The mess the uk government have got into quarantining new arrivals is just head scratching, now this weird French loophole. It makes zero sense.
What's the loophole?
only flights, not ferries, chunnel?
Presumably to permit freight.
If anyone wants a holiday this year, then the IoW will be busy, could be a shot in the head for airlines, but a shot in the arm for British coastal towns.
I suspect the 14 day quarantine will end foreign travel this year and be a huge boost to the UK holiday industry
Indeed if I am being sceptical maybe this is a policy decision to boost the UK economy
Only works if the Government thinks it can get away with opening all the hotels, restaurants and tourist attractions, and let rip a massive free-for-all of travel all over the country. A mass wave of domestic tourism in, say, August would imply the effective end of lockdown for pretty much all business, other than the airlines of course and also with the possible exception of the sports stadiums and theatres; and for the whole population, with the likely exception of the elderly and those shielding.
Is this likely?
It gives hotels and restaurants time to install social distancing measures and change things like buffet breakfasts etc
The more enterprising ones may well open by august
Looking at the newsflow in the US, it feels like Biden becoming the Democrat nominee might be looking a bit shaky. The Tara Reade accusations don't seem to be going away and the Republicans are making the hypocrisy of the Democrats in believing Christine Ford Blasey but defending Biden against rape charges as a central theme of their Senate and House campaigns, as well as against Biden personally. I suspect that this will make Democrat candidates uneasy if it gains traction. Add this to polls showing a quarter to a third of Democrat voters want Biden to step down because of the Reade allegations and signs he is not exactly coherent. I can see Biden stepping aside before the summer (presumably on ill health).
If that is the case, then some of the outside bets on whom is the Democrat nominee look attractive. I think the Democrat establishment will not let Sanders win but will need it to be someone who took part in the race and (probably) a woman. On Ladbrokes, you can get Kamala Harris, Amy K and Elizabeth Warren each at 100/1 to be the Democrat nominee. If you want a more outside bet, I have stuck a few quid on Michelle Lujan Grisham, the Governor of New Mexico and whom has been gaining traction as a Biden VP pick, at 500/1. She wasn't in the race but if the Democrat establishment think none of the female names above are not appealing, then she could be one to watch.
Must admit my reading of the Tara Reade story is that the Dem establishment are increasingly unconvinced it is gaining traction and happy to criticise her as an unreliable accuser. And even if it did, it's very late and very hard to remove a nominee unless they actually want to step down. There's nothing anyone can offer Biden in return for him stepping aside (i.e. he's too old to be lined up for a governorship in 2 years or whatever) and I don't see any sign he thinks he should.
Elizabeth Warren has publicly backed him, as have plenty of very prominent voices. But she's particularly notable as an establishment liberal, exactly the sort of person who might turn on him and will have to if he is to go.
The problem isn't the DNC, a lot of voters are being put off by their approach. It was "believe victims" now it's "believe victims (if they accuse prominent republicans)". There's a lot of wavering among some of the dem faithful about this stance and the DNC smearing of Reade.
I have some sympathy with that argument, but is there any evidence the people who could force Biden to stand down are convinced enough by it to get rid of him or that he personally is? Otherwise I think we need to separate the questions of if the Dems are showing good leadership and whether the Dems will nominate Biden. And the latter question is the one we bet on.
Shocked all these tweets are from very vocal remainers...
When either of you has a comment on the substance, rather than tickling your worryingly over-tickled prejudices based purely on dislike of the person expressing it, do let us know.
Isn't that what those tweeting were doing?
Well no.
You might disagree with Gavin Esler but he is quite clearly making an assessment of the communication.
You, on the other hand, had nothing to add except to signal that he is someone who you will not listen to because... well because you are evidently far too closed-minded to consider whether he has a point.
A very unbiased assessment of the communication, no doubt.
There you go again. Instead of playing the man, try engaging with his argument. If you’re capable of anything other than snide sniping without substance.
My point was that the criticism would be more powerful if it came from someone without a background like his. I don't think that's a controversial opinion at all.
You don’t have a point. Either the criticism has substance or it doesn’t. You’re trying to avoid any consideration of it by attacking the person who gave it. Small minds discuss people. Try lifting yourself above that, if you can.
Shocked all these tweets are from very vocal remainers...
When either of you has a comment on the substance, rather than tickling your worryingly over-tickled prejudices based purely on dislike of the person expressing it, do let us know.
Isn't that what those tweeting were doing?
Well no.
You might disagree with Gavin Esler but he is quite clearly making an assessment of the communication.
You, on the other hand, had nothing to add except to signal that he is someone who you will not listen to because... well because you are evidently far too closed-minded to consider whether he has a point.
A very unbiased assessment of the communication, no doubt.
There you go again. Instead of playing the man, try engaging with his argument. If you’re capable of anything other than snide sniping without substance.
My point was that the criticism would be more powerful if it came from someone without a background like his. I don't think that's a controversial opinion at all.
You don’t have a point. Either the criticism has substance or it doesn’t. You’re trying to avoid any consideration of it by attacking the person who gave it. Small minds discuss people. Try lifting yourself above that, if you can.
I think I have a point. If the criticism is justified, surely people from all backgrounds will be saying it. Those are the ones that would be more helpful for ScottP to post if that's the line he's pushing, which is exactly what I said.
Shocked all these tweets are from very vocal remainers...
When either of you has a comment on the substance, rather than tickling your worryingly over-tickled prejudices based purely on dislike of the person expressing it, do let us know.
Isn't that what those tweeting were doing?
Well no.
You might disagree with Gavin Esler but he is quite clearly making an assessment of the communication.
You, on the other hand, had nothing to add except to signal that he is someone who you will not listen to because... well because you are evidently far too closed-minded to consider whether he has a point.
A very unbiased assessment of the communication, no doubt.
There you go again. Instead of playing the man, try engaging with his argument. If you’re capable of anything other than snide sniping without substance.
My point was that the criticism would be more powerful if it came from someone without a background like his. I don't think that's a controversial opinion at all.
You don’t have a point. Either the criticism has substance or it doesn’t. You’re trying to avoid any consideration of it by attacking the person who gave it. Small minds discuss people. Try lifting yourself above that, if you can.
I think I have a point. If the criticism is justified, surely people from all backgrounds will be doing it. Those are the ones that would be more helpful for ScottP to post if that's the line he's pushing, which is exactly what I said.
So you will only consider criticism from people you agree with? Pathetic.
Could have been answered in a Tweet that, instead we had an empty and pointless announcement of nothing.
As long as I am unable to leave my home for more than exercise, or go back to work in an office, life has not changed.
Come on CHB, can't you for once, just once, take off the Party glasses?
Nothing has changed for me. Perhaps for other people - but not for me.
Then good yours didn't need to change then. You're able to go to the office now if you need to do so, and if you don't need to do so then what are you bothered about?
Can't see some of my family or my friends - and I feel as isolated and lonely as I was before.
They've deemed it not safe to change that yet.
Its not particularly logical. You could have a household of 10 working in 5 separate locations who are all allowed to interact.
Yet boyfriend and girlfriend living separately on their own and not going to work are supposed to not see each other for at least another 3 weeks.
Going in to work you're supposed to socially distance still.
Are you suggesting boyfriend and girlfriend living separately should see each other and socially distance while seeing each other? Interesting thought.
No Im stating that two households of single people combined are far smaller than many households. They should be allowed to see each other as they please.
Of course if you are a govt adviser you can just break the laws without any risk of enforcement.
There has to be a line drawn somewhere. Once you say people can visit each other the lockdown is essentially over. I'm sorry for those who hadn't moved in with their loved one but they're just out of luck sorry and its not unreasonable of the government to not fix the fact they hadn't moved in together.
Says the person living with a loving family.
Yes both in the household and out of it. The government didn't get me my loving family and its not on the government to provide loving families. I have loved ones outside the household I'd love to see but we can't see each other beyond video calls at the minute.
Yes, so imagine how you feel about not seeing your family out of your household and multiply that to include not seeing ANY family or friends.
You are speaking from a position of huge privilege.
A lot of my friends who aren't married moved in with their partners if they weren't already living together before the lockdown was officially in place or after 14 days had passed. Some even went back home to their parents but are now seriously regretting it!
You have no idea what it's like for so many who are cut off.
I know I'd hate it and you have my sympathies. Unfortunately it's going to be July at the earliest before friends and family are part of the equation. That's assuming people aren't complete dickheads and start partying on beaches and raise the R above 1.
Understood, thanks for offering your kind words and compassion.
I've accepted the situation and only exercise is keeping me going. I'd like to go back to the office but I think that we will be WFH for the rest of the year.
All the best to you.
I really hope that we get antibody tests and a vaccine ASAP to end this misery.
Me too. I understand the greater good and all that but I won't lie and say I'm finding it difficult.
I have bad days. Days of paralysed despair and horror. Then the next day I will be fine again, without any change in circumstances. The same was observed during Spanish flu. Plagues are very strange, the way they effect people.
This too shall pass.
