Geoff Barton from the Association of School and College Leaders says his organisation is "a bit disappointed" by the guidance that the youngest children are set to be the first to go back to school. He says the younger children are the ones who will find the distancing rules harder to understand - and that they will be harder for teachers to control.
-----
Dickhead....young kids are at zero risk, AND the science appears to show they don't transmit it to adults. You know perhaps Witty and Vallance have looked at the scientific literature on this and not gone well send the rug rats back first for no reason in particular.
I bet if they had said send back older kids first, they would have replied, but they are higher risk to teachers and each other.
"A face covering is not the same as a facemask such as the surgical masks or respirators used as part of personal protective equipment by healthcare and other workers"
Biased, ideologically motivated, strident critic of the government *check notes* The Metro disappointingly not supporting the Boris fan club narrative.
OK Quincel, I am going to continue my discussion with you from last night on the back of what is a very well written piece I agree Trump won by the skin of his teeth on the votes last time but there are a number of arguments against the logic.
First, take a look at those charts. There was a lot more volatility in Clinton vs Trump but what is clear is that Biden's lead over Trump has slumped. What is noticeable is that Trump's ratings have barely budged since the start of the timeline but Biden's has come down over 3%. His latest leads are down to 3-4%.
Second, there is the enthusiasm factor. In fact, there was a piece on here several weeks ago talking about the enthusiasm gap Biden has to Trump. Trump's voters are enthused either by him or, if not him, by his judicial appointments. Biden's are less so and there are a noticeable chunk of Bernie's base that won't vote for Biden as he is seen as a Democrat stooge. That last factor impacted in 2016.
At the end of the day, what happens in November will come down to (a) turnout and (b) how Independents vote. If you are hardcore Republican or Democrat, you will not change your mind nor propensity to vote. But think about independents. As Sir Norfolk says, Trump should get an incumbency boost. He is scoring better than Biden on the economy. Given what is happening in the world, it is hard to argue that it is Trump's fault the economy has gone downhill. People will be looking for who will lead them out economically. I don't see Biden trumping Trump. Add in the China factor and more information (in Der Spiegel) that the Chinese hid information and that is likely to play in his favour.
Then look at Biden. He has put out a fair few incoherent statements that have already been the subject of Republican adverts. As I said last night about the Tara Reade story, and Max PB stated, an increasing number of voters (and these will be people who are disproportionately independents) are unhappy about the seeming hypocrisy of the Democrats in attacking Reade whilst saying Blasey Ford had to be believed. The latest line that nothing happened because Obama vetted him as VP somewhat fell apart when a local newspaper in California found a possible reference in court documents from the 90s. And the Republicans are now making increasing noises about Obama (and Biden) framing Michael Flynn. That won't convince the Dems and it might not convince many independents but it will boost Republican turnout and, if further details emerge about Biden's role, that will cause further controversy.
I wouldn't bet my house on Trump but I certainly wouldn't on Biden. As I said FPT, I think there is good value in putting a 100/1 bet on Harris, Warren or Klobuchar as the Democrat nomination (so betting on JB stepping down) than backing him in November.
I think he's mocking the Beth Rigby and Piers Morgan style catastrophism
Arhh I see...I was confused :-) ....bit like Germany testing approach was the bees knees, until we copied and then it was big bad private companies involved / Tory government privatising NHS services again.
Everyone's still allowed to laugh at the shite messaging and bunch of bumbling incompetents doing it though, right?
If they had the best plan in the world they would still cock up its introduction and confuse everybody as they are as thick as mince.
Interestingly since lockdown the Council haven't cut the grass at all in the area in front of where I live, its been completely overgrown and full of dandelions etc that my children have loved picking when they get out.
Don't know if its a coincidence after the 'go back to work' message yesterday or not but there is someone from the Council outside now cutting the grass.
I think he's mocking the Beth Rigby and Piers Morgan style catastrophism
Arhh I see...I was confused :-) ....bit like Germany testing approach was the bees knees, until we copied and then it was big bad private companies involved / Tory government privatising NHS services again.
Everyone's still allowed to laugh at the shite messaging and bunch of bumbling incompetents doing it though, right?
I'm shocked you'd talk about Forty a day Freeman like that!
It is right for HMG to release the 50 page document and the detail which at least allows debate
The decision made by Boris yesterday is brave and not without controversy, not least allowing unrestricted driving within England and also confusion over meeting others
I actually think it is grown up for each devolved administration to make their own decisions, especially as here in Wales we are not in the best place in respect of the R factor
Of course Boris will come under fire but it would be good to see constructive criticism which there is plenty of legitimate scope for and I expect Starmer may dissappoint his more ardent followers and be just that and contribute to the debate
I would just say I would not have liked to had Boris's responsibility yesterday, maybe the most difficult one in peacetime. It is easy to go into lockdown, devilish difficult to come out. Stay at home is largely a comfort blanket
I predict we are going to see bog roll style hoarding all over again....glad I already have my reusable respirator mask.
How the feck are they going to explain away their volte face on this?
Did the science on masks completely change? Why did they tell us masks had no benefits? How many got infected, how many died, because the British government was lying to the people, or just enormously stupid?
It was obvious from early Feb that masks were useful in reducing transmission from the wearer, as long as enough people wore them.
Now the government looks duplicitous AND incompetent, in the middle of a terrible plague
I wouldn't be surprised in the redacted SAGE documents if is probably information that says something like masks do reduce transmission, but concern over supplies to front line staff mean we will recommend ....
I haven't heard any plans from the government how they are now going to meet this need. Germany said last month they were setting up dedicated production in order to make 50 million a week by August.
Will they not need 50m a day?
I strongly suspect that the reason the government did not recommend masks was because they knew that there was an insufficient supply and what supply they had was urgently needed for front line staff who had no choice but to take the risks that operating without one entailed. Which is fair enough, really.
1. They could still have told us to wear scarves, bandanas, home mades 2. Their experts are emphatically denying any deception, and saying there was "scientific dispute"
My conclusion is that they are genuinely dim
I'm trying to think of counter-arguments. Would people with masks have been overconfident and ignored the stay at home guidance? Surely not. Was it that most people don't actually reduce their own risk of infection much because that is much more contingent on where their hands had been and whether they had contact with the face? Surely that ignores the obvious and real benefit that the use of the mask has to others and the consequential reduction in the R rate. I don't really get what there was to discuss other than possible panic when 90% of the population found they couldn't get one.
