only thing they have is their state pension? They can't just 'take less'.
I'm lucky and I could do so quite easily but it's a luxury open to few. I could take my pension in January or in the months after that, pay off the small amount left on my mortgage, keep myself out of it for a couple of years and then re-enter the workforce if I need to for a few years. I am very lucky in being able to do that but think of those who are not.
Your personal circumstances explain your extreme position on extending the lockdown, similar to Mortimer.
I'm not the extremist here, everything I've said about what the response of education will be has come to fruition. There was disbelief about what I've said about things from parental concerns, to demands for PPE (which I'd mentioned before unions and such), on the disconnect between the economy and schools in the current situation and so on.
I'd call it being accurate.
My position is for those who aren't as fortunate as myself. I have this luxury but, unlike some others, I'm not going to relax in that knowledge.
No. Every post you write is another of saying, “extend the lockdown”. Yet that’s not a sustainable position.
We need to find a way forward that reconciles liberty, economy and safety.
The lockdown is being extended. Isn't it the default position?
You need to look closer, I've said we needed to lock down earlier and harder. Then we wouldn't need to keep it going now. We didn't so we have to. Blame those who claimed that people wouldn't want to lock down too early or the early government response that seemed to follow that line. That was why we are where we are now and those are the people who should be being called to account for it.
Also, you seem to have missed what I've posted again and again (in double figures by now, surely). Namely -
End it by consent. Those who feel that they are safe enough to unlock can do so and be supported via the healthcare system. Those who don't can be supported economically. It's fair on both sides of the argument. I'm not demanding that the young should stay indoors indefinitely (or pensioners), I'm not demanding that everyone needs to get back to work. I would call that a middle ground position but, heigh ho, if that's what an extremist position is from where you are standing, I wonder just where you are standing.
Ending it by consent? People are free to stay inside if they want to, they don't need a government directive to do that.
Then you have a shambles. Government needs to keep control over this and just standing back and seeing who does what is not going to cut it.
In other news, It's felt like Sunday all day. Is it Sunday tomorrow as well?
I'm not sure how that would be a shambles. If people want to stay in, they are more than welcome to do so.
Lockdown is a very blunt instrument. No-one wants it. Unfortunately because of mistakes made by the government earlier the infection rate is still running very high and therefore exiting it now carries a very high risk of the epidemic going back out of control. It's not optional. Either we all need to maintain strict social isolation or there's no need for it.
From the Telegraph: The new slogan – “Stay alert, Control the virus, Save lives” – has been drawn up by Isaac Levido, the Australian strategist, and Ben Guerin, a 25-year-old New Zealander who advised the Conservatives on their social media strategy during last year’s election. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/05/09/stay-alert-boris-johnsons-new-message-nation/
This slogan is different from the one the Mail has earlier in this thread so the story could be wrong but if not, then we are paying government money to Boris's election gurus and opponents might see this as questionable or even corrupt.
Its new news...From March...
Johnson rehires election chief to sharpen coronavirus messaging
OK but it still looks dodgy. I'd not be surprised if it is raised at PMQs.
On another subject, as others have said about the MoS version, it really is a terrible slogan. Stay alert for what? A shadowy virus-like figure lurking in the bushes? Control the virus how? Saving lives is good but what is it you want me to do?
Political parties / government hiring people who worked on their campaign...I think that is pretty standard operating procedure. Nepotism is middle word of most political hires. Given he was hired 6 weeks ago and mentioned in the Guardian, I somehow doubt it escaped the notice of Starmer.
As for the slogan, it isn't exactly "Get Brexit Done" or "Take Back Control".
Perhaps but there has been just the one PMQs with the actual PM so there is still time, unless SKS knows Labour did the same thing.
If you are a man under 70 you are still less likely to die of it than a woman over 80. The only reason BAME people are more affected is they tend to live in big cities, BAME people in rural areas are less affected than white people in big cities.
So my point stands, a line has to be drawn somewhere and 70 is it.