Thanks for sharing your experience and all the best to you and your family.
All this and more is in Camus' The Plague. A triumph of literature.
As long as you overlook the fact that for a book set in North Africa there is a bit of a lack of North Africans.
Shocked all these tweets are from very vocal remainers...
When either of you has a comment on the substance, rather than tickling your worryingly over-tickled prejudices based purely on dislike of the person expressing it, do let us know.
Isn't that what those tweeting were doing?
Well no.
You might disagree with Gavin Esler but he is quite clearly making an assessment of the communication.
You, on the other hand, had nothing to add except to signal that he is someone who you will not listen to because... well because you are evidently far too closed-minded to consider whether he has a point.
A very unbiased assessment of the communication, no doubt.
There you go again. Instead of playing the man, try engaging with his argument. If you’re capable of anything other than snide sniping without substance.
My point was that the criticism would be more powerful if it came from someone without a background like his. I don't think that's a controversial opinion at all.
You don’t have a point. Either the criticism has substance or it doesn’t. You’re trying to avoid any consideration of it by attacking the person who gave it. Small minds discuss people. Try lifting yourself above that, if you can.
I think I have a point. If the criticism is justified, surely people from all backgrounds will be doing it. Those are the ones that would be more helpful for ScottP to post if that's the line he's pushing, which is exactly what I said.
So you will only consider criticism from people you agree with? Pathetic.
Criticism is stronger when its not from broken records who criticise no matter what.
The mess the uk government have got into quarantining new arrivals is just head scratching, now this weird French loophole. It makes zero sense.
What's the loophole?
only flights, not ferries, chunnel?
Presumably to permit freight.
If anyone wants a holiday this year, then the IoW will be busy, could be a shot in the head for airlines, but a shot in the arm for British coastal towns.
I suspect the 14 day quarantine will end foreign travel this year and be a huge boost to the UK holiday industry
Indeed if I am being sceptical maybe this is a policy decision to boost the UK economy
If we can travel freely between UK and France it might well prove more of a boost to the French tourist industry.
The mess the uk government have got into quarantining new arrivals is just head scratching, now this weird French loophole. It makes zero sense.
What's the loophole?
only flights, not ferries, chunnel?
Presumably to permit freight.
If anyone wants a holiday this year, then the IoW will be busy, could be a shot in the head for airlines, but a shot in the arm for British coastal towns.
I suspect the 14 day quarantine will end foreign travel this year and be a huge boost to the UK holiday industry
Indeed if I am being sceptical maybe this is a policy decision to boost the UK economy
Only works if the Government thinks it can get away with opening all the hotels, restaurants and tourist attractions, and let rip a massive free-for-all of travel all over the country. A mass wave of domestic tourism in, say, August would imply the effective end of lockdown for pretty much all business, other than the airlines of course and also with the possible exception of the sports stadiums and theatres; and for the whole population, with the likely exception of the elderly and those shielding.
Is this likely?
It gives hotels and restaurants time to install social distancing measures and change things like buffet breakfasts etc
The more enterprising ones may well open by august
I walked past a hotel yesterday whilst walking dog.
It was clearly open and had notices in window, one for employees and one for guests outlining the measures the both had to adopt.
One for example as all bedding to be put in red sacks and left for 3 days before being sent for cleaning
What's the point of quarantining travellers if you exclude France and Ireland?
Ireland is part of the CTA. France already has strict travel restrictions in place - you can't fly there from outside the EU and need documentation to transit.
We’ve booked a place in Cornwall for a couple of weeks in August. What are the chances of being able to go there?
High, I think
That would be brilliant! This crisis is going to be a major boost for the English seaside.
You might get away with it, but that rather depends on your assessment of the ability of the Government to crush this virus down to such a low level that they can afford to let most of the population move around the country on holiday by late Summer.
If we're very lucky then it might be safe enough to risk low key visits to aged parents by the Autumn. As for a fortnight of jollies in Cornwall in August, I wouldn't hold your breath.
Shocked all these tweets are from very vocal remainers...
When either of you has a comment on the substance, rather than tickling your worryingly over-tickled prejudices based purely on dislike of the person expressing it, do let us know.
Isn't that what those tweeting were doing?
Well no.
You might disagree with Gavin Esler but he is quite clearly making an assessment of the communication.
You, on the other hand, had nothing to add except to signal that he is someone who you will not listen to because... well because you are evidently far too closed-minded to consider whether he has a point.
A very unbiased assessment of the communication, no doubt.
There you go again. Instead of playing the man, try engaging with his argument. If you’re capable of anything other than snide sniping without substance.
My point was that the criticism would be more powerful if it came from someone without a background like his. I don't think that's a controversial opinion at all.
You don’t have a point. Either the criticism has substance or it doesn’t. You’re trying to avoid any consideration of it by attacking the person who gave it. Small minds discuss people. Try lifting yourself above that, if you can.
I think I have a point. If the criticism is justified, surely people from all backgrounds will be doing it. Those are the ones that would be more helpful for ScottP to post if that's the line he's pushing, which is exactly what I said.
So you will only consider criticism from people you agree with? Pathetic.
What has my opinion on the matter got to do with it? I'm talking about the opinions of the person doing the criticism.
Tbf, the UK isn't actually. Care homes definitely are, but outside of that the UK isn't doing too badly, the hospital death and admission numbers show that to be the case.
If the current estimates are right, we're down ~20x from our peak of daily infections. I get the feeling the wider public aren't seeing that though, with deaths 3 weeks after infections, and some from two months ago still only being announced now - as a result, lockdown is very popular still.
Genuine question - am I now allowed to drive down to London to see my Mum?
No, but as long as you're socially distancing properly I don't see why you shouldn't. Enter the garden through a side entrance sit two metres away and don't hug etc...
It's a difficult time for everyone, as long as you're not being an idiot about it I think you should use your best judgement.
Looking at the newsflow in the US, it feels like Biden becoming the Democrat nominee might be looking a bit shaky. The Tara Reade accusations don't seem to be going away and the Republicans are making the hypocrisy of the Democrats in believing Christine Ford Blasey but defending Biden against rape charges as a central theme of their Senate and House campaigns, as well as against Biden personally. I suspect that this will make Democrat candidates uneasy if it gains traction. Add this to polls showing a quarter to a third of Democrat voters want Biden to step down because of the Reade allegations and signs he is not exactly coherent. I can see Biden stepping aside before the summer (presumably on ill health).
If that is the case, then some of the outside bets on whom is the Democrat nominee look attractive. I think the Democrat establishment will not let Sanders win but will need it to be someone who took part in the race and (probably) a woman. On Ladbrokes, you can get Kamala Harris, Amy K and Elizabeth Warren each at 100/1 to be the Democrat nominee. If you want a more outside bet, I have stuck a few quid on Michelle Lujan Grisham, the Governor of New Mexico and whom has been gaining traction as a Biden VP pick, at 500/1. She wasn't in the race but if the Democrat establishment think none of the female names above are not appealing, then she could be one to watch.
For those who are looking at the US elections, one thing to watch this week will be the special election in Californians 25 CD. (a US By-Election)
All voters have been sent postal ballots, but voting in person is still allowed, it may give an indication of which party is better able to get its vote out in (almost) all postal elections, which may still be the case in November, at least in some states.
For background it is normally a slight democrat seat, with a democrat having to stand down to cores this election, and Hillary wining in 2016, but By California standards relatively close on each time.
In the recent Wisconsin suprene court election (where the Republican nominee was the clear favourite) the GOP lost because their rural postal vote turnout was abysmal.
If this is replicated the the GOP are in for serious trouble.
Looking at the newsflow in the US, it feels like Biden becoming the Democrat nominee might be looking a bit shaky. The Tara Reade accusations don't seem to be going away and the Republicans are making the hypocrisy of the Democrats in believing Christine Ford Blasey but defending Biden against rape charges as a central theme of their Senate and House campaigns, as well as against Biden personally. I suspect that this will make Democrat candidates uneasy if it gains traction. Add this to polls showing a quarter to a third of Democrat voters want Biden to step down because of the Reade allegations and signs he is not exactly coherent. I can see Biden stepping aside before the summer (presumably on ill health).
If that is the case, then some of the outside bets on whom is the Democrat nominee look attractive. I think the Democrat establishment will not let Sanders win but will need it to be someone who took part in the race and (probably) a woman. On Ladbrokes, you can get Kamala Harris, Amy K and Elizabeth Warren each at 100/1 to be the Democrat nominee. If you want a more outside bet, I have stuck a few quid on Michelle Lujan Grisham, the Governor of New Mexico and whom has been gaining traction as a Biden VP pick, at 500/1. She wasn't in the race but if the Democrat establishment think none of the female names above are not appealing, then she could be one to watch.
Must admit my reading of the Tara Reade story is that the Dem establishment are increasingly unconvinced it is gaining traction and happy to criticise her as an unreliable accuser. And even if it did, it's very late and very hard to remove a nominee unless they actually want to step down. There's nothing anyone can offer Biden in return for him stepping aside (i.e. he's too old to be lined up for a governorship in 2 years or whatever) and I don't see any sign he thinks he should.