And so Londoncentric once more. It must be strange for the media to realise the entire country doesn't live and work in central London.
London is important and does matter - it generates a lot of this country's wealth and were it to be an independent city state would be perfectly fine.
It is also, like many cities, dependent on a public transport system on which many have no option but to travel to get to their jobs. I can't very well walk from East Ham to Kingston or Richmond - I could but I'd end up like the "Four Yorkshiremen" sketch of blessed memory (and a nod to the late great Tim Brooke-Taylor).
I'm also hearing some quite unpleasant comments about people who work at home. Envy? Perhaps but the crap about "working at home" or "people sitting on their fat arses" betrays a lack of comprehension about changes in work patterns and practices.
Some of the notions about work seem stuck in the 1940s and 1950s rather than the 2020s.
"A face covering is not the same as a facemask such as the surgical masks or respirators used as part of personal protective equipment by healthcare and other workers"
Interestingly since lockdown the Council haven't cut the grass at all in the area in front of where I live, its been completely overgrown and full of dandelions etc that my children have loved picking when they get out.
Don't know if its a coincidence after the 'go back to work' message yesterday or not but there is someone from the Council outside now cutting the grass.
Large parts of local councils have basically shut down for the past 7 weeks. We work with the mechanical and electrical engineers and they are basically sat at home on full pay doing nothing. All work in Council buildings other than emergency maintenance has stopped. Schools are empty and as such its a perfect time to replace boilers, lighting etc but none of that is happening.
Essentially, it relates to the Michael Flynn case. Documents came out last week, after the acting Director of National Intelligence threatened to release them, that showed the FBI had (according to the Republicans) framed Michael Flynn into accepting a guilty plea and had entrapped him, and had done so effectively at the behest of Obama. When you look at it neutrally, it does feel like Obama has some explaining to do - and Biden was also apparently at the relevant meeting as well
Company gets contract in expedited process, provides promised services, people bitch.
I don't see the issue tbh. Did they provide the services they got paid for, have they done so on the timetable specified, did the government have time for a drawn out tender process?
The Guardian are tilting at windmills and your BDS is showing through.
Interestingly since lockdown the Council haven't cut the grass at all in the area in front of where I live, its been completely overgrown and full of dandelions etc that my children have loved picking when they get out.
Don't know if its a coincidence after the 'go back to work' message yesterday or not but there is someone from the Council outside now cutting the grass.
Our private guys have been cutting the grass, and even though they closed the children's play parks, they are still inspecting them regularly so still coining in the cash.
It is right for HMG to release the 50 page document and the detail which at least allows debate
The decision made by Boris yesterday is brave and not without controversy, not least allowing unrestricted driving within England and also confusion over meeting others
I actually think it is grown up for each devolved administration to make their own decisions, especially as here in Wales we are not in the best place in respect of the R factor
Of course Boris will come under fire but it would be good to see constructive criticism which there is plenty of legitimate scope for and I expect Starmer may disappoint his more ardent followers and be just that and contribute to the debate
I would just say I would not have liked to had Boris's responsibility yesterday, maybe the most difficult one in peacetime. It is easy to go into lockdown, devilish difficult to come out. Stay at home is largely a comfort blanket
Afternoon, Big_G.
Fair comments all though I'd make two points:
1) Boris has always wanted to be Prime Minister. He made a horlicks of it when Cameron quit but from the moment the poll showing him as the only Conservative capable of winning a majority, he had an open goal even he couldn't miss.
2) As such, there's nowhere else he'd rather be and this will either be the making of him or the breaking of him. It will define him and has already changed him.
Geoff Barton from the Association of School and College Leaders says his organisation is "a bit disappointed" by the guidance that the youngest children are set to be the first to go back to school. He says the younger children are the ones who will find the distancing rules harder to understand - and that they will be harder for teachers to control.
-----
Dickhead....young kids are at zero risk, AND the science appears to show they don't transmit it to adults. You know perhaps Witty and Vallance have looked at the scientific literature on this and not gone well send the rug rats back first for no reason in particular.
I bet if they had said send back older kids first, they would have replied, but they are higher risk to teachers and each other.
Just the other day a 6 week old baby died, are you completely stupid. They may be low risk but are certainly not zero risk.
Geoff Barton from the Association of School and College Leaders says his organisation is "a bit disappointed" by the guidance that the youngest children are set to be the first to go back to school. He says the younger children are the ones who will find the distancing rules harder to understand - and that they will be harder for teachers to control.
-----
Dickhead....young kids are at zero risk, AND the science appears to show they don't transmit it to adults. You know perhaps Witty and Vallance have looked at the scientific literature on this and not gone well send the rug rats back first for no reason in particular.
I bet if they had said send back older kids first, they would have replied, but they are higher risk to teachers and each other.
That was discussed, anent bairns transmitting to teenagers and older folk, here on PB and other studies were adduced showing that they do - IIRC not as much as some but still enough to be a big problem. So jury still out on that I think?
Just to clarify: the official guidance is to wear masks when you're doing stuff like shopping/visiting the chemist, right?
Face-coverings As more people return to work, there will be more movement outside people's immediate household. This increased mobility means the Government is now advising that people should aim to wear a face-covering in enclosed spaces where social distancing is not always possible and they come into contact with others that they do not normally meet, for example on public transport or in some shops. Homemade cloth face-coverings can help reduce the risk of transmission in some circumstances. Face-coverings are not intended to help the wearer, but to protect against inadvertent transmission of the disease to others if you have it asymptomatically.
A face covering is not the same as a facemask such as the surgical masks or respirators used as part of personal protective equipment by healthcare and other workers. These supplies must continue to be reserved for those who need it. Face-coverings should not be used by children under the age of two, or those who may find it difficult to manage them correctly, for example primary age children unassisted, or those with respiratory conditions. It is important to use face- coverings properly and wash your hands before putting them on and taking them off.