Over 70s are retired and do not need to work, they can live off their pension and just go out when absolutely necessary
Individual calculated risks is the only way to go, otherwise you are condemning people who don't fit your blunt instrument division.
That you talk about 'not needing to work' is a big tell. Kill off those who are not quite at pension age and it will save a lot of money. The old? Well those over seventy are going to die soon anyway, the real saving is if we can harvest a lot of those who are getting ready to draw their pensions for twenty plus years. That is the calculation isn't it?
How many times does it take to get the idea through that this is not just about deaths, anyway? It's about hospitalisations and the likelihood of long term health issues as much anything.
No, the calculation is we need to get people back to work to get the economy going again and to pay the extra tax we are going to need and it is only once you get over 70 that you get even to a 10% death rate from catching Covid.
When 95% of 60 to 70s will survive Covid it is not a very efficient way of killing them off even if a government was that way inclined
This is not just about deaths (ad infinitum).
In any case, a 10% death rate? Do you even realise what you are saying? That a figure just short of this shocking level of deaths is fine?
I sure as hell would rather exit the workforce rather than pay taxes to feather the nest of those whose calculation is of that order.
The death rate for 60 to 69s is around 3% for those who catch it, not 10%.
However if you are over 60 and wish to exit the workforce albeit with a slightly reduced pension fine, it is under 50s we really need to get back to work
Again, it's not just about deaths.
In any case, you do realise that for millions the only thing they have is their state pension? They can't just 'take less'.
I'm lucky and I could do so quite easily but it's a luxury open to few. I could take my pension in January or in the months after that, pay off the small amount left on my mortgage, keep myself out of it for a couple of years and then re-enter the workforce if I need to for a few years. I am very lucky in being able to do that but think of those who are not.
Your personal circumstances explain your extreme position on extending the lockdown, similar to Mortimer.
I'm not the extremist here, everything I've said about what the response of education will be has come to fruition. There was disbelief about what I've said about things from parental concerns, to demands for PPE (which I'd mentioned before unions and such), on the disconnect between the economy and schools in the current situation and so on.
I'd call it being accurate.
My position is for those who aren't as fortunate as myself. I have this luxury but, unlike some others, I'm not going to relax in that knowledge.
No. Every post you write is another of saying, “extend the lockdown”. Yet that’s not a sustainable position.
We need to find a way forward that reconciles liberty, economy and safety.
The lockdown is being extended. Isn't it the default position?
You need to look closer, I've said we needed to lock down earlier and harder. Then we wouldn't need to keep it going now. We didn't so we have to. Blame those who claimed that people wouldn't want to lock down too early or the early government response that seemed to follow that line. That was why we are where we are now and those are the people who should be being called to account for it.
Also, you seem to have missed what I've posted again and again (in double figures by now, surely). Namely -
End it by consent. Those who feel that they are safe enough to unlock can do so and be supported via the healthcare system. Those who don't can be supported economically. It's fair on both sides of the argument. I'm not demanding that the young should stay indoors indefinitely (or pensioners), I'm not demanding that everyone needs to get back to work. I would call that a middle ground position but, heigh ho, if that's what an extremist position is from where you are standing, I wonder just where you are standing.
Ending it by consent? People are free to stay inside if they want to, they don't need a government directive to do that.
Correct. Ending it by consent is just No Lockdown.
If that’s his position, then I’m surprised. Not the impression I got!
I'm still here, you know.
I'd said it again and again. I'm not sure we are at the stage I mentioned yet, though. The figures aren't good enough. Maybe by the beginning of June but it's too early to tell.
The major concern is that it creates a two tier society but it's at least an attempt to get around the either/or. It should only be for a relatively short period anyway (months rather than years).
The Dr David Katz model is based on separate approaches for four groups based on risk. I have said several times that something along those lines is probably the way forward.
We manage a lot of public policy by age/risk/ability. We don’t let anyone drive a car, for example.
It’s a risk-based approach and I don’t see what else we could or should do.