Elizabeth Warren has publicly backed him, as have plenty of very prominent voices. But she's particularly notable as an establishment liberal, exactly the sort of person who might turn on him and will have to if he is to go.
It actually looks quite the opposite. Biden's poll numbers have been dropping in the past few days. Whether that is because of the allegations or something else is unclear but while you are right the establishment is attacking Reade, there are signs the polls suggesting a quarter to a third of Democrat voters want him out is a warning sign. If it was just the allegations, he might just hang on but add in his increasingly incoherent nature and I think the Dems will think it isn too much of a risk, especially if he puts the House at risk.
We'll have to agree to disagree, but can I ask what the evidence is for Biden being 'increasingly' incoherent?
He's always been imprecise with words, but he held his own in a head to head debate with Sanders a few weeks ago and as far as I can tell this narrative about his mental competence is driven purely by brief clips of him fumbling over his words in interviews while ignoring the rest of his statements/responses. If you do that for virtually any politician you could build up a case they are incoherent, is there any evidence he is any different to how he's always been?
The mess the uk government have got into quarantining new arrivals is just head scratching, now this weird French loophole. It makes zero sense.
What's the loophole?
Some suggest UK holidaymakers can go to France on way to their holiday destination and return from France
I expect that loophole will be closed
It's quite an easy loophole to close I would have thought. It would simply require the French authorities to provide details to the UK authorities of anyone arriving in France from another country using a British passport.
Are there border posts back on the French / Spanish border now?
To be clear - genuine question - not meant to be sarcasm
Shocked all these tweets are from very vocal remainers...
When either of you has a comment on the substance, rather than tickling your worryingly over-tickled prejudices based purely on dislike of the person expressing it, do let us know.
Isn't that what those tweeting were doing?
Well no.
You might disagree with Gavin Esler but he is quite clearly making an assessment of the communication.
You, on the other hand, had nothing to add except to signal that he is someone who you will not listen to because... well because you are evidently far too closed-minded to consider whether he has a point.
A very unbiased assessment of the communication, no doubt.
There you go again. Instead of playing the man, try engaging with his argument. If you’re capable of anything other than snide sniping without substance.
My point was that the criticism would be more powerful if it came from someone without a background like his. I don't think that's a controversial opinion at all.
You don’t have a point. Either the criticism has substance or it doesn’t. You’re trying to avoid any consideration of it by attacking the person who gave it. Small minds discuss people. Try lifting yourself above that, if you can.
I think I have a point. If the criticism is justified, surely people from all backgrounds will be saying it. Those are the ones that would be more helpful for ScottP to post if that's the line he's pushing, which is exactly what I said.
We’ve booked a place in Cornwall for a couple of weeks in August. What are the chances of being able to go there?
High, I think
That would be brilliant! This crisis is going to be a major boost for the English seaside.
You might get away with it, but that rather depends on your assessment of the ability of the Government to crush this virus down to such a low level that they can afford to let most of the population move around the country on holiday by late Summer.
If we're very lucky then it might be safe enough to risk low key visits to aged parents by the Autumn. As for a fortnight of jollies in Cornwall in August, I wouldn't hold your breath.
It’s a rental. We’d be doing what we’re doing here except with a sea view.
The mess the uk government have got into quarantining new arrivals is just head scratching, now this weird French loophole. It makes zero sense.
What's the loophole?
Some suggest UK holidaymakers can go to France on way to their holiday destination and return from France
I expect that loophole will be closed
It's quite an easy loophole to close I would have thought. It would simply require the French authorities to provide details to the UK authorities of anyone arriving in France from another country using a British passport.
Are there border posts back on the French / Spanish border now?
To be clear - genuine question - not meant to be sarcasm
Sounds as though there are physical checks on the border now. Not sure if they are present at every crossing.
Shocked all these tweets are from very vocal remainers...
When either of you has a comment on the substance, rather than tickling your worryingly over-tickled prejudices based purely on dislike of the person expressing it, do let us know.
Isn't that what those tweeting were doing?
Well no.
You might disagree with Gavin Esler but he is quite clearly making an assessment of the communication.
You, on the other hand, had nothing to add except to signal that he is someone who you will not listen to because... well because you are evidently far too closed-minded to consider whether he has a point.
A very unbiased assessment of the communication, no doubt.
There you go again. Instead of playing the man, try engaging with his argument. If you’re capable of anything other than snide sniping without substance.
My point was that the criticism would be more powerful if it came from someone without a background like his. I don't think that's a controversial opinion at all.
You don’t have a point. Either the criticism has substance or it doesn’t. You’re trying to avoid any consideration of it by attacking the person who gave it. Small minds discuss people. Try lifting yourself above that, if you can.
I think I have a point. If the criticism is justified, surely people from all backgrounds will be doing it. Those are the ones that would be more helpful for ScottP to post if that's the line he's pushing, which is exactly what I said.
So you will only consider criticism from people you agree with? Pathetic.
What has my opinion on the matter got to do with it? I'm talking about the opinions of the person doing the criticism.
You haven’t talked about his opinions at all. You decided to ignore them as “not that helpful” because of who he is, not what he said. Come back to me when you have anything to say about his opinions. Or indeed anything that isn’t just an irrelevant personal attack on the man.
Any idea what if anything tonight's speech or aftermath means for Project Restart?
Does professional sport fall within the category of try to get back to work?
I read that rugby want to restart with matches having no scrums, mauls and limited tackling....i think most people watch the game in no small part for the big hits. Playing touch rugby isn't going to excite many.
Shocked all these tweets are from very vocal remainers...
When either of you has a comment on the substance, rather than tickling your worryingly over-tickled prejudices based purely on dislike of the person expressing it, do let us know.
Isn't that what those tweeting were doing?
Well no.
You might disagree with Gavin Esler but he is quite clearly making an assessment of the communication.
You, on the other hand, had nothing to add except to signal that he is someone who you will not listen to because... well because you are evidently far too closed-minded to consider whether he has a point.
A very unbiased assessment of the communication, no doubt.
There you go again. Instead of playing the man, try engaging with his argument. If you’re capable of anything other than snide sniping without substance.
My point was that the criticism would be more powerful if it came from someone without a background like his. I don't think that's a controversial opinion at all.
You don’t have a point. Either the criticism has substance or it doesn’t. You’re trying to avoid any consideration of it by attacking the person who gave it. Small minds discuss people. Try lifting yourself above that, if you can.
I think I have a point. If the criticism is justified, surely people from all backgrounds will be saying it. Those are the ones that would be more helpful for ScottP to post if that's the line he's pushing, which is exactly what I said.
You do not need to justify yourself to anyone
I probably shouldn't have been so flippant, but I genuinely think that if that was the message ScottP wanted to get across, finding examples from people without such a history of Boris hatred would probably make it far more convincing.
I wonder if Keir Starmer will seek to exercise his Right To Reply to tonight's statement from Johnson? It might well be an effective means of getting himself public attention.
The mess the uk government have got into quarantining new arrivals is just head scratching, now this weird French loophole. It makes zero sense.
What's the loophole?
only flights, not ferries, chunnel?
Presumably to permit freight.
If anyone wants a holiday this year, then the IoW will be busy, could be a shot in the head for airlines, but a shot in the arm for British coastal towns.
I suspect the 14 day quarantine will end foreign travel this year and be a huge boost to the UK holiday industry
Indeed if I am being sceptical maybe this is a policy decision to boost the UK economy
If we can travel freely between UK and France it might well prove more of a boost to the French tourist industry.
No. You have strict entry requirements to arrive in France
Genuine question - am I now allowed to drive down to London to see my Mum?
No I don't think so.
Yes. The stages of the argument: You can leave your home only with a reasonable excuse (2020 Regulations) "You can drive to other destinations" (Boris's speech today) Which means it is to be seen as a reasonable excuse. Driving to your mum's is 'another destination' but "You must obey the rules on social distancing" (Boris today). Within that limit you can drive to see your mum.
Further thought must await publication of guidance tomorrow.
Shocked all these tweets are from very vocal remainers...
When either of you has a comment on the substance, rather than tickling your worryingly over-tickled prejudices based purely on dislike of the person expressing it, do let us know.
Isn't that what those tweeting were doing?
Well no.
You might disagree with Gavin Esler but he is quite clearly making an assessment of the communication.
You, on the other hand, had nothing to add except to signal that he is someone who you will not listen to because... well because you are evidently far too closed-minded to consider whether he has a point.
A very unbiased assessment of the communication, no doubt.
There you go again. Instead of playing the man, try engaging with his argument. If you’re capable of anything other than snide sniping without substance.
My point was that the criticism would be more powerful if it came from someone without a background like his. I don't think that's a controversial opinion at all.
You don’t have a point. Either the criticism has substance or it doesn’t. You’re trying to avoid any consideration of it by attacking the person who gave it. Small minds discuss people. Try lifting yourself above that, if you can.
