The precedent for the Leader of the Opposition having the 'right to reply' to a Prime Ministerial broadcast is very firmly established - dating back to Gaitskell replying to Eden at the time of the Suez crisis.
One thing I don’t grasp about PB is the apparent certainty many have that a fairly rapid vaccine and/or treatment is unlikely/impossible. This strikes me as “we are all doomed” stuff: from what I can read, the medical profession is fairly confident it can deliver a vaccine.
Where does PB’s negativity come from? Is it just the usual drama queenery?
I'm negative because Oxford University appear to be leading the charge for a vaccine, and that place is a dump we've yet to find a cure for the common cold.
Because there's:
1: Roughly 200 strains of common cold, so what will work for one won't necessarily work for the others, you'd need to beat all 200 strains. 2: The common cold is rather minor and people almost always get over it so there's little incentive to work on finding a cure for it.
This on the other hand is one strain of virus which is very deadly so there's massive incentive to find a cure. Completely different.
One thing I don’t grasp about PB is the apparent certainty many have that a fairly rapid vaccine and/or treatment is unlikely/impossible. This strikes me as “we are all doomed” stuff: from what I can read, the medical profession is fairly confident it can deliver a vaccine.
Where does PB’s negativity come from? Is it just the usual drama queenery?
I'm negative because Oxford University appear to be leading the charge for a vaccine, and that place is a dump we've yet to find a cure for the common cold.
There's about 200 viruses that cause the common cold. And they mutate. You could now be immune to all the colds you caught in the last 2 years, and it would make no difference. And it's a trivial disease anyway.
"This timetable is reckless. This timetable is simply not safe," says Mary Bousted, co-leader of the biggest teachers' union, the National Education Union.
She said the reopening plans had "stoked teachers' anxiety and triggered real confusion because the announcement is inconsistent on the importance of social distancing and how or WHETHER [my emphasis] it can be achieved in schools".
Paul Whiteman, general secretary of the school leaders' union NAHT, said the ambition to return all primary pupils within the next seven weeks was "wildly optimistic, to the point of being irresponsible".
"School leaders do not want to see classrooms empty for a day longer than they need be - but there is not a school leader in the land who wants to risk admitting more pupils unless it is safe to do so."
One gains the distinct impression that what they really want is for all the schools to remain shut for the general population until a vaccine is developed. Which may never happen.
The case for demolishing the schools and selling the land off for housing development grows by the day.
One thing I don’t grasp about PB is the apparent certainty many have that a fairly rapid vaccine and/or treatment is unlikely/impossible. This strikes me as “we are all doomed” stuff: from what I can read, the medical profession is fairly confident it can deliver a vaccine.
Where does PB’s negativity come from? Is it just the usual drama queenery?
I'm negative because Oxford University appear to be leading the charge for a vaccine, and that place is a dump we've yet to find a cure for the common cold.
Isn't that a different class of virus? I thought boffins were relatively up-beat about the prospects for a vaccine.
Quote from the article I linked above:
Vaccines that induce neutralising antibodies to the virus are strongly predicted to work: maybe not perfectly, and maybe not without complications, but I don’t know a single immunologist or virologist who thinks a vaccine is impossible.
Counter quote from Sir Patrick Vallence
"On the vaccine, you can never guarantee that you're going to get a vaccine," the CSA warned. "It's a tough thing to do.
"I will say that there's been great progress made, though.
"There are a number of vaccine programmes around the world that are progressing. There are a number in the clinic now; so far so good.
"So, I think the chances are a bit higher than they were, in terms of getting a vaccine, but you never know until you've got one."
Quite simply, nobody knows. But you only have to look at cancer to see that intractable problems can be intractable in the face of all the funding in the world.
Like the common cold there's many different types of cancers and ways they develop there's not just one. Plus vaccines work against viruses [in general] due to a well understood process of how the vaccine works and how the virus develops. Cancers don't develop the same way and are not viruses.
Sadiq has signed up to the government advice on Instagram. Just posted it in full. I think Labour are going to be grown ups about it which is a good sign, the last thing we need is for them to try and make hay out of the government possibly having to change advice or go back to L4.
One thing I don’t grasp about PB is the apparent certainty many have that a fairly rapid vaccine and/or treatment is unlikely/impossible. This strikes me as “we are all doomed” stuff: from what I can read, the medical profession is fairly confident it can deliver a vaccine.