I had a rough look at what he said, I need to read up on it more. I know that he thinks the Sweden approach is too hands off.
There's a major semantic problem in the new government slogan; it is very, very difficult to control a virus, especially one like this. It's a message that invites failure.
Suppress the virus would be better, even if still inviting failure it's memorably alliterative. 'Stay alert/suppress the virus/save lives'.
The "stay alert" part is worse....this is a silent killer, it isn't exactly the same as looking out for a bloke coming on the tube with a rucksack that has wires coming out of it and is ticking. What am I staying alert for, somebody coughing their guts up? Bit late by then.
You really want that bit to tell people to keep social distancing, take precautions and don't engage in risky behaviour...
'Stay apart'? Still not great but you can at least act on it.
There's a major semantic problem in the new government slogan; it is very, very difficult to control a virus, especially one like this. It's a message that invites failure.
Suppress the virus would be better, even if still inviting failure it's memorably alliterative. 'Stay alert/suppress the virus/save lives'.
The "stay alert" part is worse....this is a silent killer, it isn't exactly the same as looking out for a bloke coming on the tube with a rucksack that has wires coming out of it and is ticking. What am I staying alert for, somebody coughing their guts up? Bit late by then.
You really want that bit to tell people to keep social distancing, take precautions and don't engage in risky behaviour...
'Stay apart'? Still not great but you can at least act on it.
"Keep your distance. Save lives." is actionable and has a desirable measurable outcome. Can drop the "control the virus" - not sure if that's an action (how do we control it?) or an an outcome.
It's an abdication of government that is the concern, it needs to be framed as an active choice and one that is promoted and supported by government intervention. If someone gets ill, they get treated without faffing around because they don't fit the 111 criteria. If someone is in danger of losing their home, they get help as well (extended payment holiday and interest frozen or something). Economically, I'm not sure that it would cost as much as extended furlough but others may have better figures on that.
I still don't see why people who are opposed to the lockdown ending can't just simply stay inside afterwards.
Yes, it was European law that defined red = bad, green = good.
Give me a break.
Not something that has been common practice for basically since the beginning of time...cos there are biological reasons e.g. hot objects are red in colour and also red is the colour of blood.
Not every f##king thing is to do with the EU. I heard before we joined the EU, traffic lights were Blue for stop...
There's a major semantic problem in the new government slogan; it is very, very difficult to control a virus, especially one like this. It's a message that invites failure.
Suppress the virus would be better, even if still inviting failure it's memorably alliterative. 'Stay alert/suppress the virus/save lives'.
The "stay alert" part is worse....this is a silent killer, it isn't exactly the same as looking out for a bloke coming on the tube with a rucksack that has wires coming out of it and is ticking. What am I staying alert for, somebody coughing their guts up? Bit late by then.
You really want that bit to tell people to keep social distancing, take precautions and don't engage in risky behaviour...
'Stay apart'? Still not great but you can at least act on it.
"Keep your distance. Save lives." is actionable and has a desirable measurable outcome. Can drop the "control the virus" - not sure if that's an action (how do we control it?) or an an outcome.
You can control it at a personal level by maintaining your distance.
I wonder what the venn diagram intersect is of those ranting about a slogan that isn't even official and those going on a 10km bike ride and exercise sunbathe in a London park all this afternoon might be?
There's a major semantic problem in the new government slogan; it is very, very difficult to control a virus, especially one like this. It's a message that invites failure.
Suppress the virus would be better, even if still inviting failure it's memorably alliterative. 'Stay alert/suppress the virus/save lives'.
The "stay alert" part is worse....this is a silent killer, it isn't exactly the same as looking out for a bloke coming on the tube with a rucksack that has wires coming out of it and is ticking. What am I staying alert for, somebody coughing their guts up? Bit late by then.
You really want that bit to tell people to keep social distancing, take precautions and don't engage in risky behaviour...
'Stay apart'? Still not great but you can at least act on it.