I think I have a point. If the criticism is justified, surely people from all backgrounds will be saying it. Those are the ones that would be more helpful for ScottP to post if that's the line he's pushing, which is exactly what I said.
You do not need to justify yourself to anyone
I probably shouldn't have been so flippant, but I genuinely think that if that was the message ScottP wanted to get across, finding examples from people without such a history of Boris hatred would probably make it far more convincing.
I doubt he’s trying to convince small-minded posters who think that personal attacks are an answer to substantive criticism.
Shocked all these tweets are from very vocal remainers...
When either of you has a comment on the substance, rather than tickling your worryingly over-tickled prejudices based purely on dislike of the person expressing it, do let us know.
Isn't that what those tweeting were doing?
Well no.
You might disagree with Gavin Esler but he is quite clearly making an assessment of the communication.
You, on the other hand, had nothing to add except to signal that he is someone who you will not listen to because... well because you are evidently far too closed-minded to consider whether he has a point.
A very unbiased assessment of the communication, no doubt.
There you go again. Instead of playing the man, try engaging with his argument. If you’re capable of anything other than snide sniping without substance.
My point was that the criticism would be more powerful if it came from someone without a background like his. I don't think that's a controversial opinion at all.
You don’t have a point. Either the criticism has substance or it doesn’t. You’re trying to avoid any consideration of it by attacking the person who gave it. Small minds discuss people. Try lifting yourself above that, if you can.
I think I have a point. If the criticism is justified, surely people from all backgrounds will be saying it. Those are the ones that would be more helpful for ScottP to post if that's the line he's pushing, which is exactly what I said.
You do not need to justify yourself to anyone
I probably shouldn't have been so flippant, but I genuinely think that if that was the message ScottP wanted to get across, finding examples from people without such a history of Boris hatred would probably make it far more convincing.
"Boris's incompetence has cost 31,000 lives" - discuss!
Shocked all these tweets are from very vocal remainers...
When either of you has a comment on the substance, rather than tickling your worryingly over-tickled prejudices based purely on dislike of the person expressing it, do let us know.
Isn't that what those tweeting were doing?
Well no.
You might disagree with Gavin Esler but he is quite clearly making an assessment of the communication.
You, on the other hand, had nothing to add except to signal that he is someone who you will not listen to because... well because you are evidently far too closed-minded to consider whether he has a point.
A very unbiased assessment of the communication, no doubt.
There you go again. Instead of playing the man, try engaging with his argument. If you’re capable of anything other than snide sniping without substance.
My point was that the criticism would be more powerful if it came from someone without a background like his. I don't think that's a controversial opinion at all.
You don’t have a point. Either the criticism has substance or it doesn’t. You’re trying to avoid any consideration of it by attacking the person who gave it. Small minds discuss people. Try lifting yourself above that, if you can.
I think I have a point. If the criticism is justified, surely people from all backgrounds will be doing it. Those are the ones that would be more helpful for ScottP to post if that's the line he's pushing, which is exactly what I said.
So you will only consider criticism from people you agree with? Pathetic.
What has my opinion on the matter got to do with it? I'm talking about the opinions of the person doing the criticism.
You haven’t talked about his opinions at all. You decided to ignore them as “not that helpful” because of who he is, not what he said. Come back to me when you have anything to say about his opinions. Or indeed anything that isn’t just an irrelevant personal attack on the man.
Probably not that helpful in convincing people the criticism is valid. I think I would have the same opinion regardless of what I thought about Brexit or whatever.
As it happens I was talking to a builder today who said the brickies would be back at work tomorrow whatever.
White collar folk on lockdown want to do it in their new homes, not their old ones...
Sadiq Khan will be doing his pieces if large numbers of construction workers start using the Tube to go into big sites in Central London again.
Meanwhile, elsewhere in England, it won't make a huge difference to anything. By the end of this week the transport stats at the Government daily briefing will most likely show car use continuing to creep back upwards at the same slow-and-steady rate that it has been since shortly after the lockdown commenced.
So long as most of retail and hospitality remain shuttered and most office workers continue to operate from home, public transport should have the capacity to cope. The real test will be what happens if we do get that further unlocking next month.
I took a train to work on Saturday.
3 people this time. 1 the same day last week.
I don't think there are going to be crowds tomorrow....or any time soon.
Seems entirely fair.
I can see most of the train station car park from my flat, which is located in a commuter belt town. It's normally pretty well packed during the week, and used by a substantial number of leisure travellers at the weekend.
The total car count now varies between zero and five, and hasn't increased at all since the start of lockdown. Travel down to London and up to Cambridge has, to all intents and purposes, stopped.
The mess the uk government have got into quarantining new arrivals is just head scratching, now this weird French loophole. It makes zero sense.
What's the loophole?
Some suggest UK holidaymakers can go to France on way to their holiday destination and return from France
I expect that loophole will be closed
It's quite an easy loophole to close I would have thought. It would simply require the French authorities to provide details to the UK authorities of anyone arriving in France from another country using a British passport.
Are there border posts back on the French / Spanish border now?
To be clear - genuine question - not meant to be sarcasm
Sounds as though there are physical checks on the border now. Not sure if they are present at every crossing.
Shocked all these tweets are from very vocal remainers...
When either of you has a comment on the substance, rather than tickling your worryingly over-tickled prejudices based purely on dislike of the person expressing it, do let us know.
Isn't that what those tweeting were doing?
Well no.
You might disagree with Gavin Esler but he is quite clearly making an assessment of the communication.
You, on the other hand, had nothing to add except to signal that he is someone who you will not listen to because... well because you are evidently far too closed-minded to consider whether he has a point.
A very unbiased assessment of the communication, no doubt.
There you go again. Instead of playing the man, try engaging with his argument. If you’re capable of anything other than snide sniping without substance.
My point was that the criticism would be more powerful if it came from someone without a background like his. I don't think that's a controversial opinion at all.
You don’t have a point. Either the criticism has substance or it doesn’t. You’re trying to avoid any consideration of it by attacking the person who gave it. Small minds discuss people. Try lifting yourself above that, if you can.
I think I have a point. If the criticism is justified, surely people from all backgrounds will be saying it. Those are the ones that would be more helpful for ScottP to post if that's the line he's pushing, which is exactly what I said.
You do not need to justify yourself to anyone
I probably shouldn't have been so flippant, but I genuinely think that if that was the message ScottP wanted to get across, finding examples from people without such a history of Boris hatred would probably make it far more convincing.
I doubt he’s trying to convince small-minded posters who think that personal attacks are an answer to substantive criticism.
That's a bit hash on Scott, but probably fair.
There are a lot of people saying it's all very muddled and unclear: perhaps they would be more convincing if they gave examples of what they found unclear, bearing in mind that the PM explained that full details will be presented to parliament tomorrow.
Genuine question - am I now allowed to drive down to London to see my Mum?
No I don't think so.
Yes. The stages of the argument: You can leave your home only with a reasonable excuse (2020 Regulations) "You can drive to other destinations" (Boris's speech today) Which means it is to be seen as a reasonable excuse. Driving to your mum's is 'another destination' but "You must obey the rules on social distancing" (Boris today). Within that limit you can drive to see your mum.
Further thought must await publication of guidance tomorrow.
So you can drive to see your Mum if you have a reasonable excuse to do so. But you always could.
Shocked all these tweets are from very vocal remainers...
When either of you has a comment on the substance, rather than tickling your worryingly over-tickled prejudices based purely on dislike of the person expressing it, do let us know.
Isn't that what those tweeting were doing?
Well no.
You might disagree with Gavin Esler but he is quite clearly making an assessment of the communication.
You, on the other hand, had nothing to add except to signal that he is someone who you will not listen to because... well because you are evidently far too closed-minded to consider whether he has a point.
A very unbiased assessment of the communication, no doubt.
There you go again. Instead of playing the man, try engaging with his argument. If you’re capable of anything other than snide sniping without substance.
My point was that the criticism would be more powerful if it came from someone without a background like his. I don't think that's a controversial opinion at all.
You don’t have a point. Either the criticism has substance or it doesn’t. You’re trying to avoid any consideration of it by attacking the person who gave it. Small minds discuss people. Try lifting yourself above that, if you can.
I think I have a point. If the criticism is justified, surely people from all backgrounds will be doing it. Those are the ones that would be more helpful for ScottP to post if that's the line he's pushing, which is exactly what I said.
So you will only consider criticism from people you agree with? Pathetic.
What has my opinion on the matter got to do with it? I'm talking about the opinions of the person doing the criticism.
You haven’t talked about his opinions at all. You decided to ignore them as “not that helpful” because of who he is, not what he said. Come back to me when you have anything to say about his opinions. Or indeed anything that isn’t just an irrelevant personal attack on the man.
Probably not that helpful in convincing people the criticism is valid. I think I would have the same opinion regardless of what I thought about Brexit or whatever.
What you’re saying is that nothing Gavin Esler says is going to be listened to by you. You’re fully inoculated against inconvenient arguments from unfriendly directions.