It is right for HMG to release the 50 page document and the detail which at least allows debate
The decision made by Boris yesterday is brave and not without controversy, not least allowing unrestricted driving within England and also confusion over meeting others
I actually think it is grown up for each devolved administration to make their own decisions, especially as here in Wales we are not in the best place in respect of the R factor
Of course Boris will come under fire but it would be good to see constructive criticism which there is plenty of legitimate scope for and I expect Starmer may disappoint his more ardent followers and be just that and contribute to the debate
I would just say I would not have liked to had Boris's responsibility yesterday, maybe the most difficult one in peacetime. It is easy to go into lockdown, devilish difficult to come out. Stay at home is largely a comfort blanket
Afternoon, Big_G.
Fair comments all though I'd make two points:
1) Boris has always wanted to be Prime Minister. He made a horlicks of it when Cameron quit but from the moment the poll showing him as the only Conservative capable of winning a majority, he had an open goal even he couldn't miss.
2) As such, there's nowhere else he'd rather be and this will either be the making of him or the breaking of him. It will define him and has already changed him.
Geoff Barton from the Association of School and College Leaders says his organisation is "a bit disappointed" by the guidance that the youngest children are set to be the first to go back to school. He says the younger children are the ones who will find the distancing rules harder to understand - and that they will be harder for teachers to control.
-----
Dickhead....young kids are at zero risk, AND the science appears to show they don't transmit it to adults. You know perhaps Witty and Vallance have looked at the scientific literature on this and not gone well send the rug rats back first for no reason in particular.
I bet if they had said send back older kids first, they would have replied, but they are higher risk to teachers and each other.
The children being non transmitters line has not been pushed as heavily as in the early days, and I've not read up the current state of knowledge. However, a lot of that early truth that was true then wasn't true does turn.out to be true after all.
Each setting is different:
Nurseries: No way kids will social distance, but high staff: child ratios meaning adult-adult close contact difficult to avoid. But, staff generally young and non unionised.
Infants: Social distancing tricky, but anyone who has seen the two-by-two walking knows some corralling is possible. Staff ratios are modestly high, but adult closel contact should be minimisable. Send your younger teachers in.
Juniors: Awareness of social distancing, adult contacts minimisable, not a bad place. The need to socially distance kids from one another is still not necessarily the case.
Secondary: In classrooms social distancing should be OK. The staff room is again key, but
OK Quincel, I am going to continue my discussion with you from last night on the back of what is a very well written piece I agree Trump won by the skin of his teeth on the votes last time but there are a number of arguments against the logic.
First, take a look at those charts. There was a lot more volatility in Clinton vs Trump but what is clear is that Biden's lead over Trump has slumped. What is noticeable is that Trump's ratings have barely budged since the start of the timeline but Biden's has come down over 3%. His latest leads are down to 3-4%.
Second, there is the enthusiasm factor. In fact, there was a piece on here several weeks ago talking about the enthusiasm gap Biden has to Trump. Trump's voters are enthused either by him or, if not him, by his judicial appointments. Biden's are less so and there are a noticeable chunk of Bernie's base that won't vote for Biden as he is seen as a Democrat stooge. That last factor impacted in 2016.
At the end of the day, what happens in November will come down to (a) turnout and (b) how Independents vote. If you are hardcore Republican or Democrat, you will not change your mind nor propensity to vote. But think about independents. As Sir Norfolk says, Trump should get an incumbency boost. He is scoring better than Biden on the economy. Given what is happening in the world, it is hard to argue that it is Trump's fault the economy has gone downhill. People will be looking for who will lead them out economically. I don't see Biden trumping Trump. Add in the China factor and more information (in Der Spiegel) that the Chinese hid information and that is likely to play in his favour.
Then look at Biden. He has put out a fair few incoherent statements that have already been the subject of Republican adverts. As I said last night about the Tara Reade story, and Max PB stated, an increasing number of voters (and these will be people who are disproportionately independents) are unhappy about the seeming hypocrisy of the Democrats in attacking Reade whilst saying Blasey Ford had to be believed. The latest line that nothing happened because Obama vetted him as VP somewhat fell apart when a local newspaper in California found a possible reference in court documents from the 90s. And the Republicans are now making increasing noises about Obama (and Biden) framing Michael Flynn. That won't convince the Dems and it might not convince many independents but it will boost Republican turnout and, if further details emerge about Biden's role, that will cause further controversy.
I wouldn't bet my house on Trump but I certainly wouldn't on Biden. As I said FPT, I think there is good value in putting a 100/1 bet on Harris, Warren or Klobuchar as the Democrat nomination (so betting on JB stepping down) than backing him in November.
There is a material chance that Biden will not be the Democrat candidate in November.
Geoff Barton from the Association of School and College Leaders says his organisation is "a bit disappointed" by the guidance that the youngest children are set to be the first to go back to school. He says the younger children are the ones who will find the distancing rules harder to understand - and that they will be harder for teachers to control.
-----
Dickhead....young kids are at zero risk, AND the science appears to show they don't transmit it to adults. You know perhaps Witty and Vallance have looked at the scientific literature on this and not gone well send the rug rats back first for no reason in particular.
I bet if they had said send back older kids first, they would have replied, but they are higher risk to teachers and each other.
The children being non transmitters line has not been pushed as heavily as in the early days, and I've not read up the current state of knowledge. However, a lot of that early truth that was true then wasn't true does turn.out to be true after all.
Each setting is different:
Nurseries: No way kids will social distance, but high staff: child ratios meaning adult-adult close contact difficult to avoid. But, staff generally young and non unionised.
Infants: Social distancing tricky, but anyone who has seen the two-by-two walking knows some corralling is possible. Staff ratios are modestly high, but adult closel contact should be minimisable. Send your younger teachers in.
Juniors: Awareness of social distancing, adult contacts minimisable, not a bad place. The need to socially distance kids from one another is still not necessarily the case.
Secondary: In classrooms social distancing should be OK. The staff room is again key, but corridors are the additional challenge here, good one way systems and supervision will need thought.
I predict we are going to see bog roll style hoarding all over again....glad I already have my reusable respirator mask.
How the feck are they going to explain away their volte face on this?
Did the science on masks completely change? Why did they tell us masks had no benefits? How many got infected, how many died, because the British government was lying to the people, or just enormously stupid?
It was obvious from early Feb that masks were useful in reducing transmission from the wearer, as long as enough people wore them.
Now the government looks duplicitous AND incompetent, in the middle of a terrible plague
I wouldn't be surprised in the redacted SAGE documents if is probably information that says something like masks do reduce transmission, but concern over supplies to front line staff mean we will recommend ....