Where does PB’s negativity come from? Is it just the usual drama queenery?
I'm negative because Oxford University appear to be leading the charge for a vaccine, and that place is a dump we've yet to find a cure for the common cold.
Isn't that a different class of virus? I thought boffins were relatively up-beat about the prospects for a vaccine.
Quote from the article I linked above:
Vaccines that induce neutralising antibodies to the virus are strongly predicted to work: maybe not perfectly, and maybe not without complications, but I don’t know a single immunologist or virologist who thinks a vaccine is impossible.
Counter quote from Sir Patrick Vallence
"On the vaccine, you can never guarantee that you're going to get a vaccine," the CSA warned. "It's a tough thing to do.
"I will say that there's been great progress made, though.
"There are a number of vaccine programmes around the world that are progressing. There are a number in the clinic now; so far so good.
"So, I think the chances are a bit higher than they were, in terms of getting a vaccine, but you never know until you've got one."
Quite simply, nobody knows. But you only have to look at cancer to see that intractable problems can be intractable in the face of all the funding in the world.
Indeed. Or AIDS which unlike COVID19 looked like a hopeless case for any treatment. Admittedly there is no vaccine, but there are treatments that successfully manage HIV.
The precedent for the Leader of the Opposition having the 'right to reply' to a Prime Ministerial broadcast is very firmly established - dating back to Gaitskell replying to Eden at the time of the Suez crisis.
I actually knew about it because you've mentioned it here in the past. Seems perfectly sensible.
The precedent for the Leader of the Opposition having the 'right to reply' to a Prime Ministerial broadcast is very firmly established - dating back to Gaitskell replying to Eden at the time of the Suez crisis.
The White House directed officials to wear masks at all times inside the building after two people in the West Wing tested positive for coronavirus, administration officials said.
One thing I don’t grasp about PB is the apparent certainty many have that a fairly rapid vaccine and/or treatment is unlikely/impossible. This strikes me as “we are all doomed” stuff: from what I can read, the medical profession is fairly confident it can deliver a vaccine.
Where does PB’s negativity come from? Is it just the usual drama queenery?
I have heard the exact same Negativity from virologists and other boffins. We have never found a vaccine for a human coronavirus. On the other hand I have other scientists express confidence that we WILL get a vaccine.
It seems the experts are as divided as us.
How many common viral infections do humans get that are caused by coronaviruses?
Errr: SARS, MERS (neither of which are common), and a couple of the variants of the common cold, which are a substantial minority.
So, when we say "no vaccines" we're talking about an incredibly small range of viruses.
Coronaviruses are much more common in cats and dogs.
Guess what? We found vaccines there. So, if you have a cat in the US, you will be encouraged to get the vaccine for feline infectious peritonitis, which is a coronavirus.
Plus, people who contracted SARS and MERS got antibodies, and then were resistant to reinfection. (Interestingly, people who got SARS, and then got antibodies, seemed to end up resistant to common cold coronavirus variants.)
The real arguments between experts are: (1) How long will it take to make a vaccine? Some think 18 months, other think it will be more like a decade, pointing to how long it took with HPV to get a working vaccine. (2) How long will the vaccine confer immunity? Resistance to viruses tends to fade over time as the immune system forgets (sometimes) and as the virus changes.
The precedent for the Leader of the Opposition having the 'right to reply' to a Prime Ministerial broadcast is very firmly established - dating back to Gaitskell replying to Eden at the time of the Suez crisis.
How do these fools become MPs?
In her case because the Labour Party ignored the concerns of working class voters in County Durham.
One thing I don’t grasp about PB is the apparent certainty many have that a fairly rapid vaccine and/or treatment is unlikely/impossible. This strikes me as “we are all doomed” stuff: from what I can read, the medical profession is fairly confident it can deliver a vaccine.
Where does PB’s negativity come from? Is it just the usual drama queenery?
I'm negative because Oxford University appear to be leading the charge for a vaccine, and that place is a dump we've yet to find a cure for the common cold.
Because there's:
1: Roughly 200 strains of common cold, so what will work for one won't necessarily work for the others, you'd need to beat all 200 strains. 2: The common cold is rather minor and people almost always get over it so there's little incentive to work on finding a cure for it.