Shocked all these tweets are from very vocal remainers...
When either of you has a comment on the substance, rather than tickling your worryingly over-tickled prejudices based purely on dislike of the person expressing it, do let us know.
Isn't that what those tweeting were doing?
Well no.
You might disagree with Gavin Esler but he is quite clearly making an assessment of the communication.
You, on the other hand, had nothing to add except to signal that he is someone who you will not listen to because... well because you are evidently far too closed-minded to consider whether he has a point.
A very unbiased assessment of the communication, no doubt.
There you go again. Instead of playing the man, try engaging with his argument. If you’re capable of anything other than snide sniping without substance.
My point was that the criticism would be more powerful if it came from someone without a background like his. I don't think that's a controversial opinion at all.
You don’t have a point. Either the criticism has substance or it doesn’t. You’re trying to avoid any consideration of it by attacking the person who gave it. Small minds discuss people. Try lifting yourself above that, if you can.
I think I have a point. If the criticism is justified, surely people from all backgrounds will be saying it. Those are the ones that would be more helpful for ScottP to post if that's the line he's pushing, which is exactly what I said.
You do not need to justify yourself to anyone
I probably shouldn't have been so flippant, but I genuinely think that if that was the message ScottP wanted to get across, finding examples from people without such a history of Boris hatred would probably make it far more convincing.
"Boris's incompetence has cost 31,000 lives" - discuss!
Folks, this virus is global, and to some extent is leading to international cooperation. Climate change is a bigger threat and needs an international solution too.
Actually, the community of physicists and mathematicians, and likely all scientists, has been truly global for some time. For instance, if one is asked to referee a paper by somebody from Timbuktu one will treat it seriously with the same degree of rigour as if it were from Oxford or MIT.
So, why can't we act globally to curb and correct climate change---starting, for instance with the nonsense that it is our birthright to hop on planes and cruises and to own all the other "necessities" like a car for every family member?
At least, scared shitless, it appears that some of us are discovering the sense of walking, running, and cycling. Good.
Genuine question - am I now allowed to drive down to London to see my Mum?
No I don't think so.
Yes. The stages of the argument: You can leave your home only with a reasonable excuse (2020 Regulations) "You can drive to other destinations" (Boris's speech today) Which means it is to be seen as a reasonable excuse. Driving to your mum's is 'another destination' but "You must obey the rules on social distancing" (Boris today). Within that limit you can drive to see your mum.
Further thought must await publication of guidance tomorrow.
You could always drive to other destinations. I drove to Morrisons earlier today. Old advice.
What's changed with the advice today is that you can now drive to another destination to exercise with other members of your household.
Shocked all these tweets are from very vocal remainers...
When either of you has a comment on the substance, rather than tickling your worryingly over-tickled prejudices based purely on dislike of the person expressing it, do let us know.
Isn't that what those tweeting were doing?
Well no.
You might disagree with Gavin Esler but he is quite clearly making an assessment of the communication.
You, on the other hand, had nothing to add except to signal that he is someone who you will not listen to because... well because you are evidently far too closed-minded to consider whether he has a point.
A very unbiased assessment of the communication, no doubt.
There you go again. Instead of playing the man, try engaging with his argument. If you’re capable of anything other than snide sniping without substance.
My point was that the criticism would be more powerful if it came from someone without a background like his. I don't think that's a controversial opinion at all.
You don’t have a point. Either the criticism has substance or it doesn’t. You’re trying to avoid any consideration of it by attacking the person who gave it. Small minds discuss people. Try lifting yourself above that, if you can.
I think I have a point. If the criticism is justified, surely people from all backgrounds will be doing it. Those are the ones that would be more helpful for ScottP to post if that's the line he's pushing, which is exactly what I said.
So you will only consider criticism from people you agree with? Pathetic.
What has my opinion on the matter got to do with it? I'm talking about the opinions of the person doing the criticism.
You haven’t talked about his opinions at all. You decided to ignore them as “not that helpful” because of who he is, not what he said. Come back to me when you have anything to say about his opinions. Or indeed anything that isn’t just an irrelevant personal attack on the man.
Probably not that helpful in convincing people the criticism is valid. I think I would have the same opinion regardless of what I thought about Brexit or whatever.
What you’re saying is that nothing Gavin Esler says is going to be listened to by you. You’re fully inoculated against inconvenient arguments from unfriendly directions.
What a waste of brain cells.
It will be listened to, but I will also take into account his previous statements etc, and probably seek further evidence from other sources. My central point about him not being a convincing messenger stands.
Shocked all these tweets are from very vocal remainers...
When either of you has a comment on the substance, rather than tickling your worryingly over-tickled prejudices based purely on dislike of the person expressing it, do let us know.
Isn't that what those tweeting were doing?
Well no.
You might disagree with Gavin Esler but he is quite clearly making an assessment of the communication.
You, on the other hand, had nothing to add except to signal that he is someone who you will not listen to because... well because you are evidently far too closed-minded to consider whether he has a point.
A very unbiased assessment of the communication, no doubt.
There you go again. Instead of playing the man, try engaging with his argument. If you’re capable of anything other than snide sniping without substance.
My point was that the criticism would be more powerful if it came from someone without a background like his. I don't think that's a controversial opinion at all.
You don’t have a point. Either the criticism has substance or it doesn’t. You’re trying to avoid any consideration of it by attacking the person who gave it. Small minds discuss people. Try lifting yourself above that, if you can.
I think I have a point. If the criticism is justified, surely people from all backgrounds will be doing it. Those are the ones that would be more helpful for ScottP to post if that's the line he's pushing, which is exactly what I said.
So you will only consider criticism from people you agree with? Pathetic.
What has my opinion on the matter got to do with it? I'm talking about the opinions of the person doing the criticism.
You haven’t talked about his opinions at all. You decided to ignore them as “not that helpful” because of who he is, not what he said. Come back to me when you have anything to say about his opinions. Or indeed anything that isn’t just an irrelevant personal attack on the man.
Probably not that helpful in convincing people the criticism is valid. I think I would have the same opinion regardless of what I thought about Brexit or whatever.
What you’re saying is that nothing Gavin Esler says is going to be listened to by you. You’re fully inoculated against inconvenient arguments from unfriendly directions.
Shocked all these tweets are from very vocal remainers...
When either of you has a comment on the substance, rather than tickling your worryingly over-tickled prejudices based purely on dislike of the person expressing it, do let us know.
Isn't that what those tweeting were doing?
Well no.
You might disagree with Gavin Esler but he is quite clearly making an assessment of the communication.
You, on the other hand, had nothing to add except to signal that he is someone who you will not listen to because... well because you are evidently far too closed-minded to consider whether he has a point.
A very unbiased assessment of the communication, no doubt.
There you go again. Instead of playing the man, try engaging with his argument. If you’re capable of anything other than snide sniping without substance.
My point was that the criticism would be more powerful if it came from someone without a background like his. I don't think that's a controversial opinion at all.
You don’t have a point. Either the criticism has substance or it doesn’t. You’re trying to avoid any consideration of it by attacking the person who gave it. Small minds discuss people. Try lifting yourself above that, if you can.
I think I have a point. If the criticism is justified, surely people from all backgrounds will be doing it. Those are the ones that would be more helpful for ScottP to post if that's the line he's pushing, which is exactly what I said.
So you will only consider criticism from people you agree with? Pathetic.
What has my opinion on the matter got to do with it? I'm talking about the opinions of the person doing the criticism.
You haven’t talked about his opinions at all. You decided to ignore them as “not that helpful” because of who he is, not what he said. Come back to me when you have anything to say about his opinions. Or indeed anything that isn’t just an irrelevant personal attack on the man.
Probably not that helpful in convincing people the criticism is valid. I think I would have the same opinion regardless of what I thought about Brexit or whatever.
What you’re saying is that nothing Gavin Esler says is going to be listened to by you. You’re fully inoculated against inconvenient arguments from unfriendly directions.
What a waste of brain cells.
What argument? Gavin Esler didn't actually put forward an argument, just a set of unsupported assertions. His one substantive statement about the speech was not true.
Shocked all these tweets are from very vocal remainers...
When either of you has a comment on the substance, rather than tickling your worryingly over-tickled prejudices based purely on dislike of the person expressing it, do let us know.
Isn't that what those tweeting were doing?
Well no.
You might disagree with Gavin Esler but he is quite clearly making an assessment of the communication.
You, on the other hand, had nothing to add except to signal that he is someone who you will not listen to because... well because you are evidently far too closed-minded to consider whether he has a point.
A very unbiased assessment of the communication, no doubt.
There you go again. Instead of playing the man, try engaging with his argument. If you’re capable of anything other than snide sniping without substance.
My point was that the criticism would be more powerful if it came from someone without a background like his. I don't think that's a controversial opinion at all.
You don’t have a point. Either the criticism has substance or it doesn’t. You’re trying to avoid any consideration of it by attacking the person who gave it. Small minds discuss people. Try lifting yourself above that, if you can.