I haven't heard any plans from the government how they are now going to meet this need. Germany said last month they were setting up dedicated production in order to make 50 million a week by August.
Will they not need 50m a day?
I strongly suspect that the reason the government did not recommend masks was because they knew that there was an insufficient supply and what supply they had was urgently needed for front line staff who had no choice but to take the risks that operating without one entailed. Which is fair enough, really.
1. They could still have told us to wear scarves, bandanas, home mades 2. Their experts are emphatically denying any deception, and saying there was "scientific dispute"
My conclusion is that they are genuinely dim
I'm trying to think of counter-arguments. Would people with masks have been overconfident and ignored the stay at home guidance? Surely not. Was it that most people don't actually reduce their own risk of infection much because that is much more contingent on where their hands had been and whether they had contact with the face? Surely that ignores the obvious and real benefit that the use of the mask has to others and the consequential reduction in the R rate. I don't really get what there was to discuss other than possible panic when 90% of the population found they couldn't get one.
Check this. People like Van Tam - so-called UK experts - REALLY believed masks had no benefit. The only reason they wear masks in Japan, he says, is because it is hard-wired into THEIR cultures. Those silly Asians and their funny customs, eh. So what changed?
OK Quincel, I am going to continue my discussion with you from last night on the back of what is a very well written piece I agree Trump won by the skin of his teeth on the votes last time but there are a number of arguments against the logic.
First, take a look at those charts. There was a lot more volatility in Clinton vs Trump but what is clear is that Biden's lead over Trump has slumped. What is noticeable is that Trump's ratings have barely budged since the start of the timeline but Biden's has come down over 3%. His latest leads are down to 3-4%.
Second, there is the enthusiasm factor. In fact, there was a piece on here several weeks ago talking about the enthusiasm gap Biden has to Trump. Trump's voters are enthused either by him or, if not him, by his judicial appointments. Biden's are less so and there are a noticeable chunk of Bernie's base that won't vote for Biden as he is seen as a Democrat stooge. That last factor impacted in 2016.
At the end of the day, what happens in November will come down to (a) turnout and (b) how Independents vote. If you are hardcore Republican or Democrat, you will not change your mind nor propensity to vote. But think about independents. As Sir Norfolk says, Trump should get an incumbency boost. He is scoring better than Biden on the economy. Given what is happening in the world, it is hard to argue that it is Trump's fault the economy has gone downhill. People will be looking for who will lead them out economically. I don't see Biden trumping Trump. Add in the China factor and more information (in Der Spiegel) that the Chinese hid information and that is likely to play in his favour.
Then look at Biden. He has put out a fair few incoherent statements that have already been the subject of Republican adverts. As I said last night about the Tara Reade story, and Max PB stated, an increasing number of voters (and these will be people who are disproportionately independents) are unhappy about the seeming hypocrisy of the Democrats in attacking Reade whilst saying Blasey Ford had to be believed. The latest line that nothing happened because Obama vetted him as VP somewhat fell apart when a local newspaper in California found a possible reference in court documents from the 90s. And the Republicans are now making increasing noises about Obama (and Biden) framing Michael Flynn. That won't convince the Dems and it might not convince many independents but it will boost Republican turnout and, if further details emerge about Biden's role, that will cause further controversy.
I wouldn't bet my house on Trump but I certainly wouldn't on Biden. As I said FPT, I think there is good value in putting a 100/1 bet on Harris, Warren or Klobuchar as the Democrat nomination (so betting on JB stepping down) than backing him in November.
There is a material chance that Biden will not be the Democrat candidate in November.
Agreed. Part why I won't bet on Trump but also, more to the point, why have been putting some bets on some of the other names as the Democrat nominee.
Crowded? The queues for B&Q and Tescos are more crowded than that video. It actually looks like people are being very sensible.
WTF?
And so Londoncentric once more. It must be strange for the media to realise the entire country doesn't live and work in central London.
Public transport is London centric so discussions around public transport are focused on London. The rest of the country mostly uses cars, whereas London mostly uses public transport.
Next we will have people claiming discussions on fishing are wrongly focused on coastal communities.
Large parts of local councils have basically shut down for the past 7 weeks. We work with the mechanical and electrical engineers and they are basically sat at home on full pay doing nothing. All work in Council buildings other than emergency maintenance has stopped. Schools are empty and as such its a perfect time to replace boilers, lighting etc but none of that is happening.
I don't know where you are but that is emphatically not the case in my part of the world.
Many Council staff have been redeployed into the covid-19 response structures - for example, maintaining and supporting the shielding list and trying to maintain safeguarding for vulnerable adults and children.
As for building work, there was a brief hold at some sites but many (especially schools) have re-started under strict bio-security protocols. The kind of projects you talk about are more summer work than Easter work which has to be smaller scale because there's a shorter time frame (ordinarily).
One issue is suppliers have furloughed staff so getting them back in to support the sub contractors is an issue for some projects.
In addition, priority was given to covid-19 work so the work done to re-open Headley Court and other field hospitals showed impressive collaboration between the NHS, local councils and the private sector owner of the site who made it available at no charge.
Geoff Barton from the Association of School and College Leaders says his organisation is "a bit disappointed" by the guidance that the youngest children are set to be the first to go back to school. He says the younger children are the ones who will find the distancing rules harder to understand - and that they will be harder for teachers to control.
-----
Dickhead....young kids are at zero risk, AND the science appears to show they don't transmit it to adults. You know perhaps Witty and Vallance have looked at the scientific literature on this and not gone well send the rug rats back first for no reason in particular.
I bet if they had said send back older kids first, they would have replied, but they are higher risk to teachers and each other.
Just the other day a 6 week old baby died, are you completely stupid. They may be low risk but are certainly not zero risk.
Reports of a 'Kawasaki-like disease' affecting kids are also still smouldering away in the background.
I predict we are going to see bog roll style hoarding all over again....glad I already have my reusable respirator mask.
How the feck are they going to explain away their volte face on this?
Did the science on masks completely change? Why did they tell us masks had no benefits? How many got infected, how many died, because the British government was lying to the people, or just enormously stupid?
It was obvious from early Feb that masks were useful in reducing transmission from the wearer, as long as enough people wore them.