"Keep your distance. Save lives." is actionable and has a desirable measurable outcome. Can drop the "control the virus" - not sure if that's an action (how do we control it?) or an an outcome.
In a three part slogan (and everyone with a GCSE in slogans knows about 3-part lists) you want two actions and one reason. Perm any two actions from Wash Your Hands, Work From Home, Wear A Mask, Keep Your Distance, Ride A Bike or whatever else the government wants us to do after tomorrow, and end with Save Lives, or even Control the Virus, but now as an outcome rather than an action.
There's a major semantic problem in the new government slogan; it is very, very difficult to control a virus, especially one like this. It's a message that invites failure.
Suppress the virus would be better, even if still inviting failure it's memorably alliterative. 'Stay alert/suppress the virus/save lives'.
The "stay alert" part is worse....this is a silent killer, it isn't exactly the same as looking out for a bloke coming on the tube with a rucksack that has wires coming out of it and is ticking. What am I staying alert for, somebody coughing their guts up? Bit late by then.
You really want that bit to tell people to keep social distancing, take precautions and don't engage in risky behaviour...
'Stay apart'? Still not great but you can at least act on it.
"Keep your distance. Save lives." is actionable and has a desirable measurable outcome. Can drop the "control the virus" - not sure if that's an action (how do we control it?) or an an outcome.
You can control it at a personal level by maintaining your distance.
Maybe. In that case I would go for "Keep your distance. Reduce Infections. Save Lives". More concrete.
There's a major semantic problem in the new government slogan; it is very, very difficult to control a virus, especially one like this. It's a message that invites failure.
Suppress the virus would be better, even if still inviting failure it's memorably alliterative. 'Stay alert/suppress the virus/save lives'.
The "stay alert" part is worse....this is a silent killer, it isn't exactly the same as looking out for a bloke coming on the tube with a rucksack that has wires coming out of it and is ticking. What am I staying alert for, somebody coughing their guts up? Bit late by then.
You really want that bit to tell people to keep social distancing, take precautions and don't engage in risky behaviour...
'Stay apart'? Still not great but you can at least act on it.
"Keep your distance. Save lives." is actionable and has a desirable measurable outcome. Can drop the "control the virus" - not sure if that's an action (how do we control it?) or an an outcome.
You can control it at a personal level by maintaining your distance.
Maybe. In that case I would go for "Keep your distance. Reduce Infections. Save Lives". More concrete.
It's an abdication of government that is the concern, it needs to be framed as an active choice and one that is promoted and supported by government intervention. If someone gets ill, they get treated without faffing around because they don't fit the 111 criteria. If someone is in danger of losing their home, they get help as well (extended payment holiday and interest frozen or something). Economically, I'm not sure that it would cost as much as extended furlough but others may have better figures on that.
I still don't see why people who are opposed to the lockdown ending can't just simply stay inside afterwards.
I guess because they want people to be paid by the government to stay at home.
It's an abdication of government that is the concern, it needs to be framed as an active choice and one that is promoted and supported by government intervention. If someone gets ill, they get treated without faffing around because they don't fit the 111 criteria. If someone is in danger of losing their home, they get help as well (extended payment holiday and interest frozen or something). Economically, I'm not sure that it would cost as much as extended furlough but others may have better figures on that.
I still don't see why people who are opposed to the lockdown ending can't just simply stay inside afterwards.
Think about the status quo, there is furlough and other things ensuring that people can stay at home. Take those away and you have flipped completely to an open everything strategy. Lockdown is not just physical safety, it is also economic safety. Those at the lower end of the socioeconomic scale are suffering the most. They will also be the ones who, against their own judgement, will feel compelled to re-enter the workforce at a time of risk. Studies now are showing the way that deprivation is a key risk in this disease. So support them economically.
It's an abdication of government that is the concern, it needs to be framed as an active choice and one that is promoted and supported by government intervention. If someone gets ill, they get treated without faffing around because they don't fit the 111 criteria. If someone is in danger of losing their home, they get help as well (extended payment holiday and interest frozen or something). Economically, I'm not sure that it would cost as much as extended furlough but others may have better figures on that.