I think I have a point. If the criticism is justified, surely people from all backgrounds will be doing it. Those are the ones that would be more helpful for ScottP to post if that's the line he's pushing, which is exactly what I said.
So you will only consider criticism from people you agree with? Pathetic.
What has my opinion on the matter got to do with it? I'm talking about the opinions of the person doing the criticism.
You haven’t talked about his opinions at all. You decided to ignore them as “not that helpful” because of who he is, not what he said. Come back to me when you have anything to say about his opinions. Or indeed anything that isn’t just an irrelevant personal attack on the man.
Probably not that helpful in convincing people the criticism is valid. I think I would have the same opinion regardless of what I thought about Brexit or whatever.
What you’re saying is that nothing Gavin Esler says is going to be listened to by you. You’re fully inoculated against inconvenient arguments from unfriendly directions.
What a waste of brain cells.
There's logic in it though. When The Times went full ham on the government a couple of weeks ago it was everywhere. When the Guardian do it no one cares. The messenger makes a difference, an enemy telling you you're on the wrong path is expected, a friend doing so isn't, it makes it much more powerful.
Shocked all these tweets are from very vocal remainers...
When either of you has a comment on the substance, rather than tickling your worryingly over-tickled prejudices based purely on dislike of the person expressing it, do let us know.
Isn't that what those tweeting were doing?
Well no.
You might disagree with Gavin Esler but he is quite clearly making an assessment of the communication.
You, on the other hand, had nothing to add except to signal that he is someone who you will not listen to because... well because you are evidently far too closed-minded to consider whether he has a point.
A very unbiased assessment of the communication, no doubt.
There you go again. Instead of playing the man, try engaging with his argument. If you’re capable of anything other than snide sniping without substance.
My point was that the criticism would be more powerful if it came from someone without a background like his. I don't think that's a controversial opinion at all.
You don’t have a point. Either the criticism has substance or it doesn’t. You’re trying to avoid any consideration of it by attacking the person who gave it. Small minds discuss people. Try lifting yourself above that, if you can.
I think I have a point. If the criticism is justified, surely people from all backgrounds will be doing it. Those are the ones that would be more helpful for ScottP to post if that's the line he's pushing, which is exactly what I said.
So you will only consider criticism from people you agree with? Pathetic.
What has my opinion on the matter got to do with it? I'm talking about the opinions of the person doing the criticism.
You haven’t talked about his opinions at all. You decided to ignore them as “not that helpful” because of who he is, not what he said. Come back to me when you have anything to say about his opinions. Or indeed anything that isn’t just an irrelevant personal attack on the man.
Probably not that helpful in convincing people the criticism is valid. I think I would have the same opinion regardless of what I thought about Brexit or whatever.
What you’re saying is that nothing Gavin Esler says is going to be listened to by you. You’re fully inoculated against inconvenient arguments from unfriendly directions.
What a waste of brain cells.
It will be listened to, but I will also take into account his previous statements etc, and probably seek further evidence from other sources. My central point about him not being a convincing messenger stands.
You don’t have a point. To this moment, you still haven’t once addressed his argument. Your opinion, so far as it can be deduced from your increasingly frantic clarifications, is that the Bad Man said nasty things. At some point you might get round to considering what nasty things he said.
Genuine question - am I now allowed to drive down to London to see my Mum?
No I don't think so.
Yes. The stages of the argument: You can leave your home only with a reasonable excuse (2020 Regulations) "You can drive to other destinations" (Boris's speech today) Which means it is to be seen as a reasonable excuse. Driving to your mum's is 'another destination' but "You must obey the rules on social distancing" (Boris today). Within that limit you can drive to see your mum.
Further thought must await publication of guidance tomorrow.
You could always drive to other destinations. I drove to Morrisons earlier today. Old advice.
What's changed with the advice today is that you can now drive to another destination to exercise with other members of your household.
Including exercising outside the houses of friends and family.
This is the elephant in the room: the government clearly want folk back at work, except for in certain areas e.g. pubs, restaurants, retail etc. But what isn`t clear is how fast the furlough payments stop when they do. It sounded to me like "should" go back to work still implies choice. If it is a choice between 1) going back to work and losing furlough to be replaced by wages again, or 2) staying at home and continuing draw 80% from the government, then why go back to work?
I would assume because furlough is the choice of the company not the individual workers. So if a company decides that some of its staff can return then they would no longer have the choice of furlough. Ity is exactly how things were done when furlough started with many companies sending a percentage of their workforce home but keeping the rest working.
Yes - you`ve made my point for me. So ABC Ltd start operating again, employee X goes back to work, back to normal. Employee Y says "no, I`m not going back to work". So (presumably, and in my view regretably) Y continues to receive his 80/100% for staying at home off the back of his employer`s application for payment.
So people choose Y.
Er, no. Employee Y faces disciplinary action for not turning up to work. Employees have never been the decision-makers on whether to be on furlough or not.
No - only if the employer refuses to comply with employees wishes. They won`t refuse. Why would they? They can keep employee on books at no cost.
This won`t work. The government needs to announce an end to furlough payments for everyone except the specific industries which they are barring from operating. Work in a restaurant - furloughed. Work in building industry - go to work or don`t get paid.
No because in many instances the reason for furloughing 50% but keeping the other 50% working is because of social distancing within the workplace. That is workplace specific rather than industry specific.
What's the general consensus on whether Trump will be re-elected?
Much of it depends on how Biden performs in the campaign. If he goes all Captain Alzheimers then Trump will walk it, if his team are able to hide that then it will be close. If Biden isn't the candidate then I think.the Dems will walk it.
Personal view is it will be an easier win for Trump than many think. The two big themes of the election will be who will be seen to be better for the economy and, conversely, stand up to China. Trump has an advantage on both. He will gain a boost from being the incumbent. His handling of CV has not been great but it's not been disastrous (before anyone comments. rememember a disproportionate amount of deaths are In NYC, which is atypical to most of the US, and Florida, which has been the most vocal at reopening, has not seen a surge yet). The polls are showing he has won some slight but crucial gains in the African-American and Hispanic votes. Finally, but not least, Biden is a weak candidate - incoherent and the sex allegations are gaining ground.
I doubt it. A solidly feminist American friend, not always a Democrat, says she's genuinely amused at the idea that she won't vote Biden becayse he might have groped someone. She says it makes no difference whether the allegations are true or not - she feels it's obvious that Trump is much worse.
Sample of 1, but I can't see many people differing. Biden's poll lead is not huge but it's pretty steady - no clear movements either way apart from the odd outlier.
I’m lost by the confusion of those who are on furlough and those commenting on their behalf have about the lack of advice on how you should work taking into account social distancing. What on earth do they think those who have remained at work , working in food production, food delivery, and dozens of other industries have been doing? There is loads of information on Government websites and you just have to go food shopping to see what changes have been made. People have got too used to the easy life on furlough and are happy for other people to go to work while they sit at home and get supermarket and amazon deliveries using government money. If you can go shopping in tescos then you can work on a construction site. The same social distancing procedure applies.
You don’t have a point. To this moment, you still haven’t once addressed his argument. Your opinion, so far as it can be deduced from your increasingly frantic clarifications, is that the Bad Man said nasty things. At some point you might get round to considering what nasty things he said.
You don't think the criticism would be a lot harder to dismiss if it came from someone without his baggage on issues relating to Boris?
Tory loyalists might note that the Telegraph’s front page comment describes it as a statement that left more questions than it answered and the nation raising a timid hand in confusion:
You don’t have a point. To this moment, you still haven’t once addressed his argument. Your opinion, so far as it can be deduced from your increasingly frantic clarifications, is that the Bad Man said nasty things. At some point you might get round to considering what nasty things he said.
You don't think the criticism would be a lot harder to dismiss if it came from someone without his baggage on issues relating to Boris?
Unlike you, I’d address the argument. But you’re evidently wholly incapable of doing so.
You don’t have a point. To this moment, you still haven’t once addressed his argument. Your opinion, so far as it can be deduced from your increasingly frantic clarifications, is that the Bad Man said nasty things. At some point you might get round to considering what nasty things he said.
You don't think the criticism would be a lot harder to dismiss if it came from someone without his baggage on issues relating to Boris?
Shocked all these tweets are from very vocal remainers...
When either of you has a comment on the substance, rather than tickling your worryingly over-tickled prejudices based purely on dislike of the person expressing it, do let us know.
Isn't that what those tweeting were doing?
Well no.
You might disagree with Gavin Esler but he is quite clearly making an assessment of the communication.
You, on the other hand, had nothing to add except to signal that he is someone who you will not listen to because... well because you are evidently far too closed-minded to consider whether he has a point.
A very unbiased assessment of the communication, no doubt.
There you go again. Instead of playing the man, try engaging with his argument. If you’re capable of anything other than snide sniping without substance.
My point was that the criticism would be more powerful if it came from someone without a background like his. I don't think that's a controversial opinion at all.
You don’t have a point. Either the criticism has substance or it doesn’t. You’re trying to avoid any consideration of it by attacking the person who gave it. Small minds discuss people. Try lifting yourself above that, if you can.