Now the government looks duplicitous AND incompetent, in the middle of a terrible plague
I wouldn't be surprised in the redacted SAGE documents if is probably information that says something like masks do reduce transmission, but concern over supplies to front line staff mean we will recommend ....
I haven't heard any plans from the government how they are now going to meet this need. Germany said last month they were setting up dedicated production in order to make 50 million a week by August.
Will they not need 50m a day?
I strongly suspect that the reason the government did not recommend masks was because they knew that there was an insufficient supply and what supply they had was urgently needed for front line staff who had no choice but to take the risks that operating without one entailed. Which is fair enough, really.
1. They could still have told us to wear scarves, bandanas, home mades 2. Their experts are emphatically denying any deception, and saying there was "scientific dispute"
My conclusion is that they are genuinely dim
I'm trying to think of counter-arguments. Would people with masks have been overconfident and ignored the stay at home guidance? Surely not. Was it that most people don't actually reduce their own risk of infection much because that is much more contingent on where their hands had been and whether they had contact with the face? Surely that ignores the obvious and real benefit that the use of the mask has to others and the consequential reduction in the R rate. I don't really get what there was to discuss other than possible panic when 90% of the population found they couldn't get one.
One argument I've seen repeatedly is that people wearing masks feel overconfident and socially distance less - plus for people who are harder of hearing who are used to lip reading it becomes harder to hear what people are saying so they step closer thus again reducing social distancing. There's some evidence that cloth masks but lower social distancing increase the risk of spread rather than reducing it.
I predict we are going to see bog roll style hoarding all over again....glad I already have my reusable respirator mask.
How the feck are they going to explain away their volte face on this?
Did the science on masks completely change? Why did they tell us masks had no benefits? How many got infected, how many died, because the British government was lying to the people, or just enormously stupid?
It was obvious from early Feb that masks were useful in reducing transmission from the wearer, as long as enough people wore them.
Now the government looks duplicitous AND incompetent, in the middle of a terrible plague
I wouldn't be surprised in the redacted SAGE documents if is probably information that says something like masks do reduce transmission, but concern over supplies to front line staff mean we will recommend ....
I haven't heard any plans from the government how they are now going to meet this need. Germany said last month they were setting up dedicated production in order to make 50 million a week by August.
Will they not need 50m a day?
I strongly suspect that the reason the government did not recommend masks was because they knew that there was an insufficient supply and what supply they had was urgently needed for front line staff who had no choice but to take the risks that operating without one entailed. Which is fair enough, really.
1. They could still have told us to wear scarves, bandanas, home mades 2. Their experts are emphatically denying any deception, and saying there was "scientific dispute"
My conclusion is that they are genuinely dim
I'm trying to think of counter-arguments. Would people with masks have been overconfident and ignored the stay at home guidance? Surely not. Was it that most people don't actually reduce their own risk of infection much because that is much more contingent on where their hands had been and whether they had contact with the face? Surely that ignores the obvious and real benefit that the use of the mask has to others and the consequential reduction in the R rate. I don't really get what there was to discuss other than possible panic when 90% of the population found they couldn't get one.
Check this. People like Van Tam - so-called UK experts - REALLY believed masks had no benefit. The only reason they wear masks in Japan, he says, is because it is hard-wired into THEIR cultures. Those silly Asians and their funny customs, eh. So what changed?
Geoff Barton from the Association of School and College Leaders says his organisation is "a bit disappointed" by the guidance that the youngest children are set to be the first to go back to school. He says the younger children are the ones who will find the distancing rules harder to understand - and that they will be harder for teachers to control.
-----
Dickhead....young kids are at zero risk, AND the science appears to show they don't transmit it to adults. You know perhaps Witty and Vallance have looked at the scientific literature on this and not gone well send the rug rats back first for no reason in particular.
I bet if they had said send back older kids first, they would have replied, but they are higher risk to teachers and each other.
The children being non transmitters line has not been pushed as heavily as in the early days, and I've not read up the current state of knowledge. However, a lot of that early truth that was true then wasn't true does turn.out to be true after all.
Each setting is different:
Nurseries: No way kids will social distance, but high staff: child ratios meaning adult-adult close contact difficult to avoid. But, staff generally young and non unionised.
Infants: Social distancing tricky, but anyone who has seen the two-by-two walking knows some corralling is possible. Staff ratios are modestly high, but adult closel contact should be minimisable. Send your younger teachers in.
Juniors: Awareness of social distancing, adult contacts minimisable, not a bad place. The need to socially distance kids from one another is still not necessarily the case.
Secondary: In classrooms social distancing should be OK. The staff room is again key, but
Swedish Mr Witty stated at the weekend, that not a single case of transmission in Nordic "primary" schools from pupils to teachers. The only transmission had been from teacher to teacher.
Geoff Barton from the Association of School and College Leaders says his organisation is "a bit disappointed" by the guidance that the youngest children are set to be the first to go back to school. He says the younger children are the ones who will find the distancing rules harder to understand - and that they will be harder for teachers to control.
-----
Dickhead....young kids are at zero risk, AND the science appears to show they don't transmit it to adults. You know perhaps Witty and Vallance have looked at the scientific literature on this and not gone well send the rug rats back first for no reason in particular.
I bet if they had said send back older kids first, they would have replied, but they are higher risk to teachers and each other.
Just the other day a 6 week old baby died, are you completely stupid. They may be low risk but are certainly not zero risk.
Ok, near zero risk.
The 6 week year old baby was born with a serious underlying health condition, hence why still in hospital after 6 weeks.
I believe in the UK the number of under 18s dying (who didn't have an underlying condition) is 2.
Seems like they've done pretty well. What's the issue?
You can always trust the Tories to fill their chums pockets, a bigger bunch of crooks you will never find.
Any evidence at all that is what happened here?
they got the contract without any tender, who picked them and why them.
Might be because they were the only company able to do it?
Possibly but highly unlikely.
You think there are dozens of diagnostics companies sitting around doing nothing waiting for this contract? If that were the case I would suggest that there wouldn't have been any issue in testing at all in the UK.
I predict we are going to see bog roll style hoarding all over again....glad I already have my reusable respirator mask.
How the feck are they going to explain away their volte face on this?
Did the science on masks completely change? Why did they tell us masks had no benefits? How many got infected, how many died, because the British government was lying to the people, or just enormously stupid?