I still don't see why people who are opposed to the lockdown ending can't just simply stay inside afterwards.
Think about the status quo, there is furlough and other things ensuring that people can stay at home. Take those away and you have flipped completely to an open everything strategy. Lockdown is not just physical safety, it is also economic safety. Those at the lower end of the socioeconomic scale are suffering the most. They will also be the ones who, against their own judgement, will feel compelled to re-enter the workforce at a time of risk. Studies now are showing the way that deprivation is a key risk in this disease. So support them economically.
And just how long do you expect the exchequer to keep paying the wages of millions of workers while they do nothing? If you are a talking about a difference of a couple of weeks then that's fair enough, but beyond that?
It will lead to a greater globalisation of office work. If you don't need people to turn up to the office, you can recruit the best and cheapest from anywhere. Your talent pool is no longer limited to commuting distance.
I think it'll lead to globalization of everything. If your meetings are all on the internet, who cares where the vendor is?
Is there an intersect between left leaning bien pensants bemoaning the number of people out in the parks and on the streets, and those who are on their bikes doing 20km 'exercise hours' before returning home to bake some more soda bread?
It's an abdication of government that is the concern, it needs to be framed as an active choice and one that is promoted and supported by government intervention. If someone gets ill, they get treated without faffing around because they don't fit the 111 criteria. If someone is in danger of losing their home, they get help as well (extended payment holiday and interest frozen or something). Economically, I'm not sure that it would cost as much as extended furlough but others may have better figures on that.
I still don't see why people who are opposed to the lockdown ending can't just simply stay inside afterwards.
Think about the status quo, there is furlough and other things ensuring that people can stay at home. Take those away and you have flipped completely to an open everything strategy. Lockdown is not just physical safety, it is also economic safety. Those at the lower end of the socioeconomic scale are suffering the most. They will also be the ones who, against their own judgement, will feel compelled to re-enter the workforce at a time of risk. Studies now are showing the way that deprivation is a key risk in this disease. So support them economically.
And just how long do you expect the exchequer to keep paying the wages of millions of workers while they do nothing? If you are a talking about a difference of a couple of weeks then that's fair enough, but beyond that?
These are low paid workers on the whole, it isn’t going to blow a hole in finances anywhere near the way that businesses being supported by the furlough scheme has so far, Most will be young enough to want to get out anyway and feel safe to do so.
Were there 600 deaths yesterday, or is it another journalist who doesn't understand the numbers?
It's difficult to focus on the numbers when you are whizzing past people on your way to your essential work muttering to yourself about the number of people who are not in their houses.
Were there 600 deaths yesterday, or is it another journalist who doesn't understand the numbers?
It's difficult to focus on the numbers when you are whizzing past people on your way to your essential work muttering to yourself about the number of people who are not in their houses.
On topic, she's competent but she doesn't bring a swing state, appeal to swing voters, appeal to the base, or excite anybody.
I think the main argument for her is that Biden may have promised Jim Clyburn that he'll pick a black woman, and if he's going to pick a black woman, Kamala is a safe, low-risk choice. That's all plausible. But 28% is too high. If you believe in the premise, look at some of the other black women who served in the Obama administration, like Susan Rice.
Is this widespread party in the parks a London thing? Or has the rest of the country also been partaking?
In my local small town it was still pretty quiet, so it may just have been the big cities. (Average age there is probably around 50 compared to 35 in London).
It would be interesting to know how many people between the ages of 70 and 75 who didn't have any health conditions have died from the virus. Of course few people that age don't have any health conditions, so the sample size may be small.
It would be interesting to know how many people between the ages of 70 and 75 who didn't have any health conditions have died from the virus. Of course few people that age don't have any health conditions, so the sample size may be small.
I posted a slide the other day with this info, but i cant remember what it was for 70s. For less than 40, it is basically bugger all.