I think I have a point. If the criticism is justified, surely people from all backgrounds will be saying it. Those are the ones that would be more helpful for ScottP to post if that's the line he's pushing, which is exactly what I said.
You do not need to justify yourself to anyone
I probably shouldn't have been so flippant, but I genuinely think that if that was the message ScottP wanted to get across, finding examples from people without such a history of Boris hatred would probably make it far more convincing.
"Boris's incompetence has cost 31,000 lives" - discuss!
Its 55,000
One interesting bit in the speech was where Johnson said that our action enabled us to avoid the reasonable worst-case scenario of 250,000 dead. It's interesting to me because:
(1) It implies an IFR of 0.5%, which is fairly marginal, I think, in terms of whether the lockdown was the correct response. 1% -> definitely right. 0.1% -> looks like a mistake. 0.5% -> quite close. I think ~0.3% is the tipping point (I think that's halfway on a logarithmic scale between 0.1 and 1)
(2) It means we have saved just under 200,000 deaths, and falling. What is the tipping point figure between "we're glad to have avoided worse" and "why did you feck this up?" I'm surprised that 50,000 deaths isn't enough to have passed that point already.
Well of course. A 20-year-old unemployed former bartender with practically zero chance of dying of the disease, who's also desperate to earn money to pay the rent and have something resembling a normal social (and sex) life, is liable to have a different attitude to all of this to a 78-year-old with COPD, living in their own (mortgage-free) home off a fat pension, whose life presently revolves around the all-consuming terror of catching the wretched thing and who never leaves the house as a consequence.
The British public has been remarkably disciplined in sticking to tight lockdown regulations up until now, but anyone who thinks this unity of purpose can be maintained indefinitely is delusional.
You don’t have a point. To this moment, you still haven’t once addressed his argument. Your opinion, so far as it can be deduced from your increasingly frantic clarifications, is that the Bad Man said nasty things. At some point you might get round to considering what nasty things he said.
You don't think the criticism would be a lot harder to dismiss if it came from someone without his baggage on issues relating to Boris?
Unlike you, I’d address the argument. But you’re evidently wholly incapable of doing so.
Alastair I hate to say this but it seems reasonable to me to dismiss someone like Gavin Esler. He has such a permanent anti-Boris agenda that there's unlikely to be anything helpful emanating from his twitter account.
Well of course. A 20-year-old unemployed former bartender with practically zero chance of dying of the disease, who's also desperate to earn money to pay the rent and have something resembling a normal social (and sex) life, is liable to have a different attitude to all of this to a 78-year-old with COPD, living in their own (mortgage-free) home off a fat pension, whose life presently revolves around the all-consuming terror of catching the wretched thing and who never leaves the house as a consequence.
The British public has been remarkably disciplined in sticking to tight lockdown regulations up until now, but anyone who thinks this unity of purpose can be maintained indefinitely is delusional.
Which is why those screaming for early lockdown were wrong imho. No doubt I am old person killer or some such. But my anecdata experience is the 65+ age group had made their own decisions in early March.
Shocked all these tweets are from very vocal remainers...
When either of you has a comment on the substance, rather than tickling your worryingly over-tickled prejudices based purely on dislike of the person expressing it, do let us know.
Isn't that what those tweeting were doing?
Well no.
You might disagree with Gavin Esler but he is quite clearly making an assessment of the communication.
You, on the other hand, had nothing to add except to signal that he is someone who you will not listen to because... well because you are evidently far too closed-minded to consider whether he has a point.
A very unbiased assessment of the communication, no doubt.
There you go again. Instead of playing the man, try engaging with his argument. If you’re capable of anything other than snide sniping without substance.
My point was that the criticism would be more powerful if it came from someone without a background like his. I don't think that's a controversial opinion at all.
You don’t have a point. Either the criticism has substance or it doesn’t. You’re trying to avoid any consideration of it by attacking the person who gave it. Small minds discuss people. Try lifting yourself above that, if you can.
I think I have a point. If the criticism is justified, surely people from all backgrounds will be saying it. Those are the ones that would be more helpful for ScottP to post if that's the line he's pushing, which is exactly what I said.
You do not need to justify yourself to anyone
I probably shouldn't have been so flippant, but I genuinely think that if that was the message ScottP wanted to get across, finding examples from people without such a history of Boris hatred would probably make it far more convincing.
"Boris's incompetence has cost 31,000 lives" - discuss!
Its 55,000
One interesting bit in the speech was where Johnson said that our action enabled us to avoid the reasonable worst-case scenario of 250,000 dead. It's interesting to me because:
(1) It implies an IFR of 0.5%, which is fairly marginal, I think, in terms of whether the lockdown was the correct response. 1% -> definitely right. 0.1% -> looks like a mistake. 0.5% -> quite close. I think ~0.3% is the tipping point (I think that's halfway on a logarithmic scale between 0.1 and 1)
(2) It means we have saved just under 200,000 deaths, and falling. What is the tipping point figure between "we're glad to have avoided worse" and "why did you feck this up?" I'm surprised that 50,000 deaths isn't enough to have passed that point already.
I'm pretty sure he described said worse case as half-a-million. I believe that number derives from the notorious Imperial College model.
But I take the general point: the worse the death toll becomes (and, very importantly, we must bear in mind that lockdown will result in increased mortality from non-Covid causes, which must be taken into account,) the greater the likelihood that we move into "why did you feck this up?" territory. And, indeed, into "why continue to bother with the lockdown at all?" territory.
Well of course. A 20-year-old unemployed former bartender with practically zero chance of dying of the disease, who's also desperate to earn money to pay the rent and have something resembling a normal social (and sex) life, is liable to have a different attitude to all of this to a 78-year-old with COPD, living in their own (mortgage-free) home off a fat pension, whose life presently revolves around the all-consuming terror of catching the wretched thing and who never leaves the house as a consequence.
The British public has been remarkably disciplined in sticking to tight lockdown regulations up until now, but anyone who thinks this unity of purpose can be maintained indefinitely is delusional.
I fit your description of the 78 year old though 76 and really do feel for the young ones on this
Neither my wife or I will move out of lockdown anytime soon but really do want hope for those who need to get back to work and save their businesses.
Shocked all these tweets are from very vocal remainers...
When either of you has a comment on the substance, rather than tickling your worryingly over-tickled prejudices based purely on dislike of the person expressing it, do let us know.
Isn't that what those tweeting were doing?
Well no.
You might disagree with Gavin Esler but he is quite clearly making an assessment of the communication.
You, on the other hand, had nothing to add except to signal that he is someone who you will not listen to because... well because you are evidently far too closed-minded to consider whether he has a point.
A very unbiased assessment of the communication, no doubt.
There you go again. Instead of playing the man, try engaging with his argument. If you’re capable of anything other than snide sniping without substance.
My point was that the criticism would be more powerful if it came from someone without a background like his. I don't think that's a controversial opinion at all.
You don’t have a point. Either the criticism has substance or it doesn’t. You’re trying to avoid any consideration of it by attacking the person who gave it. Small minds discuss people. Try lifting yourself above that, if you can.
I think I have a point. If the criticism is justified, surely people from all backgrounds will be doing it. Those are the ones that would be more helpful for ScottP to post if that's the line he's pushing, which is exactly what I said.
So you will only consider criticism from people you agree with? Pathetic.
What has my opinion on the matter got to do with it? I'm talking about the opinions of the person doing the criticism.
You haven’t talked about his opinions at all. You decided to ignore them as “not that helpful” because of who he is, not what he said. Come back to me when you have anything to say about his opinions. Or indeed anything that isn’t just an irrelevant personal attack on the man.
Probably not that helpful in convincing people the criticism is valid. I think I would have the same opinion regardless of what I thought about Brexit or whatever.
What you’re saying is that nothing Gavin Esler says is going to be listened to by you. You’re fully inoculated against inconvenient arguments from unfriendly directions.
What a waste of brain cells.
There's logic in it though. When The Times went full ham on the government a couple of weeks ago it was everywhere. When the Guardian do it no one cares. The messenger makes a difference, an enemy telling you you're on the wrong path is expected, a friend doing so isn't, it makes it much more powerful.
Which is why the criticism you have made of the government is more worth reading than that of people who always criticise the government.
Likewise praise is more interesting from natural opponents than from cheerleaders.
Social distancing PPE Contact tracing Hygiene Testing
... can all be part of the Stay Alert meme whilst getting on with our lives. Yes, people will die from it. But it's better than sticking inside our houses for months on end.
Besides which, the difference between English and Scottish policy presently consists of people being allowed to be static as well as to move in parks, builders being allowed to work on "non-essential" projects, and a different marketing slogan. Unless there are any other little nuances I'm missing?
It's not exactly carnival time south of the Tweed.
Well of course. A 20-year-old unemployed former bartender with practically zero chance of dying of the disease, who's also desperate to earn money to pay the rent and have something resembling a normal social (and sex) life, is liable to have a different attitude to all of this to a 78-year-old with COPD, living in their own (mortgage-free) home off a fat pension, whose life presently revolves around the all-consuming terror of catching the wretched thing and who never leaves the house as a consequence.