It was obvious from early Feb that masks were useful in reducing transmission from the wearer, as long as enough people wore them.
Now the government looks duplicitous AND incompetent, in the middle of a terrible plague
I wouldn't be surprised in the redacted SAGE documents if is probably information that says something like masks do reduce transmission, but concern over supplies to front line staff mean we will recommend ....
I haven't heard any plans from the government how they are now going to meet this need. Germany said last month they were setting up dedicated production in order to make 50 million a week by August.
Will they not need 50m a day?
I strongly suspect that the reason the government did not recommend masks was because they knew that there was an insufficient supply and what supply they had was urgently needed for front line staff who had no choice but to take the risks that operating without one entailed. Which is fair enough, really.
1. They could still have told us to wear scarves, bandanas, home mades 2. Their experts are emphatically denying any deception, and saying there was "scientific dispute"
My conclusion is that they are genuinely dim
I'm trying to think of counter-arguments. Would people with masks have been overconfident and ignored the stay at home guidance? Surely not. Was it that most people don't actually reduce their own risk of infection much because that is much more contingent on where their hands had been and whether they had contact with the face? Surely that ignores the obvious and real benefit that the use of the mask has to others and the consequential reduction in the R rate. I don't really get what there was to discuss other than possible panic when 90% of the population found they couldn't get one.
One argument I've seen repeatedly is that people wearing masks feel overconfident and socially distance less - plus for people who are harder of hearing who are used to lip reading it becomes harder to hear what people are saying so they step closer thus again reducing social distancing. There's some evidence that cloth masks but lower social distancing increase the risk of spread rather than reducing it.
I predict we are going to see bog roll style hoarding all over again....glad I already have my reusable respirator mask.
How the feck are they going to explain away their volte face on this?
Did the science on masks completely change? Why did they tell us masks had no benefits? How many got infected, how many died, because the British government was lying to the people, or just enormously stupid?
It was obvious from early Feb that masks were useful in reducing transmission from the wearer, as long as enough people wore them.
Now the government looks duplicitous AND incompetent, in the middle of a terrible plague
I wouldn't be surprised in the redacted SAGE documents if is probably information that says something like masks do reduce transmission, but concern over supplies to front line staff mean we will recommend ....
I haven't heard any plans from the government how they are now going to meet this need. Germany said last month they were setting up dedicated production in order to make 50 million a week by August.
Will they not need 50m a day?
I strongly suspect that the reason the government did not recommend masks was because they knew that there was an insufficient supply and what supply they had was urgently needed for front line staff who had no choice but to take the risks that operating without one entailed. Which is fair enough, really.
1. They could still have told us to wear scarves, bandanas, home mades 2. Their experts are emphatically denying any deception, and saying there was "scientific dispute"
My conclusion is that they are genuinely dim
I'm trying to think of counter-arguments. Would people with masks have been overconfident and ignored the stay at home guidance? Surely not. Was it that most people don't actually reduce their own risk of infection much because that is much more contingent on where their hands had been and whether they had contact with the face? Surely that ignores the obvious and real benefit that the use of the mask has to others and the consequential reduction in the R rate. I don't really get what there was to discuss other than possible panic when 90% of the population found they couldn't get one.
One argument I've seen repeatedly is that people wearing masks feel overconfident and socially distance less .
It's complete nonsense.
I always wear a mask out and it encourages me to move further away from people, as if I needed the reminder. I also notice others swerve to avoid me.
Large parts of local councils have basically shut down for the past 7 weeks. We work with the mechanical and electrical engineers and they are basically sat at home on full pay doing nothing. All work in Council buildings other than emergency maintenance has stopped. Schools are empty and as such its a perfect time to replace boilers, lighting etc but none of that is happening.
I don't know where you are but that is emphatically not the case in my part of the world.
Many Council staff have been redeployed into the covid-19 response structures - for example, maintaining and supporting the shielding list and trying to maintain safeguarding for vulnerable adults and children.
As for building work, there was a brief hold at some sites but many (especially schools) have re-started under strict bio-security protocols. The kind of projects you talk about are more summer work than Easter work which has to be smaller scale because there's a shorter time frame (ordinarily).
One issue is suppliers have furloughed staff so getting them back in to support the sub contractors is an issue for some projects.
In addition, priority was given to covid-19 work so the work done to re-open Headley Court and other field hospitals showed impressive collaboration between the NHS, local councils and the private sector owner of the site who made it available at no charge.
We were halfway through a new boiler install at an empty school, we had two chaps doing it, we were told to stop. That was 6 weeks ago. The work was being carried out in a plant room which no one other than our two guys had access too. As its a old school the plant room is huge so there is plenty of space for them to work. We have no issue with supply here, our wholesalers are desperate for orders.
Geoff Barton from the Association of School and College Leaders says his organisation is "a bit disappointed" by the guidance that the youngest children are set to be the first to go back to school. He says the younger children are the ones who will find the distancing rules harder to understand - and that they will be harder for teachers to control.
-----
Dickhead....young kids are at zero risk, AND the science appears to show they don't transmit it to adults. You know perhaps Witty and Vallance have looked at the scientific literature on this and not gone well send the rug rats back first for no reason in particular.
I bet if they had said send back older kids first, they would have replied, but they are higher risk to teachers and each other.
Just the other day a 6 week old baby died, are you completely stupid. They may be low risk but are certainly not zero risk.
Reports of a 'Kawasaki-like disease' affecting kids are also still burning away in the background.
I love the desperation of the long lock down supporters anxious to prove they haven;t been sold one of the biggest pups in history.
Bit like today's ONS report on 'workforce deaths' of COVID. There have been more than two thousand! out of a workforce of....er......30 plus million. And out of a total number of deaths at the time of I think, 25,000?
Indeed, is the ONS sample even large enough to be drawing these conclusions?
Not participating myself this year, but I know there are some other writers, so if anyone's self-published a fantasy novel (can't be a sequel, I think) then give the SPFBO a look and be ready on 23 May because the slots (250-300) fill up fast: https://twitter.com/Mark__Lawrence/status/1259599723587080194
Geoff Barton from the Association of School and College Leaders says his organisation is "a bit disappointed" by the guidance that the youngest children are set to be the first to go back to school. He says the younger children are the ones who will find the distancing rules harder to understand - and that they will be harder for teachers to control.