This on the other hand is one strain of virus which is very deadly so there's massive incentive to find a cure. Completely different.
And most of the strains of the common cold are fairly fast mutating, so even if you could vaccinate against one, it's quite possible that one would not exist in any recognisable form in a year's time.
One thing I don’t grasp about PB is the apparent certainty many have that a fairly rapid vaccine and/or treatment is unlikely/impossible. This strikes me as “we are all doomed” stuff: from what I can read, the medical profession is fairly confident it can deliver a vaccine.
Where does PB’s negativity come from? Is it just the usual drama queenery?
I'm negative because Oxford University appear to be leading the charge for a vaccine, and that place is a dump we've yet to find a cure for the common cold.
Isn't that a different class of virus? I thought boffins were relatively up-beat about the prospects for a vaccine.
Quote from the article I linked above:
Vaccines that induce neutralising antibodies to the virus are strongly predicted to work: maybe not perfectly, and maybe not without complications, but I don’t know a single immunologist or virologist who thinks a vaccine is impossible.
As an aside, the main viruses that we've not been able to develop vaccines to - such as AIDS and Herpes - are ones that the human body is not able to fully eliminate. Once you've got AIDS and Herpes, by and large, you've got AIDS or Herpes. It might be managed or go into remission. But it ain't going anyway.
My understanding, and this is still early days, so this might change, is that once CV-19 has gone from your system, then it's gone from your system.
One thing I don’t grasp about PB is the apparent certainty many have that a fairly rapid vaccine and/or treatment is unlikely/impossible. This strikes me as “we are all doomed” stuff: from what I can read, the medical profession is fairly confident it can deliver a vaccine.
Where does PB’s negativity come from? Is it just the usual drama queenery?
for instance (that's Chris Whitty). I have no medical expertise whatever, but if we look at some comparables: Ebola - disease identified 1976, vaccine 2019. HIV - identified early 80s, no vaccine yet (but it is a weird disease). SARS and MERS - no vaccine (but according to some, that's because the dieases fizzled out so there was no demand, no funding and no population in which to test a vaccine). Flu - vaccines made very widely available every year, but they don't work all that well: sometimes it's the wrong kind of snow, other times they work a bit in that they stop some people getting it and in other cases they reduce severity.
As against that, I doubt whether any other diusease has had 10% of the firepower aimed at it as covid is getting. So it's all to play for, but frank uncertainty is the best position to adopt.
Not an expert, but isn't the other point the time it takes to test a vaccine to ensure it's safe. Even if one were discovered tomorrow, it would still take several months to test to make sure it's not the new thalidomide. And it's not being discovered tomorrow.
So it's simply impossible for us to lock down for long enough to find a vaccine without nuking the economy. All we can do is build hospital capacity, improve treatment, and minimise deaths on the road to herd immunity.
This is the issue that Rupert Beale mentioned in the article I linked. He's pretty sure we'll get a vaccince, but how it takes to be vaccinated is the issue. OTOH "herd immunity" is not likely to be useful, not least because immunity after being infected by a coronavirus typically wears off after five years or so. So we could suffer mass death and then go through it again a few years later.
The precedent for the Leader of the Opposition having the 'right to reply' to a Prime Ministerial broadcast is very firmly established - dating back to Gaitskell replying to Eden at the time of the Suez crisis.
One thing I don’t grasp about PB is the apparent certainty many have that a fairly rapid vaccine and/or treatment is unlikely/impossible. This strikes me as “we are all doomed” stuff: from what I can read, the medical profession is fairly confident it can deliver a vaccine.
Where does PB’s negativity come from? Is it just the usual drama queenery?
I'm negative because Oxford University appear to be leading the charge for a vaccine, and that place is a dump we've yet to find a cure for the common cold.
Because there's:
1: Roughly 200 strains of common cold, so what will work for one won't necessarily work for the others, you'd need to beat all 200 strains. 2: The common cold is rather minor and people almost always get over it so there's little incentive to work on finding a cure for it.
This on the other hand is one strain of virus which is very deadly so there's massive incentive to find a cure. Completely different.
And most of the strains of the common cold are fairly fast mutating, so even if you could vaccinate against one, it's quite possible that one would not exist in any recognisable form in a year's time.