Is this widespread party in the parks a London thing? Or has the rest of the country also been partaking?
Next-door neighbour but one was doing building work on his own property. He's weighing up whether to sell it once he's done but his wife loves the location.
It would be interesting to know how many people between the ages of 70 and 75 who didn't have any health conditions have died from the virus. Of course few people that age don't have any health conditions, so the sample size may be small.
I think about 95% of 70-80 year olds that have died had pre-existing health conditions. Under 60, no health condition, talking about 300-400 deaths, 70-80, i think its 400-500 who have died.
It will lead to a greater globalisation of office work. If you don't need people to turn up to the office, you can recruit the best and cheapest from anywhere. Your talent pool is no longer limited to commuting distance.
I think it'll lead to globalization of everything. If your meetings are all on the internet, who cares where the vendor is?
It comes down to controlling your IP. Workers in the same legal jurisdiction can be controlled more readily than external contractors in (say) China.
It would be interesting to know how many people between the ages of 70 and 75 who didn't have any health conditions have died from the virus. Of course few people that age don't have any health conditions, so the sample size may be small.
I think about 95% of 70-80 year olds that have died had pre-existing health conditions. Under 60, no health condition, talking about 300-400 deaths, 70-80, i think its 400-500 who have died.
The stats have been very reassuring on a personal level, those 3 stones I lost since 2018 should help too
I wonder what the venn diagram intersect is of those ranting about a slogan that isn't even official and those going on a 10km bike ride and exercise sunbathe in a London park all this afternoon might be?
A 10km bike ride is very short I think ! Was very hot today on my 10k run. Exercise has always been allowed, and more than average were on walks and bikes today - but I did wonder where everyone was off to in their cars.
It will lead to a greater globalisation of office work. If you don't need people to turn up to the office, you can recruit the best and cheapest from anywhere. Your talent pool is no longer limited to commuting distance.
I think it'll lead to globalization of everything. If your meetings are all on the internet, who cares where the vendor is?
It comes down to controlling your IP. Workers in the same legal jurisdiction can be controlled more readily than external contractors in (say) China.
Not really convinced about the IP thing though. How often do people really manage to sue their ex-employees for stealing IP? If they've got the data, because they're remote, and they can either sell it or take it with them to their next job, how often can you actually pin a theft on a particular person?
The type of theoretical question I'm interested in, (but probably not anyone else), is how we would have dealt with this crisis at different points in time, such as for example 1995 or 1980.
It will lead to a greater globalisation of office work. If you don't need people to turn up to the office, you can recruit the best and cheapest from anywhere. Your talent pool is no longer limited to commuting distance.
I think it'll lead to globalization of everything. If your meetings are all on the internet, who cares where the vendor is?
It comes down to controlling your IP. Workers in the same legal jurisdiction can be controlled more readily than external contractors in (say) China.
Not really convinced about the IP thing though. How often do people really manage to sue their ex-employees for stealing IP? If they've got the data, because they're remote, and they can either sell it or take it with them to their next job, how often can you actually pin a theft on a particular person?
I used to be an equity analyst: we'd write reports on why we thoughts certain stocks would go up or down.
When analysts changed firms they'd take all their IP with them: Excel models, notes, etc.
A similar thing would happen with systematic traders - only sometimes they'd actually take production code they'd written.
It always seems strange to me that upper middle class people, well any IP they acquire on their job, that's fine, that's their property. But if someone in a more technical or menial role did it... THEFT!
Were there 600 deaths yesterday, or is it another journalist who doesn't understand the numbers?
600 were reported yesterday. The number who died yesterday was probably around 150 (using @cricketwyvern's figures).
Journalists really are having a crap crisis, aren't they?
What it shows is they don't do any research about issues they are suppose to be informing the public about.
Yes but I think we should beware of going too far in the other direction which is to write off the 450-ish of the 600 deaths announced who did not die yesterday. They are still dead, and it is likely that in the fullness of time more will be added to yesterday's (or now the day before's) number.