The British public has been remarkably disciplined in sticking to tight lockdown regulations up until now, but anyone who thinks this unity of purpose can be maintained indefinitely is delusional.
Which is why those screaming for early lockdown were wrong imho. No doubt I am old person killer or some such. But my anecdata experience is the 65+ age group had made their own decisions in early March.
My wife and I went into or own lockdown a week before the official one
Well of course. A 20-year-old unemployed former bartender with practically zero chance of dying of the disease, who's also desperate to earn money to pay the rent and have something resembling a normal social (and sex) life, is liable to have a different attitude to all of this to a 78-year-old with COPD, living in their own (mortgage-free) home off a fat pension, whose life presently revolves around the all-consuming terror of catching the wretched thing and who never leaves the house as a consequence.
The British public has been remarkably disciplined in sticking to tight lockdown regulations up until now, but anyone who thinks this unity of purpose can be maintained indefinitely is delusional.
Which is why those screaming for early lockdown were wrong imho. No doubt I am old person killer or some such. But my anecdata experience is the 65+ age group had made their own decisions in early March.
My wife and I went into or own lockdown a week before the official one
As I was saying before his big speech the immovable object is social distancing. Everything he announced is predicated upon observing social distancing. You cannot social distance public transport or schools or hospitality. Which means we can defer those things for now and hope the virus dies off by itself.
Otherwise the instructions by July will be go on public transport because you have to take the risk and go back to work in your pub to take the risk because you have to. Then in September we'll send kids back to schools telling their parents and the teachers to take the risk.
They won't of course say risk your lives. I wonder what bullshit slogan they will have invented by then.
In the community its probably comfortably below 1, in Hospitals and most of all Care Homes its probably close to or above 1 - so unless both of those are got and kept under control it risks spilling back out into the community and a second peak.
Scotland and Wales have a Care Home problem (or possibly know they have one, England's is either improving or out of control under the radar) that so far may not yet be under control.
And if its like the Spanish flu, the second wave went after the young and healthy.
It could be simpler - Scotland and Wales have bungled testing. If you don't know who has the virus it's harder to stop them from spreading it.
You stupid cretin , it says England is 0.9 and Scotland is near to 1, assume you don't know your numbers either. I like your absolute pish that England's care home problem is under control in secret and testing is not bungled, got your 50K results back from US yet. CUCKOO.
Well of course. A 20-year-old unemployed former bartender with practically zero chance of dying of the disease, who's also desperate to earn money to pay the rent and have something resembling a normal social (and sex) life, is liable to have a different attitude to all of this to a 78-year-old with COPD, living in their own (mortgage-free) home off a fat pension, whose life presently revolves around the all-consuming terror of catching the wretched thing and who never leaves the house as a consequence.
The British public has been remarkably disciplined in sticking to tight lockdown regulations up until now, but anyone who thinks this unity of purpose can be maintained indefinitely is delusional.
Which is why those screaming for early lockdown were wrong imho. No doubt I am old person killer or some such. But my anecdata experience is the 65+ age group had made their own decisions in early March.
My wife and I went into or own lockdown a week before the official one
Besides which, the difference between English and Scottish policy presently consists of people being allowed to be static as well as to move in parks, builders being allowed to work on "non-essential" projects, and a different marketing slogan. Unless there are any other little nuances I'm missing?
It's not exactly carnival time south of the Tweed.
The loonies are out again, it will settle down soon , they have wobblies every week or so.
Genuine question - am I now allowed to drive down to London to see my Mum?
Based on the PMs statement I think you are explicitly allowed to do this if you both meet in the park. Should be more details if you can meet at her home tomorrow.
As I was saying before his big speech the immovable object is social distancing. Everything he announced is predicated upon observing social distancing. You cannot social distance public transport or schools or hospitality. Which means we can defer those things for now and hope the virus dies off by itself.
Otherwise the instructions by July will be go on public transport because you have to take the risk and go back to work in your pub to take the risk because you have to. Then in September we'll send kids back to schools telling their parents and the teachers to take the risk.
They won't of course say risk your lives. I wonder what bullshit slogan they will have invented by then.
Comments
The more enterprising ones may well open by august
It was clearly open and had notices in window, one for employees and one for guests outlining the measures the both had to adopt.
One for example as all bedding to be put in red sacks and left for 3 days before being sent for cleaning
Ireland is part of the CTA. France already has strict travel restrictions in place - you can't fly there from outside the EU and need documentation to transit.
If we're very lucky then it might be safe enough to risk low key visits to aged parents by the Autumn. As for a fortnight of jollies in Cornwall in August, I wouldn't hold your breath.
It's a difficult time for everyone, as long as you're not being an idiot about it I think you should use your best judgement.
If this is replicated the the GOP are in for serious trouble.
https://twitter.com/BBCkatyaadler/status/1259578658529910784?s=20
Does professional sport fall within the category of try to get back to work?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lr_lhMh9-Q
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNscnqs52iM (watch from 1 minute in)
And some on the Democrat side think they need to be thinking of alternatives
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/03/opinion/joe-biden-tara-reade.html
To be clear - genuine question - not meant to be sarcasm
the big hits. Playing touch rugby isn't going to excite many.
Not a hint of the headlines three days ago saying Magic Monday would be Release Day ect etc.
Shameless.
You can leave your home only with a reasonable excuse (2020 Regulations)
"You can drive to other destinations" (Boris's speech today)
Which means it is to be seen as a reasonable excuse.
Driving to your mum's is 'another destination' but
"You must obey the rules on social distancing" (Boris today).
Within that limit you can drive to see your mum.
Further thought must await publication of guidance tomorrow.
I can see most of the train station car park from my flat, which is located in a commuter belt town. It's normally pretty well packed during the week, and used by a substantial number of leisure travellers at the weekend.
The total car count now varies between zero and five, and hasn't increased at all since the start of lockdown. Travel down to London and up to Cambridge has, to all intents and purposes, stopped.
There are a lot of people saying it's all very muddled and unclear: perhaps they would be more convincing if they gave examples of what they found unclear, bearing in mind that the PM explained that full details will be presented to parliament tomorrow.
What a waste of brain cells.
Actually, the community of physicists and mathematicians, and likely all scientists, has been truly global for some time. For instance, if one is asked to referee a paper by somebody from Timbuktu one will treat it seriously with the same degree of rigour as if it were from Oxford or MIT.
So, why can't we act globally to curb and correct climate change---starting, for instance with the nonsense that it is our birthright to hop on planes and cruises and to own all the other "necessities" like a car for every family member?
At least, scared shitless, it appears that some of us are discovering the sense of walking, running, and cycling. Good.
What's changed with the advice today is that you can now drive to another destination to exercise with other members of your household.
Can't think who.
Sample of 1, but I can't see many people differing. Biden's poll lead is not huge but it's pretty steady - no clear movements either way apart from the odd outlier.
https://twitter.com/bbchelena/status/1259586398090342405?s=21
You’d better do some googling to find out her Brexit views.
(1) It implies an IFR of 0.5%, which is fairly marginal, I think, in terms of whether the lockdown was the correct response. 1% -> definitely right. 0.1% -> looks like a mistake. 0.5% -> quite close. I think ~0.3% is the tipping point (I think that's halfway on a logarithmic scale between 0.1 and 1)
(2) It means we have saved just under 200,000 deaths, and falling. What is the tipping point figure between "we're glad to have avoided worse" and "why did you feck this up?" I'm surprised that 50,000 deaths isn't enough to have passed that point already.
The British public has been remarkably disciplined in sticking to tight lockdown regulations up until now, but anyone who thinks this unity of purpose can be maintained indefinitely is delusional.
https://twitter.com/rhodritd/status/1259556219611762688?s=20
But I take the general point: the worse the death toll becomes (and, very importantly, we must bear in mind that lockdown will result in increased mortality from non-Covid causes, which must be taken into account,) the greater the likelihood that we move into "why did you feck this up?" territory. And, indeed, into "why continue to bother with the lockdown at all?" territory.
Neither my wife or I will move out of lockdown anytime soon but really do want hope for those who need to get back to work and save their businesses.
EDIT: Something something people can't process complexity and uncertainty, but there will be suicides, and lockdown isn't black and white anyway.
Likewise praise is more interesting from natural opponents than from cheerleaders.
Social distancing
PPE
Contact tracing
Hygiene
Testing
... can all be part of the Stay Alert meme whilst getting on with our lives. Yes, people will die from it. But it's better than sticking inside our houses for months on end.
It's not exactly carnival time south of the Tweed.
But we would all die of starvation after a few months.
Otherwise the instructions by July will be go on public transport because you have to take the risk and go back to work in your pub to take the risk because you have to. Then in September we'll send kids back to schools telling their parents and the teachers to take the risk.
They won't of course say risk your lives. I wonder what bullshit slogan they will have invented by then.