Dr. Evil: You know, I have one simple request. And that is to have Coronaviruses with frickin' laser beams attached to their heads! Now evidently my cycloptic colleague informs me that that cannot be done. Ah, would you remind me what I pay you people for, honestly? Throw me a bone here! What do we have?
Good lord , just seen Sir Keirs response on the news. So stiff and dull. He will never be PM
What do you expect him to do? Do a few jokes and magical tricks....
I think within 12 months we'll desperate to see some competence running the country because for the lat 4 years we have really been governed by clowns...
The problem is that Starmer isn't competent enough to score in political open goals as opposition leader.
So not much likelihood of competency if he had to make the difficult decisions when the pressure was on.
Starmer will make a difference.
He is more competent and credible than any Labour leader since, well, Blair.
He's better than Brown (less of a jerk), better than Milliband (slightly less of a geek) and better than Corbyn (goes without saying).
Now, will he win a General Election? Probably not.
But I would expect that he will do no worse than Milliband.
But Corbyn did better than Milliband in 2017 - in terms of seats and vote share - and again in 2019 in terms of vote share.
Reading up on the Spanish Flu pandemic, some of the more successful outcomes (of which there were very few) came from so called 'fresh air' hospitals, where patients were kept (warm, with heated beds etc.) in wards that were open to the elements. The 'fresh air' cure was remarkably successful. Apparently the only ones who complained of the cold in this scenario were the nurses. Again this seems to nod at the importance of Vitamin D to our immune systems.
To me, the lesson in this for today is to have specific treatment centres doing nothing but coronavirus. Find the gold standard treatment option/environment for the sufferers, and ensure there's enough capacity. The Nightingale hospitals are a good start. Less temporary sanitori(a?) might be a good idea.
If the Porton Down study is showing “horrendously” low infection rates (@pulpstar) can we conclude that Covid-19 is erm, “horrendously” uninfective?
No. The issue is that the iceberg needs to be closer to 100x known cases rather than 10x known cases for it be a "Get Out of Jail Free Card" where the IFR is in the ballpark of seasonal flu, rather than getting on for an order of magnitude higher. It now looks very unlikely that we are going to discover that we have massively over-estimated COVID-19 and we can go back to living normally.
Boris and Macron with no doubt Varadkar are working on a holiday corridor between the three countries to boost tourism from July on. It seems the UK - France one was agreed in a joint statement by Boris and Macron yesteday
I pose this as a suggestion but could these three leaders, key to brexit, actually be working on the wider UK - EU deal.
It would be wonderful news if so but maybe just a pipe dream
I 'm not sure how anybody feels sufficiently confident to judge Starmer's prospects yet - indeed, I find it a bit remarkable that so many are so sure of his future fortunes. I've no idea how good, or bad, he will prove to be in the medium term. He has been leader of the LP for just over five weeks, at an extraordinary time of crisis. Of course he has had to be measured and statesmanlike (or dull if you prefer); even Boris has recognised this is not a time for flippancy or jokes, has he not? The crisis means that Starmer has had little opportunity to develop a public profile. His Shadow Cabinet are even less visible because of the crisis - and I suspect time will reveal that the Labour front bench is more able than its Tory counterpart, but we won't know that for at least a year I imagine. I've no doubt that Starmer has also devoted much attention behind the scenes to sorting out party organisational matters, and the crisis has given him some space to do that; the benefits can already be seen in consistency of message across the front bench. And as for Jess Phillips being next leader, I think not. Whether Starmer succeeds or fails, I wouldn't put money on anybody other than Lisa Nandy for now, though this may change.
One thing I don’t grasp about PB is the apparent certainty many have that a fairly rapid vaccine and/or treatment is unlikely/impossible. This strikes me as “we are all doomed” stuff: from what I can read, the medical profession is fairly confident it can deliver a vaccine.
Where does PB’s negativity come from? Is it just the usual drama queenery?
I'm negative because Oxford University appear to be leading the charge for a vaccine, and that place is a dump we've yet to find a cure for the common cold.
Isn't that a different class of virus? I thought boffins were relatively up-beat about the prospects for a vaccine.