-----
Dickhead....young kids are at zero risk, AND the science appears to show they don't transmit it to adults. You know perhaps Witty and Vallance have looked at the scientific literature on this and not gone well send the rug rats back first for no reason in particular.
I bet if they had said send back older kids first, they would have replied, but they are higher risk to teachers and each other.
Just the other day a 6 week old baby died, are you completely stupid. They may be low risk but are certainly not zero risk.
Ok, near zero risk.
The 6 week year old baby was born with a serious underlying health condition, hence why still in hospital after 6 weeks.
I believe in the UK the number of under 18s dying (who didn't have an underlying condition) is 2.
For sure it is very low risk, but just had to be pedantic.
On the subject of school maintenance, the team at our school is talking the opportunity to go over stuff with no pupils or staff around. Apparently some areas are getting their first going over in twenty years. As it were.
He says new advice to wear face coverings on public transport and in enclosed spaces does not include the wearing of medical face masks.
Clearly they think it will cause a shortage for healthcare workers.
As I said down-thread, I bet in the redacted SAGE advice there was probably "masks could be helpful in slowing transmission, but we are feel that there is possibility for panic and hoarding leading to medical personnel shortages"...
Seems like they've done pretty well. What's the issue?
You can always trust the Tories to fill their chums pockets, a bigger bunch of crooks you will never find.
Any evidence at all that is what happened here?
they got the contract without any tender, who picked them and why them.
Might be because they were the only company able to do it?
Possibly but highly unlikely.
Possibly they were the only company to tender who had facilities to do the tests. As opposed to football agents etc...
Point was I believe that there was no tender and they have a prominent Tory MP as a consultant. Things should be done properly, these people are so arrogant they just don't care about how anything is perceived..
On the subject of school maintenance, the team at our school is talking the opportunity to go over stuff with no pupils or staff around. Apparently some areas are getting their first going over in twenty years. As it were.
I wish they were doing that here, it makes so much sense.
Manchester City's parent company has agreed a deal for Belgian second-tier outfit Lommel SK. They are the ninth club to join the City Football Group (CFG), which has stakes in teams playing in the United States, Japan, Australia and China, among others.
Seems like they've done pretty well. What's the issue?
You can always trust the Tories to fill their chums pockets, a bigger bunch of crooks you will never find.
Any evidence at all that is what happened here?
they got the contract without any tender, who picked them and why them.
Might be because they were the only company able to do it?
Possibly but highly unlikely.
Possibly they were the only company to tender who had facilities to do the tests. As opposed to football agents etc...
Point was I believe that there was no tender and they have a prominent Tory MP as a consultant. Things should be done properly, these people are so arrogant they just don't care about how anything is perceived..
Things were done properly. A company who were capable of delivering what was necessary was chosen and said company has delivered.
Seems like they've done pretty well. What's the issue?
You can always trust the Tories to fill their chums pockets, a bigger bunch of crooks you will never find.
Any evidence at all that is what happened here?
they got the contract without any tender, who picked them and why them.
Might be because they were the only company able to do it?
Possibly but highly unlikely.
Possibly they were the only company to tender who had facilities to do the tests. As opposed to football agents etc...
Point was I believe that there was no tender and they have a prominent Tory MP as a consultant. Things should be done properly, these people are so arrogant they just don't care about how anything is perceived..
You made a claim that the contract was somehow inappropriately obtained. I don't think there's any evidence of that, is there?
Comments
Mental note to self - find a journalist to buy my house online, sight unseen. I will take the photos.
-----
Dickhead....young kids are at zero risk, AND the science appears to show they don't transmit it to adults. You know perhaps Witty and Vallance have looked at the scientific literature on this and not gone well send the rug rats back first for no reason in particular.
I bet if they had said send back older kids first, they would have replied, but they are higher risk to teachers and each other.
Being ignorant and being a dickhead are not synonymous things.
https://twitter.com/Sneekyboy/status/1259848792955912199?s=20
First, take a look at those charts. There was a lot more volatility in Clinton vs Trump but what is clear is that Biden's lead over Trump has slumped. What is noticeable is that Trump's ratings have barely budged since the start of the timeline but Biden's has come down over 3%. His latest leads are down to 3-4%.
Second, there is the enthusiasm factor. In fact, there was a piece on here several weeks ago talking about the enthusiasm gap Biden has to Trump. Trump's voters are enthused either by him or, if not him, by his judicial appointments. Biden's are less so and there are a noticeable chunk of Bernie's base that won't vote for Biden as he is seen as a Democrat stooge. That last factor impacted in 2016.
At the end of the day, what happens in November will come down to (a) turnout and (b) how Independents vote. If you are hardcore Republican or Democrat, you will not change your mind nor propensity to vote. But think about independents.
As Sir Norfolk says, Trump should get an incumbency boost. He is scoring better than Biden on the economy. Given what is happening in the world, it is hard to argue that it is Trump's fault the economy has gone downhill. People will be looking for who will lead them out economically. I don't see Biden trumping Trump. Add in the China factor and more information (in Der Spiegel) that the Chinese hid information and that is likely to play in his favour.
Then look at Biden. He has put out a fair few incoherent statements that have already been the subject of Republican adverts. As I said last night about the Tara Reade story, and Max PB stated, an increasing number of voters (and these will be people who are disproportionately independents) are unhappy about the seeming hypocrisy of the Democrats in attacking Reade whilst saying Blasey Ford had to be believed. The latest line that nothing happened because Obama vetted him as VP somewhat fell apart when a local newspaper in California found a possible reference in court documents from the 90s. And the Republicans are now making increasing noises about Obama (and Biden) framing Michael Flynn. That won't convince the Dems and it might not convince many independents but it will boost Republican turnout and, if further details emerge about Biden's role, that will cause further controversy.
I wouldn't bet my house on Trump but I certainly wouldn't on Biden. As I said FPT, I think there is good value in putting a 100/1 bet on Harris, Warren or Klobuchar as the Democrat nomination (so betting on JB stepping down) than backing him in November.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1259849944216846337
Don't know if its a coincidence after the 'go back to work' message yesterday or not but there is someone from the Council outside now cutting the grass.