The type of theoretical question I'm interested in, (but probably not anyone else), is how we would have dealt with this crisis at different points in time, such as for example 1995 or 1980.
Much the same, I'd have thought, although it might have taken a bit longer to sequence the virus, that has not materially affected the public health response. Maybe not the furlough programme.
HIV/Aids and BSE/CJD (Mad Cow Disease) hit during that time frame; H1N1 ten years ago.
There's a major semantic problem in the new government slogan; it is very, very difficult to control a virus, especially one like this. It's a message that invites failure.
Suppress the virus would be better, even if still inviting failure it's memorably alliterative. 'Stay alert/suppress the virus/save lives'.
The "stay alert" part is worse....this is a silent killer, it isn't exactly the same as looking out for a bloke coming on the tube with a rucksack that has wires coming out of it and is ticking. What am I staying alert for, somebody coughing their guts up? Bit late by then.
You really want that bit to tell people to keep social distancing, take precautions and don't engage in risky behaviour...
'Stay apart'? Still not great but you can at least act on it.
"Keep your distance. Save lives." is actionable and has a desirable measurable outcome. Can drop the "control the virus" - not sure if that's an action (how do we control it?) or an an outcome.
It will lead to a greater globalisation of office work. If you don't need people to turn up to the office, you can recruit the best and cheapest from anywhere. Your talent pool is no longer limited to commuting distance.
I think it'll lead to globalization of everything. If your meetings are all on the internet, who cares where the vendor is?
It is quite funny how everyone thinks the Coronavirus crisis will lead to their favoured political outcome.
It will lead to a greater globalisation of office work. If you don't need people to turn up to the office, you can recruit the best and cheapest from anywhere. Your talent pool is no longer limited to commuting distance.
I think it'll lead to globalization of everything. If your meetings are all on the internet, who cares where the vendor is?
It comes down to controlling your IP. Workers in the same legal jurisdiction can be controlled more readily than external contractors in (say) China.
Not really convinced about the IP thing though. How often do people really manage to sue their ex-employees for stealing IP? If they've got the data, because they're remote, and they can either sell it or take it with them to their next job, how often can you actually pin a theft on a particular person?
I used to be an equity analyst: we'd write reports on why we thoughts certain stocks would go up or down.
When analysts changed firms they'd take all their IP with them: Excel models, notes, etc.
A similar thing would happen with systematic traders - only sometimes they'd actually take production code they'd written.
It always seems strange to me that upper middle class people, well any IP they acquire on their job, that's fine, that's their property. But if someone in a more technical or menial role did it... THEFT!
Of course, most employers say you can't do that and write it into their contracts.
The type of theoretical question I'm interested in, (but probably not anyone else), is how we would have dealt with this crisis at different points in time, such as for example 1995 or 1980.
1995: Blockbusters is an essential service.
People come into the office on staggered days and only for 2 days a week.
They then do work from home on the other days through the blower and the fax machine and Windows 95 computers and save it on floppy discs or CD-ROM for next week.
The brave try a bit of email and it takes off faster, but it's slow.
On topic, she's competent but she doesn't bring a swing state, appeal to swing voters, appeal to the base, or excite anybody.
I think the main argument for her is that Biden may have promised Jim Clyburn that he'll pick a black woman, and if he's going to pick a black woman, Kamala is a safe, low-risk choice. That's all plausible. But 28% is too high. If you believe in the premise, look at some of the other black women who served in the Obama administration, like Susan Rice.
I think this is another reason that's driving Michelle Obama's price so low too.
The hypothesis that outdoor COVID transmission is very low risk is being tested to destruction this weekend.
My local nature reserve was apparently absolutely rammed this afternoon. At least two close neighbours have had friends around chatting and drinking all afternoon in their garden.