Quote from the article I linked above:
Vaccines that induce neutralising antibodies to the virus are strongly predicted to work: maybe not perfectly, and maybe not without complications, but I don’t know a single immunologist or virologist who thinks a vaccine is impossible.
Counter quote from Sir Patrick Vallence
"On the vaccine, you can never guarantee that you're going to get a vaccine," the CSA warned. "It's a tough thing to do.
"I will say that there's been great progress made, though.
"There are a number of vaccine programmes around the world that are progressing. There are a number in the clinic now; so far so good.
"So, I think the chances are a bit higher than they were, in terms of getting a vaccine, but you never know until you've got one."
Quite simply, nobody knows. But you only have to look at cancer to see that intractable problems can be intractable in the face of all the funding in the world.
Indeed. Or AIDS which unlike COVID19 looked like a hopeless case for any treatment. Admittedly there is no vaccine, but there are treatments that successfully manage HIV.
Yes. I think this is really about treatment, and coronavirus (a lot more quickly and successfully than AIDS) becoming curable in all but the most frail individuals.
One thing I don’t grasp about PB is the apparent certainty many have that a fairly rapid vaccine and/or treatment is unlikely/impossible. This strikes me as “we are all doomed” stuff: from what I can read, the medical profession is fairly confident it can deliver a vaccine.
Where does PB’s negativity come from? Is it just the usual drama queenery?
for instance (that's Chris Whitty). I have no medical expertise whatever, but if we look at some comparables: Ebola - disease identified 1976, vaccine 2019. HIV - identified early 80s, no vaccine yet (but it is a weird disease). SARS and MERS - no vaccine (but according to some, that's because the dieases fizzled out so there was no demand, no funding and no population in which to test a vaccine). Flu - vaccines made very widely available every year, but they don't work all that well: sometimes it's the wrong kind of snow, other times they work a bit in that they stop some people getting it and in other cases they reduce severity.
As against that, I doubt whether any other diusease has had 10% of the firepower aimed at it as covid is getting. So it's all to play for, but frank uncertainty is the best position to adopt.
Not an expert, but isn't the other point the time it takes to test a vaccine to ensure it's safe. Even if one were discovered tomorrow, it would still take several months to test to make sure it's not the new thalidomide. And it's not being discovered tomorrow.
So it's simply impossible for us to lock down for long enough to find a vaccine without nuking the economy. All we can do is build hospital capacity, improve treatment, and minimise deaths on the road to herd immunity.
This is the issue that Rupert Beale mentioned in the article I linked. He's pretty sure we'll get a vaccince, but how it takes to be vaccinated is the issue. OTOH "herd immunity" is not likely to be useful, not least because immunity after being infected by a coronavirus typically wears off after five years or so. So we could suffer mass death and then go through it again a few years later.
That's a really interesting article, thanks for the link. The idea that immunity might be temporary at best is terrifying - I was under the impression you'd likely be immune for many years at least, and unlikely to suffer as severe symptoms for life.
If that's the case then I suspect the answer is going to be technological and intrusive. Never mind the app on our phone, we'll probably all have to wear state-issued trackers reporting our vital signs back to a database at all times.
The thought that this world could be the new normal for the next few years at least is unbelievably depressing. And after two months of lockdown, with barely any human contact, huge amounts of work stress, and constant fear of losing my job, I am already pretty depressed.
Boris and Macron with no doubt Varadkar are working on a holiday corridor between the three countries to boost tourism from July on. It seems the UK - France one was agreed in a joint statement by Boris and Macron yesteday
I pose this as a suggestion but could these three leaders, key to brexit, actually be working on the wider UK - EU deal.
It would be wonderful news if so but maybe just a pipe dream
Entirely possible. It was the bilateral talks between Boris and Varadkar that unlocked Boris's renegotiation last year and if Boris, Macron and Varadkar agree an outline of an agreement then who is really going to argue?
Difficult though, very difficult, because the main disagreements between us and Europe are really between us and France. Its the French who more than anyone want our fishing waters. Its the French more than anyone worried about us out competing them right on their doorstep. But that's again why like last year a deal if its reached will stick - because once you've got the two extremes to agree the middle can fall in line.
Boris and Macron with no doubt Varadkar are working on a holiday corridor between the three countries to boost tourism from July on. It seems the UK - France one was agreed in a joint statement by Boris and Macron yesteday
I pose this as a suggestion but could these three leaders, key to brexit, actually be working on the wider UK - EU deal.