It is right for HMG to release the 50 page document and the detail which at least allows debate
The decision made by Boris yesterday is brave and not without controversy, not least allowing unrestricted driving within England and also confusion over meeting others
I actually think it is grown up for each devolved administration to make their own decisions, especially as here in Wales we are not in the best place in respect of the R factor
Of course Boris will come under fire but it would be good to see constructive criticism which there is plenty of legitimate scope for and I expect Starmer may dissappoint his more ardent followers and be just that and contribute to the debate
I would just say I would not have liked to had Boris's responsibility yesterday, maybe the most difficult one in peacetime. It is easy to go into lockdown, devilish difficult to come out. Stay at home is largely a comfort blanket
It is also, like many cities, dependent on a public transport system on which many have no option but to travel to get to their jobs. I can't very well walk from East Ham to Kingston or Richmond - I could but I'd end up like the "Four Yorkshiremen" sketch of blessed memory (and a nod to the late great Tim Brooke-Taylor).
I'm also hearing some quite unpleasant comments about people who work at home. Envy? Perhaps but the crap about "working at home" or "people sitting on their fat arses" betrays a lack of comprehension about changes in work patterns and practices.
Some of the notions about work seem stuck in the 1940s and 1950s rather than the 2020s.
... because they don't want masks diverted from the NHS.
https://nypost.com/2020/05/10/michael-flynn-fiasco-will-reveal-obamas-truth-devine/
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-ups-attack-against-obama-with-obamagate-tweet
Essentially, it relates to the Michael Flynn case. Documents came out last week, after the acting Director of National Intelligence threatened to release them, that showed the FBI had (according to the Republicans) framed Michael Flynn into accepting a guilty plea and had entrapped him, and had done so effectively at the behest of Obama. When you look at it neutrally, it does feel like Obama has some explaining to do - and Biden was also apparently at the relevant meeting as well
I don't see the issue tbh. Did they provide the services they got paid for, have they done so on the timetable specified, did the government have time for a drawn out tender process?
The Guardian are tilting at windmills and your BDS is showing through.
"Piers Morgan forced to end his friendship with Lord Alan Sugar after spat over coronavirus".
I wish I could bang their heads together and tell them that losing a dear friend over disagreement about epidemiology is just not worth it.
Fair comments all though I'd make two points:
1) Boris has always wanted to be Prime Minister. He made a horlicks of it when Cameron quit but from the moment the poll showing him as the only Conservative capable of winning a majority, he had an open goal even he couldn't miss.
2) As such, there's nowhere else he'd rather be and this will either be the making of him or the breaking of him. It will define him and has already changed him.
As more people return to work, there will be more movement outside people's immediate household. This increased mobility means the Government is now advising that people should aim to wear a face-covering in enclosed spaces where social distancing is not always possible and they come into contact with others that they do not normally meet, for example on public transport or in some shops. Homemade cloth face-coverings can help reduce the risk of transmission in some circumstances. Face-coverings are not intended to help the wearer, but to protect against inadvertent transmission of the disease to others if you have it asymptomatically.
A face covering is not the same as a facemask such as the surgical masks or respirators used as part of personal protective equipment by healthcare and other workers. These supplies must continue to be reserved for those who need it. Face-coverings should not be used by children under the age of two, or those who may find it difficult to manage them correctly, for example primary age children unassisted, or those with respiratory conditions. It is important to use face- coverings properly and wash your hands before putting them on and taking them off.
Page 27:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/884171/FINAL_6.6637_CO_HMG_C19_Recovery_FINAL_110520_v2_WEB__1_.pdf
The problem is that Piers Morgan is a self-centred obnoxious twat. As Sugar says.
Each setting is different:
Nurseries: No way kids will social distance, but high staff: child ratios meaning adult-adult close contact difficult to avoid. But, staff generally young and non unionised.
Infants: Social distancing tricky, but anyone who has seen the two-by-two walking knows some corralling is possible. Staff ratios are modestly high, but adult closel contact should be minimisable. Send your younger teachers in.
Juniors: Awareness of social distancing, adult contacts minimisable, not a bad place. The need to socially distance kids from one another is still not necessarily the case.
Secondary: In classrooms social distancing should be OK. The staff room is again key, but
On shortly - Hoyle making Statement first about DoHSC being slow responding to MP's questions.
PM got 10 minutes.
Spot on.
Next we will have people claiming discussions on fishing are wrongly focused on coastal communities.
Many Council staff have been redeployed into the covid-19 response structures - for example, maintaining and supporting the shielding list and trying to maintain safeguarding for vulnerable adults and children.
As for building work, there was a brief hold at some sites but many (especially schools) have re-started under strict bio-security protocols. The kind of projects you talk about are more summer work than Easter work which has to be smaller scale because there's a shorter time frame (ordinarily).
One issue is suppliers have furloughed staff so getting them back in to support the sub contractors is an issue for some projects.
In addition, priority was given to covid-19 work so the work done to re-open Headley Court and other field hospitals showed impressive collaboration between the NHS, local councils and the private sector owner of the site who made it available at no charge.
PS: Fact they have a prominent Tory MP as a consultant does not give it a great look either.
The 6 week year old baby was born with a serious underlying health condition, hence why still in hospital after 6 weeks.
I believe in the UK the number of under 18s dying (who didn't have an underlying condition) is 2.
I always wear a mask out and it encourages me to move further away from people, as if I needed the reminder. I also notice others swerve to avoid me.
Eadric hit the nail on the head.
50 page statement released and he gets 10 minutes to cover its points and explanation as to why? That works out at 12 seconds per page on average.
Why the strict timelimit?
Bit like today's ONS report on 'workforce deaths' of COVID. There have been more than two thousand! out of a workforce of....er......30 plus million. And out of a total number of deaths at the time of I think, 25,000?
Indeed, is the ONS sample even large enough to be drawing these conclusions?
https://twitter.com/Mark__Lawrence/status/1259599723587080194
https://twitter.com/bbcmartynoates/status/1259856251745447938
As it were.
https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/52615577
Maybe where Kyle Walker ends up playing next season.
He cannot help acting like a lawyer in court
I like Starmer but he needs to be shorter and more succinct
The reasons you may leave home include:
...
to exercise or spend time outdoors
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-outbreak-faqs-what-you-can-and-cant-do/coronavirus-outbreak-faqs-what-you-can-and-cant-do#public-spaces--outdoor-activities--exercise
Best contribution i have seen from SKS