The outdoor risk is low if you're fleetingingly passing other people by. That was always the basis of the "exercise on your own or with household" recommendation. Following other people outside your household puts you into a potential vapour trail, and as for the shared vectors that "drinks with friends" will almost inevitably involve, that's a different category of risk altogether.
Comments
It is game on.
https://twitter.com/iainmartin1/status/1259247280114356224
https://www.worldometers.info/demographics/life-expectancy/
From the Telegraph: The new slogan – “Stay alert, Control the virus, Save lives” – has been drawn up by Isaac Levido, the Australian strategist, and Ben Guerin, a 25-year-old New Zealander who advised the Conservatives on their social media strategy during last year’s election.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/05/09/stay-alert-boris-johnsons-new-message-nation/
This slogan is different from the one the Mail has earlier in this thread so the story could be wrong but if not, then we are paying government money to Boris's election gurus and opponents might see this as questionable or even corrupt.
In other news, It's felt like Sunday all day. Is it Sunday tomorrow as well?
Johnson rehires election chief to sharpen coronavirus messaging
Following criticism over mixed messages and selective briefings in recent weeks, the prime minister and his key adviser Dominic Cummings recruited Isaac Levido, 36, who ran the Tory general election campaign in December.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/31/johnson-rehires-election-chief-to-sharpen-coronavirus-messaging
So the scandal seems to be he has doing his job?
If that’s his position, then I’m surprised. Not the impression I got!
I'd said it again and again. I'm not sure we are at the stage I mentioned yet, though. The figures aren't good enough. Maybe by the beginning of June but it's too early to tell.
The major concern is that it creates a two tier society but it's at least an attempt to get around the either/or. It should only be for a relatively short period anyway (months rather than years).
On another subject, as others have said about the MoS version, it really is a terrible slogan. Stay alert for what? A shadowy virus-like figure lurking in the bushes? Control the virus how? Saving lives is good but what is it you want me to do?
As for the slogan, it isn't exactly "Get Brexit Done" or "Take Back Control".
Suppress the virus would be better, even if still difficult to achieve it's memorably alliterative. 'Stay alert/suppress the virus/save lives'.
You really want that bit to tell people to keep social distancing, take precautions and don't engage in risky behaviour...
We manage a lot of public policy by age/risk/ability. We don’t let anyone drive a car, for example.
It’s a risk-based approach and I don’t see what else we could or should do.
https://twitter.com/BNODesk/status/1259248217549668355
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1259257229494140940
https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/1259242249789079555
https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/1259254810899087361
Give me a break.
Not every f##king thing is to do with the EU. I heard before we joined the EU, traffic lights were Blue for stop...
Or something like that.
Yet she was out herself on a bike ride.
I think the main argument for her is that Biden may have promised Jim Clyburn that he'll pick a black woman, and if he's going to pick a black woman, Kamala is a safe, low-risk choice. That's all plausible. But 28% is too high. If you believe in the premise, look at some of the other black women who served in the Obama administration, like Susan Rice.
Lucky for those who don't have to work on site, I suppose
My favourite story ever on contractors is this - it’s worth a US employee 'outsourced job to China' http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21043693
Not really convinced about the IP thing though. How often do people really manage to sue their ex-employees for stealing IP? If they've got the data, because they're remote, and they can either sell it or take it with them to their next job, how often can you actually pin a theft on a particular person?
When analysts changed firms they'd take all their IP with them: Excel models, notes, etc.
A similar thing would happen with systematic traders - only sometimes they'd actually take production code they'd written.
It always seems strange to me that upper middle class people, well any IP they acquire on their job, that's fine, that's their property. But if someone in a more technical or menial role did it... THEFT!
HIV/Aids and BSE/CJD (Mad Cow Disease) hit during that time frame; H1N1 ten years ago.
Everyone ignores it.
People come into the office on staggered days and only for 2 days a week.
They then do work from home on the other days through the blower and the fax machine and Windows 95 computers and save it on floppy discs or CD-ROM for next week.
The brave try a bit of email and it takes off faster, but it's slow.
He's a paid obsessive.