It would be wonderful news if so but maybe just a pipe dream
I thought similarly last night, but it was late.
I’m surprised by the French exception but as you say it will be a major boost for French tourism.
Boris and Macron with no doubt Varadkar are working on a holiday corridor between the three countries to boost tourism from July on. It seems the UK - France one was agreed in a joint statement by Boris and Macron yesteday
I pose this as a suggestion but could these three leaders, key to brexit, actually be working on the wider UK - EU deal.
It would be wonderful news if so but maybe just a pipe dream
I thought similarly last night, but it was late.
I’m surprised by the French exception but as you say it will be a major boost for French tourism.
Good lord , just seen Sir Keirs response on the news. So stiff and dull. He will never be PM
What do you expect him to do? Do a few jokes and magical tricks....
I think within 12 months we'll desperate to see some competence running the country because for the lat 4 years we have really been governed by clowns...
The problem is that Starmer isn't competent enough to score in political open goals as opposition leader.
So not much likelihood of competency if he had to make the difficult decisions when the pressure was on.
Starmer will make a difference.
He is more competent and credible than any Labour leader since, well, Blair.
He's better than Brown (less of a jerk), better than Milliband (slightly less of a geek) and better than Corbyn (goes without saying).
Now, will he win a General Election? Probably not.
But I would expect that he will do no worse than Milliband.
But Corbyn did better than Milliband in 2017 - in terms of seats and vote share - and again in 2019 in terms of vote share.
2017 will always be an odd one to me in hindsight, especially after 2019.
Starmer should surely be able to achieve 40%, which is Hung Parliament territory.
@Gallowgate There's a shopping channel on TV that normally sells cheap jewelry, and they've started selling face masks. The market at work: https://www.tjc.co.uk/
That's why I think a lot of this 'shortage' stuff is bollocks. Shortage of ventilators - fine. Shortage of what is essentially face knickers - someone just needs to get their finger out.
One thing I don’t grasp about PB is the apparent certainty many have that a fairly rapid vaccine and/or treatment is unlikely/impossible. This strikes me as “we are all doomed” stuff: from what I can read, the medical profession is fairly confident it can deliver a vaccine.
Where does PB’s negativity come from? Is it just the usual drama queenery?
I think it`s more to do with preparing for a worst case scenario. I`d be much more comfortable with collapsing the economy and taking our freedoms if I knew that it was a temporary measure with a virus coming very soon to save us. But I don`t, so I`m not. If you follow me.
Sort of, but my hunch is that one or two PBers (almost all of whom are financially secure introverts) luxuriate in prophecies of doom.
Just a hunch though.
There are one or two PBers (or perhaps just the one) who luxuriated in prophecies of doom and then seamlessly pivoted to exhorting everyone to man up, listen to Boris and leave the weak by the roadside. They/he/she are likely financially secure, introverts not so much.
One thing I don’t grasp about PB is the apparent certainty many have that a fairly rapid vaccine and/or treatment is unlikely/impossible. This strikes me as “we are all doomed” stuff: from what I can read, the medical profession is fairly confident it can deliver a vaccine.
Where does PB’s negativity come from? Is it just the usual drama queenery?
for instance (that's Chris Whitty). I have no medical expertise whatever, but if we look at some comparables: Ebola - disease identified 1976, vaccine 2019. HIV - identified early 80s, no vaccine yet (but it is a weird disease). SARS and MERS - no vaccine (but according to some, that's because the dieases fizzled out so there was no demand, no funding and no population in which to test a vaccine). Flu - vaccines made very widely available every year, but they don't work all that well: sometimes it's the wrong kind of snow, other times they work a bit in that they stop some people getting it and in other cases they reduce severity.
As against that, I doubt whether any other diusease has had 10% of the firepower aimed at it as covid is getting. So it's all to play for, but frank uncertainty is the best position to adopt.
Not an expert, but isn't the other point the time it takes to test a vaccine to ensure it's safe. Even if one were discovered tomorrow, it would still take several months to test to make sure it's not the new thalidomide. And it's not being discovered tomorrow.
So it's simply impossible for us to lock down for long enough to find a vaccine without nuking the economy. All we can do is build hospital capacity, improve treatment, and minimise deaths on the road to herd immunity.
This is the issue that Rupert Beale mentioned in the article I linked. He's pretty sure we'll get a vaccince, but how it takes to be vaccinated is the issue. OTOH "herd immunity" is not likely to be useful, not least because immunity after being infected by a coronavirus typically wears off after five years or so. So we could suffer mass death and then go through it again a few years later.
That's a really interesting article, thanks for the link. The idea that immunity might be temporary at best is terrifying - I was under the impression you'd likely be immune for many years at least, and unlikely to suffer as severe symptoms for life.
If that's the case then I suspect the answer is going to be technological and intrusive. Never mind the app on our phone, we'll probably all have to wear state-issued trackers reporting our vital signs back to a database at all times.
The thought that this world could be the new normal for the next few years at least is unbelievably depressing. And after two months of lockdown, with barely any human contact, huge amounts of work stress, and constant fear of losing my job, I am already pretty depressed.
Yes it’s a horrible situation, work-wise and you have my empathy. This is why I become angry with lockdown purists - almost all of whom are independently financially comfortable. Extreme extended lockdowns are not a solution,
We have to reconcile safety concerns with economic ones.
I am Convinced Starmer will be a massive flop and am willing to take bets against him succeeding on that basis. So anyone interested let me know some suggestions. I will work on some tempting offers and publish them later this evening
This is a betting site, they used to say
Starmers don't win elections, Borises lose them. He is dull as ditchwater but nowhere near as useless as May or Brown. So his actual ability isn't particularly tied to outcomes at the moment.
Although Boris has never actually lost one!
London x2 Brexit Tory leadership Con Maj
Machine
He did lose at Clywd South in 1997 - and withdrew from the Tory Leadership race in 2016.
By 2024, Johnson's attempts at Churchillian soaring notes of keep going, this wonderful country will always triumph, this island of stalwart yeoman standing alone against the deadly foe, will sound as empty as a pulled xmas cracker.
Starmer is next PM is looking far more likely tonight.
It would make sense 14 years in. But it still won't be easy to achieve given that majority.
But no more difficult than reversing what happened in 2019.
Ina few weeks time the government is going to be wondering why so few workers have gone back to work, are going back to work or will be going back to work in the future.
They'll be wondering why so few businesses are starting up again as the spending soars ever higher.
Every time I read the news, the size of what I imagine our budget deficit to be in say six months time just grows. From grand canyon to wide Sargasso sea.
What Johnson has shut down he will have the devil's own job opening up again. And that is why long lockdown is a gargantuan mistake.
Personally I think this is deliberate, as helping the low hanging fruit for return identify themselves.
A lot of this will be action learning.
I think we may also see an interim separation between schools for Kay Workers' kids, and "returning to school"-ers over the next period.
Comments
1: Roughly 200 strains of common cold, so what will work for one won't necessarily work for the others, you'd need to beat all 200 strains.
2: The common cold is rather minor and people almost always get over it so there's little incentive to work on finding a cure for it.
This on the other hand is one strain of virus which is very deadly so there's massive incentive to find a cure. Completely different.
"This timetable is reckless. This timetable is simply not safe," says Mary Bousted, co-leader of the biggest teachers' union, the National Education Union.
She said the reopening plans had "stoked teachers' anxiety and triggered real confusion because the announcement is inconsistent on the importance of social distancing and how or WHETHER [my emphasis] it can be achieved in schools".
Paul Whiteman, general secretary of the school leaders' union NAHT, said the ambition to return all primary pupils within the next seven weeks was "wildly optimistic, to the point of being irresponsible".
"School leaders do not want to see classrooms empty for a day longer than they need be - but there is not a school leader in the land who wants to risk admitting more pupils unless it is safe to do so."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-52618187
One gains the distinct impression that what they really want is for all the schools to remain shut for the general population until a vaccine is developed. Which may never happen.
The case for demolishing the schools and selling the land off for housing development grows by the day.
Errr: SARS, MERS (neither of which are common), and a couple of the variants of the common cold, which are a substantial minority.
So, when we say "no vaccines" we're talking about an incredibly small range of viruses.
Coronaviruses are much more common in cats and dogs.
Guess what? We found vaccines there. So, if you have a cat in the US, you will be encouraged to get the vaccine for feline infectious peritonitis, which is a coronavirus.
Plus, people who contracted SARS and MERS got antibodies, and then were resistant to reinfection. (Interestingly, people who got SARS, and then got antibodies, seemed to end up resistant to common cold coronavirus variants.)
The real arguments between experts are: (1) How long will it take to make a vaccine? Some think 18 months, other think it will be more like a decade, pointing to how long it took with HPV to get a working vaccine. (2) How long will the vaccine confer immunity? Resistance to viruses tends to fade over time as the immune system forgets (sometimes) and as the virus changes.
https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1259942281936809984
My understanding, and this is still early days, so this might change, is that once CV-19 has gone from your system, then it's gone from your system.
https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v42/n09/rupert-beale/short-cuts
https://twitter.com/andrew_lilico/status/1259945953584451584
Dr. Evil: You know, I have one simple request. And that is to have Coronaviruses with frickin' laser beams attached to their heads! Now evidently my cycloptic colleague informs me that that cannot be done. Ah, would you remind me what I pay you people for, honestly? Throw me a bone here! What do we have?
Number Two: Common cold.
Dr. Evil: [pause] Right.
Number Two: They're mutated common cold.
Dr. Evil: Are they ill tempered?
Number Two: Absolutely.
Dr. Evil: Oh well, that's a start.
He's obviously got a lot of faith in POTUS Biden
To me, the lesson in this for today is to have specific treatment centres doing nothing but coronavirus. Find the gold standard treatment option/environment for the sufferers, and ensure there's enough capacity. The Nightingale hospitals are a good start. Less temporary sanitori(a?) might be a good idea.
The Democrats must win for the sake of the world though.
I pose this as a suggestion but could these three leaders, key to brexit, actually be working on the wider UK - EU deal.
It would be wonderful news if so but maybe just a pipe dream
I 'm not sure how anybody feels sufficiently confident to judge Starmer's prospects yet - indeed, I find it a bit remarkable that so many are so sure of his future fortunes. I've no idea how good, or bad, he will prove to be in the medium term. He has been leader of the LP for just over five weeks, at an extraordinary time of crisis. Of course he has had to be measured and statesmanlike (or dull if you prefer); even Boris has recognised this is not a time for flippancy or jokes, has he not? The crisis means that Starmer has had little opportunity to develop a public profile. His Shadow Cabinet are even less visible because of the crisis - and I suspect time will reveal that the Labour front bench is more able than its Tory counterpart, but we won't know that for at least a year I imagine. I've no doubt that Starmer has also devoted much attention behind the scenes to sorting out party organisational matters, and the crisis has given him some space to do that; the benefits can already be seen in consistency of message across the front bench. And as for Jess Phillips being next leader, I think not. Whether Starmer succeeds or fails, I wouldn't put money on anybody other than Lisa Nandy for now, though this may change.
If that's the case then I suspect the answer is going to be technological and intrusive. Never mind the app on our phone, we'll probably all have to wear state-issued trackers reporting our vital signs back to a database at all times.
The thought that this world could be the new normal for the next few years at least is unbelievably depressing. And after two months of lockdown, with barely any human contact, huge amounts of work stress, and constant fear of losing my job, I am already pretty depressed.
Difficult though, very difficult, because the main disagreements between us and Europe are really between us and France. Its the French who more than anyone want our fishing waters. Its the French more than anyone worried about us out competing them right on their doorstep. But that's again why like last year a deal if its reached will stick - because once you've got the two extremes to agree the middle can fall in line.
I’m surprised by the French exception but as you say it will be a major boost for French tourism.
If I was religious I'd be praying they don't screw it up this year.
Starmer should surely be able to achieve 40%, which is Hung Parliament territory.
That's why I think a lot of this 'shortage' stuff is bollocks. Shortage of ventilators - fine. Shortage of what is essentially face knickers - someone just needs to get their finger out.
NEW THREAD
We have to reconcile safety concerns with economic ones.
A lot of this will be action learning.
I think we may also see an interim separation between schools for Kay Workers' kids, and "returning to school"-ers over the next period.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jan/04/storm-in-a-teacake-scottish-nationalists-call-for-boycott-of-tunnocks
Not parochial enough for the SNP.